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 toolproducing 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%), chalcedonyquartz 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 postdepositionally. 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 postcranial 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. 4360. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1,
State University of New York at Albany.
Barret, J.
2000
Berdan, F.
1988
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.
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
Gifford, J.
1976
Maya Cities. Self published, London and New York.
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
Kelly, T.
1980
Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier.
Univeristy of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
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. 239250. 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): 91110.
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
Tool
# of tools
analyzed*
16
3
6
Cores
Discoidals
Expedient
Bifaces
Utilized
91
Flakes
Oval
3
Bifaces
Lenticular
3
Bifaces
Perforators
9
Scrapers
5
Uniface
8
*complete tools only
Mean
70.31
106
91.5
Length
Deviation
24.13
19.97
23.4
Mean
59.88
84.67
61
Width
Deviation
24.6
8.08
11.97
Thickness
Mean
Deviation
37.94
18.94
42
10.39
33.33
10.13
46.56
16.03
41.01
17.15
11.7
7.86
123.67
55.23
53
24.25
22.33
10.02
130.33
24.03
37.67
3.22
11.3
1.53
37.89
51.4
96.13
14
14.79
31.48
28.7
38
51
8.47
16.6
15.67
7.44
14
29.1
3.17
4.9
12.1
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
66
416
18
394 Colha
65
233
5f
229 Chalcedony
67
113
12i 110 Colha
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
84
-1.10
76
-1.07
48
0.58
111
0.25
92
0.91
48
0.58
123
0.85
86
0.16
30
-1.15
54
Table A4: Expedient Biface Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material
74
8m 174 Chalcedony
89
133
12c 195 Colha
72
357
18a 209 Chalcedony
71
180
3
1 Chalcedony
87
56
8e
30 Colha
91
143
5b
90 Colha
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
51
-1.73
50
-0.92
16
-1.71
87
-0.19
56
-0.42
37
0.36
93
0.06
68
0.58
45
1.15
95
0.15
57
-0.33
28
-0.53
100
0.36
82
1.75
39
0.56
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
98
20e
99
5j
101
80
12i
107
58
8j
108
330 5e and g
113
189
5
114
184
8
116
247
17a
119
334
7abc
122
149
8h
123
162
8m
128
8j
130
320
20a
133
285
17
137
3
141
274
5d
146
270
17
331
10
342
89
8L
343
183
8
344
186
11
345
297
16
346
239
17
348
226
18
349
221
18
351
13
12p
Lot
376
275
82
78
298
4
9
307
295
60
134
95
312
241
6
211
243
39
138
2
2
254
256
215
215
169
Material
Burned
Burned
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony Blend
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Patinated
Quartz
Burned
Colha
Colha
Quartz
Burned
Burned
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
55
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
38
-0.53
16
-1.46
7
-0.59
39
-0.47
16
-1.46
4
-0.98
39
-0.47
22
-1.11
3
-1.10
44
-0.16
15
-1.52
4
-0.98
63
1.03
21
-1.17
5
-0.85
48
0.09
20
-1.23
4
-0.98
52
0.34
62
1.22
46
4.37
41
-0.35
29
-0.70
4
-0.98
67
1.27
38
-0.18
13
0.17
81
2.15
36
-0.29
13
0.17
80
2.09
57
0.93
27
1.95
27
-1.22
11
-1.75
4
-0.98
50
0.21
30
-0.64
13
0.17
41
-0.35
23
-1.05
5
-0.85
47
0.03
28
-0.76
16
0.55
69
1.40
33
-0.47
6
-0.72
49
0.15
20
-1.23
10
-0.21
40
-0.41
43
0.12
7
-0.59
34
-0.78
30
-0.64
5
-0.85
46
-0.03
34
-0.41
10
-0.21
41
-0.35
32
-0.53
12
0.04
29
-1.10
33
-0.47
29
2.21
21
-1.59
34
-0.41
7
-0.59
27
-1.22
45
0.23
7
-0.59
54
0.46
45
0.23
6
-0.72
25
-1.34
36
-0.29
5
-0.85
Tool # M.O. #
353
325
354
234
355
421
356
379
357
342
358
398
361
364
3
365
166
366
59
370
359
372
23
373
39
374
2
376
202
377
185
380
70
381
41
382
203
386
117
387
376
388
377
393
392
395
351
398
258
399
317
400
367
405
211
406
401?
407
340
408
22
409
105
410
145
411
68
412
102
414
147
418
104
419
154
420
157
422
69
423
160
424
77
427
429
35
430
431
205
Subop
14h
15b
17a
17b
17c
17d
8i
8m
8m
12a
18
8d
8e
8L
9
9
12i
12i
13a
14f
14h
14h
16c
16c
17d
20a
20c
7b
7c
7d
8a
8c
8c
8c
8c
8f
8j
8k
8L
8L
8m
8m
8a
8m
8L
8L
Lot
308
205
307
264
265
31
80
174
174
7
209
34
58
116
1
4
110
110
128
149
309
309
269
270
305
312
333
217
219
224
1
27
27
28
88
46
95
93
123
138
134
174
21
174
Material
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony
Chalcedony Blend
Chalcedony Blend
Chalcedony Blend
Chalcedony Blend
Chalcedony Blend
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Gray Chert
Gray Chert
Grayish-Brown
142 chert
135 Limestone
56
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
52
0.34
66
1.46
12
0.04
59
0.78
75
1.98
14
0.30
18
-1.78
39
-0.12
3
-1.10
34
-0.78
35
-0.35
5
-0.85
37
-0.60
15
-1.52
8
-0.47
48
0.09
28
-0.76
6
-0.72
57
0.65
55
0.82
19
0.93
54
0.46
59
1.05
9
-0.34
29
-1.10
39
-0.12
10
-0.21
42
-0.28
56
0.87
15
0.42
40
-0.41
61
1.17
7
-0.59
32
-0.91
47
0.35
7
-0.59
41
-0.35
45
0.23
14
0.30
57
0.65
58
0.99
16
0.55
30
-1.03
22
-1.11
6
-0.72
62
0.96
31
-0.58
11
-0.09
58
0.71
87
2.68
30
2.33
79
2.02
94
3.09
34
2.84
71
1.52
49
0.47
13
0.17
51
0.28
52
0.64
28
2.08
21
-1.59
35
-0.35
8
-0.47
47
0.03
25
-0.93
10
-0.21
53
0.40
43
0.12
8
-0.47
44
-0.16
77
2.10
10
-0.21
45
-0.10
31
-0.58
9
-0.34
49
0.15
58
0.99
12
0.04
46
-0.03
37
-0.23
6
-0.72
63
1.03
46
0.29
16
0.55
48
0.09
22
-1.11
12
0.04
33
-0.85
26
-0.88
6
-0.72
52
0.34
32
-0.53
7
-0.59
51
0.28
37
-0.23
21
1.19
51
0.28
36
-0.29
15
0.42
76
1.84
44
0.17
19
0.93
43
-0.22
52
0.64
15
0.42
24
-1.41
34
-0.41
8
-0.47
39
-0.47
79
2.22
41
3.73
33
-0.85
39
-0.12
12
0.04
25
-1.34
44
0.17
11
-0.09
46
-0.03
28
-0.76
10
-0.21
64
1.09
52
0.64
14
0.30
35
-0.72
35
-0.35
9
-0.34
57
0.65
45
0.23
13
0.17
33
-0.85
42
0.06
14
0.30
51
56
0.28
0.59
35
44
-0.35
0.17
9
13
-0.34
0.17
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot
Material
433
142
8m
174 Unidentified
435
388
20a
281 Patinated
438
418
14h
309 Quartz
441
8L
116 Quartz
447
328
5f
248 Chalcedony
448
236
5g
233 Chalcedony
449
307
5k
282 Chalcedony
450
353 7a and b 266 Chalcedony
452
299
5f
229 Chalcedony Blend
453
417
5f
288 Chalcedony Blend
454
309
5k
282 Chalcedony Blend
456
332 5e and g 298 Colha
457
288
5f
237 Colha
459
259 5f and h 288 Colha
460
353
5g
240 Colha
462
396
5m
323 Colha
463
339
7a
224 Colha
466
313
5f
288 Quartzite
467
290
5e
218 Red Creamy chert
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
67
1.27
35
-0.35
17
0.68
24
-1.41
24
-0.99
7
-0.59
49
0.15
67
1.52
18
0.81
27
-1.22
55
0.82
10
-0.21
37
-0.60
46
0.29
13
0.17
41
-0.35
65
1.40
10
-0.21
32
-0.91
29
-0.70
6
-0.72
17
-1.84
21
-1.17
4
-0.98
43
-0.22
48
0.41
11
-0.09
41
-0.35
41
0.00
9
-0.34
27
-1.22
18
-1.34
5
-0.85
66
1.21
37
-0.23
8
-0.47
105
3.65
52
0.64
7
-0.59
64
1.09
41
0.00
20
1.06
74
1.71
66
1.46
15
0.42
59
0.78
44
0.17
6
-0.72
33
-0.85
23
-1.05
4
-0.98
47
0.03
40
-0.06
12
0.04
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
-0.87
174
2
1 Colha
155
1.03
39
0.41
11
-0.22
179
47
7a
171 Colha
129
-0.06
40
0.73
13
1.09
Table A8: Perforator Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop
254
5f
255
8a
256
227
18
257
3
258
297
16
260
84
13a
261
329 5e and g
262
5k
263
256
7c
Lot
229
1
215
3
14
158
298
282
252
Material
Burned
Burned
Chalcedony
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Colha
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
39
0.08
18
-1.26
8
0.175439
56
1.29
32
0.39
14 2.070175
37
-0.06
27
-0.20
5
-0.77193
58
1.44
24
-0.55
6
-0.45614
22
-1.14
34
0.63
6
-0.45614
24
-0.99
38
1.10
4
-1.08772
24
-0.99
35
0.75
7
-0.14035
31
-0.49
14
-1.73
6
-0.45614
50
0.87
36
0.87
11 1.122807
57
Table A9: Scraper Variance
Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material
265
220
18
220 Chalcedony
268
302
17
212 Colha
270
129
8g
49 Colha
271
17a 307 Gray Chert
272
170
8
9 White Chert
Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance
66
0.99
50
0.72
15
0.20
36
-1.04
24
-0.84
9
-1.02
67
1.05
58
1.20
20
1.22
38
-0.91
19
-1.14
9
-1.02
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
Abrader
Burin
Burin Spall
Chopper
Core
Discoidal
Drill
Expedient Biface
Utilized Fragment
Gouge
Hammerstone
Lenticular Biface
Macro-flake
Oval Biface
Perferator
Scraper
Stemmed Blade
Tranchet Adze
Triangular Biface
Uniface
Utilized Flakes
Total
Chal- Chalcedony/ Chalcedony/
cedony Colha Blend Quartz Blend
0%(0)
0%
0%(0)
33%(1)
0%(0) 0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
100%(3) 0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 0%(0)
6%(1)
6%(1)
5%(2) 31%(12)
3%(1)
5%(2)
0%(0) 25%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 0%(0)
50%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0) 26%(7)
0%(0)
4%(1)
18%(2) 0%(0)
0%(0)
9%(1)
0%(0) 0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
7%(1) 29%(4)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 14%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
8%(5) 8%(5)
3%(2)
3%(2)
27%(3) 9%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
9%(1) 36%(4)
0%(0)
9%(1)
0%(0) 13%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0) 33%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
9%(2) 9%(2)
4%(1)
0%(0)
9%(17) 20%(38)
3%(5)
6%(12)
Burned
8%(37) 17%(80)
3%(13)
5%(23)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
11%(2)
8%(3)
0%(0)
0%(0)
4%(1)
9%(1)
0%(0)
11%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
3%(2)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
5%(10)
Local/
Other
0%(0)
100%(1)
0%(0)
17%(3)
8%(3)
25%(1)
50%(1)
19%(5)
9%(1)
0%(0)
44%(4)
21%(3)
14%(1)
5%(3)
0%(0)
18%(2)
13%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
4%(1)
8%(15)
Total
Tools
3
1
3
18
39
4
2
27
11
1
9
14
7
62
11
11
8
2
3
23
186
4%(20)
10%(46)
445
Colha
Patinated
Quartz
67%(2)
0%(0)
0%(0)
61%(11)
41%(16)
50%(2)
0%(0)
41%(11)
55%(6)
100%(1)
44%(4)
43%(6)
71%(5)
65%(40)
64%(7)
27%(3)
63%(5)
100%(2)
67%(2)
65%(15)
44%(82)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
7%(2)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
0%(0)
5%(3)
0%(0)
0%(0)
13%(1)
0%(0)
0%(0)
9%(2)
4%(7)
50%(233)
3%(15)
Table B2: Number of Breaks by Tool Type
Tool Type
Abrader
Burin
Burin Spall
Chopper
Core
Discoidal
Drill
Expedient Biface
Utilized Fragment
Gouge
Hammerstone
Lenticular
Macro-flake
Oval Biface
Perferator
Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge
0
0
1
12
16
2
1
5
0
0
6
2
2
2
6
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
14
4
0
0
10
2
46
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Fire
Irregular/
Natural
Lateral Crescent
Fragment
Breaks
Cracked
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
6
1
0
0
21
1
23
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
5
0
21
0
1
0
6
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
12
1
0
0
2
0
5
6
0
0
7
0
62
1
0
0
1
0
5
59
Total
Tools
3
1
3
18
39
4
2
27
11
1
9
14
7
62
11
Tool Type
Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge
Scraper
Stemmed Blade
Tranchet Adze
Triangular Biface
Uniface
Util. Flake
4
1
0
1
6
63
3
6
2
1
10
92
1
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
Total
130
199
12
6
4
Fire
Total
Irregular/
Natural
Lateral Crescent
Fragment
Cracked
Breaks
1
0
0
2
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
17
6
2
1
15
2
128
20
4
1
68
3
321
Table B3: Number of Incidences of Edge Damage Categorized by Tool Type
Tool Type
Batter Chipping Dulling/Polish Striations Total
Abrader (3)
Burin (1)
Burin Spall (3)
Chopper (18)
Core (39)
Discoidal (4)
Drill (2)
Expedient Biface (27)
Utilized Fragment (11)
Gouge (1)
Hammerstone (9)
Lenticular (14)
Macro-flake (7)
Oval Biface (62)
Perferator (11)
Scraper (11)
Stemmed Blade (8)
Tranchet Adze (2)
Triangular Biface (3)
Uniface (23)
Utilized Flake (186)
2
0
2
12
22
3
0
20
3
0
8
6
4
50
2
4
7
2
0
12
27
1
0
2
10
1
2
1
16
7
1
0
8
3
29
9
9
4
0
3
15
150
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
5
3
1
0
0
1
14
4
4
0
0
0
2
71
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
4
30
23
5
3
42
13
3
8
14
8
95
15
17
11
2
3
29
254
Total
186
271
113
12
582
60
Total
Tools
11
8
2
3
23
186
445
Table B4: Number of Recycling Incidences by Tool Type
Tool
Pressure Flake Resharpening Retouch Reuse
Number of Tools
with Multiple Total
Wear Types
Abrader (3)
Burin (1)
Burin Spall (3)
Chopper (18)
Core (39)
Discoidal (4)
Drill (2)
Expedient Biface (27)
Utilized Fragment (11)
Gouge (1)
Hammerstone (9)
Lenticular (14)
Macro Flake (7)
Oval Biface (62)
Perforator (11)
Scraper (11)
Stemmed Blade (8)
Tranchet Flake (1)
Tranchet Adze (2)
Triangular Biface (3)
Uniface (23)
Utilized Flakes (186)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
10
1
0
1
9
0
2
0
7
2
1
0
2
1
20
0
6
2
1
1
0
10
31
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
0
14
3
0
1
0
0
0
7
19
3
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
9
0
1
1
14
2
1
0
4
2
28
2
6
2
0
0
0
8
64
5
0
4
21
0
4
2
24
9
3
0
8
4
72
5
13
6
1
1
1
28
125
Totals
17
97
54
26
124
336
61
Table B5: Percent of Fire Damage by Tool Type
Tool Type
Abrader
Burin
Burin Spall
Chopper
Core
Discoidal
Drill
Expedient Biface
Utilized Fragment
Gouge
Hammerstone
Lenticular Biface
Macro-flake
Oval Biface
Perferator
Scraper
Stemmed Blade
Tranchet Adze
Triangular Biface
Uniface
Number Fire Total Percent with
Damaged Number Fire Damage
0
3
0%
0
1
0%
0
3
0%
2
18
11%
8
39
21%
1
4
25%
0
2
0%
6
27
22%
2
11
18%
0
1
0%
2
9
22%
1
14
7%
2
7
29%
14
62
23%
4
11
36%
2
11
18%
1
8
13%
0
2
0%
2
3
67%
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
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number
of Tools
5
9
69
28
138
3
4
2
36
13
21
5
14
50
19
23
Area
Excavated (m²)
20
20
43.6
28
70
4
4
2
77
8
34.7
4
17
15
8
16.25
Total
439
371.55
Subop
Tools/m²
0.25
0.45
1.58
1
1.97
0.75
1
1
0.47
1.63
0.6
1.25
0.82
3.33
2.38
1.42
1.18
Table C2: Area distribution for Manufacturing Related Lithics by Subop
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number
of Tools
0
1
16
2
20
0
0
0
11
0
4
2
2
15
1
4
63
Artifacts/m²
0
0.05
0.37
0.07
0.29
0
0
0
0.14
0
0.12
0.5
0.12
1
0.13
0.25
Table C3: Bifacial Tool Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 8
Tool type
Chopper
Discoidal
Expedient
Biface
Gouge
Lenticular
Oval Biface
Tranchet Adze
Triangular
Total:
Number of
Tools in
Subop 5
3
1
0.07
0.02
Number of
Tools in
Subop 8
6
1
5
0.11
7
0.10
0
0
5
0
1
16
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.02
0.37
1
2
23
2
1
43
0.01
0.03
0.33
0.03
0.01
0.61
Tools/m²
Tools/m²
0.09
0.01
Table C4: Tool Density Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 12
Tool Type
Burin
Burin Spall
Drill
Utilized
Fragments
Perforator
Scraper
Stem. Blade
Uniface
Util. Flk
Total:
Number of Tools in
Subop 5
Tools/m²
0
1
1
0.00
0.02
0.02
Number of
Tools in
Subop 12
0
1
0
3
0.07
1
0.01
3
0
1
3
31
43
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.71
0.99
1
0
2
1
8
14
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.18
64
Tools/m²
0.00
0.01
0.00
Table C5: Material Distribution by Subop
Subop
Burned Chalced/blends Colha Patinated Quartzite Local/other
No Provenience
0
1
3
0
0
2
Subop 2
0
1
4
0
0
0
Subop 3
0
3
6
0
0
1
Subop 5
5
27
30
2
4
7
Subop 7
4
7
17
0
1
0
Subop 8
12
22
75
8
6
17
Subop 9
0
0
3
0
0
0
Subop 10
1
2
0
1
0
0
Subop 11
0
1
0
1
0
0
Subop 12
2
12
20
0
2
5
Subop 13
1
2
9
0
0
1
Subop 14
0
7
9
2
1
3
Subop 15
0
1
3
0
1
0
Subop 16
0
3
12
0
0
0
Subop 17
5
11
26
0
4
8
Subop 18
0
10
7
0
0
2
Subop 20
4
4
13
1
1
1
Table C6: Area Distribution for Oval Bifaces
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number of tools
2
2
6
3
23
0
2
0
4
1
4
0
1
8
2
3
65
Tools/m²
0.10
0.1
0.14
0.11
0.33
0.00
0.5
0.00
0.05
0.13
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.53
0.25
0.18
Total
6
5
10
75
29
140
3
4
2
41
13
22
5
15
54
19
24
Table C7: Area Distribution for Expedient Bifaces
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number of tools
1
2
5
0
7
0
1
0
4
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
Tools/m²
0.05
0.1
0.11
0
0.1
0
0.25
0
0.05
0.25
0.06
0
0.06
0
0.13
0
Table C8: Area Distribution For Utilized Flakes
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number of
tools
0
1
30
13
61
2
1
2
8
6
8
2
8
23
8
12
66
Tools/m²
0.05
0.69
0.46
0.87
0.5
0.25
1
0.1
0.75
0.23
0.5
0.47
0.65
1
0.74
Table C9: Area Distribution for Unifaces
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Number of tools
0
1
3
4
7
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
Tools/m²
0
0.05
0.07
0.14
0.1
0.25
0
0
0.01
0.13
0
0
0
0.2
0.13
0.06
Table C10: Percentage of Raw Material found at Each Subop
Total
Number
Burned
Chalcedony
and Blends
Colha
Surface/
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
Subop 7
Subop 8
Subop 9
Subop 10
Subop 11
Subop 12
Subop 13
Subop 14
Subop 15
Subop 16
Subop 17
Subop 18
Subop 20
Total
6.7%
13.8%
8.6%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
4.9%
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.3%
0.0%
16.7%
7.3%
36.0%
24.1%
15.7%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
29.3%
15.4%
31.8%
20.0%
20.0%
20.4%
52.6%
16.7%
24.4%
40.0%
58.6%
53.6%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
48.8%
69.2%
40.9%
60.0%
80.0%
48.1%
36.8%
54.2%
50.7%
2.7%
0.0%
5.7%
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
3.2%
5.3%
3.4%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
0.0%
4.5%
20.0%
0.0%
7.4%
0.0%
4.2%
4.3%
9.3%
0.0%
12.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.2%
7.7%
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
14.8%
10.5%
4.2%
10.1%
75
29
140
3
4
2
41
13
22
5
15
54
19
24
467
Subop
Patinated Quartzite Local/Other
67
Table C11: Area Distribution of Tools with Fire Damage
Subop
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Total
Number of tools
with Fire Damage
1
1
13
11
26
0
2
0
6
3
4
0
1
9
3
7
87
68
Tools/m²
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.39
0.37
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.08
0.38
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.60
0.38
0.43
0.23
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
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
1
32
12a
7
ABR
73
56
21
CHQB
PROX
2
2
3
110
4
141
5
6
91
Edge
Angle
Max #
1 of 10
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
31DA
5
4
ABR
45
30
20
COLH
PROX
3
12e
31
ABR
119
45
28
COLH
WHOL
3
55
8m
114
BRN
32
15
19
LOCL
DIST
3
39
12k
159
BRNS
24
8
5
COLH
MED
3
52
8c
28
BRNS
53
22
21
COLH
WHOL
3
65
3
54LA
7
273
5q
348
BRNS
26
9
8
COLH
LAT
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
2
22
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
59DA
25
248
5r
364
CHPR
71
65
41
QRTZ
WHOL
3
26
321
20b
301
CORE
81
50
44
BURN
FRAG
2
5c
50
CORE
52
45
40
BURN
WHOL
2
FRAG
2
27
28
17
14f
149
CORE
74
46
32
CHAL
29
237
17a
256
CORE
56
41
24
CHAL
FRAG
2
30
374
17a
307
CORE
76
57
34
CHAL
WHOL
2
31
383
17b
264
CORE
46
25
19
CHAL
FRAG
3
32
206
20e
376
CORE
89
103
52
CHAL
WHOL
2
33
401
5fh
288
CORE
78
85
50
CHAL
WHOL
2
5n
337
CORE
34
24
11
CHAL
WHOL
3
311
5p
352
CORE
43
52
42
CHAL
FRAG
2
8i
80
CORE
37
25
14
CHAL
FRAG
3
37
6
8k
93
CORE
96
80
41
CHAL
WHOL
2
38
18
34
35
36
39
8l
116
CORE
93
60
38
CHAL
WHOL
2
12h
5
CORE
28
37
17
CHAL
FRAG
3
40
275
5h
258
CORE
50
49
49
CHCL
WHOL
3
41
99?
61
413
CORE
57
43
21
CHQB
FRAG
3
42
30
8d
137
CORE
40
44
22
CHQB
FRAG
2
16
206
CORE
25
17
11
COLH
FRAG
1
43
44
111
12h
51
CORE
70
73
42
COLH
FRAG
2
45
118
14f
149
CORE
94
66
67
COLH
WHOL
2
46
391
15a
202
CORE
54
53
57
COLH
FRAG
3
46
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
47
375
17a
301
CORE
68
63
39
COLH
FRAG
3
48
382
17b
267
CORE
31
15
14
COLH
FRAG
3
49
281
20d
338
CORE
84
62
27
COLH
WHOL
2
50
361
5e
347
CORE
27
20
21
COLH
DIST
3
51
268
5fh
288
CORE
34
22
10
COLH
FRAG
2
52
372
5g
240/227
CORE
116
112
80
COLH
WHOL
2
53
385
7abc
295
CORE
51
51
34
COLH
FRAG
3
54
92
8c
32
CORE
51
57
31
COLH
WHOL
2
8f
45
CORE
38
33
11
COLH
WHOL
2
2
55
56
158
57
8l
135
CORE
44
36
36
COLH
WHOL
8m
174
CORE
40
37
19
COLH
FRAG
2
Edge
Angle
Max #
2 of 10
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
34RA
58
164
8m
174
CORE
70
47
22
COLH
WHOL
1
59
410
15g
204
CORE
48
41
26
QRTZ
FRAG
3
60
238
17a
255
CORE
31
19
23
QRTZ
FRAG
3
61
34
8k
130
CORE
74
68
40
QRTZ
FRAG
2
62
218
18
215
CORE
49
52
21
H2OD
PROX
2
63
327
14h
308
CORE
60
42
18
WHTE
WHOL
2
64
43
8m
134
CORE
50
44
20
WHTE
FRAG
3
65
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
5e
218
DRIL
11
9
5
GRAY
PROX
3
41
70
71
180
3
1
EXBF
95
57
28
CHAL
WHOL
2
72
357
18a
209
EXBF
93
68
45
CHAL
WHOL
2
73
17
8g
510
EXBF
28
34
14
CHAL
PROX
3
50
8m
174
EXBF
51
50
16
CHAL
WHOL
3
39RA
74
74LA
75
181
3
6
EXBF
54
60
28
COLH
PROX
2
76
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
10
4
EXBF
28
27
8
PTNA
MED
3
25LA
82
83
86
84
85
83
86
8o
187
EXBF
25
35
11
CHAL
PROX
3
44, 69PA
5a
47
EXBF
28
40
25
CHAL
DIST
3
55DA
12i
110
EXBF
43
54
15
COLH
PROX
3
16c
270
EXBF
29
19
10
COLH
FRAG
3
3
50
87
56
8e
30
EXBF
100
82
39
COLH
WHOL
88
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
Thick
31
43
16
Edge Angle
Width
EXBF
Cortex
Length
288
Portion
Tool
5f
3 of 10
Material
Lot
93
Subop
Max #
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
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
3
101
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
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
2
115
360
18
209
UFBL
45
32
7
COLH
DIST
3
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
5eg
290
UFBL
30
33
6
COLH
PROX
3
26RLA
WHOL
3
35LA
112
118
22LA
119
334
7abc
295
UFBL
67
38
13
COLH
120
341
7d
224
UFBL
23
16
8
COLH
LAT
3
21
7d
224
UFBL
20
23
4
COLH
PROX
3
35RLA
35LA
121
122
149
8h
60
UFBL
81
36
13
COLH
WHOL
2
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
14h
320
UFBL
19
26
10
PTNA
DIST
3
46, 54RA
8j
95
UFBL
27
11
4
PTNA
WHOL
3
24
8m
174
UFBL
52
35
11
PTNA
DIST
3
40
127
365
128
129
165
130
320
20a
312
UFBL
50
30
13
QRTZ
WHOL
2
40LLA
131
303
7d
224
UFBL
41
29
10
QRTZ
PROX
3
35LA
8l
138
UFBL
34
23
14
QRTZ
PROX
3
58
132
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
5l
291
UFPB
43
34
11
CHAL
MED
3
28LA
17
7
UFPB
37
42
15
CHCL
DIST
3
30LLA, 37RLA
3
6
UFPB
47
28
16
COLH
WHOL
3
53LLA, 32RLA
5
10
UFPB
61
31
10
COLH
PROX
3
30LLA, 40RLA
135
136
292
137
138
199
Cortex
Edge Angle
38LA
COLH
MED
3
39LA
COLH
MED
3
32LA
GRAY
MED
3
38LA
36LLA, 60RLA
Material
3
Thick
PROX
Width
22LA
Length
25LLA, 24RLA
Tool
3
3
Lot
MED
WHOL
Subop
33LLA, 54RLA
Max #
2
Tool #
DIST
139
295
17
7
UFPB
58
32
10
COLH
140
289
17
221
UFPB
46
40
9
COLH
141
274
5d
211
UFPB
69
33
6
COLH
142
121
8a
11
UFPB
41
54
15
COLH
143
124
8c
124
UFPB
40
28
8
144
393
8q
344
UFPB
18
47
16
17
221
UFPB
8
14
6
145
146
270
4 of 10
Portion
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
17
243
UFPB
49
20
10
QRTZ
WHOL
3
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
13b
159
FRAG
48
17
10
COLH
STEM
2
53
390
15a
202
FRAG
49
35
8
COLH
FRAG
3
35
56, 60RA
151
152
153
208
154
20e
376
FRAG
52
24
9
COLH
FRAG
3
7c
252
FRAG
33
19
10
COLH
FRAG
2
155
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
2
160
399
5j
315
HAMS
80
68
65
COLH
WHOL
2
161
8a
11
HAMS
21
23
9
COLH
FRAG
3
162
8e
58
HAMS
61
47
33
COLH
WHOL
2
163
8j
79
HAMS
40
29
15
GRAY
FRAG
3
12e
31
HAMS
44
49
42
LIME
WHOL
1
8g
56
HAMS
45
42
41
LOCL
WHOL
3
17
247
HAMS
83
60
44
QRTZ
WHOL
2
HAMS
56
54
50
OTHR
WHOL
1
LENT
107
34
10
LOCL
WHOL
3
164
140
165
166
228
167
168
SRF
11
8j
124
25LA
8b
8
LENT
39
29
6
BURN
LAT
3
49
3
1
LENT
20
22
8
CHAL
PROX
3
92LA
17
256
LENT
35
25
11
CHAL
DIST
3
31LA
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
169
170
192
171
172
15
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
35LA
180
LENT
38
28
10
OTHR
PROX
3
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
1
8j
95
MFLK
48
42
22
COLH
FRAG
3
184
SRF
43
Edge Angle
32
Cortex
Width
MFLK
Portion
Length
174
Material
Tool
8m
5 of 10
Thick
Lot
185
Subop
Max #
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
15
COLH
FRAG
3
65DA
76DA
186
246
8p
380
MFLK
71
62
27
COLH
WHOL
3
187
229
17
247
MFLK
49
42
18
WHTE
FRAG
3
188
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
18
215
OVBF
26
15
8
CHAL
PROX
3
75
196
222
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
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
3
210
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
7b
217
OVBF
134
67
32
COLH
WHOL
2
54LA
203
218
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
3
6
OVBF
29
41
16
COLH
MED
3
47LA
224
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
8
7
OVBF
73
49
21
COLH
PROX
2
45
229
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
6 of 10
Tool #
Max #
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
Edge Angle
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
233
120
8c
27
OVBF
47
57
21
COLH
MED
3
234
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
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
241
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
2
5c
86
OVBF
10
13
7
PTNA
DIST
3
247
39LA
248
132
8j
95
OVBF
33
27
14
PTNA
FRAG
3
249
345
5l
293
OVBF
26
20
16
QRTZ
LAT
3
8d
134
OVBF
18
44
19
QRTZ
MED
3
61LA
250
17
7
OVBF
40
38
17
H2OD
PROX
3
60LLA, 52RLA
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
18
215
PERF
37
27
5
CHAL
WHOL
3
22
3
3
PERF
58
24
6
COLH
WHOL
3
62LA
16
14
PERF
22
34
6
COLH
WHOL
3
40
47,70RA,31DA
251
252
256
98
227
257
258
297
259
224
18
215
PERF
32
33
9
COLH
DIST
3
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
5k
282
PERF
31
14
6
COLH
WHOL
3
49LA
7c
252
PERF
50
36
11
COLH
WHOL
3
34
8k
114
SCRP
32
19
16
BURN
DIST
3
61
262
263
256
264
265
220
18
220
SCRP
66
50
15
CHAL
WHOL
2
55
266
27
13a
158
SCRP
26
18
6
CHAL
LAT
2
55
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
267
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
3
278
119
14f
149
STMB
64
25
17
COLH
STEM
3
271
72
Max #
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
Edge
Angle
7 of 10
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
279
279
5k
282
STMB
87
60
13
COLH
PROX
3
24LA
280
168
8m
174
STMB
41
31
18
COLH
PROX
3
59LA
8
10
STMB
39
23
17
PTNA
DIST
3
69
281
282
3
1
STMB
11
18
9
OTHR
PROX
3
302
66
8k
114
TADZ
71
62
23
COLH
DIST
3
303
131
8m
134
TADZ
55
45
20
COLH
MED
3
55LA
5
10
TRBF
43
52
11
CHAL
PROX
3
27LA
29
305
306
52
12a
7
TRBF
83
64
13
COLH
WHOL
2
307
85
8c
77
TRBF
67
46
15
COLH
FRAG
3
59
308
264
309
7c
219
UNIF
37
31
11
BURN
DIST
2
53LA
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
2
7
208
UNIF
32
11
7
COLH
LAT
3
316
54
317
358
18
209
UNIF
43
51
28
COLH
MED
2
318
114
13a
158
UNIF
39
43
12
COLH
PROX
2
319
245
17a
249
UNIF
35
62
23
COLH
DIST
3
30
36RLA
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
320
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
3
330
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
335
336
12k
113
UFLK
86
78
23
BURN
DIST
2
57PA
13b
159
UFLK
64
23
11
BURN
FRAG
3
43RLA
39RA
17a
249
UFLK
24
35
9
BURN
DIST
3
17a
249
UFLK
14
33
9
BURN
DIST
3
338
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
8l
138
UFLK
34
30
5
BURN
WHOL
3
33
337
244
342
89
343
183
8
2
UFLK
46
34
10
CHAL
WHOL
2
25
344
186
11
2
UFLK
41
32
12
CHAL
WHOL
2
24LA
29
346
239
17
256
UFLK
21
347
223
18
215
UFLK
27
Edge Angle
Length
UFLK
Cortex
Tool
254
Portion
Lot
16
Material
Subop
297
Thick
Max #
345
8 of 10
Width
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
33
29
CHAL
WHOL
3
26RLA
34
7
CHAL
WHOL
3
38DA, 41LLA
47
10
CHAL
DIST
3
39LA
20DA
348
226
18
215
UFLK
27
45
7
CHAL
WHOL
2
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
8d
34
UFLK
15
27
3
CHAL
DIST
3
12DA
93
8d
34
UFLK
21
46
9
CHAL
MED
3
39
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
42
359
360
361
364
3
8m
174
UFLK
54
59
9
CHAL
WHOL
2
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
14h
309
UFLK
26
24
7
CHQB
FRAG
3
21
20
371
372
23
8d
34
UFLK
32
47
7
CHQB
WHOL
2
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
383
384
22
13a
128
UFLK
71
49
13
COLH
WHOL
1
26, 53RA
13a
158
UFLK
26
25
8
COLH
LAT
3
48LA
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
14h
310
UFLK
37
42
10
COLH
DIST
3
27
15b
205
UFLK
57
25
10
COLH
LAT
3
40RA
389
390
235
Max #
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
Edge Angle
9 of 10
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
391
334
16a
234
UFLK
27
43
9
COLH
PROX
3
23LLA
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
20d
338
UFLK
37
48
14
COLH
PROX
2
46
12
COLH
PROX
3
84
16
392
401
402
306
20e
370
UFLK
34
42
403
209
20e
376
UFLK
32
27
4
COLH
FRAG
3
20e
384
UFLK
19
46
18
COLH
FRAG
3
69
404
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
8i
111
UFLK
20
27
6
COLH
FRAG
3
49
415
416
151
417
8j
78
UFLK
39
44
16
COLH
DIST
2
65PA, 55LA
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
8a
21
UFLK
57
45
13
OTHR
WHOL
2
40
427
428
429
35
430
431
205
432
8j
95
UFLK
33
44
33
OTHR
FRAG
1
8m
174
UFLK
33
42
14
OTHR
WHOL
3
24DA
8l
142
UFLK
51
35
9
OTHR
WHOL
3
28
8l
135
UFLK
56
44
13
OTHR
WHOL
3
16
20
20e
335
UFLK
28
15
5
LOCL
LAT
3
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
8f
45
UFLK
23
35
15
PTNA
FRAG
1
38
436
Max #
Subop
Lot
Tool
Length
Width
Thick
Material
Portion
Cortex
Edge Angle
10 of 10
Tool #
Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes
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
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
3
14DA
441
444
214
17c
279
UFLK
21
28
8
OTHR
DIST
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
445
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
12p
169
UFLK
20
25
4
COLH
DIST
3
16LA
27RLA
455
456
332
5eg
298
UFLK
66
37
8
COLH
WHOL
2
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
5k
286
UFLK
34
20
9
COLH
FRAG
3
461
462
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
1
ABR very heavy
batter on lateral
edges and on
one facet
2
ABR
3
ABR batter on all
edges
4
BRN batter on lateral
edges
5
BRNS
light chips on
one edge
6
BRNS batter
chips
7
BRNS batter
8
CHPR heavy batter
9
CHPR
dulled down on
edges
chips on all
edges
burin taken off one batter marks
side
knocked off one
side
snap
medial
biface reused in
postclassic
snap
haft
thick patina
reused as batterer resharpened on
from heavy
distal, on ventral
damage on left
and dorsal
lateral
diagonal
distal
patina heavy
on one end,
then fades
away to
nothing on
other end
thin narrow flakes snap
taken off
knocked off then
used again
retouch on
unifacial edge
Comments
medial
snap
proximal and distal
burin
lateral
made from
prepared
macroflake
edge beveled and
dulled
burin knocked off
light dulling
Weathering
white chalcedony
piece is the result
of a resharpening
episode
impact scars
Patina
1 of 47
Burning
Break
Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
slight burn
(probably not from
postclassic)
impact
right lateral
10 CHPR batter on
platform
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
Break Location
2 of 47
chips and
impact scars on
distal and right
lateral edge
11 CHPR batter
resharpening on 1
lateral, patina on
one side and then
resharpened
12 CHPR
chips on both
lateral edges,
impact scars on
distal
13 CHPR batter
hinge fractures dulling
all over
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
15 CHPR batter
chips, impacts
edge serrated
16 CHPR batter
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
patina on one
side
distal end half
cortex--only
appropriate for
rough work
end of biface
(distal)
resharpened into
cutting impliment
chopper probably a resharpening
reused core FRAG
evidence for
hafting
speckled patina
90% patina
if not reworked
somewhat and
used it would just
be a core FRAG
17 CHPR
chipping on
distal
striations on
righ tlateral
18 CHPR batter
impact
ventral/distal, right
lateral
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
Break Location
fire damage
FRAG is distal end
of macroflake
small nodule
burned and made
one edge with
steep angle
speckled patina
cortex platform,
piece could have
originally been
made a blank and
then used
resharpened on
distal
chips
22 CHPR
24 CHPR batter
speckled patina
a few
striations
20 CHPR batter
23 CHPR
3 of 47
resharpening on
distal because of
lack of patina
19 CHPR heavy batter on impact flakes
lateral edges (also have
and
batter in them)
dorsal/distal tip
21 CHPR batter on
proximal and
laterals
(halfting?)
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
distal
dulling
some resharpening
dulling possible
in one spot
resharpened on
one corner or
possibly damage
from platform
batter
resharpened on
distal
steep edge angle
result of
resharpening
speckled patina
hinge
distal and dorsal
material makes
telling use wear
difficult, tool has
characteristincs of
SCRPs, but it
much to big
25 CHPR
Comments
Weathering
Burning
Patina
4 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
probably a blank,
only has batter
associated with
flaking
26 CORE manufactural
batter
burned
27 CORE some batter
burned red
28 CORE
fire shattered
29 CORE heavy batter in
one spot
20% patina
30 CORE heavy batter on
all edges
failure to thin
31 CORE
32 CORE batter on 3
edges
old pre-postclassic
core was picked up
and attempts were
made to shape but
were abandoned
90% patina
33 CORE batter
34 CORE batter
35 CORE
36 CORE
37 CORE manufactural
batter
fire damage
no use wear
speckled patina
many usable large
flakes knocked off,
38 CORE
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
5 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
blank, only partially
knapped, probably
stopped when
found geoid hole
39 CORE batter
40 CORE batter
41 CORE
fire cracked
42 CORE
43 CORE batter
44 CORE batter
fire damage
45 CORE batter
many large usable
flakes knocked off
46 CORE batter
47 CORE
burins knocked off
end
48 CORE
flake blade core
49 CORE manufactural
batter
50 CORE batter
large usable flakes
were knocked off a
tablet
fire
medial
burned
red/damaged
51 CORE batter
patina except
where a couple
of flakes were
knocked off
52 CORE
patina
53 CORE batter
54 CORE batter
impact scars
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
6 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
resharpening
55 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% patina
59 CORE batter
60 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
65
DISC batter heavy on
all edges
66
DISC very heavy
batter around
edges
light specs of
patina, but
thick on edge
one edge may be
used but looks
more like natural
breakage
piece is very
chunky
classic tool may
have been reused
as a chopper
irregular
proximal
pops and fractures
on 1 facet
67
DISC batter on distal impacts on
and lateral
distal and
edges
lateral edges
resharpened(after
patinated)
attempted, then
some batter on
distal tip and right
lateral
68
DISC
manufactural
chips
edge sharpened
on both facts
69
DRIL
chips
70
DRIL
71 EXBF lateral sides
dulling
some impact
scars
74 EXBF batter
chips
75 EXBF light
snap
Comments
Weathering
made from
macroflake with
bulb removed
proximal
piece seems very
worn down
snap
proximal
some
snap
distal
snap
proximal
all edges
resharpened from
original flake
light
Patina
Burning
Break Location
full patina
except around
edges
resharpening
flakes off one
lateral edge
72 EXBF batter on edges
73 EXBF batter
7 of 47
retouch, pressure
flakes
light dulling
impact scar on
distal
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Dulling
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
cortex on proximal
end and both
surfaces
biface was
unusually thick
burned red on
edges
rough biface,
unusually thick
5% patina
snap
medial
beveled edge,
platform flaked out;
tool made from
very thick flake
water damage
poor materials,
break very rough
76 EXBF batter
snap
77 EXBF batter on lateral impacts on
edges
lateral edges
very thick width,
heavy
resharpening of
lateral edges but
no thinning
evidence
78 EXBF batter
edge
resharpenedbut
rough
79 EXBF
stage one, was
shortened probably
because of an
inclusion and the
whole end was
knocked off to
avoid it
80 EXBF
chips
dulling
impact
retouch mostly on snap
one side
medial
lateral
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
8 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
use wear hard to
asses due to
hardness of
materal, 'stage 2'
with rough facets-probably used as
expedient biface
30% patina
very rough tool
full patina
very rough tool,
may have been
discarded due to
material defect
too probably a
stage one that was
shortened because
they found an
inclusion and then
the whole end was
knocked of to avoid
it
distal
snap on an
inclusion; may be a
blade tip or the
proximal end of a
biface
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
Break Location
medial
chips
retouch
fire
distal and proximal bulbs popped,
piece was fire
damaged before
patina laid on
impact scars on
lateral edges
end resharpened
snap
medial
irregular
proximal
very chunky, may
have been used to
smash/pulverize
snap
haft break
halfting notches
snap
medial
chips
82 EXBF
83 EXBF batter on end
dulling
84 EXBF batter on distal
85 EXBF manufactural
batter
reworked from
regular OVBF
chips
87 EXBF batter on distal
88 EXBF
9 of 47
some resharpening snap
flakes taken off
81 EXBF batter
86 EXBF
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
beveled edges
failure to thin, tool
reject, no use
evident
impacts on
lateral edges
patina
lateral edges
concave
beveled on
latereals, possibly
resharpened
snap
proximal
not much wear on
distal probably was
resharpened and
then haft break
caused the tool
use to be
discontinued
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
91 EXBF batter
beveled edge
heavy patina
92 EXBF
edges dulled
93 EXBF batter
chipping
94 EXBF
chips on left
lateral edge
95 EXBF heavy batter
heavy chipping
96 EXBF batter
impact scars
97 EXBF batter
hinge fractures
from
manufacture
Comments
Weathering
Burning
Patina
10 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
irregular
resharpened on 1 snap
lateral
heavy
heavy striations on beveleing on left impact
striations on right lateral edge, lateral ventral edge
right lateral, ventral
ventral
snap
attempt to thin tool snap
on one lateral
snap
water damage
no wear on distal,
proximal end all
cortex, may be an
unused blank
proximal
lateral
irregular breakage
due to fire damage
distal
one end
burned
medial
haft
one end possibly
reharpened for
hafting
one edge beveled,
unusual form, but
well made and
shaped
burned on tip
biface is planoconvex
98 UFBL
light chips
hinge
distal
heavy fire damage 90% patina
on dorsal
99 UFBL
right lateral
dorsal chipping
fire cracked
proximal
burned to a dark
grey, poped bulbs
100 UFBL
chipping
101 UFBL
102 UFBL
103 UFBL
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
11 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
edge wear difficult
to determine due to
patination
heavy burning and
popped bulbs
everywhere, too
burned to tell much
use wear
light dulling on
edges
chipping
dulling
snap
distal and medial
dulling
irregular
104 UFBL batter
snap
105 UFBL batter on lateral
edges and
proximal
bifacial thinning
continued after
snap break
medial/distal
some retouch on snap
laterals and
possibly on break
proximal
distal
106 UFBL
dulling
retouch, pressure impact
flakes on 1
remaining original
edge
107 UFBL
dulling
retouch on left
lateral dorsal and
right ventral
medial/proxima one facet of dorsal
l
fully patinated,
could be PERF
FRAG
fire damaged
irregular break on
one end
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
110 UFBL
edges roughed
up
resharpened on left diagonal
lateral
111 UFBL
chips on
laterals
112 UFBL
chipping
dulling
113 UFBL
chipping
dulling
retouch
distal
snap
distal and proximal
fire
distal and proximal heavy burning,
popped bulbs
snap
distal
hafting notches
80% patina
chips, impacts dulling
116 UFBL
chips on distal
and lateral
edges
117 UFBL
chips on edges
118 UFBL
dulled edges
119 UFBL
chips on lateral
edges
120 UFBL
chips on left
lateral edge
and dorsal
Comments
left lateral edge
broken naturally
114 UFBL
115 UFBL
Weathering
Patina
Burning
12 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
pressure flakes on snap
right lateral, ventral
and left lateral
dorsal
medial
burned on the
edges
resharpened and
retouch
snap
right lateral
light burn
snap
medial
snap
lateral and
proximal
121 UFBL
dulling on
lateral edges
impact scars
slight
striations in
notches
snap
distal and medial
snap
distal
dulling
124 UFBL batter on distal
and lateral
edges
chips
light dulling
126 UFBL
light chips
dulling
127 UFBL
chips
dulling
128 UFBL
slight chipping
on edge
Comments
Weathering
Burning
Patina
full patina on
one corner
hafting notches
40% patina
thickness suggests snap
resharpening from
broader piece
125 UFBL
13 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
heavy chipping
on right lateral
edge and light
on left lateral
edge
122 UFBL
123 UFBL
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
platform flaked off
medial
patina on
edges
resharpening on
left lateral
snap
distal
snap
medial
distal tip knocked
off
full patina
use wear difficult to
asses because of
full patina
90% patina
primary shaping
flake
129 UFBL
light chips
snap
distal
130 UFBL
chipping on left slight polish
lateral
snap
distal
snap
distal
snap
distal
131 UFBL
dulling on
lateral edges
132 UFBL batter on
chips on lateral
proximal end edges
(probably
attempt to thin)
133 UFPB
chips on lateral
edges (mosty
right lat)
resharpening on
left lateral edge
134 UFPB
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
retouch on left
lateral edge
135 UFPB
chipping
resharpening on
one lateral edge,
ventral
dulling
full, thick patina
Comments
Weathering
Burning
Patina
14 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
wear difficult to
determine because
of patina
poor material, right
lateral edge all
cortex
30% patina
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
burned
heavy damage due
to fire damage
snap
medial
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
15 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
136 UFPB
chips on lateral
edges
distal tip battered
off
137 UFPB
chips
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 dulling on left
lateral edge
lateral
snap
distal and proximal
143 UFPB
chips
dulling
snap and impact
proximal and distal
respectively
144 UFPB batter
chips
dulling
snap
proximal and distal
145 UFPB
chips of off
edge
snap
proximal and distal
146 UFPB batter on
proximal
chips on lateral
edges
snap
distal
147 FRAG batter
chips
water damaged
retouch
right lateral
resharpening
possibly used has
an expedient
SCRP
water damage
5% patina
unifacial
148 FRAG
chipping
149 FRAG
chips
resharpening on
distal and right
lateral
150 FRAG
chips
slight retouch
151 FRAG
chip
major retouch, but
no pressure flake
152 FRAG
153 FRAG
154 FRAG batter
155 FRAG batter on one
edge
dulling
light dulling
chips, impact
scars
dulling
resharpening on
both facets,
beveled retouch
may have been a
drill, but hard to tell
because of burning
Comments
Weathering
Burning
lateral
distal
may have been
used as scrapper
snap
proximal and distal
may be FRAG of
formal tool
burned, before
retouch
snap
laterals(2)
snap
lateral and one end
burned
this FRAG
probably knocked
off in recycling
episode
Patina
16 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
156 FRAG
157 FRAG
chipping on
right lateral
edge
158 GOUG
chipping
polish
snap
distal
irregular
medial
resharpening and impact
pressure flakes on
dorsal distal
striations on
dorsal, on the
ridge
Comments
Weathering
cannot determine
amount of wear
because the
material is so hard,
wear appears on
laterals
lateral
159 HAMS
Patina
Burning
17 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Dulling
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
roughly made on
proximal end, but
no use on proximal
end(except batter
from manufacture)
heavy burning,
brakage
160 HAMS very heavy
batter
161 HAMS heavy batter
FRAG is byproduct of impact
162 HAMS batter
badly burned
163 HAMS heavy batter
impact
164 HAMS batter
165 HAMS batter
166 HAMS heavy batter on
proximal end
MFLK reused as
HAMS
too damaged to tell
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
18 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
167 HAMS batter
168 LENT batter on lateral impacts on
edges
distal
one haft notch
169 LENT
fire
170 LENT
probably proximal snap
tip retouched
because the very
tip is chunky
proximal, distal,
lateral
heavy burn, pops
on one side
heavy patina
on one side
too burned to
determine wear
proximal
171 LENT batter
chips
snap
distal
172 LENT
chips
pressure flaking on snap
edges
proximal and distal
173 LENT
light chipping
snap
proximal and distal
plano-convex,
inculsions
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)
176 LENT batter
chips
resharpeningon
distal
snap
haft
irregular
distal
full patina on
one facet
grey color from
water damage
177 LENT
snap
chips
may have been
snap
resharpened from
old flake because
patina not on edge
sharpening flake
scars
haft
179 LENT
chips on lateral on lateral
edges and
edges and
distal
distal end
retouched edges
snap
proximal
180 LENT
snap
haft
181 LENT manufactural
batter
snap
proximal and
medial
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
183 MFLK manufactural
batter
Comments
extremly fine, high
quality material-exotic?
possible water
damaged colha
chert
tool never finished
due to failure to
thin
water damaged
scrapper edge
angle=66
water damaged
fire
chips
Weathering
break on haft
location
30% patina
proximal
resharpening on
one side
heavily burned
failure to thin
65% patina
186 MFLK
187 MFLK
not much use wear
except damage
from manufacture
2 ends used for
scraping
184 MFLK heavy batter on
unbroken side
185 MFLK
Patina
proximal and distal
178 LENT batter
182 MFLK some batter
Burning
19 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
snap
lateral
188 MFLK batter on lateral chips on lateral
edges
edges
failure to thin
proximal and distal burned
snap
distal
highly burned,
some popped
bulbs
fire
medial
fire damage
snap
medial
fire fractured
snap
distal and proximal
fire
distal
snap
haft
197 OVBF heavy batter on impacts on end
lateral edges
snap
haft
198 OVBF batter
fire
proximal and distal fire damage
snap
medial
191 OVBF batter mostly
on one lateral
edge
retouch on both
lateral edges one
side retouched
then battered
heavily
192 OVBF batter
dulling
193 OVBF batter
194 OVBF
impacts
dulling
195 OVBF
chipping
dulling
resharpeningon
one lateral edge
196 OVBF batter
199 OVBF batter
retouch on one
lateral
no wear on
proximal end
slight beveling
Comments
Weathering
Burning
snap
Patina
20 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
stage 1 MFLK
tool is completely
white, probably
from fire damage
patina
worn down and
rounded (may be
from grinding or
water washed)
badly burned,
many popped
bulbs
has proximal
notches--probably
for halfting
surfaces very
smooth
most of edge
damage on one
facet
200 OVBF on tip
dulling
on one
surface
proximal tip is worn retouch on lateral
and retouched-edges and tip
used as pererator
snap
proximal
201 OVBF batter
retouch on one
lateral edge
snap
distal and proximal
202 OVBF batter on lateral chips on lateral dulling on
edges
edges
lateral edges
some retouch
snap
distal
snap
medial
snap
proximal and distal
snap
haft
snap
proximal and distal
snap
haft
snap
haft
203 OVBF batter
204 OVBF heavy batter
dulling
heavy chipping
205 OVBF batter
206 OVBF
dulling
impacts on
lateral edges
(one edge has
major flakes
taken off)
207 OVBF batter
208 OVBF
209 OVBF batter on
proximal
chips, hinge
fractures
sides reworked
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
21 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
snap due to haft
stress, striations on
middle of
surface(possibly
post-depositional)
break on haft
location
one facet fire
popped
burn on tip
burning damage
made use wear
hard to determine
speckled patina
10% patina
break on haft
location
irregular breaks
very thick and very
narrow, unusual
resharpened in
postclassic from
classic form
(patina)
210 OVBF heavy batter on
lateral edges
and distal
211 OVBF battered on
edges
212 OVBF
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
213 OVBF
striations on attempts to reuse,
dorsal
blows knocked of
surface
on snap break
dulling
214 OVBF batter on lateral impacts on
edges and
distal
distal
irregular
medial
snap
haft
diagonal
right lateral
snap
distal
patina on
edges
snap
haft
light patina
215 OVBF
distal impact
scars
retouch on one
lateral edge (not
patinated),
resharpened on
distal
216 OVBF
chips
one edge flaked off snap
217 OVBF batter
chips, impact
scars
218 OVBF batter on all
sides
chipping
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
22 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
fire damaged
2% patina
not much hard use,
very well made,
may be from
classic tool type
full patina
except where
retouched
snap
some resharpening snap
proximal and distal
medial
right lateral
wear probably from
manufacture
burned red
snap break done
for hafting
purposes
219 OVBF batter on lateral chips on lateral
edges
edges
retouch, half snap snap
was resharpened
to be rehafted
distal and proximal slight burn red
220 OVBF batter on one
lateral edge
attempts to thin
haft
one facet has
major impact
scars
221 OVBF batter on lateral
edges
222 OVBF batter
impacts scars
on one end
223 OVBF heavy on all
edges including
on snap break
snap
attempts to
snap
resharpen (failure
to thin seems
likely)
medial
may have
resharpening
haft
snap
resharpening on snap
use edge, thinning
attempt on one
side at break
medial
224 OVBF batter on lateral impacts on
edges
right lateral
snap
distal and proximal burned red on
edges
225 OVBF lateral edge
batter
snap
haft and tip
226 OVBF some batter
on lateral
edges chipping
edges
resharpened from
something bigger
but not used
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
23 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
proximal tip
smoothed off, very
wide for a typical
OVBF
very narrow
very thick
tip flaked off from
impacts
batter appears to
be partially due to
attemps to thin
227 OVBF batter on both
lateral edges,
but heavier on
one
228 OVBF batter
chips
dulling
231 OVBF batter
232 OVBF heavy batter on
right lateral
edge
233 OVBF heavy batter on
lateral edges
snap
haft
some wear on the batter on one
snap break
lateral edge and
(proximal end) with retouch on other
retouch
snap
distal and proximal
snap
medial
resharpening
snap
flakes off proximal
end
chips
snap
resharpening on snap
distal and left
lateral but not
much use, must of
snapped right
lateral after
resharpening
heavy batter on
retouch on one
lateral edges could lateral
be due to reuse as
an abrader or it
could be due to
failure to thin
snap and fire
haft
medial and
proximal
respectively
Comments
Weathering
after first break tool
was still used until
it broke again
red banding in
material
haft
medial
Patina
Burning
Break Location
24 of 47
resharpening on
one lateral edge
and one facet
229 OVBF batter on lateral chips on lateral
edges
edges
230 OVBF batter
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
resharpening on
proximal end, may
be reuse or was
worked for hafting
slight burn damage
most of the use
wear on one lateral
234 OVBF batter
235 OVBF heavy batter
heavy chipping heavy dulling
236 OVBF
Impacts on
distal
237 OVBF batter on three impact scars on
edges
lateral edges
238 OVBF batter heavy on impacts on
one lateral
distal
239 OVBF batter on lateral
edges
240 OVBF batter on lateral
edges
some edge
maintenance
after tool snapped, resharpening on
they tried to
distal and one
remake into ovate lateral edge
but failed
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
snap
distal
wear probably from
manufacture
snap
proximal and distal
segment is closer
to being the
proximal end then
the distal end of
tool
irregular
distal
biface is very thick, resharpening end snap
probably reduced and
from a larger biface retouch/thinning on
lateral edges
distal and other
lateral edge
resharpened
25 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
proximal
snap
haft
snaps
haft
no retouch
snap
evidence snap and
flake on distal
proximal and distal
distal angle very
sharp
cortex covers 20%
of one surface
speckled patina
flake on distal end
odd, could have
been re-flaked and
then a snap break
occurred
245 OVBF manufactural
batter
distal end shows
sharpening on
corner
polish
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
26 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
no wear on
snapped end, 1
impact scar form
thinning
chips, lateral
impact scars
243 OVBF
244 OVBF batter
Striations
Dulling
polish on one
lateral side
241 OVBF heavy batter on
edge
242 OVBF batter
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
a few retouch
snap and impact
flakes on right and
left lateral edge
proximal and left
lateral respectively
resharpening scar snap
on distal snap
break, lateral edge
retouched
medial and haft
reused from larger snap
biface
distal
no obvious wear,
may have been
small celt, proximal
end very thin
distal
tool is by-product
of a diagonal
fracture, tool found
on east side of site
diagonal
laterals may have snap
been resharpened
medial
biface was
originally larger
and was cut down
on left lateral so it
became very thick
and narrow
light specked
patina
247 OVBF batter
FRAG may be by- irregualr
product of recycling
episode
on use edge,
chipping
on used edge
chips and
hinge
fractureas on
lateral edges
fire
medial
fire
medial
snap
medial
fire popped
Comments
possibly archaic
fire damage so
heavy that wear
hard to determine
burned red
edges dulled
chipping
256 PERF batter from
chipping
hitting platform
fire fractured
distal
burned, popped
bulbs
snap
distal
burned
light patina
dulling
Weathering
Patina
Burning
Break Location
full, thick patina
chips on lateral
edges
254 PERF
257 PERF batter
full patina
patina on used
edge
252 OVBF batter on distal impact scars
edge
255 PERF
distal
lateral
retouch on used
edge
250 OVBF batter on lateral
edge
253 PERF
90% patina
irregular
248 OVBF batter on one
end
251 OVBF batter on
proximal
27 of 47
this is a by-product
of recycling,
resharpening
flakes taken out of
distal
246 OVBF heavy batter on
distal
249 OVBF
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
retouch on edges
258 PERF
chips
259 PERF
chips, impact
260 PERF
heavy chipping light dulling on
on left lateral distal/right
lateral
261 PERF
most on distal
and left lateral,
some on right
lateral edge
262 PERF
chipping
263 PERF
chipping mostly
on platform and
proximal lateral
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
28 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
slight burn
dulling on tip
retouch on left
lateral ventral
snap
medial
snap
distal
many flakes taken
off at odd angles a
flake
retouch on left
lateral
264 SCRP batter on dorsal chipping on
dorsal, impact
on ventral
flake platform thin
and used as PERF
most likely
very smal, probably fire
resharpened from
larger tool
265 SCRP batter
chips
dulling
266 SCRP
chips
dulling
267 SCRP
chips, impact
scars
268 SCRP
chips on distal dulling on distal
proximal
burned red
thin coat patina
snap
lateral
speckled patina
resharpening on
distal
snap
left lateral
partial burn on
distal
patina thick on
edges--makes
edge wear hard to
see
269 SCRP
chips on distal
and laterals
270 SCRP batter on all
sides and
platform
distal end flaked
for SCRP edge
snap
chips, large
impact scar on
ventral/right
273 SCRP
chips
distal end
resharpened
274 SCRP
light chipping
Comments
Weathering
probably not
resharpened much,
very large for a
typical scrapper
preassure flaking
on distal, grey
chert
edges
resharpened
one facet used on
distal and lateral,
other facet used on
dorsal on the end
Patina
left lateral
SCRP flaked off of
a core
272 SCRP batter
Burning
29 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
right lateral
resharping and
used for nonscrapping purpose
polish on distal
271 SCRP
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
white chert
fracture
lateral
polish, spurred on
one end, three
sides used for
SCRP, fourth side
unused
impact
proximal
no retouch
evidence,
thumbnail SCRP
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
276 STMB batter
hinge fractures
277 STMB
impact scars on
distal
lateral edges
heavily reduced
(but still part of
original form)
279 STMB batter
chipping
blade edges
preasure flaked,
retouch
280 STMB batter
impact scars on
left lateral
278 STMB batter
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
30 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
patina where
not
resharpened
snap
haft
snap
haft
snap
stem
snap
medial
snap
haft
75% patina
full patina
light patina
tranchet flake
taken off end
281 STMB batter
fire
medial
282 STMB lateral sides
snap
distal
break caused by
hafting stress, grey
chert
medial
snap manufactural
error
302 TADZ batter
distal end more
snap
heavily worked-either resharpening
or orignal work,
batter on snap
break
distal resharpening snap
flakes removed
then it snapped
303 TADZ heavy batter on
lateral edges
305 TRBF
flakes chipped
off
306 TRBF
impact scars
307 TRBF
chips on
original edges
308 UNIF
chips
309 UNIF
chips on dorsal
resharpening on
left lateral
310 UNIF
chips on left
lateral edge
no edge
maintenance
311 UNIF
chipped on one polished on
edge
same edge
312 UNIF batter on lateral
edges
fire
medial
Comments
Weathering
Burning
distal and proximal
Patina
31 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
looks like haft
snapped and then
reused until distal
snapped; tranchet
flake taken off
distal
burned
popped bulbs,
colored redish
pressure flaked
edges, not much
use wear except a
few impact scars
probably from
production
dulling
retouch on lateral
edges
snap
all three corners of red on original
triagular form
edges, fire popped
bulbs
snap
proximal
burned
snap
medial
red from fire
damage
snap
distal and right
lateral
irregular
distal and proximal
impact
left lateral
possible heat
treatment
tool heavily worked
on dorsal surface-it may be either
recycled from a
formal tool or a
preform
worked on one
side
313 UNIF
chips on lateral
edges
retouch on right lat snap
and dorsal
314 UNIF batter
on ventral
resharpening on
laterals and distal,
on dorsal
resharpening on
left lateral and
dorsal
315 UNIF light
resharpening on
right lateral
316 UNIF some batter
chipping
317 UNIF
chips on right
and left
lateral/distal
318 UNIF
chips on right
lateral
319 UNIF batter on 2
edges
chips on 2
edges
320 UNIF heavy batter on
tip and one
lateral edge
couple of chips on
snap
Comments
Weathering
Burning
distal
maybe a utilized
blank
very thick
distal resharpened retouch on one
into PERF
lateral and on
distal tip
resharpening on
distal
Patina
32 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
thinning flake
knocked off
proximal right
lateral
burned
snap, impact
proximal, distal
respectively
edge missing (no
edge angle)
snap
medial
chips probably
from retouch, snap
on haft location
impact
distal
biface seemed
squared off on one
end, may be
another type of tool
snap
medial
321 UNIF heavy batter
many hinge
scars
322 UNIF batter
proximal end was snap
lobbed off tool for
resharpenig
purposes
thickness indicates reflaked edges
possible reuse
323 UNIF batter
324 UNIF
light chips
retouch on lateral
edges
325 UNIF batter on lateral impact scars on
edges
distal
distal end
resharpened and
possibly lateral
edges (because of
steep angles)
326 UNIF
chips
retouch
327 UNIF batter on
ventral
chips on
ventral
resharpening and
retouch on all sides
except distal end
distal
light patina
snap
medial
heavy patina
impact
one end
shatter
laterals, proximal
and distal
medial
Comments
very thick, possibly
resharpened from
larger biface, many
impact scars
could possibly be a
stem of a STMB
but cannot
determine, it is very
thick overall
80% patina
snap
Weathering
Patina
Burning
33 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
burned on one
facet
burned pink
328 UNIF batter
chips, hinge
fractures
diagonal
full patina
330 UNIF batter on all
edges
impact scars on
right lateral
331 UFLK
chipping on
distal/dorsal
332 UFLK one spot of
heavy batter
(may be an
abrader)
chips
333 UFLK
chips on lateral
edges and end
334 UFLK
chips, 1 impact
on right lat.
Comments
Weathering
left lateral
329 UNIF
335 UFLK batter on dorsal
surface and
right lateral
only
Patina
Burning
34 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
series of flakes
knocked off
distal/dorsal
possible retouch
on right lateral,
bifacial
resharpening
heavy patina
means it may be
from before the
postclassic, tool
may be a preform
possibly utilized on
right lateral but it
could be attempts
at sharpening
badly burned, bulb
pop
pressure flaking
snap
medial
snap
distal
fire burned
primary flakes used
for cutting
burin
lateral
336 UFLK
heavy chips on
sharp edge
resharpening
338 UFLK
on distal
resharpening
flakes
339 UFLK
chips on right
lateral edge
340 UFLK
chips on dorsal
341 UFLK batter
chips
342 UFLK
impact scars
343 UFLK batter
chips
344 UFLK
chips
snap
distal
345 UFLK
chips on right
and left lateral
snap
distal and proximal
346 UFLK
chips, impact
scars on distal
and left lateral
edge
snap
right lateral
337 UFLK
dulling on right
lateral
resharpening on
ventral
light polish
snap
proximal
Comments
Weathering
Burning
Patina
35 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
burned or water
damabed to grey
color
snap
distal
snap and fire
both edges
snap
medial
could be a blade,
platform crushed
snap
medial
thinning flake taken
out of dorsal
snap and fire
proximal and left fire damaged
lateral respectively
retouch
burned
burned red
popped bulbs
use wear difficult to
determine because
of extensive
retouch
20%patina
cortex platform
10% patina
probably used for
cutting
347 UFLK
chips, impact
scar on distal
snap
medial
diagonal and
irregular
proximal and distal
snap
left lateral
burn damage
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
36 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
bulb popped
348 UFLK
349 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
353 UFLK
chips, impact
scars
354 UFLK
chips
355 UFLK
chips on lateral
edges
356 UFLK
chips
357 UFLK
chipping, hinge
fractures
358 UFLK
chips on dis
and one lateral
edge
359 UFLK
small chips
resharping flaked
dulling
beveled on
proximal end
speckled patina
hinge flake
hinge flake
heavy patina,
probably recycled
classic tool
heavy patina
on cortex only
5% patina
dulling
snap
distal
80% patina
whole FRAG is the
by product of a
diagonal break
360 UFLK
chipping
361 UFLK batter
hinge scars on
ventral
362 UFLK
chips on right
lateral dorsal,
left lateral
ventral
363 UFLK
chips and
impacts on
distal and
lateral edges
364 UFLK
chips
365 UFLK
dulling
resharpening and snap
retouch present
snap
medial
snap
medial
snap
proximal
50% patina
one facet has
full patina
chipping on
lateral
edges/distal
snap
distal
367 UFLK
chips, hinge
fractures(manu
facture)
snap
cannot be
determined medial
or lateral
368 UFLK slight batter on
one lateral
edge
light patina
chips on left
lateral edge
dulling on right
lateral edge
Comments
no wear on medial
break
fire damage
light dulling on
left lateral
dorsal
Weathering
most of utilized
edge broken off
fire popped
366 UFLK
369 UFLK
Patina
distal and proximal
sharpened on
proximal and right
lateral
some retouch
Burning
37 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
snap
distal
370 UFLK
small chips on
distal and left
lateral
371 UFLK
chipped on
right lateral
edge
372 UFLK
chipping on
distal
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
376 UFLK
chips
retouch on right
lateral ventral,
pressure flaked
377 UFLK
chips on lateral
edges
beveled on cortex
edge
378 UFLK
chips
379 UFLK
chips
380 UFLK batter on distal
edge
dulling on right
lateral edge
impact
right lateral/dorsal
snap
distal and right
lateral
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
38 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Dulling
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
left lateral missing
and distal snap, all
that remains of
original edge is
right lateral
speckled patina
cortex on platform
snap
medial
unidentified chert
material
snap
distal
large impact scar
on left laterall, on
the dorsal side
snap and irregular right lateral,
proximal
respectively
retouch on utilized snap
edge
medial
381 UFLK
impact along
right lateral
dorsal
382 UFLK
chips
383 UFLK
chips on
distal/dorsal,
right lateral and
ventral
384 UFLK
385 UFLK
chips
speckled patina
heavy chipping
on distal
388 UFLK
chips on
rounded edges
389 UFLK
small chips on
left distal
Comments
distal end of flake
snapped off
platform
reshaprened to
beveled edge
half burned
pressure flake
snap
remnants but used
edge mostly
missing
medial
retouch on right
ventral
medial
snap
use wear
undetermined,
broken from use,
used edge gone
386 UFLK batter on left
lateral edge
and dorsal
387 UFLK
Weathering
Patina
Burning
39 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
water damage
made from
macroflake,
crushed platform
water
damage(turned
grey)
2-facet platform
10% patina
specks
piece was a
thinning flake and
has been reused
as a UFLK
water damage
390 UFLK
chips, impact
scars
391 UFLK
chips
392 UFLK
resharpening
3 snaps
flakes on 1 lateral
edge other side
has 3 snap breaks
dulling
snap
light dulling
natural
proximal
fracture(inclustion)
light dulling on
left lateral,
distal and right
lateral
394 UFLK
chips
dulling
snap
distal
395 UFLK
chips on right
lateral edge
dullling on right
lateral
snap
distal/left lateral
resharpening
chips on dorals
and right lateral
edge
400 UFLK
chipping
damage
light patina
striations on
ventral
striations
399 UFLK batter near
platform
Comments
pressure flakes on
right lateral
397 UFLK
398 UFLK
Weathering
medial
chips
heavy dulling
on edges of
lateral edges,
polish on
dorsal
Patina
1 lateral
393 UFLK
396 UFLK
Burning
40 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
snap
proximal
fire
dorsal/distal
cortex platform
30% burned
10% patina
fire shattered on
dorsal
hinge fracture must
have knocked off
the platform
dulling
401 UFLK
chips
dulling
snap and fire
402 UFLK
retouch and batter snap
on snap break
distal, proximal
respectively
chipping
snap
laterals and
proximal
404 UFLK
chips
impact
medial
405 UFLK
chips
dulling
resharpening
flakes on right
lateral edge
406 UFLK
on snapped
end and one
lateral edge
dulling on snap
and 1 lateral
edge
pressure flaked
snap
edge only on one
facet on one lateral
407 UFLK
chipping
polish
408 UFLK
chips, impact dulling on distal
scars on distal
Comments
Weathering
Patina
edge damage on
retouch probably
from wear
raw material
usually waxy,
possibly may not
have been
utilized(edge
damabe probably
due to
trampling/natural
processes)
speckled patina
snap
left lateral
resharpened to
steep angle
burned heavily,
most of edge
popped or
snapped off
distal
403 UFLK batter
snaped area looks
to have been used
has a PERF
Burning
41 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Dulling
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
distal
half burned
left lateral, distal
burned and fire
popped
popped bulbs
no platform
polish
409 UFLK batter on
distal/ventral
impacts on
distal/ventral
410 UFLK
chips on 1
lateral and
proximal
dull on 1 lateral striations
and proximal
411 UFLK
chips on left
lateral edge
dull on left
lateral
resharpened to
beveled edge on
distal
412 UFLK
possibly PERF
retouch
413 UFLK
chips on dorsal
and ventral
distal
414 UFLK batter on
proximal
chips on distal dulling on distal
snap
proximal
half bulb left on
proximal right
lateral
water
discoloration
natural
415 UFLK
heavy chipping
417 UFLK batter on
ventral
chips
418 UFLK batter on
ventral
chips on
dorsal, impact
scars on dorsal
419 UFLK
chips
420 UFLK
distal chips
Comments
primary flake
striations on
distal
416 UFLK batter on all
edges except
distal
Weathering
Patina
Burning
42 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
lateral
platform prepatory
flake knocked off
speckled patina
pressure flaked,
snap
seriation on lateral
proximal
resharpening
snap
proximal
50% patina
snap
medial
full, thick patina
probably archaic
notches on distal
primary flake
platform batter
distal end
resharpened
manufacture
failure/failure to
thin
421 UFLK
dorsal chipping
422 UFLK
dhipping on left dulling on left
lateral/ventral lateral/ventral
423 UFLK
light chipping
on right lateral
424 UFLK
chips on distal dulled on distal
snap
Comments
Weathering
proximal
may have removed
whole edge to
make new edge on
right lateral
425 UFLK heavy batter on heavy chipping
right lateral
on right lateral
edge
Patina
Burning
43 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
speckled patina
snap
left lateral knocked snap
off, possibly to
resharpen but no
wear
cortex covers 70%
of one facet
right and left lateral
edges
proximal
80% patina
snap
medial
90% patina
426 UFLK
chips, impact
427 UFLK
chipping
428 UFLK
chipping on
one edge
dulling on one
edge
irregular
proximal
429 UFLK
chips
dulling
snap
medial
430 UFLK
heavy chipping
on distal/right
lateral
popped bulbs
edges beveled
grey chert
grey chert
patina on edge
grey chert
many hinge
fractures on left
lateral, greyishbrown chert
431 UFLK
chips on distal
and left lateral
432 UFLK
chips
434 UFLK
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
435 UFLK batter on
platform
chips on right
lateral and
distal
light dulling
chips
438 UFLK
chipps on all
sides, even
platform
439 UFLK
440 UFLK
dulling
dulling on
utilized edge
chips
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Dulling
snap
edge dulling
437 UFLK
44 of 47
tool is anomolous,
but chips too
regular to be
natural, made out
of limestone
433 UFLK
436 UFLK
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
dull
lateral and one end
use wear not totally
convincing--may
be natural
full patina
snap
distal
right lateral
resharpening
snap
medial
light specs of
patina, but
thick on edge
use difficult to
determine because
of patina
used as cutting tool resharpening
and possibly PERF
composite tool
snap
left lateral
thick full patina
archaic
resharpening
burned
snap
distal
resharpened in
postclassic
441 UFLK batter on
edges, mostly
on dorsal
2% patina
442 UFLK
light dulling
resharpening on snap
right lateral, ventral
light dulling
Comments
cortex platform
distal
cortex platform,
primary reduction
flake
snap
right and left lateral
and proximal
Chert is white in
color
443 UFLK
light chipping
444 UFLK
chips on distal
and lateral
edges
snap
medial
445 UFLK
chips on dorsal dulling on
dorsal
fire
lateral edges
446 UFLK
light chipping
447 UFLK
on lateral
dulling on
edges chipping lateral edges
retouch on distal
448 UFLK
chipping
reflaked on distal
to create new edge
449 UFLK
chips
450 UFLK
chipping
451 UFLK
on distal and
proximal and
on snap break
dulling
Weathering
Patina
Burning
45 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
snap
proximal
snap
distal
5% patina (on
edges)
Chert is white in
color
some
retouch on snap
burned red
retouch
feathering, edge so
thin it may have
chipped naturally,
very small
chips on snap
snap
proximal/medial
452 UFLK
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
46 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
chips on distal
453 UFLK batter on 1
edge
speckled patina
454 UFLK
chips on right
lateral ventral
455 UFLK
chips on distal,
impact scars
456 UFLK
chipping
457 UFLK
chips on all
sides
458 UFLK
right lateral
light dulling
dorsal chipping
459 UFLK
light chipping
460 UFLK
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
461 UFLK
chipping
snap
proximal, distal,
and lateral
462 UFLK
chips on lateral dulling on
edges
lateral edges
lateral
left lateral
may be a flake of a
core, batter may be
due to flaking
process
striations on
distal/dorsal
striations
light dulling
snap
medial
snap
distal
some pressure
flake retouch
pressure flaked in
one spot on one
lateral edge
water damaged
could be lateral
FRAG of stemmed
unifacial blade
463 UFLK batter resulting chips
in cresent scars
retouch chip scars
slight burning
464 UFLK
light chipping
on right lateral
snap
proximal
465 UFLK
chips
snap
medial/proximal
impact
lateral
466 UFLK
467 UFLK batter on
platform
dulling
chips
dulling
pressure flaked on
right lataeral edge,
ventral
Comments
Weathering
Patina
Burning
47 of 47
Break Location
Break type
Maintenance
Reuse
Striations
Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling
Dulling
Chiping
Batter
Tool
Tool #
Appendix E: Tool Database
single facet
platform
chert is grey in
color
possibly burned
chert is creamy red
in color