Magne Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes
Postclassic Maya Lithic Tool Maintenance, Recycling, and ......
Transcript of Postclassic Maya Lithic Tool Maintenance, Recycling, and ......
Postclassic Maya Lithic Tool Maintenance, Recycling, and Consumption Patterns at Laguna de On Island
By
Sheila M. Galup
Occasional Publication No. 13
Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Department of Anthropology
University of Albany September 2007
Table of Contents
Preface………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………… ii Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 1 Background……………………………………………………………………… 2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………. 12 Spatial Distribution Patterns of Lithic Tools…………………………….……….. 33 Discussion and Conclusions…………………………………………….………. 40 References Cited………………………………………………………………… 45 Index of Appendices…………………………………………………………….. 52 Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variances by Tool Type…………… 54 Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type……………………………………… 59 Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site……………… 63 Appendix D: Illustrations………………………………………………………… 69 Appendix E: Tool Database……………………………………………………… 80
Preface
The Institute for Mesoamerican Studies is pleased to publish Sheila Galup’s masters paper as an Occasional Publication of IMS. This work was originally submitted to the Department of Anthropology at UAlbany – SUNY in April 2005 under Sheila’s maiden name (Sheila M. Sastry). Sheila was a key member of the Belize Postclassic Project during the 1997 and 1998 seasons.
The manuscript provides a valuable description of the characteristics of a Postclassic Maya lithic assemblage from the site of Laguna de On, Belize, including metrics, raw materials, and modifications. My own first study of the lithics of Laguna de On as part of my doctoral dissertation (Masson 1991) was based on a small sample of tools. Subsequent excavation seasons during 1996-1997 resulted in a much larger sample, which is fully analyzed here. Postclassic Maya lithic studies remain in their infancy, despite some pioneering work during the 1980’s at the site of Colha and other settlements in northeastern Belize. Perhaps the most definitive study was that of George Michaels (1987) on the Colha Postclassic workshops. However, production contexts at that site provide only a narrow perspective on the range of lithic use during the Postclassic Period of northeastern Belize. For this reason, Sheila Galup’s Laguna de On study provides an important complement to Michaels’ treatise by documenting the patterns of lithic use and manufacture at a site that was a consumer for some of Colha’s products. In addition to obtaining and using formal Colha tools, Laguna de On also had its own expedient industry that utilized low-grade chalcedonies that were available locally.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this publication is its documentation of locally-made tools, regularly referred to as expedient technologies. Some expedient tool categories were made repeatedly in a patterned ways, such as discoidals, while utilized non-retouched flakes exhibit little regularity in form. The bulk of tool assemblages in the Maya area are comprised of locally made/expedient tools – their ubiquity is thus an indicator of their importance to the families who made and used them and to the economies of the societies in which they lived. It is nice to see such tools be more fully studied and reported. More work remains to be done, but Sheila Galup’s study offers a handy point of embarkation for Maya lithicists of the next generation. This volume, together with our previous Occasional Publication No. 12, by Antonina Delu, on the ground stone artifacts of Postclassic Maya site of Caye Coco, Belize, augments the body of available reference works for Maya stone tools.
Marilyn A. Masson
Director, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies
Acknowledgments Sheila Galup graduated with a B.A. from Miami University of Ohio in 1999. She completed her M.A. in Anthropology at SUNY Albany under the guidance of Marilyn Masson. She now lives and works in northern Massachusetts. Sheila Galup’s study was facilitated by grants for fieldwork at Laguna de On from the National Science Foundation and the Center for Field Research- Earhwatch (awarded to M. Masson).
ii
Abstract Stone tools from the Late Postclassic (AD 1050-1450) site of Laguna de On in northern
Belize are analyzed here to ascertain community and household economic activities. A
greater emphasis on long distance exchange has been documented for this time period,
and this study contributes to a broader understanding of the local exchange relationships
between communities and the degree of autonomy of individual communities. The
exchange value of tools, their origins, manufacturing process, level of standardization,
methods of utilization and maintenance are described here. These factors illustrate the
complex, interdependent interactions between consumer and production communities of
the region.
Introduction
The Maya site of Laguna de On is a small brackish lagoon located in northern Belize on
the interior of the Yucatan Peninsula [Illustration D1]. Locally known as Honey Camp, the
landlocked lagoon was first noted for its Maya ruins as early as 1927 by explorers (Gann 1928).
Archeological testing during the 1990s determined that the shore areas were inhabited primarily
during the Classic period through the Postclassic period, although the area was not densely
settled (Masson 1993, 2000). Limited testing and documentation of looters’ trenches on the
shore revealed an Early Classic and Late Preclassic component to the area as well. Household
structures tested on the southwest shore proved continuous occupation from the Terminal Classic
through the Late Postclassic. Two isolated mounds near this residential plaza dated to the
Classic period. Unfortunately, nearby construction may have destroyed other Classic period
components of the site. Additionally, sheet middens of Postclassic living debris were found on
elevated bluffs on the north and west shores. Testing at the west bluff also revealed a small
square shrine which yielded many examples of effigy censers and ollas and other Late
Postclassic censer vessels (Masson 2000). The island in the northeast corner of the lagoon,
however, proved to be a densely settled Postclassic community. Excavations exposed a sparse
archaic component from the island (Rosenswig and Stafford 1998:81). However, the main focus
of research remained on the Postclassic occupation (Masson and Rosenswig, ed. 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000). The chipped stone tool assemblage from the Postclassic island settlement is
analyzed in this paper to examine the patterned ways in which its inhabitants chose to utilize and
conserve their chipped stone resources.
1
Background
The Economics of the Postclassic. The shifting cultural landscape of the Maya world
during the Postclassic and its focus on commercialism led to social, economic, and political
upheaval. With the dawning of the Postclassic, came a shift from large scale political centers to
fewer, smaller centers much reduced in scale. Communities exhibited a variety of patterns in
adapting to the new political and economic environment. In the Belize Valley, some
communities were abandoned such as Benque Viejo by A.D. 830 (Blanton, et. al 1993: 187) and
Barton Ramie by A.D. 900 (Gifford 1976). Other sites indicate settlement continuity during the
transitional period, such as Becan (Ball 1985: 84), Cerros (Walker 1990), Lamanai (Pendergast
1981, 1985, 1986), and Santa Rita (Chase and Chase 1988). At Colha (Hester 1982: 40) and
Nohmul (Chase and Chase 1982) there is evidence of invasion by groups from the Northern
Yucatán followed by a non-local occupation. Different regions and settlements reacted to their
changing world differently and on an idiosyncratic basis. Greater local autonomy emerged with
the collapse of Classic kingdoms and, as a result, a very different social order arose. Time and
energy previously invested in the construction of monumental architecture was now turned to
mercantile trade (Rathje 1975, Sabloff and Rathje 1975).
The Postclassic was characterized in Smith and Berdan (2000) by its high volume of
long-distance exchange, a greater diversity of trade goods, and a more highly commercialized
economy than in earlier times. Trade routes were well established and the movement of goods
over great distances occurred frequently on a seasonal basis. These changes were reflected in the
movement of greater quantities of valuables over long distances and their distribution both
within and between sites than generally recorded for the Classic period. The new influx of
materials and goods brought a “cosmopolitan” air to the Postclassic communities; exotic goods
2
previously found only in elite contexts were now shared by all households to varying degrees.
Additionally, new stylistic changes, reflecting interaction with the Mexican highlands, became
commonplace; even stone tools from this era exhibited signs of foreign influence as noted at the
Colha site (Hester 1982, Shafer 1979, 1982, Michaels 1987).
Before the Spanish arrived in the 15th century, trade networks were already highly
complex in Mesoamerica. Berdan (1988) worked out three basic principles of trade that affected
political and social organization of Mesoamerica. Although Berdan focused on the Aztec
Empire, these principles can apply to parts of the Belize area as well. First, as trading operations
become more complex, greater emphasis was put upon economic and possibly political control
over a region. Negotiating trade relationships and control over resources, therefore, must have
been very important during the Postclassic. This can be seen in the changing settlement patterns
seen during the Postclassic. During the Late Postclassic, trading ports with increased elite
construction projects were found along the eastern and northern coastal areas as well as along
inland aquatic routes (Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Miller 1982). Settlements located strategically
along established trade routes gained in wealth and power. The power vacuum created after the
fall of Chichén Itzá in A.D. 1200 (Andrews 1993) allowed the sites of El Meco, Cozumel,
Tulum, Ichpaatun, and Santa Rita to reach their maximum flourescence at this time (Sanders
1960, Robles and Andrews 1986, Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Chase and Chase 1988).
Secondly, individuals who engaged in full-time commerce gravitated toward dealing in
goods that had a high exchange rate. Small objects with a high value such as obsidian, jade,
cloth, or feathers, were more likely to travel longer distances. Thus, trading small objects was
more likely to be a full-time occupation, as opposed to trading bulky/perishable goods. The
implications of this principle are important to understand: the movement of different types of
3
material, their value to consumers, and the distance that goods travel while maintaining a viable
profit margin.
The third of Berdan's principles states that traders used to their advantage naturally
occurring exchange discrepancies, such as environmental barriers and distance, but traders may
have also created their own discrepancies. Each step in the process of making and distributing a
product added to its value. While driving up the price of the product, it created more niches for
sellers to make a profit as well as increased the efficiency of the entire process. It is unlikely that
the same individual would have always quarried, knapped, transported, and sold or used the
same tool. By specializing, more merchants or traders could have been supported in the trade
system.
The Postclassic tendency towards settlement on islands and coastal areas served the two
purposes of protecting from attack, and allowing communities to participate in well traveled
aquatic trade routes. The primary method of transporting objects in Prehispanic Mesoamerica
was canoe. Water travel greatly increased the distance over which a large quantity of goods
could be moved with a minimal of manpower. According to Drennan (1984); "To transport one
metric ton (1,000 kg) a distance of one kilometer overland would have required 22 man-hours in
Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Carrying the same amount by canoe (upstream) would have required
only six man-hours of labor."
The other method of transport was the human carrier. Ethnographically, they were called
tlamemeh or tlamemah in nahuatl (Santone 1997). Tumplines held a carrying frame (cacaxtli) on
the back that supported a container (petlacalli) which was usually covered in hides to protect the
contents. Obviously, energy costs were much lower when overland travel was not involved in
the trade system. This made aquatic settlement more cost effective. Both overland and aquatic
4
trade routes were in place during the Postclassic. Individual commodities were limited by the
range of how much could have been carried and the feasible distance over which it could have
been taken without losing its commercial viability (Santone 1997). Following Hassig's (1985)
model, Santone (1997) estimated that "Assuming an average weight of 200g per tool, one human
bearer could have transported 32.8 kg of oval bifaces a distance of 30 km in 1.5 days, while one
canoe could have transported 9, 379 kg of these items the same distance and within the same
length of time." If trading in bulky items with relatively low value, such as maize or other staple
crops occurred, then the distance the items would be able to travel while maintaining value
would have been considerably shortened. Small items with high value stretched the transport
range considerably. When transportation methods and routes became more efficient, then
transport costs decreased and the value of the item eventually lessened. Other variables such as
fragility, perishability, or market demand could have had an effect on the costs involved in
transport.
Postclassic Lithic Research. The largest percentage of imported stone tools from the site
of Laguna de On came from an area commonly referred to as the 'chert bearing zone', a term
coined by T. Hester and H. Shafer. Laguna de On is located close to the eastern boundary of this
region and is defined as "restricted to surface outcrops of nodular chert" (Hester 1982, Shafer
and Hester 1984, 1991). The region is known for its high quality chert, described as "…typically
banded or mottled gray, yellowish brown or brown, opaque or faintly translucent materials…the
local patterns are distinct and highly repetitious" (Shafer and Hester 1983). This type of chert is
usually referred to as Colha chert, named after the largest and most intensely studied tool-
producing site from the region. Other sites that may have been producing stone tools in the
southern area of the chert bearing zone during the Postclassic include Kunahmul and Chicawate
5
(Kelly 1980). Colha chert's unique color and banding make it highly distinctive and a vital tool
for studying trade patterns in the area. The uniqueness of Colha chert has also been validated by
neutron activation analysis of chert samples from both archaeological and geological contexts
(Tobey 1986).
During the Classic period, the site of Colha was the major producer of formal lithic tools
and turned out high volumes of formal implements that were widely distributed. Today, massive
piles of debitage litter the landscape in an enormous area around the workshops and quarries.
The site was first studied by the Corozal Project (Hammond 1973) and later by the Colha
Project, which was a combined effort from the University of San Antonio, Texas A & M
University, Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue in Venice, and the University of Texas at Austin
(Hester and Shafer 1991). Particular focus on the Postclassic has been mainly pursued by
Michaels (1986, 1989, 1994; Michaels and Shafer 1994).
Although Colha maintained its traditional role as a lithic production center during the
Postclassic, the manufacturing of tools was greatly reduced in magnitude. During the Postclassic
production at the site changed into a localized household industry, generating a smaller variety of
tools, with less energy invested in complex knapping skills or standardization (Michaels 1987).
Changes also occurred in the social organization, tool kits, and production technologies. While
Classic period Colha supported many lithic workshops, only twelve Postclassic workshop areas
have been identified, all of which are located around the site core (Hester 1982; Michaels 1986).
Middens from the Classic period were composed almost entirely of lithic materials (Shafer and
Hester 1983). However, Postclassic middens were a mixture of charcoal, ash, faunal remains,
ceramics, obsidian, paleobotanical materials, as well as debitage, discarded production tools, and
production rejects (Michaels 1986). If not for the abundance of lithic material, these middens
6
would resemble typical Postclassic period middens. This distinction marks the site as
maintaining its role as a production center. The evidence suggests that lithic tool production was
conducted as a regular part of household activities and was not spatially segregated. Thus, the
social organization of production from this period predominated at the household level.
The wealth of data on Maya exploitation of chert from Colha has generated a chronology
of tool types for the Postclassic. The variety of tool forms produced decreased significantly
during the transition into the Postclassic. The mass production of large tools manufactured from
large flakes and macro-blades through hard-hammer percussion (Roemer 1984) was replaced by
the production of smaller tool forms, made by using soft-hammer and indirect percussion (Shafer
1985, Hester 1982, Barrett 2000). New formal tool classifications are: side notched dart points,
triangular biface preforms, lenticular bifaces, and lozenge (diamond) bifaces. These were related
to hunting, butchering, and ritual caching activity (Michaels 1986, Masson 1997). Bifaces used
in woodcutting and agricultural tasks at Laguna de On were similar in shape to Classic Maya
'oval biface celts' found at Colha (Hester 1982, Masson 1997). These tool types were found at
other major Postclassic centers as well, such as Chichén Itzá, Lamanai, and Altun Há (Hester and
Shafer 1991).
Information about patterns of use can be garnered by studying the reduction sequence of
various tools. Lithic tools go through different stages of production beginning with procurement
and ending with abandonment. Looking at the various states of formal tools from Colha
(Michaels 1986), there were very large quantities of preforms and low quantities of recycled and
retouched tools. Also, raw materials were mined and brought back to the domestic area in the
form of blanks or preforms where they were further refined. The low numbers of recycled and
retouched tools reflect the lithic-rich environment and the manufacturing focus of the site.
7
Consequently, the value of chert at this site, in terms of use, was very poor. The types of tools
produced at this site indicated that the majority were bifacial tools used in agricultural tasks such
as digging, harvesting, and land clearing (Masson 2000). The prevalence of bifaces did not
differ from earlier times; however, there was an increase in the percentage of points, reflecting a
renewed reliance on hunting (Masson 1997).
One of the most dramatic changes in the transition to the Postclassic at Colha was the
introduction of chalcedony (Michaels 1986, Masson 2000). Chalcedony, a raw material that was
not locally available to the inhabitants of Colha, had to be obtained from other nearby areas
within the chert bearing zone. The introduction of chalcedony suggested that the material was
valued since more energy had to be expended to acquire the material and bring it back to the
workshops than was necessary for Colha chert. Chalcedony was brought in to Colha, knapped
into formal tools, and exchanged in the consumer market. This extra step provided traders
another niche in which profit could be acquired as long as there was sufficient demand. More
than half (56.1%) of all the chalcedony was in the form of lenticular bifaces at the site and the
majority of the rest (30.5 %) was in the form of lozenge bifaces (Michaels 1987). This uneven
distribution of raw material usage suggested that chalcedony may have been the preferred
material for some tool forms, possibly for aesthetic reasons.
Laguna de On. Representative criteria to evaluate patterns of tool consumption at
'consumer sites' in Northern Belize, such as Laguna de On, have been generated from several
articles (Dockall and Shafer 1993; Hult and Hester 1993; McAnany 1987, 1989; Masson 1993;
Santone 1997; Shafer 1983). The first criteria stated that consumer sites should have relatively
lower quantities of primary flaking debitage and manufacturing failures (Shafer 1983). The first
flakes removed in the process of preparing a core were the primary flaking debitage. Although
8
some formal tools may retain a small amount of cortex, the percentage was usually low. They
were characterized by a preponderance of cortex (Luedtke 1992:150) on the dorsal side of the
flake (Masson 1998) as well as their large size and often irregular shape. Manufacturing failures
were tools that broke during the process of knapping due to natural rock inclusions, irregular
fracture, or by human error. These remnants were associated with the first stages of production
and are indicative of on-site manufacturing (Hester and Shafer 1984). The second criteria states
that consumer sites are more likely to exhibit predominantly late-stage reduction and edge
maintenance flaking debris (McAnany 1989). If the tools are a valued commodity, then reuse
and retouching of edges to maintain sharpness would have been more frequent. Similarly, edge
damage such as battering on the faceted or dorsal face of the flake or polish is indicative of edge
maintenance of the original tool form (Shafer 1983:240). The last criteria states that the raw
material composition of the assemblage of tools and debitage should reflect the extent to which
locally available materials were used in relation to non-local varieties and the nature of local
production, refurbishing, and recycling with these materials. Preference for certain materials in
relation to tool type can also be ascertained.
The consumer site of Laguna de On in Northern Belize is one site that exhibits these
features. The small inland island settlement is located approximately eleven kilometers
southeast of Orange Walk Town. The site’s center is on a small island on the north side of a
lagoon currently referred to as Honey Camp Lagoon by the local Belizians. The settlement’s
aquatic surroundings not only provided protection from theft or possible attack, but allowed the
inhabitants easy access to long distance trade routes through a series of lagoons and river
systems that emptied into the Caribbean. This route no longer exists due to the steady deposition
of silt in recent times. However, there is evidence to suggest that this route was once navigable
9
by canoe in living memory (Masson 2000, Masson 1993). Taking a direct overland approach,
Laguna de On is a mere 10 kilometers away from the site core of Colha. The proximity of the
Lopez River suggests that the trip could have been partially completed by canoe, adding only 7
km by canoe and at least 5 km by foot. The geography of the Lopez River indicates that
portaging the canoe may have been necessary along the route, slowing transportation
considerably. However, these estimates indicate that a vast quantity of lithic tools could have
been transported over short distances within a small time frame.
Protohistorically, Laguna de On was located near the southern border of the Chetumal
province, close to the Dzuluinicob territories (Jones 1989). Geographic and ceramic evidence
point to Laguna de On as being more closely tied with the Chetumal province than Dzuluinicob
(Masson 2000:30). Chetumal gained wealth and power from the production of cacao and honey
(Chase 1986). Settlement patterns reflect a hierarchical organization with at least a two or
possibly three tiered organization associated with one dominant center. The settlement of
Chetumal was historically documented to be the seat of government for the province (Jones
1989), which was argued to be at Santa Rita by Chase and Chase (1988). This was followed by
secondary organizational centers such as Caye Coco (Masson and Rosenswig 1998, 1999, 2000),
with Laguna de On representing the third tier (Masson 2000:30). Less is known about the
Dzuluinicob province, identified by Jones (1989), which included the sites of Lamanai and Tipu.
Lamani was likely the 'capital' of a province (Pendergast 1981, 1985, 1986), perhaps the only
first tier site, however, secondary and third tier sites have not as of yet been defined within the
region during Precolonial times. Tipu’s relative position during the Postclassic has not been
discussed, but it was an important central place during the colonial period (Jones 1989).
10
Excavations were initially conducted at Laguna de On by the Honey Camp-El Cacao
Project, which began in 1991 under the direction of Fred Valdez, University of Texas at Austin
(Masson 1993, Valdez, et. al. 1992). During the 1996 and 1997 field season, research was
continued by the Belize Postclassic Project under the direction of Marilyn A. Masson and Robert
Rosenswig (Masson and Rosenswig 1997, 1998) through the University at Albany, SUNY. All
of the lithic collections from the 1991, 1996, and 1997 field seasons are currently housed at the
University at Albany archaeological lab on loan from the Department of Archeology in
Belmopan, Belize. These collections are the source of data for this paper.
Laguna de On Island was a small settlement characterized by low house walls and
earthen rises, usually visible on the surface. Features found on the island included a large paved
rubble patio area, a possible ball court, a dock, terraces, structures used for ritual purposes, and
domestic remains such as postholes, hearths, stone wall foundations, plaster or modified bedrock
floors, and domestic sheet middens that cover the entire island (Masson 2000, Masson 1999,
Masson 1997, Masson and Rosenswig 1997, 1998, Masson 1993, Valdez et. al. 1992). Most of
the stone tools recovered were found in the sheet midden that lies just below surface level of the
majority of the island or in terrace or domestic fill contexts.
Previous research focusing on different aspects of the lithic assemblage at Laguna de On
has been completed by Marilyn Masson and other researchers associated with the Belize
Postclassic Project. These studies have contributed greatly to understanding the dynamics of this
small community as well as the economic patterns of the Postclassic. Based on the excavations
from 1991, Masson's dissertation described her preliminary analysis of the 61 chert tools found,
including information on material, edge damage, tool portion, and recycling (Masson 1993).
Observations included the frequent reuse of Classic tools, reliance on Colha chert, and some
11
standardization of bifaces, although variation exists in the recycling trajectory. She also included
analysis of the debitage and obsidian (preformed by Fred Valdez 1993) collections from the site.
Obsidian appeared in all household contexts in very high numbers, even though obsidian did not
occur naturally anywhere near the site. In a recent article, Masson and Chaya (2001) determined
that the majority of the blades came from Ixtepeque, in the Maya highlands. This evidence
indicated that trade routes were more firmly established within the Maya sphere than with
Central Mexico. The most likely route for the highland Guatemala obsidian was through coastal
exchange routes, probably from the Motagua River to the Bay of Honduras and then north along
the Belize coast (Masson and Chaya 2001, Nelson et al. 1983, Dreiss and Brown 1989, McKillop
et al. 1988, McKillop 1996).
Methods
Data Collection. The collection examined for this study was limited to local lithic tools
and excluded non-utilized flakes, debitage, ground stone, projectile points and obsidian. These
categories are outside the scope of this paper and are not dealt with herein. They have been
further analyzed elsewhere (Masson 2000, Masson and Chaya 2001, Masson 1997a, Masson
1997b, Oland 1998 and 1999). Basic categories of data recorded include provenance:
Suboperations (areas of excavation) and Lots (arbitrary 10 cm levels or features). Variables
recorded include: tool type, raw material, the amount of cortex, breakage type and location, and
the portion of the tool fragment remaining. Metric measurements recorded include length, width,
and thickness according to the maximum value. For example, an intact tapered biface's width
would have been measured at the widest part of the distal end. Since the collection was mostly
made up of broken tools, this was the best method for consistent measurements. Breakage
patterns were also recorded. Common types of breaks observed in this study include snap
12
breaks, impact fractures, pyroclastic breaks, diagonal, hinge, crescent, lateral, and natural breaks.
Edge angles were measured whenever possible on the portion of the tool that exhibits wear. If it
had been resharpened, but still retained some of the original edge, then both the original and new
edges were measured and recorded. Wear was examined with the help of a magnification lens
with the power of 20x. Basic macroscopic use wear types and the location of the wear found on
the tool were recorded, including: batter, chipping, dulling/polish, and striations. The location of
the wear was not determinable in some cases, particularly in highly fragmentary pieces and thus
was not documented. Observations on tool maintenance and recycling were also noted,
including edge maintenance, thinning, retouch, reuse, pressure flaking, and resharpening. Other
information recorded on the tools include the amount of patina, pyroclastic damage (popped
bulbs, reddening, damage), water damage, or other notable impacts.
The categories recorded were selected to best study expedient and formal tool recycling
patterns at Laguna de On. Examining raw material provided information on how much time was
invested in procuring the materials. More highly valued tools were more likely to be made with
higher quality materials such as fine grade chalcedony or Colha chert rather than the lower grade
local chert cobbles and outcrops. Other than quality, there was also an occasional aesthetic
element to material selection and this was taken into account during the analysis. The amount of
cortex can be a clue in looking at reuse. Expedient tools were likely to have more cortex present
than more formal tool types, indicating the amount of care taken in the production of the tool.
Again, there may have been aesthetic considerations. More utilitarian tools, such as the common
oval biface, may have exhibited some cortex remnants, as long as these did not diminish the
effectiveness of the tool. In contrast, finely worked tools, such as the lenticular and triangular
bifaces, were unlikely to have cortex.
13
Metric measurements were helpful in a number of ways for determining the level of
recycling. The highly fragmentary nature of the collection provided convincing evidence that
lithic materials were curated. Broken tools were likely brought back to the island and saved for
future need. A cursory examination of Classic tool collections from Laguna de On shore
settlements indicated that the tools from the Postclassic island settlement were much more
fragmentary (Masson 2000). Chert tools and raw materials may have become more valuable
during the Postclassic because less energy was invested in producing new tools and procuring
large quantities of raw materials. One pattern noted was that the Maya of the Postclassic
scavenged Classic sites for discarded tool fragments. The fragments could have been found in
abundance with little cost to the scavenger, an efficient strategy (Masson 2000). This pattern
was observed alongside the procurement of local materials and some raw material exchange
(Masson 2000, Oland 1999). Metric measurements also provided information about recycling
and tool standardization. Oval bifaces became proportionally thicker and smaller with each
resharpening episode and therefore the length/thickness relationship of a tool can sometimes
provide information on standardization practices.
By assessing wear patterns, one can speculate the activities and on which materials the
tool was used. Microscopic use wear analysis and experiments could document this empirically
(Lewenstein 1991), but were not performed in this study. Tools likely used on harder materials,
such as wood, stone or rocky soils, fibrous plants or bone, produced heavier wear patterns like
batter and chipping. Softer materials like fleshy plants, soft wood or earth, hide, or meat tended
to dull the edges of a tool and sometimes create a polish (Lewenstein 1991). Since the tools
were inspected macroscopically, wear types were kept to basic inferential categories. Along
with use wear, breakage patterns can also provide insight into activities for which a tool was
14
used. Breaks usually occurred at the point where the tool was the most stressed or along natural
flaws in the stone. Hafted tools frequently broke on the point where the haft was attached to the
tool and halfway between the bit and the haft (Shafer 1983). Wear marks were sometimes found
along the edges of the break indicating that the tool was used for a new task after the initial
break. Maintenance of the tool was one method for increasing the usable lifespan of a tool and
was frequently practiced. A tool may have been resharpened or retouched to sharpen an edge.
Retouching was a more precise method to revitalize a dull edge by knocking small chips off
along the utilized edge, keeping the edge sharper for a longer lifespan (Crabtree 1999). Another
method used to maintain a sharp edge was pressure flaking. Reuse refers to taking a spent tool
and transforming it into a completely different tool. Occasionally, traces of the original tool
form remained after it had been reshaped. Other types of recycling can be seen through
observing characteristics such as patina or water damage. If a tool was initially created, used,
discarded and formed a patina coating, and then was subsequently remade, the original surfaces
can be distinguished from the new because of the difference in the patination.
Tool Type Frequencies and Characteristics of Manufacture and Use
This section describes the attributes of the chipped stone tools found at Laguna de On.
Types of chipped stone tools found include: discoidals, stemmed blades, tranchet adzes,
triangular bifaces, lenticular bifaces, oval bifaces, expedient bifaces, choppers, gouges, unifaces,
perforators, drills, scrapers, burin cores, burin spalls, hammerstones, abraders, cores,
macroflakes, utilized flakes, and utilized fragments. The first three, discoidals, stemmed blades,
and tranchet adzes, were tools common during the Classic period and represent scavenging
activities by the Postclassic inhabitants of Laguna de On. The next group of three (the triangular,
lenticular, and oval bifaces) are referred to as ‘formal’ tools because they were standardized in
15
shape and size and show a distinct mental template used by the knappers. These forms were well
documented as having been manufactured at Colha (Hester and Shafer 1991). An alternative to
‘formal’ tools were the ‘expedient’ tools which were less standardized and were probably made
locally. This category includes expedient bifaces, choppers, gouges, unifaces, perforators, drills,
scrapers and burin spalls. The next group of tools described here are related to tool
manufacturing and include hammerstones, abraders, cores, and macroflakes. The last two types
of tools discussed are utilized flakes and fragments. These tools were separated from the Laguna
de On Island debitage because they exhibit evidence of edge damage. For each type of tool the
following information is provided: tool definition, number found, raw material, breakage, edge
damage, recycling, and fire damage. Standard deviation of tool size is also provided when there
were at least three unbroken tools to measure [Table B1].
Discoidals. Discoidals are lithic tools made of large serial flakes whose edges are
sharpened to form an ovoid shape [Illustration D2]. Discoidals are usually associated with
Classic Period Maya. The four examples found at Laguna de On probably represent scavenging
activities from nearby abandoned settlements. Two of the discoidals found were made of Colha
chert, one of chalcedony and the last was made of a white chert [Table B1]. Three discoidals
were whole and exhibited heavy batter wear on all edges. One had impact scars on distal and
lateral edges and only one exhibited popped bulbs and fire induced fractures [Table B5]. The
large size of discoidals made them ideal candidates for recycling and reuse. Two of them
exhibited evidence of resharpening along the lateral edges. One appeared to have been fashioned
from a used macroflake [Table E2]. All of the discoidals found came from different
Suboperations (Subops), in both ritual and domestic contexts [Table E1]. One was found on the
extreme southern end of the Island, in Subop 18. The discoidal was the only tool found at this
16
location. Unfortunately, more work is necessary to accurately interpret this section of the site.
Discoidals were usually very standardized in size and shape. Standard deviation shows only a
slight variance, but the small sample size (4) could easily account for the close sizes of the tools
[Table A3]. Out of the three tools analyzed, the mean length for discoidals was 106 mm with a
deviation of 19.97 mm [Table A1]. The mean width was 84.67 mm with a deviation of 8.08 mm
and a mean thickness of 42 mm with a deviation of 10.39.
Stemmed Blades. Stemmed blades are highly standardized, unifacial tools made during
the Classic period (Shafer and Hester 1983). The stemmed blades found at Laguna de On
[Illustration D3] originated from the site of Colha. The blades are triangular in shape with
pressure flaking usually found on the lateral edges. They also possessed a substantial and unique
stem used for mounting the tool. The examples found at Laguna de On were thought to have
been scavenged from Classic period components at the lagoon or nearby sites. Eight examples
of stemmed blades were excavated at Laguna de On: one whole blade, two stem fragments, four
proximal fragments, and one distal fragment. Five of the examples were made from Colha chert,
one was made out of chalcedony, another of an unidentified chert, and the last was fully
patinated [Table B1]. Six of the stemmed blades had snap breaks. Four of these had breaks at
the base of the stem, while the other two had breaks in the middle of the blade [Table E2]. One
appeared to have been broken due to intense heat and was the only evidence of fire damage
among all the stemmed blades. Seven of the tools had batter damage and four exhibited chipping
damage to their edges [Table B3]. Two tools were very roughly resharpened with very large
flakes taken off of both lateral edges. Also, one had pressure flaking along the lateral edges
along with some retouch of edges. Pressure flaking is not usually found before the Postclassic
period. One of the tools had heavy patina covering the tool except where it had been reworked
17
during the Postclassic period. Unfortunately, standard deviation of the size of these tools could
not be completed because of the lack of whole tools to measure. These tools were found both in
ritual and non-ritual contexts.
Tranchet Adzes. Tranchet adzes [Illustration D4] are a specialized type of bifacial tool
that gets its name from the unique type of flake that is knocked off the distal end in order to
create the bit of the adze (Hester 1982). These flakes are sometimes referred to as orange-peel
flakes, from their thick, curved appearance. Knocking off a flake is risky, and requires
significant skill. Since the tranchet flake must be knocked off last, the rate of failure is
considered high (Shafer and Hester 1983). Tranchet adzes were common during the Classic, but
not during the Postclassic.
The two examples found at the site were in Supop 8 and were probably brought from
nearby Classic sites. Both were made of Colha chert and exhibit batter and resharpening [Table
E1]. One was a medial fragment with snap breaks at either end. Either both breaks occurred
simultaneously, or, the tool broke at the haft and continued to be used until the distal tip broke.
The other tranchet adze was a distal tip fragment which broke in the same manner as the other
adze. It shows evidence of batter on the end as well as resharpening. No fire damage existed on
either tool. These tools were carried from the shore to the island but whether they were collected
as raw material or used as adzes cannot be determined.
Triangular Bifaces. Triangular bifaces resemble equilateral triangles rounded at each
point [Illustration D5 and D6]. They were very skillfully made, thin, and neatly knapped. These
formal tools are unique to the Postclassic and may represent preforms for the side-notched
points. The triangular bifaces from Laguna de On were similar to those found at Chichén Itzá
from the same period (Hester and Shafer 1991). Only three triangular bifaces were found at
18
Laguna de On. It is likely that these were made at the workshops at Colha. Two were made of
Colha chert and one of chalcedony [Table E1]. Their thickness varied only slightly, between 1.1
cm and 1.5 cm, showing standardization. This implied the existence of a distinct mental template
during manufacture [Table E1]. Only one of the three examples from Laguna de On were found
complete, rendering comparison of the length and width impossible. Of the two others, one had
the three tips broken off, and the other had a fragment that suffered a break caused by fire
damage. The piece with the missing tips also showed some reddening of the edges due to fire
damage or possibly from deliberate heat treatment [Table E2]. Unfortunately, heat treatment
was difficult to verify since the site remains were very near to the surface on the island which
was frequently cleared by brush fire. The second incomplete triangular biface also showed
reddening and popped bulbs caused by fire damage. All three had some chipping on the edges.
There was no evidence of edge maintenance nor recycling.
Lenticular Bifaces. Lenticular bifaces, like the triangular bifaces, are a unique tool from
the Postclassic (Hester and Shafer 1991). While their exact use is still questionable, they may
have been used like hafted knives or spear points. Lenticular bifaces are very finely chipped,
thin, and narrow blades with tapered proximal ends [Illustration D7]. The bifaces were made in
standardized shape and size. It is likely that the Laguna de On lenticular bifaces were made at
the site of Colha and imported to the Island. Hester and Shafer (1982) discussed the manufacture
process of this tool type at the site and note the high percentage made from chalcedony. While
most of the fourteen lenticular bifaces found at Laguna de On were of Colha chert (43%), four
were high quality chalcedony (29%) [Table B1]. The chalcedony raw material chosen for the
lenticular bifaces was particularly translucent and aesthetically appealing. There was also quite a
few that were either made of local or exotic cherts (21%). One lenticular biface was burned too
19
badly to recognize the original material. However, the others were all made of very fine grade
material including a dark brown chert, a gray chert, and an extremely fine grained blue chert,
which was unlike anything else found on the site. The origins of the bluish chert are unknown at
present (Oland 1999).
The lenticular bifaces were prone to snap breaks because they tended to be thin. They
usually broke at the haft, or halfway between the haft and the distal tip. These were the two
weakest points where the chert was the most stressed by pressure on the distal tip. Out of the
fourteen lenticular bifacess recovered, two were whole, ten had snap breaks, one had fire damage
and one had an irregular break [Table B2]. Interestingly, the wear on the tools was slight,
although some batter (six instances) and chipping (eight instances) was observed. These tools
were probably intended for cutting or piercing soft materials, and may even have been used as a
weapon of warfare. Only one lenticular biface had evidence of hafting, as exhibited by a notch
on one lateral side. Because the tools were so thin, they do not seem to have been reused much.
One had pressure flaking on lateral edges, two had resharpened edges, and one had retouch
[Table B4]. The mean length for the lenticular bifacess analyzed (three total) was 130.33 mm
with a deviation of 24.03 mm. The mean width was 37.67 mm with a deviation of 3.22 mm and
the mean thickness was 11.3 mm with a deviation of 1.53 mm. The fourteen lenticular bifaces
found at Laguna de On were spread out widely and found in both ritual and domestic contexts.
However, there is a strong possibility of a ritual connection because of the formality of the tool
type, the lack of heavy wear, and the fragility of the form. Also, one was found within Structure
IV, which was possibly a ballcourt. Here, lithics and other domestic materials were scarce. Two
lenticular bifaces were found at Subop 8, two at Subop 12, and one at Structure III (dock). The
others were found in midden or wholly domestic contexts.
20
Oval Bifaces. The oval bifaces were the most common type of biface found at the site. A
total of sixty-two were recovered during excavations. These tools have rounded distal ends and
usually tapered inward to the proximal end [Illustration D8]. They were probably used for
woodworking, land clearing, and other agricultural tasks. These tools are similar to the oval
bifaces found during the Classic. However, the Postclassic oval bifaces are noticeably smaller
on average than those produced during the Classic period. Most oval bifaces were used and
broken in the same manner and in the same two locations on the tool. As with other bifaces,
snap breaks consistently occurred at the stress points. These are where the handle would have
been attached to the tool and halfway between the point of halfting and the distal tip. Only three
of the sixty-two examples from the site were found whole. Forty-six snap breaks, one impact
break, two diagonal breaks, six fire cracked and seven irregular or fragmented breaks were
recorded for these bifaces [Table B2]. The material used to make these was Colha derived chert
(65%), chalcedony and chalcedony blends (14%). Only 5% were made of local or other
materials, 3% were quartz and the rest were either too burned (8%) or too patinated (5%) to
identify the material type [Table B1]. One of the fragments was thickly patinated and may be
derived from the earlier Preceramic occupation of the lagoon.
Oval bifaces were frequently resharpened and had their edges retouched as part of
normal tool maintenance. Since the broken bifaces were frequently used to make expedient
tools, like utilized flakes, evidence of reuse was rare. If the original edges of the tool did not
remain, then it would be very difficult to recognize biface characteristics. Formal bifaces were
heavily used and recycled. A total of ninety-five instances of edge damage were found on the
sixty-two tools recovered [Table B3]. There were fifty instances of batter damage, twenty-nine
chipping, fourteen dulling and/or polishing and two with striations. There was also ample
21
evidence of tool maintenance with twenty instances of resharpening, fourteen had retouch, ten
had evidence of probable reuse and twenty-eight had multiple types of wear on the same tool
[Table B4]. Fourteen of the oval bifaces had evidence of heat treatment, which was twenty-two
percent of the total number [Table B5]. Even though the shape of the oval biface was fairly
standardized, the size of the oval bifaces varies greatly [Table A5]. The mean length for the
three whole oval bifaces was 123.67 mm with a deviation of 55.23 mm [Table A1]. The mean
width was measured at 53 mm with a deviation of 24.25 mm, while the mean thickness was
22.33 mm with a deviation of 10.02 mm. Unfortunately, a sample size of three tools was too
small to provide accurate measurements and a larger sample size may show that these tools were
indeed more standardized than what is reported here.
Oval bifaces were found in every excavation area at Laguna de On. These tools were
probably the most versatile, multitask tools used by the Postclassic inhabitants of the Island. The
highest density of oval bifaces was from Subop 17, with a total of .53 per meters squared [Table
C6]. Though only 15 meters squared were actually excavated at this domestic residential area, it
had the highest overall density of stone tools [Table C1]. The largest number of these tools were
found at Subop 8, with a density of .33 oval bifaces per meter squared.
Expedient Bifaces. Expedient bifaces were the second most common type of biface
found at Laguna de On. This category is made up of roughly manufactured bifacial celt style
implements, similar in shape to oval bifaces [Illustration D9]. Twenty-seven examples total
were recovered. Seven were recovered from Subop 8, five from Subop 5, four from Subop 12,
two each from Subops 3, 13, and 14, one each from Subops 2, 10, 16, and 18, and one was found
on the surface [Table E1]. Unlike some of the more formal tools, these were most likely
manufactured by the inhabitants and not imported from Colha. The sources of raw material for
22
these tools seem to be made up of discarded tools, cobbles, macroflakes and manufacturing
failures. Three of them had been heavily worked until an inclusion or flaw in the rock was
uncovered [Table E2]. Six expedient bifaces had cortex on working edges and places where it
would probably interfere with the performance of the tool. Interestingly, the majority of the
materials chosen came from locally available materials such as chalcedony (26%), chalcedony-
quartz blends (4%), quartz (4%), and local/other (19%) [Table B1]. The Colha chert expedient
bifaces (41%) were probably derived from former oval bifaces or cobbles.
Of course, the exact origin and reduction sequence can only be extrapolated from the
evidence left on the tool. Frequently, the evidence of a tool’s previous ‘life’ may have been
removed in the process of remaking the tool. Only tools that do show evidence of former use
before recycling can be categorized as such. It is likely that the actual number of tools that were
reused was much higher. Out of the twenty-seven expedient bifaces excavated, five were
recovered whole, fourteen had snap breaks, two had impact fractures, one was fire cracked, and
five had irregular breaks or were fragments [Table B2]. These tools were categorized as
expedient bifaces and not as manufacture failures, preforms, or macro-flakes because of evidence
of edge damage and resharpening of the edges. These tools were used very heavily, showing a
very high amount of batter (twenty instances), as well as chipping (sixteen instances), and one
instance of striations as well [Table B3]. Two tools exhibit hafting evidence, one with definite
side notches and the other with reworked edges where the handle would have been attached to
the tool [Table E2]. The most common evidence for tool maintenance on this tool category was
resharpening (seven instances), followed by retouch (two instances). One of the tools had clearly
been reworked from a spent oval biface [Table E2]. Only six of the expedient bifaces had
evidence of fire damage. The size deviation of expedient bifaces differs little from oval bifaces,
23
although the sample size was again small (a total of six tools). The expedient bifaces tend to be
shorter, wider, and thicker than the oval bifaces [Table A1]. The mean length for these bifaces
was 91.5 mm with a deviation of 23.4 mm. The mean width was 61 mm with a deviation of
11.97 mm and the mean thickness was 33.33 mm with a deviation of 10.13.
Choppers. The Laguna de On collection had a total of 18 choppers, which were roughly
ovate expedient bifacial implements. They are distinguished from formal and expedient bifaces
by their rough, blocky appearance and lack of uniformity in shape or edge [Illustration D10].
They are similar to oval bifaces in utility. They differed because less energy was spent on
perfecting the shape of the tool. More than half of the choppers (61%) were made of Colha chert
and were probably acquired by scavenging from earlier occupations on the shores of the lagoon
and from recycling on the island. The rest of the choppers were made from chalcedony/Colha
blends (6%), chalcedony/quartz blends (6%), quartz (11%), and local or other materials (17%)
[Table B1]. There was a larger percentage of local and quartz materials used for choppers in
comparison to other bifacial tools. While generally harder to knap, quartz was more resistant to
fracture. This may explain why quartz was chosen more frequently as a raw material.
The expedient nature of choppers was demonstrated by some of their characteristics. For
instance, twelve out of the eighteen tools had at least some cortex remaining on the tool. Three
were formed from primary reduction macro-flakes. One tool’s distal end was half cortex and
half sharpened to an edge. These tools do not seem to have been made for light tasks, but were
likely used on hard materials, such as wood. Two chopper fragments were made from discarded
oval biface blanks, and one came from a secondary macro-flake with a cortex platform. It may
be that these tools were made ‘on the spot’ for a specific job and then discarded. Evidence for
this was that very few of the choppers recovered were broken or fragmented. Out of the
24
eighteen, twelve were found whole, two had impact fractures, one had a hinge fracture, and three
were found as fragments or with irregular breaks [Table B2]. Recycling evidence included a
chopper made from a fragment of a core and two other choppers. These two choppers exhibited
patina on all facets except for the resharpened distal edge which indicated scavenging and
curation activities. Tools like these were likely gathered from one of the nearby Classic shore
settlements, resharpened, and brought back to the island. Another chopper had evidence of
multiple uses as exhibited by a burin spall removed from the original tool. Twelve choppers
exhibited batter, ten had chipping damage, six had polish or dulling, and two showed striations
[Table B3]. They were probably not discarded if broken, but used as cores or converted into
other tools such as: abraders, perforators, or scrapers. Discarded choppers may also have been
used to create sharp flakes for cutting tasks. Few choppers showed much edge maintenance
activities; one had some pressure flaking, and nine had edge resharpening [Table B4]. Only two
of them showed damage caused by fire [Table B5]. These tools were found in both domestic and
ritual areas. Six were recovered from Subop 8, four from Subop 12, three from Subop 5, two
from Subop 7, and one each from Subops 14, 16, and 20 [Table E1].
Gouges. There was only one gouge identified from the tool assemblage at Laguna de On.
It came from Subop 8. Gouges are thin bifacial tools with one concave plane (Luedtke 1992). It
was made of Colha chert and showed some impact fractures. Edge damage included chipping
and dulling as well as some striations along a ridge on the dorsal surface. The tool was
resharpened, with some pressure flaking and a length of 79 cm, width of 42 cm, and thickness of
21 cm. The proximal end of the tool seems roughly made, and exhibits some manufacture batter.
Unifaces. A total of twenty-three unifaces were found at Laguna de On. Unifaces are
defined as tools that are worked on one facet. They are generally the size of bifaces and the uses
25
of these tools were likely similar [Illustration D11]. These tools were most commonly made
from Colha chert (65%), followed by chalcedony (9%), chalcedony/Colha blends (4%), and local
or other materials (4%) [Table B1]. A small percentage (9%) were too burned or too patinated
(9%) to determine the original material. Only six of the twenty-three unifaces recovered were
found whole [Table B2]. Ten were found with snap breaks, four with impacts, one had a
diagonal break, and two had irregular breaks. Edge damage for unifaces implies they were used
for multiple purposes that included cutting and chopping. Twelve tools exhibited batter damage,
fifteen had chipping, and two had polish/dulling edge wear [Table B3]. They exhibited a wide
range of sizes and shapes and many examples showed evidence of edge maintenance. Ten had
resharpening, seven had retouch, and three exhibited evidence of reuse [Table B4]. However,
reuse was less prevalent. One of the tools categorized here as a uniface had its distal end
sharpened into a perforator. Two were from recycled Classic tools. One may have been a
recycled stem of a stemmed blade, and one was highly worked on its dorsal surface. Five of the
tools had some damage due to intense heating [Table B5]. Subop 8 had the most unifaces
(seven), followed by Subop 7 with four [Table C9]. Unifaces were found at all Subops except 2,
10, 11, 15, and 16.
Perforators and Drills. Perforators and drills are simply tools used to make holes. Drills
create holes in harder materials by using a twisting motion, while perforators create holes in soft
materials by puncturing them. All of the perforators from Laguna de On were informal tools
made from irregular chert pieces, which were probably spent tool fragments. A total of eleven
perforators were recovered. Seven were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony, and three were
too burned to recognize the original material [Table B1]. None of the perforators found were
made of chalcedony blends nor of quartzite. At Laguna de On, the perforators had small spurs
26
on larger pieces of chert with edge damage on the spur. Six of the them were found whole, three
had snap breaks on the the tip of the spur, one was fire cracked, and one had an irregular break
[Table B2]. Due to the small size of the perforators, it is possible that the breaks occurred post-
depositionally. The perforators had nine examples with chipping damage, two with batter, and
four with dulling or polish [Table B3]. Three had some small retouch work on them. These
tools varied more in length than in width or thickness. The mean length for the nine tools
analyzed was 37.89 mm with a deviation of 14 mm, the mean width was 28.7 mm with a
deviation of 8.47 mm, and the mean thickness was 7.44 mm with a deviation of 3.17 mm [Table
A8]. Perforators were found scattered throughout the sheet midden of the site, in Subops 3, 5, 7,
8, 12, 13, 16, and 18.
Drills are long thin tools which could have been used for boring holes in wood, bone,
thick hide, shell, or straw mats. The edge damage patterns tended to show use related to edge
damage on alternating sides because of the twisting motion used to make the hole. Only two
drills were identified at the site, one of Colha chert [Illustration D12] and the other of a dark gray
chert of unknown origins [Table B1]. One drill was whole and very worn down on the tip [Table
E2]. It exhibited edge dulling and some chipping from use. The piece was also retouched and
pressure flaked, exhibiting curation. The other drill was a proximal fragment which only showed
some chipping and dulling. Little edge damage would be expected at the proximal end since
most of the damage would have occurred at the distal tip. These two pieces, found at Subops 5
and 16, showed no damage caused by fire.
Scrapers. Scrapers are tools primarily used for preparing animal hides by removing the
inner skin and fat layers from rawhide before they were stretched. What distinguishes scrapers
from other tools is the steep angle of the scraping edge [Illustration D13]. Laguna de On
27
scrapers had sharply angled distal ends ranging between 44 to 83 degrees [Table E1]. There
seemed to be no strong preference for material as four were made of chalcedony, three of Colha
chert, two of local materials, one chalcedony/quartz blend and one was too burned to identify
[Table B1]. Out of the eleven total scrapers, two had multiple edges used for scraping. One of
the scrapers was a thumbnail style scraper. Another one showed signs of having been reworked
from a larger tool, probably an oval biface. Two were composite tools, one had a spur on a
lateral side, and the other had a cutting edge sharpened on one lateral. Six of the tools were
recovered whole, three had snap breaks, one was fire cracked, and one had an irregular break
[Table B2]. Two of them had evidence of batter, nine had chipping, and four had dulling or
polish [Table B3]. Three of them had minor retouch and a four had fire damage[Table B4].
Scrapers varied more in length than in width or thickness [Table A9]. The mean length was
37.89 mm with a deviation of 14 mm, the mean width was 38 mm with a deviation of 16.6, and
the mean thickness was 14 mm with a small deviation of 4.9 mm. The scrapers were collected
from Subops 7, 8, 17, 18, and 24 [Table E1].
Burin Cores and Spalls. A burin core is a core made from thin, tabular flakes, blades or
lithic implements from which one or more burin spalls have been removed (Crabtree 1999: 29).
Occasionally, burin cores were used as chisel type tools and were a source for burin spalls. Only
one burin core was recovered from Laguna de On from Subop 8 [Table E1]. This particular core
had no evidence of recycling or being used as a tool other than a core. Also, the material was of
an unknown source and the core had one snap break.
Three burin spalls made of Colha chert were collected at Laguna de On from Subops 5, 8,
and 12 [Table E1]. Burin spalls are specialized flakes or blades removed from burin cores, and
are usually triangular or rectangular in section (Crabtree 1999: 29). They were made by pressure
28
or percussion techniques (Crabtree 1999: 30). One of the three appeared to have been knocked
off of a macro-flake and then retouched. One of the identified burin spalls was whole, one a
fragment with snap breaks on either end, and the third a lateral fragment with alternate edge
beveling. The whole spall had battering and chipping edge damage while the other two had
similar, but lighter damage. One showed evidence of resharpening. None of them had evidence
of fire damage [Table B5].
Hammerstones. Hammerstones are manufacturing implements used to produce new
tools. They are usually spherical in shape and are small enough to be held in the hand
comfortably [Illustration D14]. A total of nine hammerstones were found at Laguna de On.
Four were made of Colha chert, one was made of quartzite, and four were either of local make or
made from unidentified material [Table B1]. Six were found whole, one had an impact fracture
and two had irregular breaks [Table B2]. All hammerstones showed signs of intense batter and
only two had fire damage [Tables B3 and B5]. No evidence of recycling could be discerned
from this assemblage. They were spherical in shape, ranging in width from 15 to 112 mm. Four
of these tools were found in Subop 8, two in Subop 17, one on the surface, and one in each of
Subops 5 and 12 [Table E1].
Abraders. Three abraders were recovered from the excavations at Laguna de On. They
were used to roughen the edge of a preform to alter the striking platform. When a platform is
abraded, the surface weakens, which keeps pressure or percussion tools from slipping. Thus, the
amount of force necessary to induce fracture is reduced (Crabtree 1999: 6). The edge of the
bifacially worked abrader is dragged along the sharpened edge of the preform. This process
creates a pitted, battered, concaved lateral side on the abrader which is very distinctive and
unique to this tool type [Illustration D15].
29
All three abraders were probably made from tools that had once been used as bifaces.
Two show evidence of this in the form of patinated bodies with resharpened edges that were then
battered and pitted from use as an abrader stone. Two were made of Colha chert and one of a
Colha chert and quartz blend [Table B1]. One of the three had very heavy batter on one lateral
edge and little on the other side. The other two had heavy batter on both lateral edges. Two had
snap breaks and one had a burin spall knocked off of it [Table B2]. None of them had any
evidence of heat damage [Table B5]. Two were found in Subop 12 and one in Subop 5, marking
these places as tool manufacturing areas.
Cores. Cores are “a mass of material often preformed by the worker to the desired shape
to allow the removal of a definite type of flake or blade” (Crabtree 1999: 31). Cores vary in size,
raw material, and type of flakes removed. Cores in this assemblage were either whole or broken
irregularly, possibly caused by attempted flake removal. A total of thirty-nine cores or core
fragments were found at the site [Illustration D16]. Cores were found in many of the Subops on
the island with the majority coming from Subops 5, 8, and 17 [Table E1]. Three or fewer were
found at Subops 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20. Sixteen were found whole, one was broken by fire
damage, twenty-one had irregular breaks, and one broke post-depositionally [Table B2]. Sixteen
were made of Colha chert, twelve of chalcedony, three of quartz, three of local or other material,
two of chalcedony-quartz blend, two were burned beyond material identification, and one was
made of a chalcedony-Colha blend [Table B1]. Eight of the cores showed some form of fire
damage [Table B5]. Of the collection’s thirty-nine cores, one had a thick patina on it except for
a few flake scars. This suggested that a core made prior to the Postclassic was reused by a
Postclassic knapper. Also, one core had a burin spall knocked off of one end and five had large
flake scars. Only one core from the collection was a flake blade core. The cores varied greatly in
30
size as show by the measurements of the sixteen whole cores recovered [Table A2]. The mean
length was 70.31 mm with a deviation of 24.13 mm, the mean width was 59.88 mm with a
variation of 24.6 mm, and the mean thickness was measured at 37.94 mm with a deviation of
18.94 mm [Table A1].
Macro-flakes. Macro-flakes are very large sized flakes that are most often derived from
the primary phase of core reduction. They are usually used as initial preforms for certain tools
(Shafer 1985). Seven macro-flakes were found at the site, which appeared to have use wear.
Five were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony, and one was of a local chert [Table B1]. The
majority of macro-flakes recovered were broken. Two had snap breaks, one was fire cracked,
two had irregular breaks, and two were found whole [Table B2]. Four had batter damage, three
chipping, and one had edge dulling [Table B3]. Two showed edge retouch and one showed
evidence of being used as a scraper on two ends (edge damage included chipping and dulling).
Five were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony and the other of an unidentified material.
These implements/preforms were found at Subops 8, 12, and 17 [Table E2].
Utilized Flakes. Utilized flakes are the most common expedient tool found on the site
[Illustration D17]. They are made from primary flakes, secondary reduction flakes, or thinning
flakes. They may also be derived from other sources such as flakes knocked off of expired tools,
fragments, tested cobbles, nodules, or manufacturing failures. The sizes and shapes of utilized
flakes varied enormously, from very large initial reduction flakes to small tertiary flakes [Table
16]. The majority of the one-hundred-and-eighty-seven utilized flakes found at the site were
made of Colha chert (82), followed by chalcedony (38) [Table B1]. There were also seventeen
burned, five chalcedony/Colha blends, twelve chalcedony/quartz blends, ten quartz, fifteen local
or other material, seven fully patinated and chalcedony blends (30%). A wide range of break
31
types were observed on utilized flakes indicating a variety of stresses put on the tools. Only
sixty-three of these flakes were found whole. A total of one-hundred and twenty eight breaks
were recorded [Table B2]. Ninety-two had suffered snap breaks, five had impact breaks, two
had diagonal breaks, three had hinge fractures, six were fire cracked, two had lateral breaks, one
had a cresent break, fifteen had irregular or fragmentary break, and two had natural breaks.
However, chipping edge damage was consistently observed with one-hundred-and-fifty-two
instances, followed by signs of dulling with seventy-one instances, battering with twenty-seven
instances, and striations found on six flakes [Table B3]. Some edge maintenance was observed
although it was not common. These tools were already expedient tools and were discarded
frequently. Thirty-one flakes had been resharpened, nineteen had retouch, ten had pressure
flaking, five had been reused [Table B4]. Only twenty-eight flakes showed signs of damage
caused by fire. The mean length for the ninety one tools analyzed was 46.56 mm with a
deviation of 16.03 mm, the mean width was 41.01 mm with a deviation of 17.15 mm, and the
mean thickness was 11.7 mm with a deviation of 7.86 mm [Table A1]. One utilized flake was
made from a large thinning flake of a biface. Two utilized flakes may have been from earlier
periods, based on their heavy patina. One composite tool, used for cutting and perforating was
found. Two flakes seem to have been reused as perforators, recognizable by their diagnostically
sharpened spur. Flake blades are broadly defined as flakes that are noticeably longer than they
are wide. Fourteen of the blades in this category emulated formal prismatic blades by exhibiting
a single ridge along the dorsal surface of the flake. Only one core that could have been used to
produce this type of tool has been recovered from Laguna de On. Flake blades were usually very
thin, ranging from 2 mm to 46 mm. The edge damage most often observed was light chipping
and dulling of the edges. This type of wear, as well as the fragility of the blades, indicated that
32
the tools were likely used for cutting or slicing soft materials such as meat, hides, or plants. A
high percentage (81%) of the blades were broken. Only one of the forty-nine flake blades
showed possible evidence of reuse, which was a perforator. Most of the blades had evidence of
resharpening and retouching. Two of the flake blades exhibited hafting notches. Another two of
the flake blades were fully patinated which originated from the Archaic period occupation of the
island.
Tool or Core Fragments. Tools in this category are made from blocky or chunky pieces
of chert that show edge damage, but which do not exhibit diagnostic characteristics of cores or
chipped stone tools. Eleven fragments were found at the site. The material identified for utilized
fragments tended to follow the distribution of material types for the total tool population. Six
were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony/quartz blend, one quartz, one of local material, and
two were too burned to identify [Table B1]. Four of these fragments had snap breaks, six were
broken irregularly, and one had a lateral break [Table B2]. Edge damage included seven
instances of chipping, three instances of battering, and three instances of dulling [Table B3].
Overall there was little evidence of recycling, but edge maintenance was common within this
tool category. Two had resharpened edges, and three had retouch [Table B4]. One utilized
fragment had retouch that occurred after the tool was burned. Another of the fragments may
have been used as a scraper and another as a drill, though the evidence is not clear. There was
little other evidence of reuse, since these tools were already recycled from other tools or
debitage.
Spatial Distribution Patterns of Lithic Tools
Even though the island settlement was small, there was evidence of socio-economic
status differentiation in chipped stone tool distributions. Activity areas may be identified by
33
examining the spatial distribution of tools on Laguna de On Island. Excavations on the island
uncovered both public and private spaces as well as ritual and domestic areas, although these
broad categories were rarely mutually exclusive (Masson 2000). The island was more heavily
settled at the northern end, which has the highest elevation [Illustration D18]. This was also the
area in which excavations were concentrated. The entire island is covered in a sheet midden of
Postclassic materials. These materials were encountered at or near the surface due to the shallow
time depth of Postclassic deposits. Architectural features recorded on the island included two
stone foundations, along with a dock or waterside platform, a possible ballcourt, a shrine, several
paved or cobble-lined patios, and postholes from various structures. A total of 18 burials were
uncovered on the island in various states of preservation. Further details can be found in the
mortuary study completed by Margaret Briggs (2002).
The spaces used for more ritualistic purposes were located on a plateau stretching
northwest to southeast on the upper half of the island. Domestic debris was found in both ritual
contexts and non-ritual contexts. However, the chipped stone tool assemblage from the island
suggested different patterns between the two contexts. In order to shed light on the various
activities and social behavior of the inhabitants of the island, the distribution of stone tools was
analyzed. Tool assemblages were standardized by the size of the area excavated to allow for
valid comparisons [Table C1]. The unit of analysis was the Subop, which was compared and
contrasted to understand how the spaces were utilized.
The largest building on the island was the centrally located Structure I, excavated as part
of Subop 8 (Masson 2000). The ruins were described as a ‘c-shaped’ stonewall foundation on
the north, west, and south with an open courtyard on the eastern side. As was typical of Maya
architecture of the period, the walls and roof were probably made from pole and thatch. Since
34
many of the foundation stones were burned, it seems that the building was destroyed by fire.
The high number of chipped stone tools with fire damage supports this possibility [Table C11].
In the middle of Structure I was a large stone, probably an altar stone or uncarved stela. On the
south side of the altar/stela was a ceramic concentration. Also, lithic tools were recovered on the
northwest corner of the stone. Associated with this structure was a Mayapan style censer. Just
outside the south wall of Structure I, in the topsoil, was found a cached offering of a rare flint
eccentric blade depicting two heads of the Maya God K, which was a deity often associated with
lightning or rain (Masson and Rosenswig 1997:25, Masson 2000). God K effigy eccentrics were
usually found in association with Classic period royal tombs or monumental caches. Other
examples were reported by Schele and Miller (1986) and McAnany (1995:46, from Dumbarton
Oaks collection). It is unlikely that the bifacial effigy was made during the Postclassic since
there are no other examples from Postclassic sites. An inhabitant of the island probably
scavenged it from a Classic period site and left it as an offering. This piece was unavailable to
the author for further analysis as it is currently housed at the National Museum in Belize City,
Belize.
Structure I was not only used as a place for ritual activities, it was also used for domestic
purposes. Subop 8 was fairly similar to Subop 5, the largest excavated non-ritual area with
respect to the number of tools per square meter [Table C1]. Subop 5 was located on the southern
end of the main settlement area. The excavations uncovered domestic midden deposits, an
artificial terrace, three possible post-molds, and five burials. The Subop was interpreted as the
location of a number of domestic dwellings and a patio or yard space used as a communal
activity area. Both Subops had a high percentage of manufacturing tools indicating that tools
35
were made in both loci [Table C2]. Subop 8, in fact, had the highest occurrence of
manufacturing tools and byproducts on the island.
There was, however, variations in the number of bifaces in each area [Table C3]. The
residents who lived in or around Structure I had twice the amount of bifacial tools as those who
lived in the area of the excavations from Subop 5. The difference was mostly from a
preponderance of formal bifaces found in Subop 8. As Table C3 shows, Subop 5 had an equal
number of oval and expedient bifaces, while Subop 8 had three times the number of formal
bifaces in comparison to expedient ones. The high concentration of formal oval bifaces in Subop
8 indicated a difference in activities and possibly social status as well. The differential allocation
of resources was the result of status preference but also a reflection of the role the household
played in hosting ritual activities or community gatherings within the confines of their domestic
space.
Another ritual space on the island was excavated in Subop 12. At the pinnacle of the
island, five meters north of Structure I, was a late facet offertory shrine platform, referred to as
Structure II (Masson 2000). Thomas Gann who visited the site in 1927 mentioned that he
collected a number of offerings that lay upon a ‘pavement of stone’ (Gann 1928: 53-54). As M.
Masson has noted, he was probably referring to this area since it is clearly visible on the surface
(2000). A few Colonial period artifacts were also reported to be in Subop 12 (Masson 2000).
This showed the continuation of the Maya custom of making offerings at ancestral localities.
Even though a large area associated with this structure was excavated (77 m²), very few chipped
stone tools were found [Table C1]. This indicated that the area was not used as a domestic space
during the late facet of the Postclassic. There was ample evidence of ritual activities including
small burned rock concentrations, indicative of ritual fires or burning incense. Fires for cooking
36
tended to be much larger and deeper because they were used for long periods of time. Also
found were undamaged obsidian blades, two human phalanges and catfish spines. This structure
also had a disproportionately high amount of ceramics relative to other categories of artifacts in
comparison to other locations (Masson 2000). Additionally, there was a disproportionately high
number of formal tools from this area compared to utilitarian and expedient type tools. One of
the three triangular blades found at the site was part of a dedicatory offering when the eastern
half of the platform was built. By comparing non-bifacial tools from Subop 12 to the more
domestically oriented Subop 5, one can see a marked difference in activities performed in the
two localities [Table C4]. The difference is most notable in the utilized flake category. Subop 5
had .71 utilized flakes per meter squared and Subop 12 has only .10 per meter squared. These
informal implements were used for cutting or slicing through soft materials such as cloth, leather,
or foodstuffs. Tools used for slicing soft tissues would not be out of place in ritual context
because of the common Maya practice of blood sacrifice. A common practice during the
Postclassic was to sprinkle blood obtained from both human and animal sacrificial victims over
idols (Sharer 1994: 539). Human bloodletting depicted in Maya art shows individuals piercing
specific body parts such as the tongue, ear, or penis. The obsidian blades, human phalanges, and
catfish spines found in association with the platform may represent sacrificial activities.
Testing at Subops 7 and 13 revealed a courtyard area that extended east from Structures I
and II. A plaster floor was found in some units. Bedrock was thought to have been used as a
living surface elsewhere. There was also some evidence that a wall may have surrounded the
courtyard area (Barnhart and Howard 1997). One interesting feature was a deep pit lined with
rocks and boulders, which was interpreted as a pottery firing pit by Masson (2000: 81-87). Both
Subop 7 and 13 had high densities of stone tools including both formal and informal tool types.
37
The highest concentration of chipped stone tools on the island came from Subop 17 (3.6
artifacts per m²), which was located southwest of Structure I. Only fifteen meters squared were
excavated at this location, yet fifty-four chipped stone tools were uncovered. The Subop was
intended to test for differential status of the residents. Two occupations were uncovered at this
location, a cobble floor and an earlier marl floor patio beneath, with a preserved post mold.
Artifacts recovered next to the patio floor included a metate, obsidian blades, lithic blades,
charcoal and a ritual concentration of Pomacea shell, similar to the one found at Structure I. The
metate capped a deep charcoal deposit, probably a repeatedly used cooking hearth. This location
had the highest concentration of manufacturing tools and byproducts on the island including six
cores, two hammerstones, three macro-flakes, one tablet, and three thinning flakes. Additionally,
Subop 17 had the highest concentrations of formal bifaces, flake blades, and utilized flakes.
There was a notable absence of expedient bifaces or choppers. The high concentration of tools
in this small area suggests a higher level of resource consumption than in lower status areas of
the site.
An important feature of the settlement at Laguna de On was found at Subop 14. A stone
platform or ‘dock’, referred to as Structure III, was found on the east shore of the island, directly
east and downhill from Structure I. When Gann was visiting the lagoon in 1927, he noted that
there were numerous stone docks around the lagoon (Gann 1928). These features can still be
seen on the southeast shore of the lagoon, though they may date to the historic logging camp
known as Honey Camp that Gann mentions (Masson and Gonzalez 1997: 40). During the 1996
field season much of the dock extended into the water. However, in 1997 more of the platform
was exposed due to receding water levels. Unfortunately, the lower water levels left it exposed
to looters who dug into the structure between the two field seasons. The looters’ trench provided
38
a profile of the construction phases of the dock. Excavations during the first season recovered
high concentrations of artifacts off of the submerged edge of the platform, although stone tools
were not particularly abundant. Artifacts included ceramics, obsidian and both cranial and post-
cranial faunal remains. This dock probably represented the primary access point for entry onto
the island (Masson and Gonzalez 1997). It was likely that access to the island was purposely
restricted for defense of the settlement. The location of lowland Postclassic Maya settlements
were frequently chosen for their defensible positions, such as hilltops, islands, or peninsulas
(Chase and Rice 1986, Chase and Chase 1988).
Out of the 34.7 meters squared excavated at Subop 14, only 22 chipped stone tools were
found. The small sample size created difficulties in interpreting the usage of the dock. However,
it was probably an area of high traffic and not generally used for household activities. The tools
from this Subop were probably discarded, and were not indicative of activities being carried on
at the water’s edge. They may instead represent the types of tools that were frequently taken off
the island. There was a disproportionately high number of woodworking tools (1 chopper, 2
expedient bifaces, 2 lenticular bifaces, and 4 oval bifaces) in comparison to small, cutting
implements (7 utilized flakes, 1 flake blade). This difference could be the result of the types of
activities pursued away from the island. A common task of the inhabitants would have been to
supply wood to fuel fires for cooking, warmth or the occasional ceremonial activity. Smaller
implements used for softer materials would be more likely found within the patio groups where
activities like weaving and food preparation normally took place. Also found at this Subop were
two lenticular points and one stem of a stemmed blade. Both of these tools would have been
useful as weapons of warfare or as hunting implements. Interestingly, three cores were found
here and were probably brought to the island as raw material. All three were of different
39
materials (Colha chert, chalcedony, and a local white chert of unidentified source), showing no
preference for the various material sources available.
Other than postholes, the last architectural feature on the island was a possible sunken
ballcourt (Structure IV) unearthed at Subop 20. A linear depression twelve meters long and eight
meters wide was cut into the bedrock on the north end of the island plateau. The sunken area
between the bedrock was flat, and two burials were found directly in the center. One individual
was decapitated and the other disarticulated, suggesting the possibility that they were the victims
of a dedication ritual sanctifying the ballcourt (Masson 2000:100). No domestic features were
found within Subop 20 and the lithics recovered likely represent the general midden scatter that
covers the island. The absence of tools near the ballcourt suggested that the area was not used as
a work area.
Other than these major features of the settlement, few lithic tools were found in the
remaining Subops. Subops 1, 4, 6, and 19 contained no Postclassic stone tools. Subops 2, 3, 9,
10, 11, and 15 contained ten or fewer stone tools. One additional area, Subop 18, on the
southern tip of the island, recovered 19 stone tools. No architectural domestic features were
found, although four burials were excavated. Due to time constraints, no further work was
completed in this locale. Artifacts recovered were found within the top thirty centimeters and
consisted mainly of lithic debitage. Only one core was found here, in addition to five bifaces,
and thirteen other tool fragments. The materials probably represent household refuse removed
from the nearby structures.
Discussion and Conclusions
Social and economic patterns can be ascertained by examining chipped stone tool usage
at Postclassic consumer sites, like that of Laguna de On. There was evidence for complex
40
regional trade with the production site of Colha. Laguna de On must have traded extensively
with Colha for finished tools, cores, and probably preform lithics. Oval, lenticular and triangular
bifaces were manufactured with a level of skill and quality not found in any other tools. As
Masson points out (2000), it is likely that these tools were made by resident craftsman from
Colha. Although very few chipped stone pieces found at Laguna de On could be considered a
preform, one candidate was the triangulars. Only three of these were found, two of which were
Colha chert and one of chalcedony which could also have come from the Colha site (Michaels
1987). Another possibility was the macro-flakes. Out of the seven found, five were Colha and
one was chalcedony. A slight majority of all cores found at Laguna de On were made from
Colha chert which must have been transported or traded from the site of Colha. The second most
frequently occurring raw material in cores was chalcedony which could have come from both
local sources or could have been brought from greater distances (Oland 1999). Further field
surveys in the Belize region would benefit understanding chipped stone trading patterns. The
presence of these cores indicated that the residents of the island must have had some preference
for making their own tools out of Colha chert instead of locally available materials. Obtaining
cores gave them freedom to make whichever tools were most needed at any point in time.
Of all the raw materials for chipped stone tools found at the site, fifty percent were made
of Colha chert [Table B1]. This was followed by chalcedony and chalcedony blends which make
up twenty-five percent of the assemblage. Some chalcedonies could have been quarried locally
and traded to Colha since worked chalcedony has also been found at the site during the
Postclassic only (Hester and Shafer 1991). Only four percent of all the chipped stone tools were
made of quartz, showing that this material was not valued for most tasks. Additionally, the
majority of quartz tools from Laguna de On were expedient tool forms [Table B1]. When it
41
came to raw material preference for types of tools, there seemed to be a conscious choice for
material quality in more finely knapped tools. The more formal tool types like lenticulars and
oval bifaces tended to be made from higher quality material than found in expedient tools. Fine
grained chalcedony may have been valued for its aesthetic translucent quality, even though the
material is considered to be more brittle than chert. Tools such as choppers are usually made out
of poorer quality materials, materials with inclusions, or natural fractures. The distribution of
chipped stone tool materials varied in different locales on the Laguna de On Island. The two
Subops with the highest number of tools per meter squared were Subops 5 and 8. Subop 5 has
almost an equal number of chalcedony/chalcedony blends (36%) and Colha chert tools (40%),
while Subop 8 has a clear majority of Colha chert (53%) over chalcedony/chalcedony blends
(15%) [Table C5]. Since Subop 8 was much more ritually oriented, it may be that Colha chert
was more prized for such public activities. Additionally, Subop 12 which also had evidence of
being used for ritual activity showed a clear preference for Colha chert tools (49%) over the
chalcedony/chalcedony blends (29%).
Definitive evidence for the use of heat treatment as a method of core preparation could
not be established in this study. Eighteen percent of all the chipped stone tools on the island
exhibited damage of some type caused by intense heat. However, it was not determined whether
this damage was caused postdepositionally or was intentional. Tools at Subop 8 may have
burned during a Postclassic period fire (Masson 2000). Other tools that were deposited near the
surface may have been damaged by farmers using slash and burn agriculture methods.
The heightened level of recycling and tool rejuvenation at Laguna de On showed an
increased value or scarcity of chipped stone resources than in earlier times. High numbers of
tools from the site showed some form of edge maintenance or recycling [Table B4]. It is very
42
likely that many tools were eventually remade into usable flakes or other expedient tools. Much
of the possible evidence for recycling will be permanently missing from the archeological record.
Also, tools of all types were found in every location on the island, showing little differentiation
in status. The only marked variation was in the volume of tools found in the excavation areas
around the island.
The purpose of this paper was to explore and discuss chipped stone tools at a Postclassic
consumer site to better understand the underlying socio-economic patterns of the period. To
conduct this study, attributes of all chipped stone tools from Laguna de On were recorded.
Attributes included tool type, provenience, size, material, portion remaining, amount of cortex,
edge angle, edge damage, breakage, and recycling. These attributes were then used to discuss
and define each tool type to ascertain trends in recycling and edge damage that may be related to
activities performed by the inhabitants. The spatial distribution of these tools was then examined
to look for social patterns related to the use of public/private space and ritual/nonritual space.
This research concludes that trade for chipped stone tools was a multifaceted system
involving complex established regional communication networks. Chipped stone resources were
valued and maintained with care. Such tools were brought to the island through trade, scavenged
from nearby deserted Classic period site, or were obtained locally. Expedient tools, which are
often overlooked in tool studies from this period, make up a vital portion of the Postclassic Maya
tool kit and greatly outnumber formal tool types at Laguna de On. Day to day activities were
probably more often carried out using expedient tools than formal tools. Additional research on
expedient tool usage at other Postclassic communities could further our understanding of
household and group work activities. Also, Laguna de On would benefit from further chipped
stone tool research as well. This study was limited to spatial distribution and types of tools, but
43
did not discuss the variation between the early and late facet Postclassic periods. Closer
examination of the use of heat treatment during this period would also be useful. This study did
not separate tools burned post-depositionally from those burned during the Postclassic. The
description in this paper of the chipped stone tool assemblage from Laguna de On should help
more clearly define the roles of both formal and informal tools for future studies of this time
period.
44
References Cited
Andrews, A. P. 1993 Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. In Journal of World Prehistory 7:
35-69.
Ball, J. 1985 The Postclassic that Wasn't: The Thirteenth-through-Seventeenth Century
Archaeology of Central Eastern Campeche, Mexico. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic , editied by A. Chase and P. Rice, pp. 273-284. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Barnhart, E., and S. Howard
1997 Testing Explorations at Laguna de On Island: Landscape Modifications, a Burial Area, and Courtyard walls. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 43-60. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.
Barret, J.
2000 Warfare or Welfare: Postclassic Lithic Production Patterns and Their Social Context. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting for the Society of American Archaeology in Philadelphia. April 5-9, 2000.
Berdan, F.
1988 Principles of Regional and Long-distance Trade in the Aztec Empire. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, edited by J. K. Jasserand and K. Darkin, pp. 639-656. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, no. 402, Oxford.
Blanton, R., S. Kowalsewski, G. Feinman, and L. Finsten
1993 Ancient Mesoameria: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Second edition.
Briggs, M.
2002 Terminal Classic to Postclassic Transition in the Maya of Northern Belize: Biological Continuity and Cultural Change in the Burials of Progresso and Honey Camp Lagoons. Master’s Thesis. University of Houston, TX.
Chase, A. F. and P. M. Rice, eds. 1985 The Lowland Maya Postclassic. Austin: University of Texas Press. Chase, D. Z.
1986 Social and Political Organization in the Land of Milk and Honey: Correlating the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland Maya. In Late
45
Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by J. A. Sabloff and E. W. Andrews V, pp 347-378. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Chase, D. and A. Chase
1988 A Postclassic Perpective: Excavations at the Maya site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Monograph No. 4. Precolumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.
Crabtree, D. E.
1999 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occassional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History, Number 28. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, Idaho. Third Edition
Dial, S. and M. Collins
1998 Bifaces, Bifacial Tools, Perforators, Burins, and Spalls. In Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of Hunter-Gatherers in Central Texas Volume III, edited by M. Collins, pp.683-702. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.
Dockall, J. and H. Shafer
1993 Testing the Producer-Consumer Model for Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 4:158-179.
Dreiss, M. L., and D. O. Brown
1989 Obsidian Exchange Patterns in Belize. In Prehistoric Maya Economies, edited by P. A. McAnany and B. L. Isaac, pp.57-90. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Drennan, R.
1984 Long Distance Transport Costs in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. In American Anthropologist 86:105-112.
Freidel, D. A. and J. A. Sabloff 1984 Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York. Gann, T. W. 1928 Maya Cities. Self published, London and New York. Gifford, J.
1976 Prehistoric pottery analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hammond, N.
1973 British Museum-Cambridge University Corozal Project 1973 Interim Report. Cambridge University Center of Latin American Studies, Cambridge.
Hester, T. R., ed.
46
1982 The Maya Lithic Sequence in Northern Belize. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 39-59. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venice.
Hester, T. R. and H. J. Shafer
1984 Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize. In World Archaeology 16:157-73.
1991 Lithics of the Early Postclassic at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer, pp. 155-162. Madison: Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1, Prehistory press.
Hult, W. and T. Hester
1993 The Ambergris Caye Lithics. Manuscript on file at Texas Archaeological Research Labs, University of Texas, Austin.
Jones, G. D.
1989 Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier. Univeristy of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Kelly, T.
1980 The Colha Regional Survey. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, ed. by T. Hester, J. Eaton, and H. Shafer, pp.51-70. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue in Venezia, San Antonio.
Lewenstein, S.
1991 Woodworking Tools at Cerros. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer, pp. 239-250. Madison: Monographs in World Archaeology No.1, Prehistory Press.
Luedtke, B.
1992 An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
McAnany, P.
1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
1987 Lithic Technology and Exchange Among Wetland Farmers of the Eastern Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
1989 Stone-Tool Production and Exchange in the Eastern Maya Lowlands: The Consumer Perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize. In American Antiquity 54:332-346.
47
McKillop, H. 1996 Ancient Maya Trading Ports and the Integration of Long-Distance and Regional
Economies: Wild Cane Cay in South Coastal Belize. In Ancient Mesoamerica 7:49-62.
McKillop, H., L. Jackson, H. Michel, F. Stross, and F. Asaro
1988 Chemical Source Analysis of Maya Obsidian Artifacts: New Perspectives from Wild Cane Cay, Belize. In Archaeometry 88, edited by R. M. Farqhuar, R. G. V. Hancock, and L. A. Pavlish, pp.239-244. Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Masson, M. A.
1993 Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
1997a Notes on a Flint God K Eccentric from Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 25-28. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.
1997b Lithic Tools from 1996 Season at Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 77-84. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.
1997c Cultural Transformation at the Maya Postclassic Community of Laguan de On, Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 8(4): 293-316.
1999 Postclassic Maya Ritual at Laguna de On Island, Belize. In Ancient Mesoamerica 10:51-68.
2000 In the Realm of Nachan Kan: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Masson, M. A. and H. Chaya
2001 Obsidian Trade Connections at the Postclassic Maya Site of Laguna De On, Belize. In Lithic Technology 25(2): 135-144.
Masson, M. A. and S. Gonzalez
1997 Structure III, a Stone Dock at Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project 1996: Laguna de On Excavations, 1996. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.
Masson, M. A., and R. M. Rosenswig, eds.
1997 The Belize Postclassic Project 1996: Laguna de On Excavations, 1996. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.
48
1998 The Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoarmerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 2, State University of New York at Albany.
1999 Belize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 3. University of New York at Albany.
2000 Belize Postclassic Project 1999: Continued Investigations at Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 5. University of New York at Albany.
Michaels, G. H.
1987 A Describtion and Analysis of Early Postclassic Lithic Technology at Colha, Belize. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.
1989 Craft Specialization in the Early Postclassic of Colha. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4:139-83.
1994 The Postclassic at Colha, Belize: A Summary Overview and directions for Future Research. In Continuing Archaeology at Colha, Belize. Edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 129-136. Austin: Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas.
Michaels, G. H. and H. J. Shafer
1994 Excavations at Operation 2037 and 2040. In Continuing Archaeology at Colha, Belize. Edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 117-129. Austin: Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas.
Miller, Arthur G.
1982 On the Edge of the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Nelson, F. W., Jr., D. A. Phillips, and A. B. Rubio
1983 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico Vol. 1 Part 1: the Hydraulic System. Edited by R. Matheny, D. Gurr, D. Forsyth, and F. R. Hauk. Papers of the New World Archaeologcial Foundation, Vol. 46. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Oland, M. H.
1998 Lithic Raw Material Sources at the Southern End of the Freshwater Creek Drainage. In The Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 2, State University of New York at Albany.
1999 Lithic Raw Material Sources at the Southern End of the Freshwater Creek Drainage: A View From Laguna de On, Belize. In Lithic Technology 24(2): 91-110.
49
Pendergast, D. 1981 Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-1980. In Journal of
Field Archaeology 8: 29-53. 1985 Lamanai, Belize: An Update View. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic , ed. by A.
Chase and P. Rice, pp. 91-103. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1986 Stability through Change: Lamanai, Belize, From the Ninth to the Seventeenth
Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic , ed. by J. Sabloff and E. Andrews, pp. 223-250, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Rathje, W. L.
1975 The Last Tango in Mayapan: A Tentative Trajectory of Production-Distribution Systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 409-448. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Robles, C., F. Andrews, and A. Andrews
1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatán. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic , edited by J. A. Sabloff and E. W. Andrews, pp. 53-98. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Roemer, E.
1984 A Late Classic Maya Lithic Workshop at Colha, Belize. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas A&M.
Rosenswig, R. and T. Stafford, Jr.
1998 Archaic Component Beneath a Postclassic Terrace at Subop 19, Laguna de On Island. In Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon, Laguna Seca Report to the Department of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize, edited by M. Masson and R. Rossenswig, pp. 81-90. Albany: University at Albany, SUNY.
Sabloff, J. A. and W. L. Rathje 1975 The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class. In Scientific American 233: 72-82. Sanders, W. T.
1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Contribution to American Anthropology and History 12(60). Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 606.
Santone, L.
1997 Transport Costs, Consumer Demand, and Patterns of Intraregional Exchange: A Perspective on Commodity Production and Distribution from Northern Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 8(1):71-81.
50
Schele, L. and M. E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort
Worth. Shafer, H.
1985 A Technological Study of Two Maya Workshops at Colha, Belize. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. Prew, J. Woods, and M. Pavesic, pp.277-314. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1983 The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlement and Fields. In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northern Belize, edited by B. Turner II and P. Harrison, pp.212-245. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Shafer, H. and T. Hester
1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. In American Antiquity 48:519-543.
Sharer, R. J. 1994 The Ancient Maya. Fifth Edition. Standord University Press, Stanford. Smith, M. and F. Berdan
2000 The Postclassic Mesoamerican World System. In Current Anthropology 41(2):283-286.
Tobey, M.
1986 Trace Element Investigation of Maya Chert from Belize. Papers of the Colha Project Volume 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.
Valdez, F. Jr.
1993 Appendix X: Obsidian Artifacts from Laguna de On Island. In Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize, by M. A. Masson, pp. 354-361. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.
Valdez, F. Jr., M. A. Masson, and L. Santone
1992 Report from the 1991 Field Season at Laguna de On. Report on file, Departement of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize.
Walker, D.
1990 Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of Terminal Classic and Postclassic Settlement and Pilgrimage in Northern Belize. Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
51
Index of Appendices
Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variances by Tool Type…………………………..54 Table A1: Mean and Deviation for All Tool Types Analyzed Table A2: Core Variances Table A3: Discoidal Variances Table A4: Expedient Biface Variances Table A5: Oval Biface Variances Table A6: Utilized Flake Variances Table A7: Lenticular Biface Variances Table A8: Perforator Variances Table A9: Scraper Variances Table A10: Uniface Variances Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type…………………………………………………….59 Table B1: Percentage of Raw Materials Table B2: Number of Breaks Table B3: Number of Incidences of Edge Damage categorized Table B4: Number of Recycling Incidences Table B5: Percentage of Tools with Fire Damage Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site……………………………63 Table C1: Showing the Density of Tools for Each Excavated Subop Area Table C2: Area Distribution for Manufacturing Related Lithics by Subop Table C3: Bifacial Tool Comparison between Subop 5 and Subop 8 Table C4: Tool Density Comparison between Subop 5 and Subop 12 Table C5: Material Distribution by Subop Table C6: Area Distribution for Oval Bifaces Table C7: Area Distribution for Expedient Bifaces Table C8: Area Distribution for Utilized Flakes Table C9: Area Distribution for Unifaces Table C10: Percentage of Raw Material found at Each Subop Appendix D: Illustrations………………………………………………………………………..69 Illustration D1: Area Map of Northern Belize and Site of Laguna de On Illustration D2: Photograph of a Discoidal from Laguna de On Island Illustration D3: Photograph of a Broken Stemmed Blade from Laguna de On Island Illustration D4: Drawing of a Tranchet Adze Illustration D5: Photograph of a Broken Triangular Biface from Laguna de On Island Illustration D6: Drawing of a Triangular Biface Illustration D7: Photograph of Broken Lenticular Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D8: Photograph of Broken Oval Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D9: Photograph of Expedient Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D10: Photograph of Choppers from Laguna de On Island
52
Illustration D11: Photograph of Unifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D12: Photograph of a Drill Fragment from Laguna de On Island Illustration D13: Photograph of Scraper Fragments from Laguna de On Island Illustration D14: Photograph of Hammerstones from Laguna de On Island Illustration D15: Photograph of Abraders from Laguna de On Island Illustration D16: Photograph of Cores from Laguna de On Island Illustration D17: Photograph of Utilized Flakes from Laguna de On Island Illustration D18: Topographic Map of Laguna de On Island Appendix E: Tool Database……………………………………………………………………...80 Database Legend Table E1: Provenience and Basic Attribute Table Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling Table
53
Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variance by Tool Type
Table A1: Mean and Deviation For All Tool Types Analyzed
Length Width Thickness Tool # of tools analyzed* Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
Cores 16 70.31 24.13 59.88 24.6 37.94 18.94 Discoidals 3 106 19.97 84.67 8.08 42 10.39 Expedient Bifaces
6 91.5 23.4 61 11.97 33.33 10.13
Utilized Flakes
91 46.56 16.03 41.01 17.15 11.7 7.86
Oval Bifaces
3 123.67 55.23 53 24.25 22.33 10.02
Lenticular Bifaces
3 130.33 24.03 37.67 3.22 11.3 1.53
Perforators 9 37.89 14 28.7 8.47 7.44 3.17 Scrapers 5 51.4 14.79 38 16.6 14 4.9 Uniface 8 96.13 31.48 51 15.67 29.1 12.1 *complete tools only
Table A2: Core Variance
Number M.O. #* Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
34 5n 337 Chalcedony 34 -1.50 24 -1.46 11 -1.42 55 8f 45 Colha 38 -1.34 33 -1.09 11 -1.42 56 158 8L 135 Colha 44 -1.09 36 -0.97 36 -0.10 40 275 5h 258 Chalcedony Blend 50 -0.84 49 -0.44 49 0.58 54 92 8c 32 Colha 51 -0.80 57 -0.12 31 -0.37 27 5c 50 Burned 52 -0.76 45 -0.60 40 0.11 63 327 14h 308 White Chert 60 -0.43 42 -0.73 18 -1.05 58 164 8m 174 Colha 70 -0.01 47 -0.52 22 -0.84 30 374 17a 307 Chalcedony 76 0.24 57 -0.12 34 -0.21 33 401 5f and h 288 Chalcedony 78 0.32 85 1.02 50 0.64 49 281 20d 338 Colha 84 0.57 62 0.09 27 -0.58 32 206 20e 376 Chalcedony 89 0.77 103 1.75 52 0.74 38 18 8L 116 Chalcedony 93 0.94 60 0.01 38 0.00 45 118 14f 149 Colha 94 0.98 66 0.25 67 1.53 37 6 8k 93 Chalcedony 96 1.06 80 0.82 41 0.16 52 372 5g 240/227 Colha 116 1.89 112 2.12 80 2.22
*numbers designated by Maxine Oland (1998, 1999)
Table A3: Discoidal Variance
Number M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance66 416 18 394 Colha 84 -1.10 76 -1.07 48 0.58 65 233 5f 229 Chalcedony 111 0.25 92 0.91 48 0.58 67 113 12i 110 Colha 123 0.85 86 0.16 30 -1.15
54
Table A4: Expedient Biface Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
74 8m 174 Chalcedony 51 -1.73 50 -0.92 16 -1.71 89 133 12c 195 Colha 87 -0.19 56 -0.42 37 0.36 72 357 18a 209 Chalcedony 93 0.06 68 0.58 45 1.15 71 180 3 1 Chalcedony 95 0.15 57 -0.33 28 -0.53 87 56 8e 30 Colha 100 0.36 82 1.75 39 0.56 91 143 5b 90 Colha 123 1.35 53 -0.67 35 0.16
Table A5: Oval Biface Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
226 172 8 2 Colha 64 -1.08 25 -1.15 12 -1.03 218 7b 217 Colha 134 0.19 67 0.58 32 0.97 215 149 12a 179 Colha 173 0.89 67 0.58 23 0.07
Table A6: Utilized Flake Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
98 20e 376 Burned 38 -0.53 16 -1.46 7 -0.59 99 5j 275 Burned 39 -0.47 16 -1.46 4 -0.98 101 80 12i 82 Chalcedony 39 -0.47 22 -1.11 3 -1.10 107 58 8j 78 Chalcedony 44 -0.16 15 -1.52 4 -0.98 108 330 5e and g 298 Chalcedony Blend 63 1.03 21 -1.17 5 -0.85 113 189 5 4 Colha 48 0.09 20 -1.23 4 -0.98 114 184 8 9 Colha 52 0.34 62 1.22 46 4.37 116 247 17a 307 Colha 41 -0.35 29 -0.70 4 -0.98 119 334 7abc 295 Colha 67 1.27 38 -0.18 13 0.17 122 149 8h 60 Colha 81 2.15 36 -0.29 13 0.17 123 162 8m 134 Colha 80 2.09 57 0.93 27 1.95 128 8j 95 Patinated 27 -1.22 11 -1.75 4 -0.98 130 320 20a 312 Quartz 50 0.21 30 -0.64 13 0.17 133 285 17 241 Burned 41 -0.35 23 -1.05 5 -0.85 137 3 6 Colha 47 0.03 28 -0.76 16 0.55 141 274 5d 211 Colha 69 1.40 33 -0.47 6 -0.72 146 270 17 243 Quartz 49 0.15 20 -1.23 10 -0.21 331 10 39 Burned 40 -0.41 43 0.12 7 -0.59 342 89 8L 138 Burned 34 -0.78 30 -0.64 5 -0.85 343 183 8 2 Chalcedony 46 -0.03 34 -0.41 10 -0.21 344 186 11 2 Chalcedony 41 -0.35 32 -0.53 12 0.04 345 297 16 254 Chalcedony 29 -1.10 33 -0.47 29 2.21 346 239 17 256 Chalcedony 21 -1.59 34 -0.41 7 -0.59 348 226 18 215 Chalcedony 27 -1.22 45 0.23 7 -0.59 349 221 18 215 Chalcedony 54 0.46 45 0.23 6 -0.72 351 13 12p 169 Chalcedony 25 -1.34 36 -0.29 5 -0.85
55
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance353 325 14h 308 Chalcedony 52 0.34 66 1.46 12 0.04 354 234 15b 205 Chalcedony 59 0.78 75 1.98 14 0.30 355 421 17a 307 Chalcedony 18 -1.78 39 -0.12 3 -1.10 356 379 17b 264 Chalcedony 34 -0.78 35 -0.35 5 -0.85 357 342 17c 265 Chalcedony 37 -0.60 15 -1.52 8 -0.47 358 398 17d 31 Chalcedony 48 0.09 28 -0.76 6 -0.72 361 8i 80 Chalcedony 57 0.65 55 0.82 19 0.93 364 3 8m 174 Chalcedony 54 0.46 59 1.05 9 -0.34 365 166 8m 174 Chalcedony 29 -1.10 39 -0.12 10 -0.21 366 59 12a 7 Chalcedony Blend 42 -0.28 56 0.87 15 0.42 370 359 18 209 Chalcedony Blend 40 -0.41 61 1.17 7 -0.59 372 23 8d 34 Chalcedony Blend 32 -0.91 47 0.35 7 -0.59 373 39 8e 58 Chalcedony Blend 41 -0.35 45 0.23 14 0.30 374 2 8L 116 Chalcedony Blend 57 0.65 58 0.99 16 0.55 376 202 9 1 Colha 30 -1.03 22 -1.11 6 -0.72 377 185 9 4 Colha 62 0.96 31 -0.58 11 -0.09 380 70 12i 110 Colha 58 0.71 87 2.68 30 2.33 381 41 12i 110 Colha 79 2.02 94 3.09 34 2.84 382 203 13a 128 Colha 71 1.52 49 0.47 13 0.17 386 117 14f 149 Colha 51 0.28 52 0.64 28 2.08 387 376 14h 309 Colha 21 -1.59 35 -0.35 8 -0.47 388 377 14h 309 Colha 47 0.03 25 -0.93 10 -0.21 393 392 16c 269 Colha 53 0.40 43 0.12 8 -0.47 395 351 16c 270 Colha 44 -0.16 77 2.10 10 -0.21 398 258 17d 305 Colha 45 -0.10 31 -0.58 9 -0.34 399 317 20a 312 Colha 49 0.15 58 0.99 12 0.04 400 367 20c 333 Colha 46 -0.03 37 -0.23 6 -0.72 405 211 7b 217 Colha 63 1.03 46 0.29 16 0.55 406 401? 7c 219 Colha 48 0.09 22 -1.11 12 0.04 407 340 7d 224 Colha 33 -0.85 26 -0.88 6 -0.72 408 22 8a 1 Colha 52 0.34 32 -0.53 7 -0.59 409 105 8c 27 Colha 51 0.28 37 -0.23 21 1.19 410 145 8c 27 Colha 51 0.28 36 -0.29 15 0.42 411 68 8c 28 Colha 76 1.84 44 0.17 19 0.93 412 102 8c 88 Colha 43 -0.22 52 0.64 15 0.42 414 147 8f 46 Colha 24 -1.41 34 -0.41 8 -0.47 418 104 8j 95 Colha 39 -0.47 79 2.22 41 3.73 419 154 8k 93 Colha 33 -0.85 39 -0.12 12 0.04 420 157 8L 123 Colha 25 -1.34 44 0.17 11 -0.09 422 69 8L 138 Colha 46 -0.03 28 -0.76 10 -0.21 423 160 8m 134 Colha 64 1.09 52 0.64 14 0.30 424 77 8m 174 Colha 35 -0.72 35 -0.35 9 -0.34 427 8a 21 Gray Chert 57 0.65 45 0.23 13 0.17 429 35 8m 174 Gray Chert 33 -0.85 42 0.06 14 0.30
430 8L 142 Grayish-Brown chert 51 0.28 35 -0.35 9 -0.34
431 205 8L 135 Limestone 56 0.59 44 0.17 13 0.17
56
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance433 142 8m 174 Unidentified 67 1.27 35 -0.35 17 0.68 435 388 20a 281 Patinated 24 -1.41 24 -0.99 7 -0.59 438 418 14h 309 Quartz 49 0.15 67 1.52 18 0.81 441 8L 116 Quartz 27 -1.22 55 0.82 10 -0.21 447 328 5f 248 Chalcedony 37 -0.60 46 0.29 13 0.17 448 236 5g 233 Chalcedony 41 -0.35 65 1.40 10 -0.21 449 307 5k 282 Chalcedony 32 -0.91 29 -0.70 6 -0.72 450 353 7a and b 266 Chalcedony 17 -1.84 21 -1.17 4 -0.98 452 299 5f 229 Chalcedony Blend 43 -0.22 48 0.41 11 -0.09 453 417 5f 288 Chalcedony Blend 41 -0.35 41 0.00 9 -0.34 454 309 5k 282 Chalcedony Blend 27 -1.22 18 -1.34 5 -0.85 456 332 5e and g 298 Colha 66 1.21 37 -0.23 8 -0.47 457 288 5f 237 Colha 105 3.65 52 0.64 7 -0.59 459 259 5f and h 288 Colha 64 1.09 41 0.00 20 1.06 460 353 5g 240 Colha 74 1.71 66 1.46 15 0.42 462 396 5m 323 Colha 59 0.78 44 0.17 6 -0.72 463 339 7a 224 Colha 33 -0.85 23 -1.05 4 -0.98 466 313 5f 288 Quartzite 47 0.03 40 -0.06 12 0.04 467 290 5e 218 Red Creamy chert 56 0.59 80 2.27 13 0.17
Table A7: Lenticular Biface Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
168 11 8j 124 Brown Chert 107 -0.97 34 -1.14 10 -0.87174 2 1 Colha 155 1.03 39 0.41 11 -0.22179 47 7a 171 Colha 129 -0.06 40 0.73 13 1.09
Table A8: Perforator Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
254 5f 229 Burned 39 0.08 18 -1.26 8 0.175439255 8a 1 Burned 56 1.29 32 0.39 14 2.070175256 227 18 215 Chalcedony 37 -0.06 27 -0.20 5 -0.77193 257 3 3 Colha 58 1.44 24 -0.55 6 -0.45614 258 297 16 14 Colha 22 -1.14 34 0.63 6 -0.45614 260 84 13a 158 Colha 24 -0.99 38 1.10 4 -1.08772 261 329 5e and g 298 Colha 24 -0.99 35 0.75 7 -0.14035 262 5k 282 Colha 31 -0.49 14 -1.73 6 -0.45614 263 256 7c 252 Colha 50 0.87 36 0.87 11 1.122807
57
Table A9: Scraper Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance265 220 18 220 Chalcedony 66 0.99 50 0.72 15 0.20 268 302 17 212 Colha 36 -1.04 24 -0.84 9 -1.02 270 129 8g 49 Colha 67 1.05 58 1.20 20 1.22 271 17a 307 Gray Chert 38 -0.91 19 -1.14 9 -1.02 272 170 8 9 White Chert 50 -0.09 39 0.06 17 0.61
Table A10: Uniface Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
312 260 7b 208 Chalcedony Blend 104 0.25 35 -1.02 18 -0.92 314 200 9 1 Colha 127 0.98 75 1.53 34 0.40 315 198 3 6 Colha 81 -0.48 45 -0.38 25 -0.34 323 265 5f and h 288 Colha 62 -1.08 35 -1.02 18 -0.92 325 156 8k 130 Colha 132 1.14 64 0.83 41 0.98 327 90 8m 134 Colha 46 -1.59 36 -0.96 14 -1.25 329 394 5n 343 Patinated 123 0.85 65 0.89 47 1.48 330 136 12p 156 Water Damaged 94 -0.07 53 0.13 36 0.57
58
Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type
Table B1: Percentage of Raw Materials by Tool Type
Tool Type Burned Chal- cedony
Chalcedony/Colha Blend
Chalcedony/Quartz Blend Colha Patinated Quartz Local/
Other Total Tools
Abrader 0%(0) 0% 0%(0) 33%(1) 67%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Burin 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(1) 1 Burin Spall 100%(3) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Chopper 0%(0) 0%(0) 6%(1) 6%(1) 61%(11) 0%(0) 11%(2) 17%(3) 18 Core 5%(2) 31%(12) 3%(1) 5%(2) 41%(16) 0%(0) 8%(3) 8%(3) 39 Discoidal 0%(0) 25%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 25%(1) 4 Drill 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(1) 2 Expedient Biface 0%(0) 26%(7) 0%(0) 4%(1) 41%(11) 7%(2) 4%(1) 19%(5) 27 Utilized Fragment 18%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 9%(1) 55%(6) 0%(0) 9%(1) 9%(1) 11 Gouge 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1 Hammerstone 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 44%(4) 0%(0) 11%(1) 44%(4) 9 Lenticular Biface 7%(1) 29%(4) 0%(0) 0%(0) 43%(6) 0%(0) 0%(0) 21%(3) 14 Macro-flake 0%(0) 14%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 71%(5) 0%(0) 0%(0) 14%(1) 7 Oval Biface 8%(5) 8%(5) 3%(2) 3%(2) 65%(40) 5%(3) 3%(2) 5%(3) 62 Perferator 27%(3) 9%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 64%(7) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 11 Scraper 9%(1) 36%(4) 0%(0) 9%(1) 27%(3) 0%(0) 0%(0) 18%(2) 11 Stemmed Blade 0%(0) 13%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 63%(5) 13%(1) 0%(0) 13%(1) 8 Tranchet Adze 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2 Triangular Biface 0%(0) 33%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 67%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Uniface 9%(2) 9%(2) 4%(1) 0%(0) 65%(15) 9%(2) 0%(0) 4%(1) 23 Utilized Flakes 9%(17) 20%(38) 3%(5) 6%(12) 44%(82) 4%(7) 5%(10) 8%(15) 186 Total 8%(37) 17%(80) 3%(13) 5%(23) 50%(233) 3%(15) 4%(20) 10%(46) 445
Table B2: Number of Breaks by Tool Type
Tool Type Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge Fire
Cracked Lateral Crescent Irregular/Fragment Natural Total
Breaks Total Tools
Abrader 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Burin 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Burin Spall 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 Chopper 12 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 6 18 Core 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 1 23 39 Discoidal 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 Drill 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Expedient Biface 5 14 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 21 27 Utilized Fragment 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 11 11 Gouge 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hammerstone 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 9 Lenticular 2 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 14 Macro-flake 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 7 Oval Biface 2 46 1 2 0 6 0 0 7 0 62 62 Perferator 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 11
59
Tool Type Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge Fire Cracked Lateral Crescent Irregular/
Fragment Natural Total Breaks
Total Tools
Scraper 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 7 11 Stemmed Blade 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 8 Tranchet Adze 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Triangular Biface 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 Uniface 6 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 23 Util. Flake 63 92 5 2 3 6 2 1 15 2 128 186 Total 130 199 12 6 4 20 4 1 68 3 321 445
Table B3: Number of Incidences of Edge Damage Categorized by Tool Type
Tool Type Batter Chipping Dulling/Polish Striations Total
Abrader (3) 2 1 0 0 3 Burin (1) 0 0 0 0 0 Burin Spall (3) 2 2 0 0 4 Chopper (18) 12 10 6 2 30 Core (39) 22 1 0 0 23 Discoidal (4) 3 2 0 0 5 Drill (2) 0 1 2 0 3 Expedient Biface (27) 20 16 5 1 42 Utilized Fragment (11) 3 7 3 0 13 Gouge (1) 0 1 1 1 3 Hammerstone (9) 8 0 0 0 8 Lenticular (14) 6 8 0 0 14 Macro-flake (7) 4 3 1 0 8 Oval Biface (62) 50 29 14 2 95 Perferator (11) 2 9 4 0 15 Scraper (11) 4 9 4 0 17 Stemmed Blade (8) 7 4 0 0 11 Tranchet Adze (2) 2 0 0 0 2 Triangular Biface (3) 0 3 0 0 3 Uniface (23) 12 15 2 0 29 Utilized Flake (186) 27 150 71 6 254 Total 186 271 113 12 582
60
Table B4: Number of Recycling Incidences by Tool Type
Tool Pressure Flake Resharpening Retouch ReuseNumber of Tools
with Multiple Wear Types
Total
Abrader (3) 0 1 0 3 1 5 Burin (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burin Spall (3) 0 1 1 1 1 4 Chopper (18) 1 9 0 2 9 21 Core (39) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Discoidal (4) 0 2 0 1 1 4 Drill (2) 0 0 1 0 1 2 Expedient Biface (27) 0 7 2 1 14 24 Utilized Fragment (11) 0 2 3 2 2 9 Gouge (1) 1 1 0 0 1 3 Hammerstone (9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lenticular (14) 1 2 1 0 4 8 Macro Flake (7) 0 1 0 1 2 4 Oval Biface (62) 0 20 14 10 28 72 Perforator (11) 0 0 3 0 2 5 Scraper (11) 0 6 0 1 6 13 Stemmed Blade (8) 1 2 1 0 2 6 Tranchet Flake (1) 0 1 0 0 0 1 Tranchet Adze (2) 0 1 0 0 0 1 Triangular Biface (3) 1 0 0 0 0 1 Uniface (23) 0 10 7 3 8 28 Utilized Flakes (186) 10 31 19 1 64 125
Totals 17 97 54 26 124 336
61
Table B5: Percent of Fire Damage by Tool Type
Tool Type Number Fire Damaged
Total Number
Percent with Fire Damage
Abrader 0 3 0% Burin 0 1 0% Burin Spall 0 3 0% Chopper 2 18 11% Core 8 39 21% Discoidal 1 4 25% Drill 0 2 0% Expedient Biface 6 27 22% Utilized Fragment 2 11 18% Gouge 0 1 0% Hammerstone 2 9 22% Lenticular Biface 1 14 7% Macro-flake 2 7 29% Oval Biface 14 62 23% Perferator 4 11 36% Scraper 2 11 18% Stemmed Blade 1 8 13% Tranchet Adze 0 2 0% Triangular Biface 2 3 67% Uniface 5 23 22% Utilized Flakes 28 186 15%
Total 87 445 18%
62
Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site
Table C1: Showing the Density of Tools for Each Excavated Subop Area
Subop Number of Tools
Area Excavated (m²) Tools/m²
2 5 20 0.25 3 9 20 0.45 5 69 43.6 1.58 7 28 28 1 8 138 70 1.97 9 3 4 0.75
10 4 4 1 11 2 2 1 12 36 77 0.47 13 13 8 1.63 14 21 34.7 0.6 15 5 4 1.25 16 14 17 0.82 17 50 15 3.33 18 19 8 2.38 20 23 16.25 1.42
Total 439 371.55 1.18
Table C2: Area distribution for Manufacturing Related Lithics by Subop
Subop Number of Tools Artifacts/m²
2 0 0 3 1 0.05 5 16 0.37 7 2 0.07 8 20 0.29 9 0 0
10 0 0 11 0 0 12 11 0.14 13 0 0 14 4 0.12 15 2 0.5 16 2 0.12 17 15 1 18 1 0.13 20 4 0.25
63
Table C3: Bifacial Tool Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 8
Tool type Number of
Tools in Subop 5
Tools/m² Number of
Tools in Subop 8
Tools/m²
Chopper 3 0.07 6 0.09 Discoidal 1 0.02 1 0.01 Expedient Biface 5 0.11 7 0.10
Gouge 0 0.00 1 0.01 Lenticular 0 0.00 2 0.03 Oval Biface 5 0.14 23 0.33 Tranchet Adze 0 0.00 2 0.03 Triangular 1 0.02 1 0.01 Total: 16 0.37 43 0.61
Table C4: Tool Density Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 12
Tool Type Number of Tools in Subop 5 Tools/m²
Number of Tools in
Subop 12 Tools/m²
Burin 0 0.00 0 0.00 Burin Spall 1 0.02 1 0.01 Drill 1 0.02 0 0.00 Utilized Fragments 3 0.07 1 0.01
Perforator 3 0.07 1 0.01 Scraper 0 0.00 0 0.00 Stem. Blade 1 0.02 2 0.03 Uniface 3 0.07 1 0.01 Util. Flk 31 0.71 8 0.10 Total: 43 0.99 14 0.18
64
Table C5: Material Distribution by Subop
Subop Burned Chalced/blends Colha Patinated Quartzite Local/other Total No Provenience 0 1 3 0 0 2 6 Subop 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 Subop 3 0 3 6 0 0 1 10 Subop 5 5 27 30 2 4 7 75 Subop 7 4 7 17 0 1 0 29 Subop 8 12 22 75 8 6 17 140 Subop 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Subop 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 Subop 11 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Subop 12 2 12 20 0 2 5 41 Subop 13 1 2 9 0 0 1 13 Subop 14 0 7 9 2 1 3 22 Subop 15 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 Subop 16 0 3 12 0 0 0 15 Subop 17 5 11 26 0 4 8 54 Subop 18 0 10 7 0 0 2 19 Subop 20 4 4 13 1 1 1 24
Table C6: Area Distribution for Oval Bifaces
Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 2 0.10 3 2 0.1 5 6 0.14 7 3 0.11 8 23 0.33 9 0 0.00
10 2 0.5 11 0 0.00 12 4 0.05 13 1 0.13 14 4 0.12 15 0 0.00 16 1 0.06 17 8 0.53 18 2 0.25 20 3 0.18
65
Table C7: Area Distribution for Expedient Bifaces
Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 1 0.05 3 2 0.1 5 5 0.11 7 0 0 8 7 0.1 9 0 0
10 1 0.25 11 0 0 12 4 0.05 13 2 0.25 14 2 0.06 15 0 0 16 1 0.06 17 0 0 18 1 0.13 20 0 0
Table C8: Area Distribution For Utilized Flakes
Subop Number of tools Tools/m²
2 0 3 1 0.05 5 30 0.69 7 13 0.46 8 61 0.87 9 2 0.5
10 1 0.25 11 2 1 12 8 0.1 13 6 0.75 14 8 0.23 15 2 0.5 16 8 0.47 17 23 0.65 18 8 1 20 12 0.74
66
Table C9: Area Distribution for Unifaces
Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 0 0 3 1 0.05 5 3 0.07 7 4 0.14 8 7 0.1 9 1 0.25
10 0 0 11 0 0 12 1 0.01 13 1 0.13 14 0 0 15 0 0 16 0 0 17 3 0.2 18 1 0.13 20 1 0.06
Table C10: Percentage of Raw Material found at Each Subop
Subop Burned Chalcedony and Blends Colha Patinated Quartzite Local/Other Total
NumberSurface/ no prov. 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 6
Subop 2 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5
Subop 3 0.0% 30.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10
Subop 5 6.7% 36.0% 40.0% 2.7% 5.3% 9.3% 75 Subop 7 13.8% 24.1% 58.6% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 29 Subop 8 8.6% 15.7% 53.6% 5.7% 4.3% 12.1% 140 Subop 9 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 Subop 10 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 Subop 11 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 Subop 12 4.9% 29.3% 48.8% 0.0% 4.9% 12.2% 41 Subop 13 7.7% 15.4% 69.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 13 Subop 14 0.0% 31.8% 40.9% 9.1% 4.5% 13.6% 22 Subop 15 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 Subop 16 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15 Subop 17 9.3% 20.4% 48.1% 0.0% 7.4% 14.8% 54 Subop 18 0.0% 52.6% 36.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 19 Subop 20 16.7% 16.7% 54.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 24 Total 7.3% 24.4% 50.7% 3.2% 4.3% 10.1% 467
67
Table C11: Area Distribution of Tools with Fire Damage
Subop Number of tools with Fire Damage Tools/m²
2 1 0.05 3 1 0.05 5 13 0.30 7 11 0.39 8 26 0.37 9 0 0.00
10 2 0.50 11 0 0.00 12 6 0.08 13 3 0.38 14 4 0.12 15 0 0.00 16 1 0.06 17 9 0.60 18 3 0.38 20 7 0.43
Total 87 0.23
68
Appendix D: Illustrations
Illustration D1: Area Map of Northern Belize and Site of Laguna de On
69
Illustration D2: Photograph of a Discoidal from Laguna de On Island
Illustration D3: Photograph of a Broken Stemmed Blade from Laguna de On Island
70
Illustration D4: Drawing of a Tranchet Adze (Drawn by D. Baily, provided by M. Masson)
71
Illustration D5: Photograph of a Broken Triangular Biface from Laguna de On
Island
Illustration D6: Drawing of a Triangular Biface (Drawn by A. Deane, provided M. Masson)
72
Illustration D7: Photograph of Broken Lenticular Bifaces from Laguna de On
Island
Illustration D8: Photograph of Broken Oval Bifaces from Laguna de On Island
73
Illustration D9: Photograph of Expedient Bifaces from Laguna de On Island
Illustration D10: Photograph of Choppers from Laguna de On Island
74
Illustration D11: Photograph of Unifaces from Laguna de On Island
Illustration D12: Photograph of a Drill Fragment from Laguna de On Island
75
Illustration D13: Photograph of Scraper Fragments from Laguna de On Island
Illustration D14: Photograph of Hammerstones from Laguna de On Island
76
Illustration D15: Photograph of Abraders from Laguna de On Island
Illustration D16: Photograph of Cores from Laguna de On Island
77
Illustration D17: Photograph of Utilized Flakes from Laguna de On Island
78
Illustration D18: Topographic Map of Laguna de On Island (provided by M. Masson)
79
Database Legend Lot: SRF=surface find Tool: ABR=Abrader BRN=Burin BRNS=Burin Spall CHPR=Chopper DISC=Discoidal DRIL=Drill EXBF=Expedient Biface UFBL=Utilized Flake Blade UFLK=Utilized Flake UFPB=Utilized Flake, Prismatic Blade FRAG=Fragment GOUG=Gouge HAMS=Hammerstone LENT=Lenticular Biface MFLK=Macro Flake OVBF=Oval Biface PERF=Perferator SCRP=Scraper STMB=Stemmed Blade TADZ=Tranchet Adze TRBF=Triangular Biface UNIF=Uniface Material: COLH=Colha Chert CHAL=Chalcedony LOCL=Local unidentified material CHQB=Chalcedony and Quartz blend CHCL=Chalcedony and Colha Chert blend QRTZ=Quartz GRAY=Gray Chert WHTE=White Chert GRAN=Granite LIME=Limestone BURN=Fire damaged, can not identify PTNA=Patinated, can not identify H20D=Water damaged, can not identify OTHR=Other or Unidentified
80
Edge Angle: RA=Resharpening Angle PA=Proximal Angle DA=Distal Angle LA=Lateral Angle LLA=Left Lateral Angle RLA=Right Lateral Angle
81
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 1 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x Edge
An
gle
1 32 12a 7 ABR 73 56 21 CHQB PROX 2 31DA
2 5 4 ABR 45 30 20 COLH PROX 33 110 12e 31 ABR 119 45 28 COLH WHOL 3 55
4 141 8m 114 BRN 32 15 19 LOCL DIST 3 39
5 12k 159 BRNS 24 8 5 COLH MED 3 52
6 91 8c 28 BRNS 53 22 21 COLH WHOL 3 65
7 273 5q 348 BRNS 26 9 8 COLH LAT 3 54LA
8 132 12f 35 CHPR 73 64 34 CHCL WHOL 3 33
9 298 16a 222 CHPR 80 52 24 CHQB FRAG 2 34DA
10 176 7 1 CHPR 60 64 17 COLH WHOL 2 48RA
11 194 7 3 CHPR 82 53 33 COLH WHOL 2 60RA
12 61 12b 33 CHPR 50 72 16 COLH WHOL 1 46
13 115 14a 144 CHPR 40 49 13 COLH WHOL 3 51
14 389 20a 281 CHPR 87 81 31 COLH WHOL 3 32DA
15 144 8a 21 CHPR 74 47 24 COLH FRAG 3 65
16 146 8e 58 CHPR 125 86 59 COLH FRAG 2 32LA
17 148 8h 60 CHPR 32 67 15 COLH FRAG 2 31DA
18 73 8i 81 CHPR 34 33 23 COLH WHOL 1 78
19 94 8k 114 CHPR 84 53 35 COLH WHOL 2 65
20 241 5k 282 CHPR 59 63 18 COLH WHOL 3 59DA
21 150 8i 111 CHPR 100 48 20 GRAY WHOL 222 36 12a 179 CHPR 73 59 27 LOCL WHOL 2 79
23 348 5o 347 CHPR 95 45 29 GRAY FRAG 1 37DA
24 150 12k 113 CHPR 149 96 48 QRTZ WHOL 2 70
25 248 5r 364 CHPR 71 65 41 QRTZ WHOL 3 59DA
26 321 20b 301 CORE 81 50 44 BURN FRAG 227 5c 50 CORE 52 45 40 BURN WHOL 228 17 14f 149 CORE 74 46 32 CHAL FRAG 229 237 17a 256 CORE 56 41 24 CHAL FRAG 230 374 17a 307 CORE 76 57 34 CHAL WHOL 2 46
31 383 17b 264 CORE 46 25 19 CHAL FRAG 332 206 20e 376 CORE 89 103 52 CHAL WHOL 233 401 5fh 288 CORE 78 85 50 CHAL WHOL 234 5n 337 CORE 34 24 11 CHAL WHOL 335 311 5p 352 CORE 43 52 42 CHAL FRAG 236 8i 80 CORE 37 25 14 CHAL FRAG 337 6 8k 93 CORE 96 80 41 CHAL WHOL 238 18 8l 116 CORE 93 60 38 CHAL WHOL 239 12h 5 CORE 28 37 17 CHAL FRAG 340 275 5h 258 CORE 50 49 49 CHCL WHOL 341 99? 61 413 CORE 57 43 21 CHQB FRAG 342 30 8d 137 CORE 40 44 22 CHQB FRAG 243 16 206 CORE 25 17 11 COLH FRAG 144 111 12h 51 CORE 70 73 42 COLH FRAG 245 118 14f 149 CORE 94 66 67 COLH WHOL 246 391 15a 202 CORE 54 53 57 COLH FRAG 3
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 2 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x Edge
An
gle
47 375 17a 301 CORE 68 63 39 COLH FRAG 348 382 17b 267 CORE 31 15 14 COLH FRAG 349 281 20d 338 CORE 84 62 27 COLH WHOL 250 361 5e 347 CORE 27 20 21 COLH DIST 351 268 5fh 288 CORE 34 22 10 COLH FRAG 252 372 5g 240/227 CORE 116 112 80 COLH WHOL 253 385 7abc 295 CORE 51 51 34 COLH FRAG 354 92 8c 32 CORE 51 57 31 COLH WHOL 2 34RA
55 8f 45 CORE 38 33 11 COLH WHOL 256 158 8l 135 CORE 44 36 36 COLH WHOL 257 8m 174 CORE 40 37 19 COLH FRAG 258 164 8m 174 CORE 70 47 22 COLH WHOL 159 410 15g 204 CORE 48 41 26 QRTZ FRAG 360 238 17a 255 CORE 31 19 23 QRTZ FRAG 361 34 8k 130 CORE 74 68 40 QRTZ FRAG 262 218 18 215 CORE 49 52 21 H2OD PROX 263 327 14h 308 CORE 60 42 18 WHTE WHOL 264 43 8m 134 CORE 50 44 20 WHTE FRAG 365 233 5f 229 DISC 111 92 48 CHAL WHOL 2 55LA
66 416 18 394 DISC 84 76 48 COLH WHOL 2 80
67 113 12i 110 DISC 123 86 30 COLH WHOL 3 41
68 31 8i 180 DISC 36 34 20 WHTE FRAG 3 70
69 355 16 206? DRIL 22 22 5 COLH WHOL 3 45
70 5e 218 DRIL 11 9 5 GRAY PROX 3 41
71 180 3 1 EXBF 95 57 28 CHAL WHOL 272 357 18a 209 EXBF 93 68 45 CHAL WHOL 2 74LA
73 17 8g 510 EXBF 28 34 14 CHAL PROX 3 50
74 8m 174 EXBF 51 50 16 CHAL WHOL 3 39RA
75 181 3 6 EXBF 54 60 28 COLH PROX 276 364 14h 320 EXBF 63 42 27 COLH DIST 3 67
77 153 8k 93 EXBF 61 62 38 COLH PROX 3 58LA
78 134 8l 116 EXBF 75 61 30 PTNA PROX 3 44RLA
79 38 8e 57 EXBF 42 47 19 WHTE DIST 3 76
80 169 2 3 EXBF 40 35 9 CHQB DIST 3 39
81 179 5 5 EXBF 55 37 12 CHAL PROX 3 40LA
82 10 4 EXBF 28 27 8 PTNA MED 3 25LA
83 86 8o 187 EXBF 25 35 11 CHAL PROX 3 44, 69PA
84 5a 47 EXBF 28 40 25 CHAL DIST 3 55DA
85 83 12i 110 EXBF 43 54 15 COLH PROX 386 16c 270 EXBF 29 19 10 COLH FRAG 3 50
87 56 8e 30 EXBF 100 82 39 COLH WHOL 388 101 13b 159 EXBF 51 38 18 COLH DIST 3 55DA
89 133 12c 195 EXBF 87 56 37 COLH WHOL 1 52LA
90 96 12p 156 EXBF 54 43 17 COLH FRAG 3 34LA
91 143 5b 90 EXBF 123 53 35 COLH WHOL 2 73LA
92 139 14c 146 EXBF 127 57 23 GRAN DIST 3 31
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 3 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
93 5f 288 EXBF 31 43 16 GRAY MED 3 41LA
94 42 13b 159 EXBF 114 64 27 WHTE STEM 2 50LA
95 346 5j 283 EXBF 77 42 19 GRAY PROX 3 64LA
96 33 12g 176 EXBF 90 69 31 QRTZ PROX 3 40LA
97 188 SRF EXBF 60 56 21 COLH PROX 3 46
98 20e 376 UFBL 38 16 7 BURN WHOL 3 56LA
99 5j 275 UFBL 39 16 4 BURN WHOL 3 13RLA
100 8g 49 UFBL 48 28 8 BURN FRAG 3101 80 12i 82 UFBL 39 22 3 CHAL WHOL 3 7DA
102 368 20c 333 UFBL 38 14 4 CHAL MED 3 35LA
103 308 5k 282 UFBL 23 10 5 CHAL DIST 3 45LA
104 371 5k 286 UFBL 17 15 9 CHAL PROX 3 45
105 10 8a 1 UFBL 42 36 16 CHAL MED 3 46LA
106 94 8i 81 UFBL 23 36 6 CHAL DIST 3 21
107 58 8j 78 UFBL 44 15 4 CHAL WHOL 3 23LA
108 330 5eg 298 UFBL 63 21 5 CHCL WHOL 3 21LA
109 219 18 215 UFBL 23 13 8 CHQB DIST 3 45LA
110 347 5j 283 UFBL 43 16 7 CHQB DIST 2 69LLA, 51RLA
111 397 5m 323 UFBL 10 24 2 CHQB MED 3 14LA
112 5 5 UFBL 41 32 11 COLH MED 3 32LA
113 189 5 4 UFBL 48 20 4 COLH WHOL 3 26LA
114 184 8 9 UFBL 52 62 46 COLH WHOL 2115 360 18 209 UFBL 45 32 7 COLH DIST 3 22LA
116 247 17a 307 UFBL 41 29 4 COLH WHOL 3 15LA
117 400 20a 287 UFBL 26 59 10 COLH DIST 2 40, 76RA
118 5eg 290 UFBL 30 33 6 COLH PROX 3 26RLA
119 334 7abc 295 UFBL 67 38 13 COLH WHOL 3 35LA
120 341 7d 224 UFBL 23 16 8 COLH LAT 3 21
121 7d 224 UFBL 20 23 4 COLH PROX 3 35RLA
122 149 8h 60 UFBL 81 36 13 COLH WHOL 2 35LA
123 162 8m 134 UFBL 80 57 27 COLH WHOL 2 46
124 362 8q 344 UFBL 70 44 21 COLH DIST 3 63LA
125 8l 116 UFBL 57 31 9 LOCL LAT 3 50
126 8m 174 UFBL 41 21 11 LOCL MED 3 35
127 365 14h 320 UFBL 19 26 10 PTNA DIST 3 46, 54RA
128 8j 95 UFBL 27 11 4 PTNA WHOL 3 24
129 165 8m 174 UFBL 52 35 11 PTNA DIST 3 40
130 320 20a 312 UFBL 50 30 13 QRTZ WHOL 2 40LLA
131 303 7d 224 UFBL 41 29 10 QRTZ PROX 3 35LA
132 8l 138 UFBL 34 23 14 QRTZ PROX 3 58
133 285 17 241 UFPB 41 23 5 BURN WHOL 3 19LA
134 266 5fh 288 UFPB 39 47 14 CHAL MED 3 30LLA, 35RLA
135 5l 291 UFPB 43 34 11 CHAL MED 3 28LA
136 292 17 7 UFPB 37 42 15 CHCL DIST 3 30LLA, 37RLA
137 3 6 UFPB 47 28 16 COLH WHOL 3 53LLA, 32RLA
138 199 5 10 UFPB 61 31 10 COLH PROX 3 30LLA, 40RLA
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 4 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
139 295 17 7 UFPB 58 32 10 COLH DIST 2 33LLA, 54RLA
140 289 17 221 UFPB 46 40 9 COLH MED 3 25LLA, 24RLA
141 274 5d 211 UFPB 69 33 6 COLH WHOL 3 22LA
142 121 8a 11 UFPB 41 54 15 COLH PROX 3 38LA
143 124 8c 124 UFPB 40 28 8 COLH MED 3 39LA
144 393 8q 344 UFPB 18 47 16 COLH MED 3 32LA
145 17 221 UFPB 8 14 6 GRAY MED 3 38LA
146 270 17 243 UFPB 49 20 10 QRTZ WHOL 3 36LLA, 60RLA
147 20e 376 FRAG 43 26 17 BURN WHOL 2 52
148 5eg 218 FRAG 44 21 20 BURN FRAG 2 59LLA
149 314 5f 288 FRAG 30 14 7 CHQB WHOL 2 36DA, 43LA
150 60 12a 179 FRAG 26 16 6 COLH FRAG 3 31
151 13b 159 FRAG 48 17 10 COLH STEM 2 53
152 390 15a 202 FRAG 49 35 8 COLH FRAG 3 35
153 208 20e 376 FRAG 52 24 9 COLH FRAG 3 56, 60RA
154 7c 252 FRAG 33 19 10 COLH FRAG 2155 65 8i 80 FRAG 24 14 14 COLH FRAG 3 54
156 344 5l 293 FRAG 49 29 14 QRTZ PROX 3 57LA
157 284 17 389 FRAG 53 36 15 WHTE FRAG 3 48LA
158 123 8c 26 GOUG 79 42 21 COLH WHOL 3 56RLA
159 254 17d 290 HAMS 40 41 16 COLH FRAG 2160 399 5j 315 HAMS 80 68 65 COLH WHOL 2161 8a 11 HAMS 21 23 9 COLH FRAG 3162 8e 58 HAMS 61 47 33 COLH WHOL 2163 8j 79 HAMS 40 29 15 GRAY FRAG 3164 140 12e 31 HAMS 44 49 42 LIME WHOL 1165 8g 56 HAMS 45 42 41 LOCL WHOL 3166 228 17 247 HAMS 83 60 44 QRTZ WHOL 2167 SRF HAMS 56 54 50 OTHR WHOL 1168 11 8j 124 LENT 107 34 10 LOCL WHOL 3 25LA
169 8b 8 LENT 39 29 6 BURN LAT 3 49
170 192 3 1 LENT 20 22 8 CHAL PROX 3 92LA
171 17 256 LENT 35 25 11 CHAL DIST 3 31LA
172 15 12a 179 LENT 32 31 7 CHAL MED 3 21LA
173 14e 148 LENT 17 25 6 CHAL DIST 3 18LA
174 2 1 LENT 155 39 11 COLH WHOL 3 30LA
175 304 17 7 LENT 74 50 14 COLH PROX 3 32LLA, 36RLA
176 216 18 215 LENT 65 40 11 COLH PROX 3 51, 35RA
177 112 12i 67 LENT 28 7 9 COLH PROX 3 40LA
178 414 20e 376 LENT 44 35 9 COLH PROX 3 19LA
179 47 7a 171 LENT 129 40 13 COLH WHOL 3 48
180 SRF LENT 38 28 10 OTHR PROX 3 35LA
181 199 14a 144 LENT 29 34 12 GRAY MED 3 52LA
182 217 17a 256 MFLK 72 47 20 COLH WHOL 3 54LLA, 36RLA
183 213 17c 279 MFLK 60 48 23 COLH DIST 1184 8j 95 MFLK 48 42 22 COLH FRAG 3
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 5 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
185 8m 174 MFLK 32 43 15 COLH FRAG 3 65DA
186 246 8p 380 MFLK 71 62 27 COLH WHOL 3 76DA
187 229 17 247 MFLK 49 42 18 WHTE FRAG 3188 12a 179 MFLK 39 39 14 CHAL MED 3 35LA
191 7d 224 OVBF 28 19 6 BURN DIST 3 35, 35LA
192 8i 91 OVBF 41 36 9 BURN PROX 3 30LA
193 20e 376 OVBF 28 28 14 BURN PROX 3 66
194 8d 380 OVBF 43 35 12 BURN MED 3 32LA
195 5 3 OVBF 74 39 15 BURN PROX 3 32LA
196 222 18 215 OVBF 26 15 8 CHAL PROX 3 75
197 25 12a 179 OVBF 46 50 19 CHAL PROX 3 36LA
198 4 14a 144 OVBF 30 27 14 CHAL FRAG 3 42LA
199 5 5b 54 OVBF 105 61 30 CHAL PROX 2 64LA
200 195 3 3 OVBF 37 34 11 CHAL PROX 3 35
201 187 10 3 OVBF 30 42 14 CHCL MED 2 36LA
202 201 10 3 OVBF 98 56 23 CHCL PROX 2 48LA
203 14h 309 OVBF 29 24 7 CHQB FRAG 3 28
204 257 5h 258 OVBF 17 36 12 CHQB MED 3 31LA
205 109 2 1 OVBF 35 40 13 COLH PROX 3 35LA
206 182 8 1 OVBF 43 50 17 COLH MED 3 42LA
207 363 16 206 OVBF 51 31 15 COLH PROX 3 64LA
208 291 17 221 OVBF 70 38 19 COLH PROX 3 60LLA, 55RLA
209 286 17 241 OVBF 25 14 7 COLH PROX 3210 212 17 241 OVBF 65 51 32 COLH DIST 3 54LLA, 60RLA
211 232 17 243 OVBF 48 43 21 COLH PROX 3 54LLA, 59RLA
212 242 17 379 OVBF 30 48 16 COLH MED 3 38LLA, 41RLA
213 282 17 389 OVBF 36 70 18 COLH DIST 3 35
214 356 18 209 OVBF 72 68 23 COLH DIST 3 60DA, 42LA
215 149 12a 179 OVBF 173 67 23 COLH WHOL 3 41LA
216 9#? 13b 159 OVBF 35 19 11 COLH FRAG 3 55
217 116 14c 148 OVBF 54 45 13 COLH DIST 3 37
218 7b 217 OVBF 134 67 32 COLH WHOL 2 54LA
219 262 7c 262 OVBF 84 54 17 COLH MED 3 42LA
220 108 8d 34 OVBF 49 40 16 COLH PROX 3 37LA
221 50 8m 134 OVBF 30 43 15 COLH DIST 3 62
222 398 8p 355 OVBF 20 31 14 COLH PROX 3 40LA
223 178 2 2 OVBF 65 60 28 COLH DIST 3 70, 54RA
224 3 6 OVBF 29 41 16 COLH MED 3 47LA
225 177 5 5 OVBF 17 26 8 COLH PROX 3 21LA
226 172 8 2 OVBF 64 25 12 COLH WHOL 3 52LA
227 174 8 5 OVBF 62 50 24 COLH MED 3 52LA
228 196 8 5 OVBF 34 44 16 COLH MED 3 38
229 8 7 OVBF 73 49 21 COLH PROX 2 45
230 310 17 221 OVBF 26 37 14 COLH PROX 3 40LA
231 272 20e 370 OVBF 76 39 20 COLH PROX 3 55LA
232 207 20e 376 OVBF 90 73 35 COLH DIST 2 45, 40RA
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 6 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
233 120 8c 27 OVBF 47 57 21 COLH MED 3234 71 8c 32 OVBF 26 17 9 COLH PROX 3 45LA
235 107 8c 32 OVBF 49 40 14 COLH MED 3 44LA
236 125 8d 34 OVBF 78 54 21 COLH DIST 2 37LA
237 106 8e 28 OVBF 33 47 18 COLH DIST 3 41LA
238 109 8e 57 OVBF 50 55 21 COLH DIST 3 53LA
239 57 8i 81 OVBF 40 44 15 COLH MED 2 32LA
240 155 8k 130 OVBF 46 51 15 COLH MED 3 45LA
241 8k 130 OVBF 45 56 24 COLH DIST 3 51
242 75 8m 134 OVBF 49 42 14 COLH MED 3 32LA
243 78 8m 174 OVBF 56 36 14 COLH PROX 3 31LA
244 175 SRF OVBF 53 34 19 COLH DIST 3 44DA
245 37 12g 179 OVBF 84 53 19 GRAY PROX 3 45LA
246 230 14h 310 OVBF 18 32 11 PTNA FRAG 2247 5c 86 OVBF 10 13 7 PTNA DIST 3 39LA
248 132 8j 95 OVBF 33 27 14 PTNA FRAG 3249 345 5l 293 OVBF 26 20 16 QRTZ LAT 3250 8d 134 OVBF 18 44 19 QRTZ MED 3 61LA
251 17 7 OVBF 40 38 17 H2OD PROX 3 60LLA, 52RLA
252 98 12i 82 OVBF 67 57 19 H2OD DIST 3 30LA
253 12k 159 PERF 33 21 5 BURN MED 3 23LA
254 5f 229 PERF 39 18 8 BURN WHOL 3 51LA
255 8a 1 PERF 56 32 14 BURN WHOL 3 39LA
256 227 18 215 PERF 37 27 5 CHAL WHOL 3 22
257 3 3 PERF 58 24 6 COLH WHOL 3 62LA
258 297 16 14 PERF 22 34 6 COLH WHOL 3 40
259 224 18 215 PERF 32 33 9 COLH DIST 3 47,70RA,31DA
260 84 13a 158 PERF 24 38 4 COLH WHOL 3 36LA
261 329 5eg 298 PERF 24 35 7 COLH WHOL 3 51DA, 30LLA
262 5k 282 PERF 31 14 6 COLH WHOL 3 49LA
263 256 7c 252 PERF 50 36 11 COLH WHOL 3 34
264 8k 114 SCRP 32 19 16 BURN DIST 3 61
265 220 18 220 SCRP 66 50 15 CHAL WHOL 2 55
266 27 13a 158 SCRP 26 18 6 CHAL LAT 2 55
267 18a 394 SCRP 26 23 17 CHAL FRAG 3 83
268 302 17 212 SCRP 36 24 9 COLH WHOL 3 45DA
269 264 24 378 SCRP 39 17 9 COLH FRAG 3 50DA
270 129 8g 49 SCRP 67 58 20 COLH WHOL 2 57
271 17a 307 SCRP 38 19 9 OTHR WHOL 3 69DA
272 170 8 9 SCRP 50 39 17 OTHR WHOL 3 70
273 293 7b 8 SCRP 61 27 11 CHAL FRAG 2 71
274 263 7c 219 SCRP 33 15 11 CHQB LAT 3 44
275 148 12a ? STMB 176 50 19 CHAL WHOL 3 53, 71RA
276 173 2 1 STMB 55 31 21 COLH PROX 3 61LA
277 95 12b 10 STMB 66 37 16 COLH STEM 3278 119 14f 149 STMB 64 25 17 COLH STEM 3 72
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 7 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
An
gle
279 279 5k 282 STMB 87 60 13 COLH PROX 3 24LA
280 168 8m 174 STMB 41 31 18 COLH PROX 3 59LA
281 8 10 STMB 39 23 17 PTNA DIST 3 69
282 3 1 STMB 11 18 9 OTHR PROX 3302 66 8k 114 TADZ 71 62 23 COLH DIST 3303 131 8m 134 TADZ 55 45 20 COLH MED 3 55LA
305 5 10 TRBF 43 52 11 CHAL PROX 3 27LA
306 52 12a 7 TRBF 83 64 13 COLH WHOL 2 29
307 85 8c 77 TRBF 67 46 15 COLH FRAG 3 59
308 264 7c 219 UNIF 37 31 11 BURN DIST 2 53LA
309 8d 34 UNIF 21 19 6 BURN DIST 3 39LA
310 395 20c 349 UNIF 51 51 12 CHAL LAT 3 28RA
311 14 8k 114 UNIF 29 23 8 CHAL LAT 3 24
312 260 7b 208 UNIF 104 35 18 CHCL WHOL 3 46
313 46 7a 171 UNIF 32 46 15 COLH PROX 2 66RA, 49LA
314 200 9 1 UNIF 127 75 34 COLH WHOL 3 70LA
315 198 3 6 UNIF 81 45 25 COLH WHOL 2316 7 208 UNIF 32 11 7 COLH LAT 3 54
317 358 18 209 UNIF 43 51 28 COLH MED 2318 114 13a 158 UNIF 39 43 12 COLH PROX 2 36RLA
319 245 17a 249 UNIF 35 62 23 COLH DIST 3 30
320 17a 256 UNIF 33 29 15 COLH FRAG 2 46DA
321 380 17b 264 UNIF 34 37 15 COLH PROX 3 62PA
322 267 5fh 288 UNIF 39 27 14 COLH PROX 2 75LA
323 265 5fh 288 UNIF 62 35 18 COLH WHOL 3 43LA
324 72 8d 34 UNIF 49 21 15 COLH LAT 3 46LA
325 156 8k 130 UNIF 132 64 41 COLH WHOL 2 49DA, 71LA
326 76 8m 134 UNIF 12 35 14 COLH MED 3 45
327 90 8m 134 UNIF 46 36 14 COLH WHOL 3 50LLA, 26RLA
328 161 8m 134 UNIF 35 31 17 PTNA LAT 2 34
329 394 5n 343 UNIF 123 65 47 PTNA WHOL 3330 136 12p 156 UNIF 94 53 36 H2OD WHOL 2 54DA
331 10 39 UFLK 40 43 7 BURN WHOL 3 22DA
332 17 243 UFLK 26 22 5 BURN PROX 2 26, 60RA
333 17 249 UFLK 19 33 9 BURN DIST 3 27
334 204 12k 113 UFLK 86 78 23 BURN DIST 2 57PA
335 13b 159 UFLK 64 23 11 BURN FRAG 3 43RLA
336 17a 249 UFLK 24 35 9 BURN DIST 3 39RA
337 244 17a 249 UFLK 14 33 9 BURN DIST 3338 7c 252 UFLK 26 24 10 BURN FRAG 3 51
339 8c 26 UFLK 43 41 11 BURN PROX 3 28LA
340 8k 93 UFLK 19 41 9 BURN DIST 3 60
341 8k 130 UFLK 24 34 11 BURN FRAG 3 70
342 89 8l 138 UFLK 34 30 5 BURN WHOL 3 33
343 183 8 2 UFLK 46 34 10 CHAL WHOL 2 25
344 186 11 2 UFLK 41 32 12 CHAL WHOL 2 24LA
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 8 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
345 297 16 254 UFLK 29 33 29 CHAL WHOL 3 26RLA
346 239 17 256 UFLK 21 34 7 CHAL WHOL 3 38DA, 41LLA
347 223 18 215 UFLK 27 47 10 CHAL DIST 3 39LA
348 226 18 215 UFLK 27 45 7 CHAL WHOL 2 20DA
349 221 18 215 UFLK 54 45 6 CHAL WHOL 3 23LA
350 259 12d 305 UFLK 29 30 5 CHAL DIST 3 27DA
351 13 12p 169 UFLK 25 36 5 CHAL WHOL 3 60RA
352 28 13b 159 UFLK 19 29 8 CHAL MED 3 21LA
353 325 14h 308 UFLK 52 66 12 CHAL WHOL 2 41
354 234 15b 205 UFLK 59 75 14 CHAL WHOL 1 56LA
355 421 17a 307 UFLK 18 39 3 CHAL WHOL 3 20LA
356 379 17b 264 UFLK 34 35 5 CHAL WHOL 3 22LA
357 342 17c 265 UFLK 37 15 8 CHAL WHOL 2 42DA
358 398 17d 31 UFLK 48 28 6 CHAL WHOL 2 45RA, 30LA
359 8d 34 UFLK 15 27 3 CHAL DIST 3 12DA
360 93 8d 34 UFLK 21 46 9 CHAL MED 3 39
361 8i 80 UFLK 57 55 19 CHAL WHOL 1 72
362 12 8k 130 UFLK 28 42 8 CHAL PROX 3 20LA
363 1 8l 142 UFLK 43 48 11 CHAL DIST 2 21
364 3 8m 174 UFLK 54 59 9 CHAL WHOL 2 42
365 166 8m 174 UFLK 29 39 10 CHAL WHOL 2 39
366 59 12a 7 UFLK 42 56 15 CHCL WHOL 3 30LA
367 381 17b 264 UFLK 45 51 9 CHCL FRAG 2 32
368 335 7d 224 UFLK 35 14 9 CHCL FRAG 2 51
369 301 16 14 UFLK 25 31 10 CHQB PROX 3 41LLA
370 359 18 209 UFLK 40 61 7 CHQB WHOL 3 22LA
371 14h 309 UFLK 26 24 7 CHQB FRAG 3 21
372 23 8d 34 UFLK 32 47 7 CHQB WHOL 2 20
373 39 8e 58 UFLK 41 45 14 CHQB WHOL 2 42
374 2 8l 116 UFLK 57 58 16 CHQB WHOL 2 41, 62RA
375 324 18a 394 UFLK 23 64 12 OTHR DIST 3 34LA
376 202 9 1 UFLK 30 22 6 COLH WHOL 3 26LA
377 185 9 4 UFLK 62 31 11 COLH WHOL 2 35
378 354 16 206 UFLK 23 26 10 COLH FRAG 3 46
379 228 18 215 UFLK 31 33 7 COLH FRAG 3 35
380 70 12i 110 UFLK 58 87 30 COLH WHOL 2 45
381 41 12i 110 UFLK 79 94 34 COLH WHOL 2 48
382 203 13a 128 UFLK 71 49 13 COLH WHOL 1 26, 53RA
383 13a 158 UFLK 26 25 8 COLH LAT 3 48LA
384 22 13b 159 UFLK 17 20 5 COLH PROX 2 47
385 100 13b 159 UFLK 20 30 7 COLH DIST 3 35LA
386 117 14f 149 UFLK 51 52 28 COLH WHOL 2 76
387 376 14h 309 UFLK 21 35 8 COLH WHOL 3 43
388 377 14h 309 UFLK 47 25 10 COLH WHOL 3 28
389 14h 310 UFLK 37 42 10 COLH DIST 3 27
390 235 15b 205 UFLK 57 25 10 COLH LAT 3 40RA
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 9 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
391 334 16a 234 UFLK 27 43 9 COLH PROX 3 23LLA
392 16b 254 UFLK 42 20 7 COLH DIST 3 54
393 392 16c 269 UFLK 53 43 8 COLH WHOL 3 33LLA
394 420 16c 269 UFLK 31 39 11 COLH PROX 3 49LA
395 351 16c 270 UFLK 44 77 10 COLH WHOL 2 39
396 243 17a 249 UFLK 22 42 7 COLH MED 3 22LLA, 27RLA
397 253 17d 290 UFLK 25 20 27 COLH PROX 2 36LLA, 52RLA
398 258 17d 305 UFLK 45 31 9 COLH WHOL 3 43LA
399 317 20a 312 UFLK 49 58 12 COLH WHOL 3 28
400 367 20c 333 UFLK 46 37 6 COLH WHOL 3 19
401 20d 338 UFLK 37 48 14 COLH PROX 2 46
402 306 20e 370 UFLK 34 42 12 COLH PROX 3 84
403 209 20e 376 UFLK 32 27 4 COLH FRAG 3 16
404 20e 384 UFLK 19 46 18 COLH FRAG 3 69
405 211 7b 217 UFLK 63 46 16 COLH WHOL 3 49LLA
406 401? 7c 219 UFLK 48 22 12 COLH WHOL 3 32
407 340 7d 224 UFLK 33 26 6 COLH WHOL 3 23
408 22 8a 1 UFLK 52 32 7 COLH WHOL 3 23DA, 74LLA
409 105 8c 27 UFLK 51 37 21 COLH WHOL 2 38LA
410 145 8c 27 UFLK 51 36 15 COLH WHOL 2 59LA
411 68 8c 28 UFLK 76 44 19 COLH WHOL 3 32LLA
412 102 8c 88 UFLK 43 52 15 COLH WHOL 2 41
413 103 8d 134 UFLK 46 39 11 COLH FRAG 3 39
414 147 8f 46 UFLK 24 34 8 COLH WHOL 2 40
415 8i 111 UFLK 20 27 6 COLH FRAG 3 49
416 151 8j 78 UFLK 39 44 16 COLH DIST 2 65PA, 55LA
417 8j 78 UFLK 44 28 15 COLH DIST 1 50LA
418 104 8j 95 UFLK 39 79 41 COLH WHOL 2 31
419 154 8k 93 UFLK 33 39 12 COLH WHOL 3 29
420 157 8l 123 UFLK 25 44 11 COLH WHOL 3 59
421 127 8l 138 UFLK 40 49 17 COLH DIST 3 44
422 69 8l 138 UFLK 46 28 10 COLH WHOL 2 20LLA
423 160 8m 134 UFLK 64 52 14 COLH WHOL 2 61RLA
424 77 8m 174 UFLK 35 35 9 COLH WHOL 2 35
425 167 8m 174 UFLK 29 38 13 COLH MED 3 28
426 163 8m 174 UFLK 43 59 20 COLH PROX 2 29LA
427 8a 21 UFLK 57 45 13 OTHR WHOL 2 40
428 8j 95 UFLK 33 44 33 OTHR FRAG 1429 35 8m 174 UFLK 33 42 14 OTHR WHOL 3 24DA
430 8l 142 UFLK 51 35 9 OTHR WHOL 3 28
431 205 8l 135 UFLK 56 44 13 OTHR WHOL 3 16
432 20e 335 UFLK 28 15 5 LOCL LAT 3 20
433 142 8m 174 UFLK 67 35 17 LOCL WHOL 3 45
434 231 11f 46 UFLK 28 50 15 PTNA DIST 3 23LLA, 60RLA
435 388 20a 281 UFLK 24 24 7 PTNA WHOL 3 48
436 8f 45 UFLK 23 35 15 PTNA FRAG 1 38
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 10 of 10
Tool
#
Max #
Subo
p
Lot
Tool
Leng
th
Widt
h
Thick
Mater
ial
Portio
n
Corte
x
Edge
Ang
le
437 135 8l 138 UFLK 48 53 7 PTNA LAT 3 35
438 418 14h 309 UFLK 49 67 18 QRTZ WHOL 2 41RA
439 290 17a 256 UFLK 11 21 6 QRTZ FRAG 3 41DA
440 40 8k 114 UFLK 97 49 19 QRTZ FRAG 3 28RA
441 8l 116 UFLK 27 55 10 QRTZ WHOL 2 24
442 287 8p 380 UFLK 62 79 22 QRTZ PROX 2 55RA
443 300 17c 265 UFLK 41 31 6 OTHR FRAG 3 25
444 214 17c 279 UFLK 21 28 8 OTHR DIST 3 14DA
445 7c 219 UFLK 29 18 11 BURN FRAG 3 27
446 350 5eg 226 UFLK 35 25 7 CHAL DIST 2 32LA
447 328 5f 248 UFLK 37 46 13 CHAL WHOL 3 30LA
448 236 5g 233 UFLK 41 65 10 CHAL WHOL 2 25
449 307 5k 282 UFLK 32 29 6 CHAL WHOL 2 23LA
450 353 7ab 266 UFLK 17 21 4 CHAL WHOL 3 8
451 280 7abc 339 UFLK 25 51 6 CHAL DIST 3 20RA
452 299 5f 229 UFLK 43 48 11 CHQB WHOL 3 12DA
453 417 5f 288 UFLK 41 41 9 CHQB WHOL 3 42LA
454 309 5k 282 UFLK 27 18 5 CHQB WHOL 3 10DA
455 12p 169 UFLK 20 25 4 COLH DIST 3 16LA
456 332 5eg 298 UFLK 66 37 8 COLH WHOL 2 27RLA
457 288 5f 237 UFLK 105 52 7 COLH WHOL 3 21LA
458 312 5f 288 UFLK 27 28 6 COLH DIST 3 50RLA
459 259 5fh 288 UFLK 64 41 20 COLH WHOL 2 38LA
460 353 5g 240 UFLK 74 66 15 COLH WHOL 2 22LA
461 5k 286 UFLK 34 20 9 COLH FRAG 3462 396 5m 323 UFLK 59 44 6 COLH WHOL 3 29LA
463 339 7a 224 UFLK 33 23 4 COLH WHOL 1 20
464 333 5eg 298 UFLK 71 38 8 COLH DIST 2 40RLA
465 352 5m 311 UFLK 17 26 4 OTHR DIST 3 25LA
466 313 5f 288 UFLK 47 40 12 QRTZ WHOL 3 32DA
467 290 5e 218 UFLK 56 80 13 OTHR WHOL 2 19RLA
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 1 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Lo
catio
n
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
1 ABR very heavy batter on lateraledges and on one facet
burin taken off one side
batter marks knocked off one side
snap medial white chalcedony
2 ABR dulled down on edges
biface reused in postclassic
snap haft thick patina
3 ABR batter on all edges
chips on all edges
reused as batterer from heavy damage on left lateral
resharpened on distal, on ventral and dorsal
diagonal distal patina heavy on one end, then fades away to nothing on other end
4 BRN batter on lateraledges
thin narrow flakes taken off
snap medial
5 BRNS light chips on one edge
snap proximal and distal
6 BRNS batter chips knocked off then used again
retouch on unifacial edge
burin lateral made from prepared
macroflake
7 BRNS batter piece is the result of a resharpening episode
edge beveled and dulled
8 CHPR heavy batter impact scars burin knocked off slight burn (probably not from postclassic)
9 CHPR light dulling impact right lateral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 2 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
10 CHPR batter on platform
chips and impact scars ondistal and right lateral edge
11 CHPR batter resharpening on 1 lateral, patina on one side and then resharpened
patina on one side
12 CHPR chips on both lateral edges, impact scars ondistal
distal end half cortex--only
appropriate for rough work
13 CHPR batter hinge fractures all over
dulling end of biface (distal) resharpened into cutting impliment
14 CHPR batter heavy impact scars on edges
pressure flake retouch still visible on left lateral and large resharpening flake taken off on left lateral
evidence for hafting
15 CHPR batter chips, impacts edge serrated speckled patina
16 CHPR batter chopper probably a reused core FRAG
resharpening 90% patina if not reworked somewhat and
used it would just be a core FRAG
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 3 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
17 CHPR chipping on distal
striations on righ tlateral
resharpening on distal because of lack of patina
speckled patina FRAG is distal end of macroflake
18 CHPR batter a few striations
fire damage small nodule burned and made
one edge with steep angle
19 CHPR heavy batter on lateral edges and dorsal/distal tip
impact flakes (also have batter in them)
impact ventral/distal, right lateral
speckled patina cortex platform, piece could have originally been
made a blank and then used
20 CHPR batter resharpened on distal
21 CHPR batter on proximal and laterals (halfting?)
chips dulling some resharpening speckled patina
22 CHPR dulling possible in one spot
resharpened on one corner or possibly damage from platform batter
23 CHPR distal resharpened on distal
hinge distal and dorsal
24 CHPR batter steep edge angle result of resharpening
material makes telling use wear difficult, tool has
characteristincs of SCRPs, but it much to big
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 4 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
25 CHPR probably a blank, only has batter associated with
flaking
26 CORE manufactural batter
burned
27 CORE some batter burned red28 CORE fire shattered29 CORE heavy batter in
one spot20% patina
30 CORE heavy batter on all edges
failure to thin
31 CORE 32 CORE batter on 3
edgesold pre-postclassic core was picked up and attempts were made to shape but were abandoned
90% patina
33 CORE batter34 CORE batter35 CORE fire damage no use wear36 CORE speckled patina
37 CORE manufactural batter
many usable large flakes knocked off,
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 5 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
38 CORE blank, only partially knapped, probably
stopped when found geoid hole
39 CORE batter40 CORE batter41 CORE fire cracked42 CORE 43 CORE batter44 CORE batter fire damage45 CORE batter many large usable
flakes knocked off
46 CORE batter47 CORE burins knocked off
end
48 CORE flake blade core49 CORE manufactural
batterlarge usable flakes were knocked off a
tablet
50 CORE batter fire medial burned red/damaged
51 CORE batter patina except where a couple of flakes were knocked off
52 CORE patina53 CORE batter
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 6 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
54 CORE batter impact scars resharpening55 CORE speckled patina
56 CORE some batter some fire damage 90% patina
57 CORE core FRAG, it is a primary reduction
flake
58 CORE 90% patina59 CORE batter60 CORE 61 CORE many usable large
flakes knocked off,
62 CORE natural medial water damage or weathering aparent
63 CORE manufactural batter
large flakes knocked off
64 CORE light specs of patina, but thick on edge
one edge may be used but looks
more like natural breakage
65 DISC batter heavy on all edges
piece is very chunky
66 DISC very heavy batter around edges
classic tool may have been reused as a chopper
irregular proximal pops and fractures on 1 facet
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 7 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
67 DISC batter on distal and lateral edges
impacts on distal and lateral edges
resharpened(after patinated) attempted, then some batter on distal tip and right lateral
full patina except around edges
made from macroflake with bulb removed
68 DISC manufactural chips
edge sharpened on both facts
snap proximal
69 DRIL chips dulling retouch, pressure flakes
piece seems very worn down
70 DRIL light dulling snap proximal71 EXBF lateral sides impact scar on
distalresharpening flakes off one lateral edge
some cortex on proximal end and both
surfaces
72 EXBF batter on edges snap distal biface was unusually thick
73 EXBF batter some impact scars
snap proximal burned red on edges
rough biface, unusually thick
74 EXBF batter chips all edges resharpened from original flake
5% patina beveled edge, platform flaked out;
tool made from very thick flake
75 EXBF light light snap medial water damage poor materials, break very rough
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 8 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
76 EXBF batter snap medial use wear hard to asses due to hardness of
materal, 'stage 2' with rough facets--probably used as expedient biface
77 EXBF batter on lateraledges
impacts on lateral edges
very thick width, heavy resharpening of lateral edges but no thinning evidence
30% patina very rough tool
78 EXBF batter edge resharpenedbut rough
impact lateral full patina very rough tool, may have been discarded due to material defect
79 EXBF stage one, was shortened probably because of an inclusion and the whole end was knocked off to avoid it
too probably a stage one that was shortened because
they found an inclusion and then the whole end was knocked of to avoid
it
80 EXBF chips dulling retouch mostly on one side
snap distal snap on an inclusion; may be a
blade tip or the proximal end of a
biface
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 9 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
81 EXBF batter chips dulling some resharpening flakes taken off
snap medial
82 EXBF chips retouch fire distal and proximal bulbs popped, piece was fire damaged before patina laid on
patina
83 EXBF batter on end impact scars onlateral edges
end resharpened snap medial lateral edges concave
84 EXBF batter on distal irregular proximal very chunky, may have been used to smash/pulverize
85 EXBF manufactural batter
reworked from regular OVBF
snap haft break halfting notches
86 EXBF chips beveled edges snap medial87 EXBF batter on distal failure to thin, tool
reject, no use evident
beveled on latereals, possibly
resharpened
88 EXBF impacts on lateral edges
snap proximal not much wear on distal probably was resharpened and then haft break caused the tool
use to be discontinued
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 10 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
89 EXBF batter on proximal end
chipping and impacts on distals and laterals
almost all cortex except where sharpened on
edge
90 EXBF batter glassy, burned beveled edge91 EXBF batter heavy patina water damage no wear on distal,
proximal end all cortex, may be an
unused blank
92 EXBF edges dulled irregular proximal93 EXBF batter chipping resharpened on 1
lateralsnap lateral irregular breakage
due to fire damage
94 EXBF chips on left lateral edge
heavy striations on right lateral, ventral
heavy striations on right lateral edge, ventral
beveleing on left lateral ventral edge
impact distal
95 EXBF heavy batter heavy chipping snap one end burned one end possibly reharpened for
hafting
96 EXBF batter impact scars attempt to thin tool on one lateral
snap medial one edge beveled, unusual form, but
well made and shaped
97 EXBF batter hinge fractures from manufacture
snap haft burned on tip biface is plano-convex
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 11 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
98 UFBL light chips hinge distal heavy fire damage on dorsal
90% patina edge wear difficult to determine due to
patination
99 UFBL right lateral dorsal chipping
fire cracked proximal burned to a dark grey, poped bulbs
100 UFBL chipping heavy burning and popped bulbs everywhere, too burned to tell much use wear
101 UFBL light dulling on edges
102 UFBL chipping dulling snap distal and medial
103 UFBL dulling irregular medial/proximal
one facet of dorsal fully patinated, could be PERF
FRAG
104 UFBL batter snap medial/distal105 UFBL batter on lateral
edges and proximal
bifacial thinning continued after snap break
some retouch on laterals and possibly on break
snap proximal fire damaged irregular break on one end
106 UFBL dulling retouch, pressure flakes on 1 remaining original edge
impact distal
107 UFBL dulling retouch on left lateral dorsal and right ventral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 12 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
108 UFBL chips on left lateral edge
one long flake taken off to resharpen whole right lateral edge
cresent distal
109 UFBL impact on distal retouch on left lateral
snap medial left lateral edge broken naturally
110 UFBL edges roughed up
resharpened on leftlateral
diagonal distal
111 UFBL chips on laterals
snap distal and proximal
112 UFBL chipping dulling fire distal and proximal heavy burning, popped bulbs
113 UFBL chipping dulling retouch snap distal hafting notches114 UFBL 80% patina115 UFBL chips, impacts dulling pressure flakes on
right lateral, ventral and left lateral dorsal
snap medial burned on the edges
116 UFBL chips on distal and lateral edges
117 UFBL chips on edges resharpened and retouch
snap right lateral light burn
118 UFBL dulled edges snap medial119 UFBL chips on lateral
edges
120 UFBL chips on left lateral edge and dorsal
snap lateral and proximal
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 13 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
121 UFBL heavy chipping on right lateral edge and light on left lateral edge
snap distal and medial full patina on one corner
122 UFBL dulling on lateral edges
slight striations in notches
snap distal hafting notches
123 UFBL impact scars dulling 40% patina platform flaked off
124 UFBL batter on distal and lateral edges
thickness suggests resharpening from broader piece
snap medial
125 UFBL chips light dulling patina on edges
126 UFBL light chips dulling snap distal distal tip knocked off
127 UFBL chips dulling resharpening on left lateral
snap medial full patina use wear difficult toasses because of
full patina
128 UFBL slight chipping on edge
90% patina primary shaping flake
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 14 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
129 UFBL light chips snap distal full, thick patina wear difficult to determine because
of patina
130 UFBL chipping on left lateral
slight polish snap distal poor material, right lateral edge all
cortex
131 UFBL dulling on lateral edges
snap distal
132 UFBL batter on proximal end (probably attempt to thin)
chips on lateral edges
snap distal
133 UFPB chips on lateral edges (mosty right lat)
resharpening on left lateral edge
30% patina
134 UFPB chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
retouch on left lateral edge
snap 2 on distal and one on proximal
it snapped on distal, then still used until snap again and then proximal end
snaped and use stopped
135 UFPB chipping dulling resharpening on one lateral edge, ventral
burned heavy damage due to fire damage
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 15 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
136 UFPB chips on lateral edges
snap medial distal tip battered off
137 UFPB chips water damaged
138 UFPB chips worn off snap medial edge damage may be due to the
thinness of edges
139 UFPB chips on lateral edges
snap distal cortex on platform
140 UFPB chips and impacts on lateral edges
snap and hing distal and proximal respectively
141 UFPB heavy chipping hinge proximal
142 UFPB chipping on left lateral edge
dulling on left lateral
snap distal and proximal
143 UFPB chips dulling retouch snap and impact proximal and distal respectively
water damage
144 UFPB batter chips dulling snap proximal and distal 5% patina unifacial
145 UFPB chips of off edge
snap proximal and distal
146 UFPB batter on proximal
chips on lateral edges
right lateral resharpening
snap distal
147 FRAG batter chips possibly used has an expedient SCRP
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 16 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
148 FRAG chipping dulling lateral distal may have been used as scrapper
149 FRAG chips resharpening on distal and right lateral
150 FRAG chips slight retouch snap proximal and distal may be FRAG of formal tool
151 FRAG chip major retouch, but no pressure flake
burned, before retouch
152 FRAG light dulling snap laterals(2)153 FRAG chips, impact
scarsdulling resharpening on
both facets, beveled retouch
snap lateral and one end
154 FRAG batter may have been a drill, but hard to tell because of burning
burned
155 FRAG batter on one edge
this FRAG probably knocked off in recycling episode
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 17 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
156 FRAG snap distal cannot determine amount of wear
because the material is so hard, wear appears on
laterals
157 FRAG chipping on right lateral edge
irregular medial
158 GOUG chipping polish striations on dorsal, on the ridge
resharpening and pressure flakes on dorsal distal
impact lateral roughly made on proximal end, but
no use on proximal end(except batter from manufacture)
159 HAMS heavy burning, brakage
160 HAMS very heavy batter
161 HAMS heavy batter FRAG is by-product of impact
162 HAMS batter badly burned163 HAMS heavy batter impact too damaged to tell
164 HAMS batter165 HAMS batter166 HAMS heavy batter on
proximal endMFLK reused as HAMS
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 18 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
167 HAMS batter168 LENT batter on lateral
edgesimpacts on distal
one haft notch
169 LENT fire proximal, distal, lateral
heavy burn, pops on one side
heavy patina on one side
too burned to determine wear
170 LENT probably proximal tip retouched because the very tip is chunky
snap proximal
171 LENT batter chips snap distal plano-convex, inculsions
172 LENT chips pressure flaking on edges
snap proximal and distal
173 LENT light chipping snap proximal and distal FRAG may be part of halft and thus the reason for
break
174 LENT manufactural batter
no use evidence obvious, tool was preasure flaked
175 LENT chips, hinge fractures (manufacture)
snap haft full patina on one facet
176 LENT batter chips resharpeningon distal
irregular distal grey color from water damage
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 19 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
177 LENT snap proximal and distal not much use wear except damage
from manufacture
178 LENT batter chips may have been resharpened from old flake because patina not on edge sharpening flake scars
snap haft
179 LENT chips on lateral edges and distal
on lateral edges and distal end
retouched edges snap proximal break on haft location
180 LENT snap haft extremly fine, high quality material--
exotic?
181 LENT manufactural batter
snap proximal and medial
possible water damaged colha chert
182 MFLK some batter chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
2 ends used for scraping
30% patina water damaged scrapper edge angle=66
183 MFLK manufactural batter
tool never finished due to failure to thin
water damaged
184 MFLK heavy batter on unbroken side
fire proximal heavily burned failure to thin
185 MFLK chips resharpening on one side
65% patina
186 MFLK187 MFLK snap lateral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 20 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
188 MFLK batter on lateraledges
chips on lateral edges
failure to thin snap proximal and distal burned stage 1 MFLK
191 OVBF batter mostly on one lateral edge
retouch on both lateral edges one side retouched then battered heavily
snap distal highly burned, some popped bulbs
192 OVBF batter dulling fire medial fire damage tool is completely white, probably
from fire damage
193 OVBF batter snap medial fire fractured patina194 OVBF impacts dulling resharpeningon
one lateral edgesnap distal and proximal worn down and
rounded (may be from grinding or water washed)
195 OVBF chipping dulling fire distal badly burned, many popped bulbs
has proximal notches--probably
for halfting
196 OVBF batter retouch on one lateral
snap haft
197 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges
impacts on end snap haft surfaces very smooth
198 OVBF batter fire proximal and distal fire damage
199 OVBF batter no wear on proximal end
slight beveling snap medial most of edge damage on one
facet
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 21 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
200 OVBF on tip dulling on one surface
proximal tip is worn and retouched--used as pererator
retouch on lateral edges and tip
snap proximal snap due to haft stress, striations on
middle of surface(possibly
post-depositional)
201 OVBF batter retouch on one lateral edge
snap distal and proximal break on haft location
202 OVBF batter on lateraledges
chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
some retouch snap distal
203 OVBF batter dulling snap medial one facet fire popped
burning damage made use wear
hard to determine
204 OVBF heavy batter heavy chipping snap proximal and distal
205 OVBF batter dulling snap haft burn on tip speckled patina break on haft location
206 OVBF impacts on lateral edges (one edge has major flakes taken off)
snap proximal and distal 10% patina irregular breaks
207 OVBF batter snap haft208 OVBF chips, hinge
fractures snap haft very thick and very
narrow, unusual
209 OVBF batter on proximal
sides reworked
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 22 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
210 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges and distal
resharpened in postclassic from classic form (patina)
irregular medial fire damaged
211 OVBF battered on edges
snap haft 2% patina
212 OVBF chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
striations on dorsal surface
attempts to reuse, blows knocked of on snap break
diagonal right lateral
213 OVBF dulling snap distal patina on edges
not much hard use,very well made,
may be from classic tool type
214 OVBF batter on lateraledges and distal
impacts on distal
snap haft light patina
215 OVBF distal impact scars
retouch on one lateral edge (not patinated), resharpened on distal
full patina except where retouched
216 OVBF chips one edge flaked off snap proximal and distal
217 OVBF batter chips, impact scars
snap medial wear probably frommanufacture
218 OVBF batter on all sides
chipping some resharpening snap right lateral burned red snap break done for hafting purposes
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 23 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
219 OVBF batter on lateraledges
chips on lateral edges
retouch, half snap was resharpened to be rehafted
snap distal and proximal slight burn red
220 OVBF batter on one lateral edge
one facet has major impact scars
attempts to thin snap haft proximal tip smoothed off, very wide for a typical
OVBF
221 OVBF batter on lateraledges
attempts to resharpen (failure to thin seems likely)
snap medial very narrow
222 OVBF batter impacts scars on one end
may have resharpening
snap haft
223 OVBF heavy on all edges includingon snap break
resharpening on use edge, thinning attempt on one side at break
snap medial very thick
224 OVBF batter on lateraledges
impacts on right lateral
snap distal and proximal burned red on edges
225 OVBF lateral edge batter
on lateral edges chipping
snap haft and tip tip flaked off from impacts
226 OVBF some batter edges resharpened from something bigger but not used
batter appears to be partially due to
attemps to thin
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 24 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
227 OVBF batter on both lateral edges, but heavier on one
resharpening on one lateral edge and one facet
snap haft
228 OVBF batter chips dulling some wear on the snap break (proximal end) with retouch
batter on one lateral edge and retouch on other
snap distal and proximal after first break toolwas still used until
it broke again
229 OVBF batter on lateraledges
chips on lateral edges
snap medial red banding in material
230 OVBF batter resharpening flakes off proximal end
snap haft resharpening on proximal end, may be reuse or was
worked for hafting
231 OVBF batter chips snap medial slight burn damage most of the use wear on one lateral
232 OVBF heavy batter on right lateral edge
resharpening on distal and left lateral but not much use, must of snapped right lateral after resharpening
snap haft
233 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges
heavy batter on lateral edges could be due to reuse as an abrader or it could be due to failure to thin
retouch on one lateral
snap and fire medial and proximal respectively
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 25 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
234 OVBF batter snap distal wear probably frommanufacture
235 OVBF heavy batter heavy chipping heavy dulling some edge maintenance
snap proximal and distal segment is closer to being the
proximal end then the distal end of
tool
236 OVBF Impacts on distal
after tool snapped, they tried to remake into ovate but failed
resharpening on distal and one lateral edge
irregular distal
237 OVBF batter on three edges
impact scars onlateral edges
biface is very thick, probably reduced from a larger biface
resharpening end and retouch/thinning on lateral edges
snap proximal distal angle very sharp
238 OVBF batter heavy on one lateral
impacts on distal
distal and other lateral edge resharpened
snap haft
239 OVBF batter on lateraledges
snaps haft cortex covers 20% of one surface
240 OVBF batter on lateraledges
no retouch evidence snap and flake on distal
snap proximal and distal speckled patina flake on distal end odd, could have
been re-flaked and then a snap break
occurred
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 26 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
241 OVBF heavy batter on edge
polish on one lateral side
no wear on snapped end, 1 impact scar form thinning
a few retouch flakes on right and left lateral edge
snap and impact proximal and left lateral respectively
biface was originally larger
and was cut down on left lateral so it became very thick
and narrow
242 OVBF batter chips, lateral impact scars
resharpening scar on distal snap break, lateral edge retouched
snap medial and haft
243 OVBF distal end shows sharpening on corner
reused from larger biface
snap distal no obvious wear, may have been
small celt, proximalend very thin
244 OVBF batter polish diagonal distal tool is by-product of a diagonal
fracture, tool found on east side of site
245 OVBF manufactural batter
laterals may have been resharpened
snap medial light specked patina
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 27 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
246 OVBF heavy batter on distal
this is a by-product of recycling, resharpening flakes taken out of distal
90% patina
247 OVBF batter irregular distal full patina248 OVBF batter on one
endFRAG may be by-product of recyclingepisode
irregualr lateral full, thick patina possibly archaic
249 OVBF on use edge, chipping
on used edge retouch on used edge
patina on used edge
250 OVBF batter on lateraledge
fire medial fire popped fire damage so heavy that wear
hard to determine
251 OVBF batter on proximal
chips and hinge fractureas on lateral edges
fire medial
252 OVBF batter on distal edge
impact scars snap medial
253 PERF chips on lateral edges
burned red
254 PERF edges dulled fire fractured distal burned, popped bulbs
255 PERF chipping snap distal burned256 PERF batter from
hitting platformchipping light patina
257 PERF batter dulling retouch on edges
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 28 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
258 PERF chips slight burn259 PERF chips, impact dulling on tip retouch on left
lateral ventralsnap medial
260 PERF heavy chipping on left lateral
light dulling on distal/right lateral
snap distal
261 PERF most on distal and left lateral, some on right lateral edge
262 PERF chipping many flakes taken off at odd angles a
flake
263 PERF chipping mostly on platform andproximal lateral
retouch on left lateral
flake platform thin and used as PERF
most likely
264 SCRP batter on dorsal chipping on dorsal, impact on ventral
very smal, probablyresharpened from larger tool
fire proximal burned red
265 SCRP batter chips dulling thin coat patina patina thick on edges--makes
edge wear hard to see
266 SCRP chips dulling snap lateral267 SCRP chips, impact
scarsspeckled patina
268 SCRP chips on distal dulling on distal resharpening on distal
snap left lateral partial burn on distal
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 29 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
269 SCRP chips on distal and laterals
right lateral resharping and used for non-scrapping purpose
snap left lateral
270 SCRP batter on all sides and platform
polish on distal distal end flaked for SCRP edge
distal end resharpened
probably not resharpened much,
very large for a typical scrapper
271 SCRP SCRP flaked off of a core
preassure flaking on distal, grey
chert
272 SCRP batter chips, large impact scar on ventral/right
edges resharpened
white chert
273 SCRP chips one facet used on distal and lateral, other facet used on dorsal on the end
fracture lateral polish, spurred on one end, three sides used for
SCRP, fourth side unused
274 SCRP light chipping impact proximal no retouch evidence,
thumbnail SCRP
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 30 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
275 STMB batter primarily from resharpening, use hard to tell
resharpening on dorsal and ventral; done so roughely it wouldn't be very usable except for battering
patina where not resharpened
276 STMB batter hinge fractures snap haft
277 STMB impact scars ondistal
lateral edges heavily reduced (but still part of original form)
snap haft light patina
278 STMB batter snap stem279 STMB batter chipping blade edges
preasure flaked, retouch
snap medial
280 STMB batter impact scars onleft lateral
snap haft 75% patina tranchet flake taken off end
281 STMB batter fire medial full patina282 STMB lateral sides snap distal break caused by
hafting stress, grey chert
302 TADZ batter distal end more heavily worked--either resharpeningor orignal work, batter on snap break
snap medial snap manufactural error
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 31 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
303 TADZ heavy batter on lateral edges
distal resharpening flakes removed then it snapped
snap distal and proximal looks like haft snapped and then reused until distal snapped; tranchet
flake taken off distal
305 TRBF flakes chipped off
fire medial burned popped bulbs, colored redish
306 TRBF impact scars pressure flaked edges, not much
use wear except a few impact scars
probably from production
307 TRBF chips on original edges
snap all three corners of triagular form
red on original edges, fire popped bulbs
possible heat treatment
308 UNIF chips dulling snap proximal burned309 UNIF chips on dorsal resharpening on
left lateralsnap medial red from fire
damage
310 UNIF chips on left lateral edge
no edge maintenance
snap distal and right lateral
tool heavily worked on dorsal surface--
it may be either recycled from a formal tool or a
preform
311 UNIF chipped on one edge
polished on same edge
irregular distal and proximal worked on one side
312 UNIF batter on lateraledges
retouch on lateral edges
impact left lateral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 32 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
313 UNIF chips on lateral edges
retouch on right lat and dorsal
snap distal
314 UNIF batter on ventral resharpening on laterals and distal, on dorsal resharpening on left lateral and dorsal
maybe a utilized blank
315 UNIF light resharpening on right lateral
very thick thinning flake knocked off
proximal right lateral
316 UNIF some batter chipping distal resharpened into PERF
retouch on one lateral and on distal tip
burned
317 UNIF chips on right and left lateral/distal
resharpening on distal
snap, impact proximal, distal respectively
edge missing (no edge angle)
318 UNIF chips on right lateral
couple of chips on snap
snap medial chips probably from retouch, snap
on haft location
319 UNIF batter on 2 edges
chips on 2 edges
impact distal biface seemed squared off on one
end, may be another type of tool
320 UNIF heavy batter on tip and one lateral edge
snap medial
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 33 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
321 UNIF heavy batter many hinge scars
proximal end was lobbed off tool for resharpenig purposes
snap distal light patina
322 UNIF batter thickness indicates possible reuse
reflaked edges snap medial heavy patina very thick, possibly resharpened from
larger biface, many impact scars
323 UNIF batter impact one end could possibly be a stem of a STMB
but cannot determine, it is very
thick overall
324 UNIF light chips retouch on lateral edges
shatter laterals, proximal and distal
325 UNIF batter on lateraledges
impact scars ondistal
distal end resharpened and possibly lateral edges (because of steep angles)
80% patina
326 UNIF chips retouch snap medial burned on one facet
327 UNIF batter on ventral
chips on ventral
resharpening and retouch on all sidesexcept distal end
burned pink
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 34 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
328 UNIF batter chips, hinge fractures
diagonal left lateral
329 UNIF full patina heavy patina means it may be from before the postclassic, tool
may be a preform
330 UNIF batter on all edges
impact scars onright lateral
series of flakes knocked off distal/dorsal possible retouch on right lateral, bifacial resharpening
possibly utilized on right lateral but it could be attempts
at sharpening
331 UFLK chipping on distal/dorsal
badly burned, bulb pop
332 UFLK one spot of heavy batter (may be an abrader)
chips pressure flaking snap medial
333 UFLK chips on lateral edges and end
snap distal fire burned
334 UFLK chips, 1 impact on right lat.
primary flakes usedfor cutting
335 UFLK batter on dorsalsurface and right lateral only
burin lateral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 35 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
336 UFLK heavy chips on sharp edge
resharpening snap proximal burned or water damabed to grey
color
337 UFLK snap distal338 UFLK on distal resharpening
flakessnap and fire both edges burned
339 UFLK chips on right lateral edge
dulling on right lateral
snap medial could be a blade, platform crushed
340 UFLK chips on dorsal snap medial thinning flake takenout of dorsal
341 UFLK batter chips resharpening on ventral
snap and fire proximal and left lateral respectively
fire damaged
342 UFLK impact scars light polish retouch burned red use wear difficult todetermine because
of extensive retouch
343 UFLK batter chips popped bulbs 20%patina cortex platform344 UFLK chips snap distal345 UFLK chips on right
and left lateralsnap distal and proximal
346 UFLK chips, impact scars on distal and left lateral edge
snap right lateral 10% patina probably used for cutting
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 36 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
347 UFLK chips, impact scar on distal
snap medial burn damage bulb popped
348 UFLK349 UFLK chips flake hit off
distal/dorsal for resharpening
350 UFLK dulling util edges pressure flaked
351 UFLK dulling distal was resharpened
352 UFLK light dulling on 1 edge
diagonal and irregular
proximal and distal
353 UFLK chips, impact scars
resharping flaked
354 UFLK chips dulling beveled on proximal end
snap left lateral speckled patina
355 UFLK chips on lateral edges
hinge flake
356 UFLK chips hinge flake357 UFLK chipping, hinge
fracturesheavy patina, probably recycled classic tool
heavy patina on cortex only
358 UFLK chips on dis and one lateral edge
5% patina
359 UFLK small chips dulling snap distal 80% patina whole FRAG is the by product of a diagonal break
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 37 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
360 UFLK chipping dulling resharpening and retouch present
snap distal and proximal most of utilized edge broken off
361 UFLK batter hinge scars on ventral
sharpened on proximal and right lateral
fire popped
362 UFLK chips on right lateral dorsal, left lateral ventral
snap medial no wear on medial break
363 UFLK chips and impacts on distal and lateral edges
some retouch snap medial
364 UFLK chips fire damage365 UFLK light dulling on
left lateral dorsal
snap proximal 50% patina
366 UFLK chipping on lateral edges/distal
snap distal one facet has full patina
367 UFLK chips, hinge fractures(manufacture)
snap cannot be determined medial or lateral
368 UFLK slight batter on one lateral edge
light patina
369 UFLK chips on left lateral edge
dulling on right lateral edge
snap distal
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 38 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
370 UFLK small chips on distal and left lateral
impact right lateral/dorsal
371 UFLK chipped on right lateral edge
dulling on right lateral edge
snap distal and right lateral
left lateral missing and distal snap, all
that remains of original edge is
right lateral
372 UFLK chipping on distal
speckled patina cortex on platform
373 UFLK chips dulling resharpening on left lateral edge
374 UFLK chips dull most of original edge gone and been resharpened
375 UFLK light chipping snap medial unidentified chert material
376 UFLK chips retouch on right lateral ventral, pressure flaked
snap distal large impact scar on left laterall, on
the dorsal side
377 UFLK chips on lateral edges
beveled on cortex edge
378 UFLK chips snap and irregular right lateral, proximal respectively
379 UFLK chips retouch on utilized edge
snap medial
380 UFLK batter on distal edge
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 39 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
381 UFLK impact along right lateral dorsal
speckled patina distal end of flake snapped off
382 UFLK chips platform reshaprened to beveled edge
383 UFLK chips on distal/dorsal, right lateral and ventral
half burned
384 UFLK pressure flake remnants but used edge mostly missing
snap medial use wear undetermined,
broken from use, used edge gone
385 UFLK chips retouch on right ventral
snap medial
386 UFLK batter on left lateral edge and dorsal
water damage made from macroflake,
crushed platform
387 UFLK heavy chipping on distal
water damage(turned grey)
2-facet platform
388 UFLK chips on rounded edges
10% patina specks
389 UFLK small chips on left distal
piece was a thinning flake and has been reused as a UFLK
water damage
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 40 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
390 UFLK chips, impact scars
resharpening flakes on 1 lateral edge other side has 3 snap breaks
3 snaps 1 lateral
391 UFLK chips dulling snap medial392 UFLK light dulling natural
fracture(inclustion)proximal
393 UFLK chips light dulling on left lateral, distal and right lateral
pressure flakes on right lateral
394 UFLK chips dulling snap distal395 UFLK chips on right
lateral edgedullling on right lateral
snap distal/left lateral light patina
396 UFLK heavy dulling on edges of lateral edges, polish on dorsal
striations on ventral
397 UFLK resharpening snap proximal cortex platform398 UFLK striations fire dorsal/distal 30% burned 10% patina fire shattered on
dorsal
399 UFLK batter near platform
chips on dorals and right lateral edge
hinge fracture musthave knocked off
the platform
400 UFLK chipping damage
dulling
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 41 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
401 UFLK chips dulling snap and fire distal, proximal respectively
burned heavily, most of edge popped or snapped off
402 UFLK retouch and batter on snap break
snap distal edge damage on retouch probably
from wear
403 UFLK batter chipping snap laterals and proximal
404 UFLK chips impact medial raw material usually waxy,
possibly may not have been
utilized(edge damabe probably
due to trampling/natural
processes)
405 UFLK chips dulling resharpening flakes on right lateral edge
speckled patina
406 UFLK on snapped end and one lateral edge
dulling on snap and 1 lateral edge
pressure flaked edge only on one facet on one lateral
snap distal half burned no platform
407 UFLK chipping polish snaped area looks to have been used has a PERF
snap left lateral, distal burned and fire popped
polish
408 UFLK chips, impact scars on distal
dulling on distal left lateral resharpened to steep angle
popped bulbs
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 42 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
409 UFLK batter on distal/ventral
impacts on distal/ventral
resharpened to beveled edge on distal
primary flake
410 UFLK chips on 1 lateral and proximal
dull on 1 lateral and proximal
striations possibly PERF retouch snap proximal half bulb left on proximal right
lateral
411 UFLK chips on left lateral edge
dull on left lateral
412 UFLK striations on distal
water discoloration
platform prepatory flake knocked off
413 UFLK chips on dorsal and ventral distal
414 UFLK batter on proximal
chips on distal dulling on distal natural lateral speckled patina
415 UFLK pressure flaked, seriation on lateral
snap proximal
416 UFLK batter on all edges except distal
heavy chipping resharpening snap proximal 50% patina
417 UFLK batter on ventral
chips snap medial full, thick patina probably archaic
418 UFLK batter on ventral
chips on dorsal, impact scars on dorsal
419 UFLK chips notches on distal
420 UFLK distal chips primary flake platform batter
distal end resharpened
manufacture failure/failure to
thin
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 43 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
421 UFLK dorsal chipping snap proximal
422 UFLK dhipping on left lateral/ventral
dulling on left lateral/ventral
423 UFLK light chipping on right lateral
may have removed whole edge to make new edge on right lateral
speckled patina
424 UFLK chips on distal dulled on distal snap right and left lateral edges
cortex covers 70% of one facet
425 UFLK heavy batter on right lateral edge
heavy chipping on right lateral
left lateral knocked off, possibly to resharpen but no wear
snap proximal 80% patina
426 UFLK chips, impact snap medial 90% patina edges beveled
427 UFLK chipping popped bulbs grey chert428 UFLK chipping on
one edgedulling on one edge
irregular proximal grey chert
429 UFLK chips dulling snap medial patina on edge grey chert
430 UFLK heavy chipping on distal/right lateral
many hinge fractures on left lateral, greyish-
brown chert
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 44 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
431 UFLK chips on distal and left lateral
tool is anomolous, but chips too regular to be
natural, made out of limestone
432 UFLK chips snap lateral and one end
433 UFLK edge dulling use wear not totallyconvincing--may
be natural
434 UFLK chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
full patina
435 UFLK batter on platform
chips on right lateral and distal
snap distal
436 UFLK light dulling right lateral resharpening
snap medial light specs of patina, but thick on edge
use difficult to determine because
of patina
437 UFLK chips used as cutting tooland possibly PERF composite tool
resharpening snap left lateral thick full patina archaic
438 UFLK chipps on all sides, even platform
dulling resharpening burned resharpened in postclassic
439 UFLK dulling on utilized edge
snap distal
440 UFLK chips dull
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 45 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
441 UFLK batter on edges, mostly on dorsal
2% patina cortex platform
442 UFLK light dulling resharpening on right lateral, ventral
snap distal cortex platform, primary reduction
flake
443 UFLK light chipping light dulling snap right and left lateral and proximal
Chert is white in color
444 UFLK chips on distal and lateral edges
snap medial 5% patina (on edges)
Chert is white in color
445 UFLK chips on dorsal dulling on dorsal
fire lateral edges burned red
446 UFLK light chipping snap proximal447 UFLK on lateral
edges chippingdulling on lateral edges
retouch on distal snap distal some retouch on snap
448 UFLK chipping dulling reflaked on distal to create new edge
449 UFLK chips retouch450 UFLK chipping feathering, edge so
thin it may have chipped naturally,
very small
451 UFLK on distal and proximal and on snap break
chips on snap snap proximal/medial
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 46 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
452 UFLK chips on distal
453 UFLK batter on 1 edge
speckled patina may be a flake of a core, batter may be
due to flaking process
454 UFLK chips on right lateral ventral
striations on distal/dorsal
455 UFLK chips on distal, impact scars
snap medial
456 UFLK chipping457 UFLK chips on all
sidesstriations some pressure
flake retouch
458 UFLK right lateral dorsal chipping
light dulling snap distal
459 UFLK light chipping light dulling pressure flaked in one spot on one lateral edge
460 UFLK chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
water damaged
461 UFLK chipping snap proximal, distal, and lateral
could be lateral FRAG of stemmed
unifacial blade
462 UFLK chips on lateral edges
dulling on lateral edges
lateral left lateral
Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 47 of 47
Tool
#
Tool
Batte
r
Chipi
ng
Dullin
g
Stria
tions
Reus
e
Maint
enan
ce
Brea
k typ
e
Brea
k Loc
ation
Burn
ing
Patin
a
Wea
therin
g
Comm
ents
463 UFLK batter resulting in cresent scars
chips retouch chip scars slight burning single facet platform
464 UFLK light chipping on right lateral
snap proximal
465 UFLK chips snap medial/proximal chert is grey in color
466 UFLK dulling impact lateral467 UFLK batter on
platformchips dulling pressure flaked on
right lataeral edge, ventral
possibly burned chert is creamy redin color