Postclassic Maya Lithic Tool Maintenance, Recycling, and Consumption Patterns at Laguna de On Island

By

Sheila M. Galup

Occasional Publication No. 13

Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Department of Anthropology

University of Albany September 2007

Table of Contents

Preface………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………… ii Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 1 Background……………………………………………………………………… 2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………. 12 Spatial Distribution Patterns of Lithic Tools…………………………….……….. 33 Discussion and Conclusions…………………………………………….………. 40 References Cited………………………………………………………………… 45 Index of Appendices…………………………………………………………….. 52 Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variances by Tool Type…………… 54 Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type……………………………………… 59 Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site……………… 63 Appendix D: Illustrations………………………………………………………… 69 Appendix E: Tool Database……………………………………………………… 80

Preface

The Institute for Mesoamerican Studies is pleased to publish Sheila Galup’s masters paper as an Occasional Publication of IMS. This work was originally submitted to the Department of Anthropology at UAlbany – SUNY in April 2005 under Sheila’s maiden name (Sheila M. Sastry). Sheila was a key member of the Belize Postclassic Project during the 1997 and 1998 seasons.

The manuscript provides a valuable description of the characteristics of a Postclassic Maya lithic assemblage from the site of Laguna de On, Belize, including metrics, raw materials, and modifications. My own first study of the lithics of Laguna de On as part of my doctoral dissertation (Masson 1991) was based on a small sample of tools. Subsequent excavation seasons during 1996-1997 resulted in a much larger sample, which is fully analyzed here. Postclassic Maya lithic studies remain in their infancy, despite some pioneering work during the 1980’s at the site of Colha and other settlements in northeastern Belize. Perhaps the most definitive study was that of George Michaels (1987) on the Colha Postclassic workshops. However, production contexts at that site provide only a narrow perspective on the range of lithic use during the Postclassic Period of northeastern Belize. For this reason, Sheila Galup’s Laguna de On study provides an important complement to Michaels’ treatise by documenting the patterns of lithic use and manufacture at a site that was a consumer for some of Colha’s products. In addition to obtaining and using formal Colha tools, Laguna de On also had its own expedient industry that utilized low-grade chalcedonies that were available locally.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this publication is its documentation of locally-made tools, regularly referred to as expedient technologies. Some expedient tool categories were made repeatedly in a patterned ways, such as discoidals, while utilized non-retouched flakes exhibit little regularity in form. The bulk of tool assemblages in the Maya area are comprised of locally made/expedient tools – their ubiquity is thus an indicator of their importance to the families who made and used them and to the economies of the societies in which they lived. It is nice to see such tools be more fully studied and reported. More work remains to be done, but Sheila Galup’s study offers a handy point of embarkation for Maya lithicists of the next generation. This volume, together with our previous Occasional Publication No. 12, by Antonina Delu, on the ground stone artifacts of Postclassic Maya site of Caye Coco, Belize, augments the body of available reference works for Maya stone tools.

Marilyn A. Masson

Director, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies

Acknowledgments Sheila Galup graduated with a B.A. from Miami University of Ohio in 1999. She completed her M.A. in Anthropology at SUNY Albany under the guidance of Marilyn Masson. She now lives and works in northern Massachusetts. Sheila Galup’s study was facilitated by grants for fieldwork at Laguna de On from the National Science Foundation and the Center for Field Research- Earhwatch (awarded to M. Masson).

ii

Abstract Stone tools from the Late Postclassic (AD 1050-1450) site of Laguna de On in northern

Belize are analyzed here to ascertain community and household economic activities. A

greater emphasis on long distance exchange has been documented for this time period,

and this study contributes to a broader understanding of the local exchange relationships

between communities and the degree of autonomy of individual communities. The

exchange value of tools, their origins, manufacturing process, level of standardization,

methods of utilization and maintenance are described here. These factors illustrate the

complex, interdependent interactions between consumer and production communities of

the region.

Introduction

The Maya site of Laguna de On is a small brackish lagoon located in northern Belize on

the interior of the Yucatan Peninsula [Illustration D1]. Locally known as Honey Camp, the

landlocked lagoon was first noted for its Maya ruins as early as 1927 by explorers (Gann 1928).

Archeological testing during the 1990s determined that the shore areas were inhabited primarily

during the Classic period through the Postclassic period, although the area was not densely

settled (Masson 1993, 2000). Limited testing and documentation of looters’ trenches on the

shore revealed an Early Classic and Late Preclassic component to the area as well. Household

structures tested on the southwest shore proved continuous occupation from the Terminal Classic

through the Late Postclassic. Two isolated mounds near this residential plaza dated to the

Classic period. Unfortunately, nearby construction may have destroyed other Classic period

components of the site. Additionally, sheet middens of Postclassic living debris were found on

elevated bluffs on the north and west shores. Testing at the west bluff also revealed a small

square shrine which yielded many examples of effigy censers and ollas and other Late

Postclassic censer vessels (Masson 2000). The island in the northeast corner of the lagoon,

however, proved to be a densely settled Postclassic community. Excavations exposed a sparse

archaic component from the island (Rosenswig and Stafford 1998:81). However, the main focus

of research remained on the Postclassic occupation (Masson and Rosenswig, ed. 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000). The chipped stone tool assemblage from the Postclassic island settlement is

analyzed in this paper to examine the patterned ways in which its inhabitants chose to utilize and

conserve their chipped stone resources.

1

Background

The Economics of the Postclassic. The shifting cultural landscape of the Maya world

during the Postclassic and its focus on commercialism led to social, economic, and political

upheaval. With the dawning of the Postclassic, came a shift from large scale political centers to

fewer, smaller centers much reduced in scale. Communities exhibited a variety of patterns in

adapting to the new political and economic environment. In the Belize Valley, some

communities were abandoned such as Benque Viejo by A.D. 830 (Blanton, et. al 1993: 187) and

Barton Ramie by A.D. 900 (Gifford 1976). Other sites indicate settlement continuity during the

transitional period, such as Becan (Ball 1985: 84), Cerros (Walker 1990), Lamanai (Pendergast

1981, 1985, 1986), and Santa Rita (Chase and Chase 1988). At Colha (Hester 1982: 40) and

Nohmul (Chase and Chase 1982) there is evidence of invasion by groups from the Northern

Yucatán followed by a non-local occupation. Different regions and settlements reacted to their

changing world differently and on an idiosyncratic basis. Greater local autonomy emerged with

the collapse of Classic kingdoms and, as a result, a very different social order arose. Time and

energy previously invested in the construction of monumental architecture was now turned to

mercantile trade (Rathje 1975, Sabloff and Rathje 1975).

The Postclassic was characterized in Smith and Berdan (2000) by its high volume of

long-distance exchange, a greater diversity of trade goods, and a more highly commercialized

economy than in earlier times. Trade routes were well established and the movement of goods

over great distances occurred frequently on a seasonal basis. These changes were reflected in the

movement of greater quantities of valuables over long distances and their distribution both

within and between sites than generally recorded for the Classic period. The new influx of

materials and goods brought a “cosmopolitan” air to the Postclassic communities; exotic goods

2

previously found only in elite contexts were now shared by all households to varying degrees.

Additionally, new stylistic changes, reflecting interaction with the Mexican highlands, became

commonplace; even stone tools from this era exhibited signs of foreign influence as noted at the

Colha site (Hester 1982, Shafer 1979, 1982, Michaels 1987).

Before the Spanish arrived in the 15th century, trade networks were already highly

complex in Mesoamerica. Berdan (1988) worked out three basic principles of trade that affected

political and social organization of Mesoamerica. Although Berdan focused on the Aztec

Empire, these principles can apply to parts of the Belize area as well. First, as trading operations

become more complex, greater emphasis was put upon economic and possibly political control

over a region. Negotiating trade relationships and control over resources, therefore, must have

been very important during the Postclassic. This can be seen in the changing settlement patterns

seen during the Postclassic. During the Late Postclassic, trading ports with increased elite

construction projects were found along the eastern and northern coastal areas as well as along

inland aquatic routes (Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Miller 1982). Settlements located strategically

along established trade routes gained in wealth and power. The power vacuum created after the

fall of Chichén Itzá in A.D. 1200 (Andrews 1993) allowed the sites of El Meco, Cozumel,

Tulum, Ichpaatun, and Santa Rita to reach their maximum flourescence at this time (Sanders

1960, Robles and Andrews 1986, Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Chase and Chase 1988).

Secondly, individuals who engaged in full-time commerce gravitated toward dealing in

goods that had a high exchange rate. Small objects with a high value such as obsidian, jade,

cloth, or feathers, were more likely to travel longer distances. Thus, trading small objects was

more likely to be a full-time occupation, as opposed to trading bulky/perishable goods. The

implications of this principle are important to understand: the movement of different types of

3

material, their value to consumers, and the distance that goods travel while maintaining a viable

profit margin.

The third of Berdan's principles states that traders used to their advantage naturally

occurring exchange discrepancies, such as environmental barriers and distance, but traders may

have also created their own discrepancies. Each step in the process of making and distributing a

product added to its value. While driving up the price of the product, it created more niches for

sellers to make a profit as well as increased the efficiency of the entire process. It is unlikely that

the same individual would have always quarried, knapped, transported, and sold or used the

same tool. By specializing, more merchants or traders could have been supported in the trade

system.

The Postclassic tendency towards settlement on islands and coastal areas served the two

purposes of protecting from attack, and allowing communities to participate in well traveled

aquatic trade routes. The primary method of transporting objects in Prehispanic Mesoamerica

was canoe. Water travel greatly increased the distance over which a large quantity of goods

could be moved with a minimal of manpower. According to Drennan (1984); "To transport one

metric ton (1,000 kg) a distance of one kilometer overland would have required 22 man-hours in

Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Carrying the same amount by canoe (upstream) would have required

only six man-hours of labor."

The other method of transport was the human carrier. Ethnographically, they were called

tlamemeh or tlamemah in nahuatl (Santone 1997). Tumplines held a carrying frame (cacaxtli) on

the back that supported a container (petlacalli) which was usually covered in hides to protect the

contents. Obviously, energy costs were much lower when overland travel was not involved in

the trade system. This made aquatic settlement more cost effective. Both overland and aquatic

4

trade routes were in place during the Postclassic. Individual commodities were limited by the

range of how much could have been carried and the feasible distance over which it could have

been taken without losing its commercial viability (Santone 1997). Following Hassig's (1985)

model, Santone (1997) estimated that "Assuming an average weight of 200g per tool, one human

bearer could have transported 32.8 kg of oval bifaces a distance of 30 km in 1.5 days, while one

canoe could have transported 9, 379 kg of these items the same distance and within the same

length of time." If trading in bulky items with relatively low value, such as maize or other staple

crops occurred, then the distance the items would be able to travel while maintaining value

would have been considerably shortened. Small items with high value stretched the transport

range considerably. When transportation methods and routes became more efficient, then

transport costs decreased and the value of the item eventually lessened. Other variables such as

fragility, perishability, or market demand could have had an effect on the costs involved in

transport.

Postclassic Lithic Research. The largest percentage of imported stone tools from the site

of Laguna de On came from an area commonly referred to as the 'chert bearing zone', a term

coined by T. Hester and H. Shafer. Laguna de On is located close to the eastern boundary of this

region and is defined as "restricted to surface outcrops of nodular chert" (Hester 1982, Shafer

and Hester 1984, 1991). The region is known for its high quality chert, described as "…typically

banded or mottled gray, yellowish brown or brown, opaque or faintly translucent materials…the

local patterns are distinct and highly repetitious" (Shafer and Hester 1983). This type of chert is

usually referred to as Colha chert, named after the largest and most intensely studied tool-

producing site from the region. Other sites that may have been producing stone tools in the

southern area of the chert bearing zone during the Postclassic include Kunahmul and Chicawate

5

(Kelly 1980). Colha chert's unique color and banding make it highly distinctive and a vital tool

for studying trade patterns in the area. The uniqueness of Colha chert has also been validated by

neutron activation analysis of chert samples from both archaeological and geological contexts

(Tobey 1986).

During the Classic period, the site of Colha was the major producer of formal lithic tools

and turned out high volumes of formal implements that were widely distributed. Today, massive

piles of debitage litter the landscape in an enormous area around the workshops and quarries.

The site was first studied by the Corozal Project (Hammond 1973) and later by the Colha

Project, which was a combined effort from the University of San Antonio, Texas A & M

University, Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue in Venice, and the University of Texas at Austin

(Hester and Shafer 1991). Particular focus on the Postclassic has been mainly pursued by

Michaels (1986, 1989, 1994; Michaels and Shafer 1994).

Although Colha maintained its traditional role as a lithic production center during the

Postclassic, the manufacturing of tools was greatly reduced in magnitude. During the Postclassic

production at the site changed into a localized household industry, generating a smaller variety of

tools, with less energy invested in complex knapping skills or standardization (Michaels 1987).

Changes also occurred in the social organization, tool kits, and production technologies. While

Classic period Colha supported many lithic workshops, only twelve Postclassic workshop areas

have been identified, all of which are located around the site core (Hester 1982; Michaels 1986).

Middens from the Classic period were composed almost entirely of lithic materials (Shafer and

Hester 1983). However, Postclassic middens were a mixture of charcoal, ash, faunal remains,

ceramics, obsidian, paleobotanical materials, as well as debitage, discarded production tools, and

production rejects (Michaels 1986). If not for the abundance of lithic material, these middens

6

would resemble typical Postclassic period middens. This distinction marks the site as

maintaining its role as a production center. The evidence suggests that lithic tool production was

conducted as a regular part of household activities and was not spatially segregated. Thus, the

social organization of production from this period predominated at the household level.

The wealth of data on Maya exploitation of chert from Colha has generated a chronology

of tool types for the Postclassic. The variety of tool forms produced decreased significantly

during the transition into the Postclassic. The mass production of large tools manufactured from

large flakes and macro-blades through hard-hammer percussion (Roemer 1984) was replaced by

the production of smaller tool forms, made by using soft-hammer and indirect percussion (Shafer

1985, Hester 1982, Barrett 2000). New formal tool classifications are: side notched dart points,

triangular biface preforms, lenticular bifaces, and lozenge (diamond) bifaces. These were related

to hunting, butchering, and ritual caching activity (Michaels 1986, Masson 1997). Bifaces used

in woodcutting and agricultural tasks at Laguna de On were similar in shape to Classic Maya

'oval biface celts' found at Colha (Hester 1982, Masson 1997). These tool types were found at

other major Postclassic centers as well, such as Chichén Itzá, Lamanai, and Altun Há (Hester and

Shafer 1991).

Information about patterns of use can be garnered by studying the reduction sequence of

various tools. Lithic tools go through different stages of production beginning with procurement

and ending with abandonment. Looking at the various states of formal tools from Colha

(Michaels 1986), there were very large quantities of preforms and low quantities of recycled and

retouched tools. Also, raw materials were mined and brought back to the domestic area in the

form of blanks or preforms where they were further refined. The low numbers of recycled and

retouched tools reflect the lithic-rich environment and the manufacturing focus of the site.

7

Consequently, the value of chert at this site, in terms of use, was very poor. The types of tools

produced at this site indicated that the majority were bifacial tools used in agricultural tasks such

as digging, harvesting, and land clearing (Masson 2000). The prevalence of bifaces did not

differ from earlier times; however, there was an increase in the percentage of points, reflecting a

renewed reliance on hunting (Masson 1997).

One of the most dramatic changes in the transition to the Postclassic at Colha was the

introduction of chalcedony (Michaels 1986, Masson 2000). Chalcedony, a raw material that was

not locally available to the inhabitants of Colha, had to be obtained from other nearby areas

within the chert bearing zone. The introduction of chalcedony suggested that the material was

valued since more energy had to be expended to acquire the material and bring it back to the

workshops than was necessary for Colha chert. Chalcedony was brought in to Colha, knapped

into formal tools, and exchanged in the consumer market. This extra step provided traders

another niche in which profit could be acquired as long as there was sufficient demand. More

than half (56.1%) of all the chalcedony was in the form of lenticular bifaces at the site and the

majority of the rest (30.5 %) was in the form of lozenge bifaces (Michaels 1987). This uneven

distribution of raw material usage suggested that chalcedony may have been the preferred

material for some tool forms, possibly for aesthetic reasons.

Laguna de On. Representative criteria to evaluate patterns of tool consumption at

'consumer sites' in Northern Belize, such as Laguna de On, have been generated from several

articles (Dockall and Shafer 1993; Hult and Hester 1993; McAnany 1987, 1989; Masson 1993;

Santone 1997; Shafer 1983). The first criteria stated that consumer sites should have relatively

lower quantities of primary flaking debitage and manufacturing failures (Shafer 1983). The first

flakes removed in the process of preparing a core were the primary flaking debitage. Although

8

some formal tools may retain a small amount of cortex, the percentage was usually low. They

were characterized by a preponderance of cortex (Luedtke 1992:150) on the dorsal side of the

flake (Masson 1998) as well as their large size and often irregular shape. Manufacturing failures

were tools that broke during the process of knapping due to natural rock inclusions, irregular

fracture, or by human error. These remnants were associated with the first stages of production

and are indicative of on-site manufacturing (Hester and Shafer 1984). The second criteria states

that consumer sites are more likely to exhibit predominantly late-stage reduction and edge

maintenance flaking debris (McAnany 1989). If the tools are a valued commodity, then reuse

and retouching of edges to maintain sharpness would have been more frequent. Similarly, edge

damage such as battering on the faceted or dorsal face of the flake or polish is indicative of edge

maintenance of the original tool form (Shafer 1983:240). The last criteria states that the raw

material composition of the assemblage of tools and debitage should reflect the extent to which

locally available materials were used in relation to non-local varieties and the nature of local

production, refurbishing, and recycling with these materials. Preference for certain materials in

relation to tool type can also be ascertained.

The consumer site of Laguna de On in Northern Belize is one site that exhibits these

features. The small inland island settlement is located approximately eleven kilometers

southeast of Orange Walk Town. The site’s center is on a small island on the north side of a

lagoon currently referred to as Honey Camp Lagoon by the local Belizians. The settlement’s

aquatic surroundings not only provided protection from theft or possible attack, but allowed the

inhabitants easy access to long distance trade routes through a series of lagoons and river

systems that emptied into the Caribbean. This route no longer exists due to the steady deposition

of silt in recent times. However, there is evidence to suggest that this route was once navigable

9

by canoe in living memory (Masson 2000, Masson 1993). Taking a direct overland approach,

Laguna de On is a mere 10 kilometers away from the site core of Colha. The proximity of the

Lopez River suggests that the trip could have been partially completed by canoe, adding only 7

km by canoe and at least 5 km by foot. The geography of the Lopez River indicates that

portaging the canoe may have been necessary along the route, slowing transportation

considerably. However, these estimates indicate that a vast quantity of lithic tools could have

been transported over short distances within a small time frame.

Protohistorically, Laguna de On was located near the southern border of the Chetumal

province, close to the Dzuluinicob territories (Jones 1989). Geographic and ceramic evidence

point to Laguna de On as being more closely tied with the Chetumal province than Dzuluinicob

(Masson 2000:30). Chetumal gained wealth and power from the production of cacao and honey

(Chase 1986). Settlement patterns reflect a hierarchical organization with at least a two or

possibly three tiered organization associated with one dominant center. The settlement of

Chetumal was historically documented to be the seat of government for the province (Jones

1989), which was argued to be at Santa Rita by Chase and Chase (1988). This was followed by

secondary organizational centers such as Caye Coco (Masson and Rosenswig 1998, 1999, 2000),

with Laguna de On representing the third tier (Masson 2000:30). Less is known about the

Dzuluinicob province, identified by Jones (1989), which included the sites of Lamanai and Tipu.

Lamani was likely the 'capital' of a province (Pendergast 1981, 1985, 1986), perhaps the only

first tier site, however, secondary and third tier sites have not as of yet been defined within the

region during Precolonial times. Tipu’s relative position during the Postclassic has not been

discussed, but it was an important central place during the colonial period (Jones 1989).

10

Excavations were initially conducted at Laguna de On by the Honey Camp-El Cacao

Project, which began in 1991 under the direction of Fred Valdez, University of Texas at Austin

(Masson 1993, Valdez, et. al. 1992). During the 1996 and 1997 field season, research was

continued by the Belize Postclassic Project under the direction of Marilyn A. Masson and Robert

Rosenswig (Masson and Rosenswig 1997, 1998) through the University at Albany, SUNY. All

of the lithic collections from the 1991, 1996, and 1997 field seasons are currently housed at the

University at Albany archaeological lab on loan from the Department of Archeology in

Belmopan, Belize. These collections are the source of data for this paper.

Laguna de On Island was a small settlement characterized by low house walls and

earthen rises, usually visible on the surface. Features found on the island included a large paved

rubble patio area, a possible ball court, a dock, terraces, structures used for ritual purposes, and

domestic remains such as postholes, hearths, stone wall foundations, plaster or modified bedrock

floors, and domestic sheet middens that cover the entire island (Masson 2000, Masson 1999,

Masson 1997, Masson and Rosenswig 1997, 1998, Masson 1993, Valdez et. al. 1992). Most of

the stone tools recovered were found in the sheet midden that lies just below surface level of the

majority of the island or in terrace or domestic fill contexts.

Previous research focusing on different aspects of the lithic assemblage at Laguna de On

has been completed by Marilyn Masson and other researchers associated with the Belize

Postclassic Project. These studies have contributed greatly to understanding the dynamics of this

small community as well as the economic patterns of the Postclassic. Based on the excavations

from 1991, Masson's dissertation described her preliminary analysis of the 61 chert tools found,

including information on material, edge damage, tool portion, and recycling (Masson 1993).

Observations included the frequent reuse of Classic tools, reliance on Colha chert, and some

11

standardization of bifaces, although variation exists in the recycling trajectory. She also included

analysis of the debitage and obsidian (preformed by Fred Valdez 1993) collections from the site.

Obsidian appeared in all household contexts in very high numbers, even though obsidian did not

occur naturally anywhere near the site. In a recent article, Masson and Chaya (2001) determined

that the majority of the blades came from Ixtepeque, in the Maya highlands. This evidence

indicated that trade routes were more firmly established within the Maya sphere than with

Central Mexico. The most likely route for the highland Guatemala obsidian was through coastal

exchange routes, probably from the Motagua River to the Bay of Honduras and then north along

the Belize coast (Masson and Chaya 2001, Nelson et al. 1983, Dreiss and Brown 1989, McKillop

et al. 1988, McKillop 1996).

Methods

Data Collection. The collection examined for this study was limited to local lithic tools

and excluded non-utilized flakes, debitage, ground stone, projectile points and obsidian. These

categories are outside the scope of this paper and are not dealt with herein. They have been

further analyzed elsewhere (Masson 2000, Masson and Chaya 2001, Masson 1997a, Masson

1997b, Oland 1998 and 1999). Basic categories of data recorded include provenance:

Suboperations (areas of excavation) and Lots (arbitrary 10 cm levels or features). Variables

recorded include: tool type, raw material, the amount of cortex, breakage type and location, and

the portion of the tool fragment remaining. Metric measurements recorded include length, width,

and thickness according to the maximum value. For example, an intact tapered biface's width

would have been measured at the widest part of the distal end. Since the collection was mostly

made up of broken tools, this was the best method for consistent measurements. Breakage

patterns were also recorded. Common types of breaks observed in this study include snap

12

breaks, impact fractures, pyroclastic breaks, diagonal, hinge, crescent, lateral, and natural breaks.

Edge angles were measured whenever possible on the portion of the tool that exhibits wear. If it

had been resharpened, but still retained some of the original edge, then both the original and new

edges were measured and recorded. Wear was examined with the help of a magnification lens

with the power of 20x. Basic macroscopic use wear types and the location of the wear found on

the tool were recorded, including: batter, chipping, dulling/polish, and striations. The location of

the wear was not determinable in some cases, particularly in highly fragmentary pieces and thus

was not documented. Observations on tool maintenance and recycling were also noted,

including edge maintenance, thinning, retouch, reuse, pressure flaking, and resharpening. Other

information recorded on the tools include the amount of patina, pyroclastic damage (popped

bulbs, reddening, damage), water damage, or other notable impacts.

The categories recorded were selected to best study expedient and formal tool recycling

patterns at Laguna de On. Examining raw material provided information on how much time was

invested in procuring the materials. More highly valued tools were more likely to be made with

higher quality materials such as fine grade chalcedony or Colha chert rather than the lower grade

local chert cobbles and outcrops. Other than quality, there was also an occasional aesthetic

element to material selection and this was taken into account during the analysis. The amount of

cortex can be a clue in looking at reuse. Expedient tools were likely to have more cortex present

than more formal tool types, indicating the amount of care taken in the production of the tool.

Again, there may have been aesthetic considerations. More utilitarian tools, such as the common

oval biface, may have exhibited some cortex remnants, as long as these did not diminish the

effectiveness of the tool. In contrast, finely worked tools, such as the lenticular and triangular

bifaces, were unlikely to have cortex.

13

Metric measurements were helpful in a number of ways for determining the level of

recycling. The highly fragmentary nature of the collection provided convincing evidence that

lithic materials were curated. Broken tools were likely brought back to the island and saved for

future need. A cursory examination of Classic tool collections from Laguna de On shore

settlements indicated that the tools from the Postclassic island settlement were much more

fragmentary (Masson 2000). Chert tools and raw materials may have become more valuable

during the Postclassic because less energy was invested in producing new tools and procuring

large quantities of raw materials. One pattern noted was that the Maya of the Postclassic

scavenged Classic sites for discarded tool fragments. The fragments could have been found in

abundance with little cost to the scavenger, an efficient strategy (Masson 2000). This pattern

was observed alongside the procurement of local materials and some raw material exchange

(Masson 2000, Oland 1999). Metric measurements also provided information about recycling

and tool standardization. Oval bifaces became proportionally thicker and smaller with each

resharpening episode and therefore the length/thickness relationship of a tool can sometimes

provide information on standardization practices.

By assessing wear patterns, one can speculate the activities and on which materials the

tool was used. Microscopic use wear analysis and experiments could document this empirically

(Lewenstein 1991), but were not performed in this study. Tools likely used on harder materials,

such as wood, stone or rocky soils, fibrous plants or bone, produced heavier wear patterns like

batter and chipping. Softer materials like fleshy plants, soft wood or earth, hide, or meat tended

to dull the edges of a tool and sometimes create a polish (Lewenstein 1991). Since the tools

were inspected macroscopically, wear types were kept to basic inferential categories. Along

with use wear, breakage patterns can also provide insight into activities for which a tool was

14

used. Breaks usually occurred at the point where the tool was the most stressed or along natural

flaws in the stone. Hafted tools frequently broke on the point where the haft was attached to the

tool and halfway between the bit and the haft (Shafer 1983). Wear marks were sometimes found

along the edges of the break indicating that the tool was used for a new task after the initial

break. Maintenance of the tool was one method for increasing the usable lifespan of a tool and

was frequently practiced. A tool may have been resharpened or retouched to sharpen an edge.

Retouching was a more precise method to revitalize a dull edge by knocking small chips off

along the utilized edge, keeping the edge sharper for a longer lifespan (Crabtree 1999). Another

method used to maintain a sharp edge was pressure flaking. Reuse refers to taking a spent tool

and transforming it into a completely different tool. Occasionally, traces of the original tool

form remained after it had been reshaped. Other types of recycling can be seen through

observing characteristics such as patina or water damage. If a tool was initially created, used,

discarded and formed a patina coating, and then was subsequently remade, the original surfaces

can be distinguished from the new because of the difference in the patination.

Tool Type Frequencies and Characteristics of Manufacture and Use

This section describes the attributes of the chipped stone tools found at Laguna de On.

Types of chipped stone tools found include: discoidals, stemmed blades, tranchet adzes,

triangular bifaces, lenticular bifaces, oval bifaces, expedient bifaces, choppers, gouges, unifaces,

perforators, drills, scrapers, burin cores, burin spalls, hammerstones, abraders, cores,

macroflakes, utilized flakes, and utilized fragments. The first three, discoidals, stemmed blades,

and tranchet adzes, were tools common during the Classic period and represent scavenging

activities by the Postclassic inhabitants of Laguna de On. The next group of three (the triangular,

lenticular, and oval bifaces) are referred to as ‘formal’ tools because they were standardized in

15

shape and size and show a distinct mental template used by the knappers. These forms were well

documented as having been manufactured at Colha (Hester and Shafer 1991). An alternative to

‘formal’ tools were the ‘expedient’ tools which were less standardized and were probably made

locally. This category includes expedient bifaces, choppers, gouges, unifaces, perforators, drills,

scrapers and burin spalls. The next group of tools described here are related to tool

manufacturing and include hammerstones, abraders, cores, and macroflakes. The last two types

of tools discussed are utilized flakes and fragments. These tools were separated from the Laguna

de On Island debitage because they exhibit evidence of edge damage. For each type of tool the

following information is provided: tool definition, number found, raw material, breakage, edge

damage, recycling, and fire damage. Standard deviation of tool size is also provided when there

were at least three unbroken tools to measure [Table B1].

Discoidals. Discoidals are lithic tools made of large serial flakes whose edges are

sharpened to form an ovoid shape [Illustration D2]. Discoidals are usually associated with

Classic Period Maya. The four examples found at Laguna de On probably represent scavenging

activities from nearby abandoned settlements. Two of the discoidals found were made of Colha

chert, one of chalcedony and the last was made of a white chert [Table B1]. Three discoidals

were whole and exhibited heavy batter wear on all edges. One had impact scars on distal and

lateral edges and only one exhibited popped bulbs and fire induced fractures [Table B5]. The

large size of discoidals made them ideal candidates for recycling and reuse. Two of them

exhibited evidence of resharpening along the lateral edges. One appeared to have been fashioned

from a used macroflake [Table E2]. All of the discoidals found came from different

Suboperations (Subops), in both ritual and domestic contexts [Table E1]. One was found on the

extreme southern end of the Island, in Subop 18. The discoidal was the only tool found at this

16

location. Unfortunately, more work is necessary to accurately interpret this section of the site.

Discoidals were usually very standardized in size and shape. Standard deviation shows only a

slight variance, but the small sample size (4) could easily account for the close sizes of the tools

[Table A3]. Out of the three tools analyzed, the mean length for discoidals was 106 mm with a

deviation of 19.97 mm [Table A1]. The mean width was 84.67 mm with a deviation of 8.08 mm

and a mean thickness of 42 mm with a deviation of 10.39.

Stemmed Blades. Stemmed blades are highly standardized, unifacial tools made during

the Classic period (Shafer and Hester 1983). The stemmed blades found at Laguna de On

[Illustration D3] originated from the site of Colha. The blades are triangular in shape with

pressure flaking usually found on the lateral edges. They also possessed a substantial and unique

stem used for mounting the tool. The examples found at Laguna de On were thought to have

been scavenged from Classic period components at the lagoon or nearby sites. Eight examples

of stemmed blades were excavated at Laguna de On: one whole blade, two stem fragments, four

proximal fragments, and one distal fragment. Five of the examples were made from Colha chert,

one was made out of chalcedony, another of an unidentified chert, and the last was fully

patinated [Table B1]. Six of the stemmed blades had snap breaks. Four of these had breaks at

the base of the stem, while the other two had breaks in the middle of the blade [Table E2]. One

appeared to have been broken due to intense heat and was the only evidence of fire damage

among all the stemmed blades. Seven of the tools had batter damage and four exhibited chipping

damage to their edges [Table B3]. Two tools were very roughly resharpened with very large

flakes taken off of both lateral edges. Also, one had pressure flaking along the lateral edges

along with some retouch of edges. Pressure flaking is not usually found before the Postclassic

period. One of the tools had heavy patina covering the tool except where it had been reworked

17

during the Postclassic period. Unfortunately, standard deviation of the size of these tools could

not be completed because of the lack of whole tools to measure. These tools were found both in

ritual and non-ritual contexts.

Tranchet Adzes. Tranchet adzes [Illustration D4] are a specialized type of bifacial tool

that gets its name from the unique type of flake that is knocked off the distal end in order to

create the bit of the adze (Hester 1982). These flakes are sometimes referred to as orange-peel

flakes, from their thick, curved appearance. Knocking off a flake is risky, and requires

significant skill. Since the tranchet flake must be knocked off last, the rate of failure is

considered high (Shafer and Hester 1983). Tranchet adzes were common during the Classic, but

not during the Postclassic.

The two examples found at the site were in Supop 8 and were probably brought from

nearby Classic sites. Both were made of Colha chert and exhibit batter and resharpening [Table

E1]. One was a medial fragment with snap breaks at either end. Either both breaks occurred

simultaneously, or, the tool broke at the haft and continued to be used until the distal tip broke.

The other tranchet adze was a distal tip fragment which broke in the same manner as the other

adze. It shows evidence of batter on the end as well as resharpening. No fire damage existed on

either tool. These tools were carried from the shore to the island but whether they were collected

as raw material or used as adzes cannot be determined.

Triangular Bifaces. Triangular bifaces resemble equilateral triangles rounded at each

point [Illustration D5 and D6]. They were very skillfully made, thin, and neatly knapped. These

formal tools are unique to the Postclassic and may represent preforms for the side-notched

points. The triangular bifaces from Laguna de On were similar to those found at Chichén Itzá

from the same period (Hester and Shafer 1991). Only three triangular bifaces were found at

18

Laguna de On. It is likely that these were made at the workshops at Colha. Two were made of

Colha chert and one of chalcedony [Table E1]. Their thickness varied only slightly, between 1.1

cm and 1.5 cm, showing standardization. This implied the existence of a distinct mental template

during manufacture [Table E1]. Only one of the three examples from Laguna de On were found

complete, rendering comparison of the length and width impossible. Of the two others, one had

the three tips broken off, and the other had a fragment that suffered a break caused by fire

damage. The piece with the missing tips also showed some reddening of the edges due to fire

damage or possibly from deliberate heat treatment [Table E2]. Unfortunately, heat treatment

was difficult to verify since the site remains were very near to the surface on the island which

was frequently cleared by brush fire. The second incomplete triangular biface also showed

reddening and popped bulbs caused by fire damage. All three had some chipping on the edges.

There was no evidence of edge maintenance nor recycling.

Lenticular Bifaces. Lenticular bifaces, like the triangular bifaces, are a unique tool from

the Postclassic (Hester and Shafer 1991). While their exact use is still questionable, they may

have been used like hafted knives or spear points. Lenticular bifaces are very finely chipped,

thin, and narrow blades with tapered proximal ends [Illustration D7]. The bifaces were made in

standardized shape and size. It is likely that the Laguna de On lenticular bifaces were made at

the site of Colha and imported to the Island. Hester and Shafer (1982) discussed the manufacture

process of this tool type at the site and note the high percentage made from chalcedony. While

most of the fourteen lenticular bifaces found at Laguna de On were of Colha chert (43%), four

were high quality chalcedony (29%) [Table B1]. The chalcedony raw material chosen for the

lenticular bifaces was particularly translucent and aesthetically appealing. There was also quite a

few that were either made of local or exotic cherts (21%). One lenticular biface was burned too

19

badly to recognize the original material. However, the others were all made of very fine grade

material including a dark brown chert, a gray chert, and an extremely fine grained blue chert,

which was unlike anything else found on the site. The origins of the bluish chert are unknown at

present (Oland 1999).

The lenticular bifaces were prone to snap breaks because they tended to be thin. They

usually broke at the haft, or halfway between the haft and the distal tip. These were the two

weakest points where the chert was the most stressed by pressure on the distal tip. Out of the

fourteen lenticular bifacess recovered, two were whole, ten had snap breaks, one had fire damage

and one had an irregular break [Table B2]. Interestingly, the wear on the tools was slight,

although some batter (six instances) and chipping (eight instances) was observed. These tools

were probably intended for cutting or piercing soft materials, and may even have been used as a

weapon of warfare. Only one lenticular biface had evidence of hafting, as exhibited by a notch

on one lateral side. Because the tools were so thin, they do not seem to have been reused much.

One had pressure flaking on lateral edges, two had resharpened edges, and one had retouch

[Table B4]. The mean length for the lenticular bifacess analyzed (three total) was 130.33 mm

with a deviation of 24.03 mm. The mean width was 37.67 mm with a deviation of 3.22 mm and

the mean thickness was 11.3 mm with a deviation of 1.53 mm. The fourteen lenticular bifaces

found at Laguna de On were spread out widely and found in both ritual and domestic contexts.

However, there is a strong possibility of a ritual connection because of the formality of the tool

type, the lack of heavy wear, and the fragility of the form. Also, one was found within Structure

IV, which was possibly a ballcourt. Here, lithics and other domestic materials were scarce. Two

lenticular bifaces were found at Subop 8, two at Subop 12, and one at Structure III (dock). The

others were found in midden or wholly domestic contexts.

20

Oval Bifaces. The oval bifaces were the most common type of biface found at the site. A

total of sixty-two were recovered during excavations. These tools have rounded distal ends and

usually tapered inward to the proximal end [Illustration D8]. They were probably used for

woodworking, land clearing, and other agricultural tasks. These tools are similar to the oval

bifaces found during the Classic. However, the Postclassic oval bifaces are noticeably smaller

on average than those produced during the Classic period. Most oval bifaces were used and

broken in the same manner and in the same two locations on the tool. As with other bifaces,

snap breaks consistently occurred at the stress points. These are where the handle would have

been attached to the tool and halfway between the point of halfting and the distal tip. Only three

of the sixty-two examples from the site were found whole. Forty-six snap breaks, one impact

break, two diagonal breaks, six fire cracked and seven irregular or fragmented breaks were

recorded for these bifaces [Table B2]. The material used to make these was Colha derived chert

(65%), chalcedony and chalcedony blends (14%). Only 5% were made of local or other

materials, 3% were quartz and the rest were either too burned (8%) or too patinated (5%) to

identify the material type [Table B1]. One of the fragments was thickly patinated and may be

derived from the earlier Preceramic occupation of the lagoon.

Oval bifaces were frequently resharpened and had their edges retouched as part of

normal tool maintenance. Since the broken bifaces were frequently used to make expedient

tools, like utilized flakes, evidence of reuse was rare. If the original edges of the tool did not

remain, then it would be very difficult to recognize biface characteristics. Formal bifaces were

heavily used and recycled. A total of ninety-five instances of edge damage were found on the

sixty-two tools recovered [Table B3]. There were fifty instances of batter damage, twenty-nine

chipping, fourteen dulling and/or polishing and two with striations. There was also ample

21

evidence of tool maintenance with twenty instances of resharpening, fourteen had retouch, ten

had evidence of probable reuse and twenty-eight had multiple types of wear on the same tool

[Table B4]. Fourteen of the oval bifaces had evidence of heat treatment, which was twenty-two

percent of the total number [Table B5]. Even though the shape of the oval biface was fairly

standardized, the size of the oval bifaces varies greatly [Table A5]. The mean length for the

three whole oval bifaces was 123.67 mm with a deviation of 55.23 mm [Table A1]. The mean

width was measured at 53 mm with a deviation of 24.25 mm, while the mean thickness was

22.33 mm with a deviation of 10.02 mm. Unfortunately, a sample size of three tools was too

small to provide accurate measurements and a larger sample size may show that these tools were

indeed more standardized than what is reported here.

Oval bifaces were found in every excavation area at Laguna de On. These tools were

probably the most versatile, multitask tools used by the Postclassic inhabitants of the Island. The

highest density of oval bifaces was from Subop 17, with a total of .53 per meters squared [Table

C6]. Though only 15 meters squared were actually excavated at this domestic residential area, it

had the highest overall density of stone tools [Table C1]. The largest number of these tools were

found at Subop 8, with a density of .33 oval bifaces per meter squared.

Expedient Bifaces. Expedient bifaces were the second most common type of biface

found at Laguna de On. This category is made up of roughly manufactured bifacial celt style

implements, similar in shape to oval bifaces [Illustration D9]. Twenty-seven examples total

were recovered. Seven were recovered from Subop 8, five from Subop 5, four from Subop 12,

two each from Subops 3, 13, and 14, one each from Subops 2, 10, 16, and 18, and one was found

on the surface [Table E1]. Unlike some of the more formal tools, these were most likely

manufactured by the inhabitants and not imported from Colha. The sources of raw material for

22

these tools seem to be made up of discarded tools, cobbles, macroflakes and manufacturing

failures. Three of them had been heavily worked until an inclusion or flaw in the rock was

uncovered [Table E2]. Six expedient bifaces had cortex on working edges and places where it

would probably interfere with the performance of the tool. Interestingly, the majority of the

materials chosen came from locally available materials such as chalcedony (26%), chalcedony-

quartz blends (4%), quartz (4%), and local/other (19%) [Table B1]. The Colha chert expedient

bifaces (41%) were probably derived from former oval bifaces or cobbles.

Of course, the exact origin and reduction sequence can only be extrapolated from the

evidence left on the tool. Frequently, the evidence of a tool’s previous ‘life’ may have been

removed in the process of remaking the tool. Only tools that do show evidence of former use

before recycling can be categorized as such. It is likely that the actual number of tools that were

reused was much higher. Out of the twenty-seven expedient bifaces excavated, five were

recovered whole, fourteen had snap breaks, two had impact fractures, one was fire cracked, and

five had irregular breaks or were fragments [Table B2]. These tools were categorized as

expedient bifaces and not as manufacture failures, preforms, or macro-flakes because of evidence

of edge damage and resharpening of the edges. These tools were used very heavily, showing a

very high amount of batter (twenty instances), as well as chipping (sixteen instances), and one

instance of striations as well [Table B3]. Two tools exhibit hafting evidence, one with definite

side notches and the other with reworked edges where the handle would have been attached to

the tool [Table E2]. The most common evidence for tool maintenance on this tool category was

resharpening (seven instances), followed by retouch (two instances). One of the tools had clearly

been reworked from a spent oval biface [Table E2]. Only six of the expedient bifaces had

evidence of fire damage. The size deviation of expedient bifaces differs little from oval bifaces,

23

although the sample size was again small (a total of six tools). The expedient bifaces tend to be

shorter, wider, and thicker than the oval bifaces [Table A1]. The mean length for these bifaces

was 91.5 mm with a deviation of 23.4 mm. The mean width was 61 mm with a deviation of

11.97 mm and the mean thickness was 33.33 mm with a deviation of 10.13.

Choppers. The Laguna de On collection had a total of 18 choppers, which were roughly

ovate expedient bifacial implements. They are distinguished from formal and expedient bifaces

by their rough, blocky appearance and lack of uniformity in shape or edge [Illustration D10].

They are similar to oval bifaces in utility. They differed because less energy was spent on

perfecting the shape of the tool. More than half of the choppers (61%) were made of Colha chert

and were probably acquired by scavenging from earlier occupations on the shores of the lagoon

and from recycling on the island. The rest of the choppers were made from chalcedony/Colha

blends (6%), chalcedony/quartz blends (6%), quartz (11%), and local or other materials (17%)

[Table B1]. There was a larger percentage of local and quartz materials used for choppers in

comparison to other bifacial tools. While generally harder to knap, quartz was more resistant to

fracture. This may explain why quartz was chosen more frequently as a raw material.

The expedient nature of choppers was demonstrated by some of their characteristics. For

instance, twelve out of the eighteen tools had at least some cortex remaining on the tool. Three

were formed from primary reduction macro-flakes. One tool’s distal end was half cortex and

half sharpened to an edge. These tools do not seem to have been made for light tasks, but were

likely used on hard materials, such as wood. Two chopper fragments were made from discarded

oval biface blanks, and one came from a secondary macro-flake with a cortex platform. It may

be that these tools were made ‘on the spot’ for a specific job and then discarded. Evidence for

this was that very few of the choppers recovered were broken or fragmented. Out of the

24

eighteen, twelve were found whole, two had impact fractures, one had a hinge fracture, and three

were found as fragments or with irregular breaks [Table B2]. Recycling evidence included a

chopper made from a fragment of a core and two other choppers. These two choppers exhibited

patina on all facets except for the resharpened distal edge which indicated scavenging and

curation activities. Tools like these were likely gathered from one of the nearby Classic shore

settlements, resharpened, and brought back to the island. Another chopper had evidence of

multiple uses as exhibited by a burin spall removed from the original tool. Twelve choppers

exhibited batter, ten had chipping damage, six had polish or dulling, and two showed striations

[Table B3]. They were probably not discarded if broken, but used as cores or converted into

other tools such as: abraders, perforators, or scrapers. Discarded choppers may also have been

used to create sharp flakes for cutting tasks. Few choppers showed much edge maintenance

activities; one had some pressure flaking, and nine had edge resharpening [Table B4]. Only two

of them showed damage caused by fire [Table B5]. These tools were found in both domestic and

ritual areas. Six were recovered from Subop 8, four from Subop 12, three from Subop 5, two

from Subop 7, and one each from Subops 14, 16, and 20 [Table E1].

Gouges. There was only one gouge identified from the tool assemblage at Laguna de On.

It came from Subop 8. Gouges are thin bifacial tools with one concave plane (Luedtke 1992). It

was made of Colha chert and showed some impact fractures. Edge damage included chipping

and dulling as well as some striations along a ridge on the dorsal surface. The tool was

resharpened, with some pressure flaking and a length of 79 cm, width of 42 cm, and thickness of

21 cm. The proximal end of the tool seems roughly made, and exhibits some manufacture batter.

Unifaces. A total of twenty-three unifaces were found at Laguna de On. Unifaces are

defined as tools that are worked on one facet. They are generally the size of bifaces and the uses

25

of these tools were likely similar [Illustration D11]. These tools were most commonly made

from Colha chert (65%), followed by chalcedony (9%), chalcedony/Colha blends (4%), and local

or other materials (4%) [Table B1]. A small percentage (9%) were too burned or too patinated

(9%) to determine the original material. Only six of the twenty-three unifaces recovered were

found whole [Table B2]. Ten were found with snap breaks, four with impacts, one had a

diagonal break, and two had irregular breaks. Edge damage for unifaces implies they were used

for multiple purposes that included cutting and chopping. Twelve tools exhibited batter damage,

fifteen had chipping, and two had polish/dulling edge wear [Table B3]. They exhibited a wide

range of sizes and shapes and many examples showed evidence of edge maintenance. Ten had

resharpening, seven had retouch, and three exhibited evidence of reuse [Table B4]. However,

reuse was less prevalent. One of the tools categorized here as a uniface had its distal end

sharpened into a perforator. Two were from recycled Classic tools. One may have been a

recycled stem of a stemmed blade, and one was highly worked on its dorsal surface. Five of the

tools had some damage due to intense heating [Table B5]. Subop 8 had the most unifaces

(seven), followed by Subop 7 with four [Table C9]. Unifaces were found at all Subops except 2,

10, 11, 15, and 16.

Perforators and Drills. Perforators and drills are simply tools used to make holes. Drills

create holes in harder materials by using a twisting motion, while perforators create holes in soft

materials by puncturing them. All of the perforators from Laguna de On were informal tools

made from irregular chert pieces, which were probably spent tool fragments. A total of eleven

perforators were recovered. Seven were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony, and three were

too burned to recognize the original material [Table B1]. None of the perforators found were

made of chalcedony blends nor of quartzite. At Laguna de On, the perforators had small spurs

26

on larger pieces of chert with edge damage on the spur. Six of the them were found whole, three

had snap breaks on the the tip of the spur, one was fire cracked, and one had an irregular break

[Table B2]. Due to the small size of the perforators, it is possible that the breaks occurred post-

depositionally. The perforators had nine examples with chipping damage, two with batter, and

four with dulling or polish [Table B3]. Three had some small retouch work on them. These

tools varied more in length than in width or thickness. The mean length for the nine tools

analyzed was 37.89 mm with a deviation of 14 mm, the mean width was 28.7 mm with a

deviation of 8.47 mm, and the mean thickness was 7.44 mm with a deviation of 3.17 mm [Table

A8]. Perforators were found scattered throughout the sheet midden of the site, in Subops 3, 5, 7,

8, 12, 13, 16, and 18.

Drills are long thin tools which could have been used for boring holes in wood, bone,

thick hide, shell, or straw mats. The edge damage patterns tended to show use related to edge

damage on alternating sides because of the twisting motion used to make the hole. Only two

drills were identified at the site, one of Colha chert [Illustration D12] and the other of a dark gray

chert of unknown origins [Table B1]. One drill was whole and very worn down on the tip [Table

E2]. It exhibited edge dulling and some chipping from use. The piece was also retouched and

pressure flaked, exhibiting curation. The other drill was a proximal fragment which only showed

some chipping and dulling. Little edge damage would be expected at the proximal end since

most of the damage would have occurred at the distal tip. These two pieces, found at Subops 5

and 16, showed no damage caused by fire.

Scrapers. Scrapers are tools primarily used for preparing animal hides by removing the

inner skin and fat layers from rawhide before they were stretched. What distinguishes scrapers

from other tools is the steep angle of the scraping edge [Illustration D13]. Laguna de On

27

scrapers had sharply angled distal ends ranging between 44 to 83 degrees [Table E1]. There

seemed to be no strong preference for material as four were made of chalcedony, three of Colha

chert, two of local materials, one chalcedony/quartz blend and one was too burned to identify

[Table B1]. Out of the eleven total scrapers, two had multiple edges used for scraping. One of

the scrapers was a thumbnail style scraper. Another one showed signs of having been reworked

from a larger tool, probably an oval biface. Two were composite tools, one had a spur on a

lateral side, and the other had a cutting edge sharpened on one lateral. Six of the tools were

recovered whole, three had snap breaks, one was fire cracked, and one had an irregular break

[Table B2]. Two of them had evidence of batter, nine had chipping, and four had dulling or

polish [Table B3]. Three of them had minor retouch and a four had fire damage[Table B4].

Scrapers varied more in length than in width or thickness [Table A9]. The mean length was

37.89 mm with a deviation of 14 mm, the mean width was 38 mm with a deviation of 16.6, and

the mean thickness was 14 mm with a small deviation of 4.9 mm. The scrapers were collected

from Subops 7, 8, 17, 18, and 24 [Table E1].

Burin Cores and Spalls. A burin core is a core made from thin, tabular flakes, blades or

lithic implements from which one or more burin spalls have been removed (Crabtree 1999: 29).

Occasionally, burin cores were used as chisel type tools and were a source for burin spalls. Only

one burin core was recovered from Laguna de On from Subop 8 [Table E1]. This particular core

had no evidence of recycling or being used as a tool other than a core. Also, the material was of

an unknown source and the core had one snap break.

Three burin spalls made of Colha chert were collected at Laguna de On from Subops 5, 8,

and 12 [Table E1]. Burin spalls are specialized flakes or blades removed from burin cores, and

are usually triangular or rectangular in section (Crabtree 1999: 29). They were made by pressure

28

or percussion techniques (Crabtree 1999: 30). One of the three appeared to have been knocked

off of a macro-flake and then retouched. One of the identified burin spalls was whole, one a

fragment with snap breaks on either end, and the third a lateral fragment with alternate edge

beveling. The whole spall had battering and chipping edge damage while the other two had

similar, but lighter damage. One showed evidence of resharpening. None of them had evidence

of fire damage [Table B5].

Hammerstones. Hammerstones are manufacturing implements used to produce new

tools. They are usually spherical in shape and are small enough to be held in the hand

comfortably [Illustration D14]. A total of nine hammerstones were found at Laguna de On.

Four were made of Colha chert, one was made of quartzite, and four were either of local make or

made from unidentified material [Table B1]. Six were found whole, one had an impact fracture

and two had irregular breaks [Table B2]. All hammerstones showed signs of intense batter and

only two had fire damage [Tables B3 and B5]. No evidence of recycling could be discerned

from this assemblage. They were spherical in shape, ranging in width from 15 to 112 mm. Four

of these tools were found in Subop 8, two in Subop 17, one on the surface, and one in each of

Subops 5 and 12 [Table E1].

Abraders. Three abraders were recovered from the excavations at Laguna de On. They

were used to roughen the edge of a preform to alter the striking platform. When a platform is

abraded, the surface weakens, which keeps pressure or percussion tools from slipping. Thus, the

amount of force necessary to induce fracture is reduced (Crabtree 1999: 6). The edge of the

bifacially worked abrader is dragged along the sharpened edge of the preform. This process

creates a pitted, battered, concaved lateral side on the abrader which is very distinctive and

unique to this tool type [Illustration D15].

29

All three abraders were probably made from tools that had once been used as bifaces.

Two show evidence of this in the form of patinated bodies with resharpened edges that were then

battered and pitted from use as an abrader stone. Two were made of Colha chert and one of a

Colha chert and quartz blend [Table B1]. One of the three had very heavy batter on one lateral

edge and little on the other side. The other two had heavy batter on both lateral edges. Two had

snap breaks and one had a burin spall knocked off of it [Table B2]. None of them had any

evidence of heat damage [Table B5]. Two were found in Subop 12 and one in Subop 5, marking

these places as tool manufacturing areas.

Cores. Cores are “a mass of material often preformed by the worker to the desired shape

to allow the removal of a definite type of flake or blade” (Crabtree 1999: 31). Cores vary in size,

raw material, and type of flakes removed. Cores in this assemblage were either whole or broken

irregularly, possibly caused by attempted flake removal. A total of thirty-nine cores or core

fragments were found at the site [Illustration D16]. Cores were found in many of the Subops on

the island with the majority coming from Subops 5, 8, and 17 [Table E1]. Three or fewer were

found at Subops 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20. Sixteen were found whole, one was broken by fire

damage, twenty-one had irregular breaks, and one broke post-depositionally [Table B2]. Sixteen

were made of Colha chert, twelve of chalcedony, three of quartz, three of local or other material,

two of chalcedony-quartz blend, two were burned beyond material identification, and one was

made of a chalcedony-Colha blend [Table B1]. Eight of the cores showed some form of fire

damage [Table B5]. Of the collection’s thirty-nine cores, one had a thick patina on it except for

a few flake scars. This suggested that a core made prior to the Postclassic was reused by a

Postclassic knapper. Also, one core had a burin spall knocked off of one end and five had large

flake scars. Only one core from the collection was a flake blade core. The cores varied greatly in

30

size as show by the measurements of the sixteen whole cores recovered [Table A2]. The mean

length was 70.31 mm with a deviation of 24.13 mm, the mean width was 59.88 mm with a

variation of 24.6 mm, and the mean thickness was measured at 37.94 mm with a deviation of

18.94 mm [Table A1].

Macro-flakes. Macro-flakes are very large sized flakes that are most often derived from

the primary phase of core reduction. They are usually used as initial preforms for certain tools

(Shafer 1985). Seven macro-flakes were found at the site, which appeared to have use wear.

Five were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony, and one was of a local chert [Table B1]. The

majority of macro-flakes recovered were broken. Two had snap breaks, one was fire cracked,

two had irregular breaks, and two were found whole [Table B2]. Four had batter damage, three

chipping, and one had edge dulling [Table B3]. Two showed edge retouch and one showed

evidence of being used as a scraper on two ends (edge damage included chipping and dulling).

Five were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony and the other of an unidentified material.

These implements/preforms were found at Subops 8, 12, and 17 [Table E2].

Utilized Flakes. Utilized flakes are the most common expedient tool found on the site

[Illustration D17]. They are made from primary flakes, secondary reduction flakes, or thinning

flakes. They may also be derived from other sources such as flakes knocked off of expired tools,

fragments, tested cobbles, nodules, or manufacturing failures. The sizes and shapes of utilized

flakes varied enormously, from very large initial reduction flakes to small tertiary flakes [Table

16]. The majority of the one-hundred-and-eighty-seven utilized flakes found at the site were

made of Colha chert (82), followed by chalcedony (38) [Table B1]. There were also seventeen

burned, five chalcedony/Colha blends, twelve chalcedony/quartz blends, ten quartz, fifteen local

or other material, seven fully patinated and chalcedony blends (30%). A wide range of break

31

types were observed on utilized flakes indicating a variety of stresses put on the tools. Only

sixty-three of these flakes were found whole. A total of one-hundred and twenty eight breaks

were recorded [Table B2]. Ninety-two had suffered snap breaks, five had impact breaks, two

had diagonal breaks, three had hinge fractures, six were fire cracked, two had lateral breaks, one

had a cresent break, fifteen had irregular or fragmentary break, and two had natural breaks.

However, chipping edge damage was consistently observed with one-hundred-and-fifty-two

instances, followed by signs of dulling with seventy-one instances, battering with twenty-seven

instances, and striations found on six flakes [Table B3]. Some edge maintenance was observed

although it was not common. These tools were already expedient tools and were discarded

frequently. Thirty-one flakes had been resharpened, nineteen had retouch, ten had pressure

flaking, five had been reused [Table B4]. Only twenty-eight flakes showed signs of damage

caused by fire. The mean length for the ninety one tools analyzed was 46.56 mm with a

deviation of 16.03 mm, the mean width was 41.01 mm with a deviation of 17.15 mm, and the

mean thickness was 11.7 mm with a deviation of 7.86 mm [Table A1]. One utilized flake was

made from a large thinning flake of a biface. Two utilized flakes may have been from earlier

periods, based on their heavy patina. One composite tool, used for cutting and perforating was

found. Two flakes seem to have been reused as perforators, recognizable by their diagnostically

sharpened spur. Flake blades are broadly defined as flakes that are noticeably longer than they

are wide. Fourteen of the blades in this category emulated formal prismatic blades by exhibiting

a single ridge along the dorsal surface of the flake. Only one core that could have been used to

produce this type of tool has been recovered from Laguna de On. Flake blades were usually very

thin, ranging from 2 mm to 46 mm. The edge damage most often observed was light chipping

and dulling of the edges. This type of wear, as well as the fragility of the blades, indicated that

32

the tools were likely used for cutting or slicing soft materials such as meat, hides, or plants. A

high percentage (81%) of the blades were broken. Only one of the forty-nine flake blades

showed possible evidence of reuse, which was a perforator. Most of the blades had evidence of

resharpening and retouching. Two of the flake blades exhibited hafting notches. Another two of

the flake blades were fully patinated which originated from the Archaic period occupation of the

island.

Tool or Core Fragments. Tools in this category are made from blocky or chunky pieces

of chert that show edge damage, but which do not exhibit diagnostic characteristics of cores or

chipped stone tools. Eleven fragments were found at the site. The material identified for utilized

fragments tended to follow the distribution of material types for the total tool population. Six

were made of Colha chert, one of chalcedony/quartz blend, one quartz, one of local material, and

two were too burned to identify [Table B1]. Four of these fragments had snap breaks, six were

broken irregularly, and one had a lateral break [Table B2]. Edge damage included seven

instances of chipping, three instances of battering, and three instances of dulling [Table B3].

Overall there was little evidence of recycling, but edge maintenance was common within this

tool category. Two had resharpened edges, and three had retouch [Table B4]. One utilized

fragment had retouch that occurred after the tool was burned. Another of the fragments may

have been used as a scraper and another as a drill, though the evidence is not clear. There was

little other evidence of reuse, since these tools were already recycled from other tools or

debitage.

Spatial Distribution Patterns of Lithic Tools

Even though the island settlement was small, there was evidence of socio-economic

status differentiation in chipped stone tool distributions. Activity areas may be identified by

33

examining the spatial distribution of tools on Laguna de On Island. Excavations on the island

uncovered both public and private spaces as well as ritual and domestic areas, although these

broad categories were rarely mutually exclusive (Masson 2000). The island was more heavily

settled at the northern end, which has the highest elevation [Illustration D18]. This was also the

area in which excavations were concentrated. The entire island is covered in a sheet midden of

Postclassic materials. These materials were encountered at or near the surface due to the shallow

time depth of Postclassic deposits. Architectural features recorded on the island included two

stone foundations, along with a dock or waterside platform, a possible ballcourt, a shrine, several

paved or cobble-lined patios, and postholes from various structures. A total of 18 burials were

uncovered on the island in various states of preservation. Further details can be found in the

mortuary study completed by Margaret Briggs (2002).

The spaces used for more ritualistic purposes were located on a plateau stretching

northwest to southeast on the upper half of the island. Domestic debris was found in both ritual

contexts and non-ritual contexts. However, the chipped stone tool assemblage from the island

suggested different patterns between the two contexts. In order to shed light on the various

activities and social behavior of the inhabitants of the island, the distribution of stone tools was

analyzed. Tool assemblages were standardized by the size of the area excavated to allow for

valid comparisons [Table C1]. The unit of analysis was the Subop, which was compared and

contrasted to understand how the spaces were utilized.

The largest building on the island was the centrally located Structure I, excavated as part

of Subop 8 (Masson 2000). The ruins were described as a ‘c-shaped’ stonewall foundation on

the north, west, and south with an open courtyard on the eastern side. As was typical of Maya

architecture of the period, the walls and roof were probably made from pole and thatch. Since

34

many of the foundation stones were burned, it seems that the building was destroyed by fire.

The high number of chipped stone tools with fire damage supports this possibility [Table C11].

In the middle of Structure I was a large stone, probably an altar stone or uncarved stela. On the

south side of the altar/stela was a ceramic concentration. Also, lithic tools were recovered on the

northwest corner of the stone. Associated with this structure was a Mayapan style censer. Just

outside the south wall of Structure I, in the topsoil, was found a cached offering of a rare flint

eccentric blade depicting two heads of the Maya God K, which was a deity often associated with

lightning or rain (Masson and Rosenswig 1997:25, Masson 2000). God K effigy eccentrics were

usually found in association with Classic period royal tombs or monumental caches. Other

examples were reported by Schele and Miller (1986) and McAnany (1995:46, from Dumbarton

Oaks collection). It is unlikely that the bifacial effigy was made during the Postclassic since

there are no other examples from Postclassic sites. An inhabitant of the island probably

scavenged it from a Classic period site and left it as an offering. This piece was unavailable to

the author for further analysis as it is currently housed at the National Museum in Belize City,

Belize.

Structure I was not only used as a place for ritual activities, it was also used for domestic

purposes. Subop 8 was fairly similar to Subop 5, the largest excavated non-ritual area with

respect to the number of tools per square meter [Table C1]. Subop 5 was located on the southern

end of the main settlement area. The excavations uncovered domestic midden deposits, an

artificial terrace, three possible post-molds, and five burials. The Subop was interpreted as the

location of a number of domestic dwellings and a patio or yard space used as a communal

activity area. Both Subops had a high percentage of manufacturing tools indicating that tools

35

were made in both loci [Table C2]. Subop 8, in fact, had the highest occurrence of

manufacturing tools and byproducts on the island.

There was, however, variations in the number of bifaces in each area [Table C3]. The

residents who lived in or around Structure I had twice the amount of bifacial tools as those who

lived in the area of the excavations from Subop 5. The difference was mostly from a

preponderance of formal bifaces found in Subop 8. As Table C3 shows, Subop 5 had an equal

number of oval and expedient bifaces, while Subop 8 had three times the number of formal

bifaces in comparison to expedient ones. The high concentration of formal oval bifaces in Subop

8 indicated a difference in activities and possibly social status as well. The differential allocation

of resources was the result of status preference but also a reflection of the role the household

played in hosting ritual activities or community gatherings within the confines of their domestic

space.

Another ritual space on the island was excavated in Subop 12. At the pinnacle of the

island, five meters north of Structure I, was a late facet offertory shrine platform, referred to as

Structure II (Masson 2000). Thomas Gann who visited the site in 1927 mentioned that he

collected a number of offerings that lay upon a ‘pavement of stone’ (Gann 1928: 53-54). As M.

Masson has noted, he was probably referring to this area since it is clearly visible on the surface

(2000). A few Colonial period artifacts were also reported to be in Subop 12 (Masson 2000).

This showed the continuation of the Maya custom of making offerings at ancestral localities.

Even though a large area associated with this structure was excavated (77 m²), very few chipped

stone tools were found [Table C1]. This indicated that the area was not used as a domestic space

during the late facet of the Postclassic. There was ample evidence of ritual activities including

small burned rock concentrations, indicative of ritual fires or burning incense. Fires for cooking

36

tended to be much larger and deeper because they were used for long periods of time. Also

found were undamaged obsidian blades, two human phalanges and catfish spines. This structure

also had a disproportionately high amount of ceramics relative to other categories of artifacts in

comparison to other locations (Masson 2000). Additionally, there was a disproportionately high

number of formal tools from this area compared to utilitarian and expedient type tools. One of

the three triangular blades found at the site was part of a dedicatory offering when the eastern

half of the platform was built. By comparing non-bifacial tools from Subop 12 to the more

domestically oriented Subop 5, one can see a marked difference in activities performed in the

two localities [Table C4]. The difference is most notable in the utilized flake category. Subop 5

had .71 utilized flakes per meter squared and Subop 12 has only .10 per meter squared. These

informal implements were used for cutting or slicing through soft materials such as cloth, leather,

or foodstuffs. Tools used for slicing soft tissues would not be out of place in ritual context

because of the common Maya practice of blood sacrifice. A common practice during the

Postclassic was to sprinkle blood obtained from both human and animal sacrificial victims over

idols (Sharer 1994: 539). Human bloodletting depicted in Maya art shows individuals piercing

specific body parts such as the tongue, ear, or penis. The obsidian blades, human phalanges, and

catfish spines found in association with the platform may represent sacrificial activities.

Testing at Subops 7 and 13 revealed a courtyard area that extended east from Structures I

and II. A plaster floor was found in some units. Bedrock was thought to have been used as a

living surface elsewhere. There was also some evidence that a wall may have surrounded the

courtyard area (Barnhart and Howard 1997). One interesting feature was a deep pit lined with

rocks and boulders, which was interpreted as a pottery firing pit by Masson (2000: 81-87). Both

Subop 7 and 13 had high densities of stone tools including both formal and informal tool types.

37

The highest concentration of chipped stone tools on the island came from Subop 17 (3.6

artifacts per m²), which was located southwest of Structure I. Only fifteen meters squared were

excavated at this location, yet fifty-four chipped stone tools were uncovered. The Subop was

intended to test for differential status of the residents. Two occupations were uncovered at this

location, a cobble floor and an earlier marl floor patio beneath, with a preserved post mold.

Artifacts recovered next to the patio floor included a metate, obsidian blades, lithic blades,

charcoal and a ritual concentration of Pomacea shell, similar to the one found at Structure I. The

metate capped a deep charcoal deposit, probably a repeatedly used cooking hearth. This location

had the highest concentration of manufacturing tools and byproducts on the island including six

cores, two hammerstones, three macro-flakes, one tablet, and three thinning flakes. Additionally,

Subop 17 had the highest concentrations of formal bifaces, flake blades, and utilized flakes.

There was a notable absence of expedient bifaces or choppers. The high concentration of tools

in this small area suggests a higher level of resource consumption than in lower status areas of

the site.

An important feature of the settlement at Laguna de On was found at Subop 14. A stone

platform or ‘dock’, referred to as Structure III, was found on the east shore of the island, directly

east and downhill from Structure I. When Gann was visiting the lagoon in 1927, he noted that

there were numerous stone docks around the lagoon (Gann 1928). These features can still be

seen on the southeast shore of the lagoon, though they may date to the historic logging camp

known as Honey Camp that Gann mentions (Masson and Gonzalez 1997: 40). During the 1996

field season much of the dock extended into the water. However, in 1997 more of the platform

was exposed due to receding water levels. Unfortunately, the lower water levels left it exposed

to looters who dug into the structure between the two field seasons. The looters’ trench provided

38

a profile of the construction phases of the dock. Excavations during the first season recovered

high concentrations of artifacts off of the submerged edge of the platform, although stone tools

were not particularly abundant. Artifacts included ceramics, obsidian and both cranial and post-

cranial faunal remains. This dock probably represented the primary access point for entry onto

the island (Masson and Gonzalez 1997). It was likely that access to the island was purposely

restricted for defense of the settlement. The location of lowland Postclassic Maya settlements

were frequently chosen for their defensible positions, such as hilltops, islands, or peninsulas

(Chase and Rice 1986, Chase and Chase 1988).

Out of the 34.7 meters squared excavated at Subop 14, only 22 chipped stone tools were

found. The small sample size created difficulties in interpreting the usage of the dock. However,

it was probably an area of high traffic and not generally used for household activities. The tools

from this Subop were probably discarded, and were not indicative of activities being carried on

at the water’s edge. They may instead represent the types of tools that were frequently taken off

the island. There was a disproportionately high number of woodworking tools (1 chopper, 2

expedient bifaces, 2 lenticular bifaces, and 4 oval bifaces) in comparison to small, cutting

implements (7 utilized flakes, 1 flake blade). This difference could be the result of the types of

activities pursued away from the island. A common task of the inhabitants would have been to

supply wood to fuel fires for cooking, warmth or the occasional ceremonial activity. Smaller

implements used for softer materials would be more likely found within the patio groups where

activities like weaving and food preparation normally took place. Also found at this Subop were

two lenticular points and one stem of a stemmed blade. Both of these tools would have been

useful as weapons of warfare or as hunting implements. Interestingly, three cores were found

here and were probably brought to the island as raw material. All three were of different

39

materials (Colha chert, chalcedony, and a local white chert of unidentified source), showing no

preference for the various material sources available.

Other than postholes, the last architectural feature on the island was a possible sunken

ballcourt (Structure IV) unearthed at Subop 20. A linear depression twelve meters long and eight

meters wide was cut into the bedrock on the north end of the island plateau. The sunken area

between the bedrock was flat, and two burials were found directly in the center. One individual

was decapitated and the other disarticulated, suggesting the possibility that they were the victims

of a dedication ritual sanctifying the ballcourt (Masson 2000:100). No domestic features were

found within Subop 20 and the lithics recovered likely represent the general midden scatter that

covers the island. The absence of tools near the ballcourt suggested that the area was not used as

a work area.

Other than these major features of the settlement, few lithic tools were found in the

remaining Subops. Subops 1, 4, 6, and 19 contained no Postclassic stone tools. Subops 2, 3, 9,

10, 11, and 15 contained ten or fewer stone tools. One additional area, Subop 18, on the

southern tip of the island, recovered 19 stone tools. No architectural domestic features were

found, although four burials were excavated. Due to time constraints, no further work was

completed in this locale. Artifacts recovered were found within the top thirty centimeters and

consisted mainly of lithic debitage. Only one core was found here, in addition to five bifaces,

and thirteen other tool fragments. The materials probably represent household refuse removed

from the nearby structures.

Discussion and Conclusions

Social and economic patterns can be ascertained by examining chipped stone tool usage

at Postclassic consumer sites, like that of Laguna de On. There was evidence for complex

40

regional trade with the production site of Colha. Laguna de On must have traded extensively

with Colha for finished tools, cores, and probably preform lithics. Oval, lenticular and triangular

bifaces were manufactured with a level of skill and quality not found in any other tools. As

Masson points out (2000), it is likely that these tools were made by resident craftsman from

Colha. Although very few chipped stone pieces found at Laguna de On could be considered a

preform, one candidate was the triangulars. Only three of these were found, two of which were

Colha chert and one of chalcedony which could also have come from the Colha site (Michaels

1987). Another possibility was the macro-flakes. Out of the seven found, five were Colha and

one was chalcedony. A slight majority of all cores found at Laguna de On were made from

Colha chert which must have been transported or traded from the site of Colha. The second most

frequently occurring raw material in cores was chalcedony which could have come from both

local sources or could have been brought from greater distances (Oland 1999). Further field

surveys in the Belize region would benefit understanding chipped stone trading patterns. The

presence of these cores indicated that the residents of the island must have had some preference

for making their own tools out of Colha chert instead of locally available materials. Obtaining

cores gave them freedom to make whichever tools were most needed at any point in time.

Of all the raw materials for chipped stone tools found at the site, fifty percent were made

of Colha chert [Table B1]. This was followed by chalcedony and chalcedony blends which make

up twenty-five percent of the assemblage. Some chalcedonies could have been quarried locally

and traded to Colha since worked chalcedony has also been found at the site during the

Postclassic only (Hester and Shafer 1991). Only four percent of all the chipped stone tools were

made of quartz, showing that this material was not valued for most tasks. Additionally, the

majority of quartz tools from Laguna de On were expedient tool forms [Table B1]. When it

41

came to raw material preference for types of tools, there seemed to be a conscious choice for

material quality in more finely knapped tools. The more formal tool types like lenticulars and

oval bifaces tended to be made from higher quality material than found in expedient tools. Fine

grained chalcedony may have been valued for its aesthetic translucent quality, even though the

material is considered to be more brittle than chert. Tools such as choppers are usually made out

of poorer quality materials, materials with inclusions, or natural fractures. The distribution of

chipped stone tool materials varied in different locales on the Laguna de On Island. The two

Subops with the highest number of tools per meter squared were Subops 5 and 8. Subop 5 has

almost an equal number of chalcedony/chalcedony blends (36%) and Colha chert tools (40%),

while Subop 8 has a clear majority of Colha chert (53%) over chalcedony/chalcedony blends

(15%) [Table C5]. Since Subop 8 was much more ritually oriented, it may be that Colha chert

was more prized for such public activities. Additionally, Subop 12 which also had evidence of

being used for ritual activity showed a clear preference for Colha chert tools (49%) over the

chalcedony/chalcedony blends (29%).

Definitive evidence for the use of heat treatment as a method of core preparation could

not be established in this study. Eighteen percent of all the chipped stone tools on the island

exhibited damage of some type caused by intense heat. However, it was not determined whether

this damage was caused postdepositionally or was intentional. Tools at Subop 8 may have

burned during a Postclassic period fire (Masson 2000). Other tools that were deposited near the

surface may have been damaged by farmers using slash and burn agriculture methods.

The heightened level of recycling and tool rejuvenation at Laguna de On showed an

increased value or scarcity of chipped stone resources than in earlier times. High numbers of

tools from the site showed some form of edge maintenance or recycling [Table B4]. It is very

42

likely that many tools were eventually remade into usable flakes or other expedient tools. Much

of the possible evidence for recycling will be permanently missing from the archeological record.

Also, tools of all types were found in every location on the island, showing little differentiation

in status. The only marked variation was in the volume of tools found in the excavation areas

around the island.

The purpose of this paper was to explore and discuss chipped stone tools at a Postclassic

consumer site to better understand the underlying socio-economic patterns of the period. To

conduct this study, attributes of all chipped stone tools from Laguna de On were recorded.

Attributes included tool type, provenience, size, material, portion remaining, amount of cortex,

edge angle, edge damage, breakage, and recycling. These attributes were then used to discuss

and define each tool type to ascertain trends in recycling and edge damage that may be related to

activities performed by the inhabitants. The spatial distribution of these tools was then examined

to look for social patterns related to the use of public/private space and ritual/nonritual space.

This research concludes that trade for chipped stone tools was a multifaceted system

involving complex established regional communication networks. Chipped stone resources were

valued and maintained with care. Such tools were brought to the island through trade, scavenged

from nearby deserted Classic period site, or were obtained locally. Expedient tools, which are

often overlooked in tool studies from this period, make up a vital portion of the Postclassic Maya

tool kit and greatly outnumber formal tool types at Laguna de On. Day to day activities were

probably more often carried out using expedient tools than formal tools. Additional research on

expedient tool usage at other Postclassic communities could further our understanding of

household and group work activities. Also, Laguna de On would benefit from further chipped

stone tool research as well. This study was limited to spatial distribution and types of tools, but

43

did not discuss the variation between the early and late facet Postclassic periods. Closer

examination of the use of heat treatment during this period would also be useful. This study did

not separate tools burned post-depositionally from those burned during the Postclassic. The

description in this paper of the chipped stone tool assemblage from Laguna de On should help

more clearly define the roles of both formal and informal tools for future studies of this time

period.

44

References Cited

Andrews, A. P. 1993 Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. In Journal of World Prehistory 7:

35-69.

Ball, J. 1985 The Postclassic that Wasn't: The Thirteenth-through-Seventeenth Century

Archaeology of Central Eastern Campeche, Mexico. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic , editied by A. Chase and P. Rice, pp. 273-284. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Barnhart, E., and S. Howard

1997 Testing Explorations at Laguna de On Island: Landscape Modifications, a Burial Area, and Courtyard walls. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 43-60. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.

Barret, J.

2000 Warfare or Welfare: Postclassic Lithic Production Patterns and Their Social Context. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting for the Society of American Archaeology in Philadelphia. April 5-9, 2000.

Berdan, F.

1988 Principles of Regional and Long-distance Trade in the Aztec Empire. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, edited by J. K. Jasserand and K. Darkin, pp. 639-656. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, no. 402, Oxford.

Blanton, R., S. Kowalsewski, G. Feinman, and L. Finsten

1993 Ancient Mesoameria: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Second edition.

Briggs, M.

2002 Terminal Classic to Postclassic Transition in the Maya of Northern Belize: Biological Continuity and Cultural Change in the Burials of Progresso and Honey Camp Lagoons. Master’s Thesis. University of Houston, TX.

Chase, A. F. and P. M. Rice, eds. 1985 The Lowland Maya Postclassic. Austin: University of Texas Press. Chase, D. Z.

1986 Social and Political Organization in the Land of Milk and Honey: Correlating the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland Maya. In Late

45

Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by J. A. Sabloff and E. W. Andrews V, pp 347-378. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Chase, D. and A. Chase

1988 A Postclassic Perpective: Excavations at the Maya site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Monograph No. 4. Precolumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Crabtree, D. E.

1999 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occassional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History, Number 28. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, Idaho. Third Edition

Dial, S. and M. Collins

1998 Bifaces, Bifacial Tools, Perforators, Burins, and Spalls. In Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of Hunter-Gatherers in Central Texas Volume III, edited by M. Collins, pp.683-702. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.

Dockall, J. and H. Shafer

1993 Testing the Producer-Consumer Model for Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 4:158-179.

Dreiss, M. L., and D. O. Brown

1989 Obsidian Exchange Patterns in Belize. In Prehistoric Maya Economies, edited by P. A. McAnany and B. L. Isaac, pp.57-90. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Drennan, R.

1984 Long Distance Transport Costs in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. In American Anthropologist 86:105-112.

Freidel, D. A. and J. A. Sabloff 1984 Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York. Gann, T. W. 1928 Maya Cities. Self published, London and New York. Gifford, J.

1976 Prehistoric pottery analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hammond, N.

1973 British Museum-Cambridge University Corozal Project 1973 Interim Report. Cambridge University Center of Latin American Studies, Cambridge.

Hester, T. R., ed.

46

1982 The Maya Lithic Sequence in Northern Belize. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 39-59. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venice.

Hester, T. R. and H. J. Shafer

1984 Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize. In World Archaeology 16:157-73.

1991 Lithics of the Early Postclassic at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer, pp. 155-162. Madison: Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1, Prehistory press.

Hult, W. and T. Hester

1993 The Ambergris Caye Lithics. Manuscript on file at Texas Archaeological Research Labs, University of Texas, Austin.

Jones, G. D.

1989 Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier. Univeristy of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kelly, T.

1980 The Colha Regional Survey. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, ed. by T. Hester, J. Eaton, and H. Shafer, pp.51-70. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue in Venezia, San Antonio.

Lewenstein, S.

1991 Woodworking Tools at Cerros. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer, pp. 239-250. Madison: Monographs in World Archaeology No.1, Prehistory Press.

Luedtke, B.

1992 An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McAnany, P.

1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas at Austin, Austin.

1987 Lithic Technology and Exchange Among Wetland Farmers of the Eastern Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1989 Stone-Tool Production and Exchange in the Eastern Maya Lowlands: The Consumer Perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize. In American Antiquity 54:332-346.

47

McKillop, H. 1996 Ancient Maya Trading Ports and the Integration of Long-Distance and Regional

Economies: Wild Cane Cay in South Coastal Belize. In Ancient Mesoamerica 7:49-62.

McKillop, H., L. Jackson, H. Michel, F. Stross, and F. Asaro

1988 Chemical Source Analysis of Maya Obsidian Artifacts: New Perspectives from Wild Cane Cay, Belize. In Archaeometry 88, edited by R. M. Farqhuar, R. G. V. Hancock, and L. A. Pavlish, pp.239-244. Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Masson, M. A.

1993 Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

1997a Notes on a Flint God K Eccentric from Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 25-28. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.

1997b Lithic Tools from 1996 Season at Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996, edited by M. A. Masson and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 77-84. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.

1997c Cultural Transformation at the Maya Postclassic Community of Laguan de On, Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 8(4): 293-316.

1999 Postclassic Maya Ritual at Laguna de On Island, Belize. In Ancient Mesoamerica 10:51-68.

2000 In the Realm of Nachan Kan: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Masson, M. A. and H. Chaya

2001 Obsidian Trade Connections at the Postclassic Maya Site of Laguna De On, Belize. In Lithic Technology 25(2): 135-144.

Masson, M. A. and S. Gonzalez

1997 Structure III, a Stone Dock at Laguna de On Island. In The Belize Postclassic Project 1996: Laguna de On Excavations, 1996. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.

Masson, M. A., and R. M. Rosenswig, eds.

1997 The Belize Postclassic Project 1996: Laguna de On Excavations, 1996. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 1, State University of New York at Albany.

48

1998 The Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoarmerican Studies Occasional Publications No. 2, State University of New York at Albany.

1999 Belize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 3. University of New York at Albany.

2000 Belize Postclassic Project 1999: Continued Investigations at Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 5. University of New York at Albany.

Michaels, G. H.

1987 A Describtion and Analysis of Early Postclassic Lithic Technology at Colha, Belize. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.

1989 Craft Specialization in the Early Postclassic of Colha. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4:139-83.

1994 The Postclassic at Colha, Belize: A Summary Overview and directions for Future Research. In Continuing Archaeology at Colha, Belize. Edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 129-136. Austin: Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas.

Michaels, G. H. and H. J. Shafer

1994 Excavations at Operation 2037 and 2040. In Continuing Archaeology at Colha, Belize. Edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 117-129. Austin: Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas.

Miller, Arthur G.

1982 On the Edge of the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Nelson, F. W., Jr., D. A. Phillips, and A. B. Rubio

1983 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico Vol. 1 Part 1: the Hydraulic System. Edited by R. Matheny, D. Gurr, D. Forsyth, and F. R. Hauk. Papers of the New World Archaeologcial Foundation, Vol. 46. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Oland, M. H.

1998 Lithic Raw Material Sources at the Southern End of the Freshwater Creek Drainage. In The Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 2, State University of New York at Albany.

1999 Lithic Raw Material Sources at the Southern End of the Freshwater Creek Drainage: A View From Laguna de On, Belize. In Lithic Technology 24(2): 91-110.

49

Pendergast, D. 1981 Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-1980. In Journal of

Field Archaeology 8: 29-53. 1985 Lamanai, Belize: An Update View. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic , ed. by A.

Chase and P. Rice, pp. 91-103. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1986 Stability through Change: Lamanai, Belize, From the Ninth to the Seventeenth

Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic , ed. by J. Sabloff and E. Andrews, pp. 223-250, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rathje, W. L.

1975 The Last Tango in Mayapan: A Tentative Trajectory of Production-Distribution Systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 409-448. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Robles, C., F. Andrews, and A. Andrews

1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatán. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic , edited by J. A. Sabloff and E. W. Andrews, pp. 53-98. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Roemer, E.

1984 A Late Classic Maya Lithic Workshop at Colha, Belize. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas A&M.

Rosenswig, R. and T. Stafford, Jr.

1998 Archaic Component Beneath a Postclassic Terrace at Subop 19, Laguna de On Island. In Belize Postclassic Project 1997: Laguna de On, Progresso Lagoon, Laguna Seca Report to the Department of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize, edited by M. Masson and R. Rossenswig, pp. 81-90. Albany: University at Albany, SUNY.

Sabloff, J. A. and W. L. Rathje 1975 The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class. In Scientific American 233: 72-82. Sanders, W. T.

1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Contribution to American Anthropology and History 12(60). Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 606.

Santone, L.

1997 Transport Costs, Consumer Demand, and Patterns of Intraregional Exchange: A Perspective on Commodity Production and Distribution from Northern Belize. In Latin American Antiquity 8(1):71-81.

50

Schele, L. and M. E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort

Worth. Shafer, H.

1985 A Technological Study of Two Maya Workshops at Colha, Belize. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. Prew, J. Woods, and M. Pavesic, pp.277-314. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1983 The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlement and Fields. In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northern Belize, edited by B. Turner II and P. Harrison, pp.212-245. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Shafer, H. and T. Hester

1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. In American Antiquity 48:519-543.

Sharer, R. J. 1994 The Ancient Maya. Fifth Edition. Standord University Press, Stanford. Smith, M. and F. Berdan

2000 The Postclassic Mesoamerican World System. In Current Anthropology 41(2):283-286.

Tobey, M.

1986 Trace Element Investigation of Maya Chert from Belize. Papers of the Colha Project Volume 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.

Valdez, F. Jr.

1993 Appendix X: Obsidian Artifacts from Laguna de On Island. In Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize, by M. A. Masson, pp. 354-361. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.

Valdez, F. Jr., M. A. Masson, and L. Santone

1992 Report from the 1991 Field Season at Laguna de On. Report on file, Departement of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize.

Walker, D.

1990 Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of Terminal Classic and Postclassic Settlement and Pilgrimage in Northern Belize. Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

51

Index of Appendices

Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variances by Tool Type…………………………..54 Table A1: Mean and Deviation for All Tool Types Analyzed Table A2: Core Variances Table A3: Discoidal Variances Table A4: Expedient Biface Variances Table A5: Oval Biface Variances Table A6: Utilized Flake Variances Table A7: Lenticular Biface Variances Table A8: Perforator Variances Table A9: Scraper Variances Table A10: Uniface Variances Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type…………………………………………………….59 Table B1: Percentage of Raw Materials Table B2: Number of Breaks Table B3: Number of Incidences of Edge Damage categorized Table B4: Number of Recycling Incidences Table B5: Percentage of Tools with Fire Damage Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site……………………………63 Table C1: Showing the Density of Tools for Each Excavated Subop Area Table C2: Area Distribution for Manufacturing Related Lithics by Subop Table C3: Bifacial Tool Comparison between Subop 5 and Subop 8 Table C4: Tool Density Comparison between Subop 5 and Subop 12 Table C5: Material Distribution by Subop Table C6: Area Distribution for Oval Bifaces Table C7: Area Distribution for Expedient Bifaces Table C8: Area Distribution for Utilized Flakes Table C9: Area Distribution for Unifaces Table C10: Percentage of Raw Material found at Each Subop Appendix D: Illustrations………………………………………………………………………..69 Illustration D1: Area Map of Northern Belize and Site of Laguna de On Illustration D2: Photograph of a Discoidal from Laguna de On Island Illustration D3: Photograph of a Broken Stemmed Blade from Laguna de On Island Illustration D4: Drawing of a Tranchet Adze Illustration D5: Photograph of a Broken Triangular Biface from Laguna de On Island Illustration D6: Drawing of a Triangular Biface Illustration D7: Photograph of Broken Lenticular Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D8: Photograph of Broken Oval Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D9: Photograph of Expedient Bifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D10: Photograph of Choppers from Laguna de On Island

52

Illustration D11: Photograph of Unifaces from Laguna de On Island Illustration D12: Photograph of a Drill Fragment from Laguna de On Island Illustration D13: Photograph of Scraper Fragments from Laguna de On Island Illustration D14: Photograph of Hammerstones from Laguna de On Island Illustration D15: Photograph of Abraders from Laguna de On Island Illustration D16: Photograph of Cores from Laguna de On Island Illustration D17: Photograph of Utilized Flakes from Laguna de On Island Illustration D18: Topographic Map of Laguna de On Island Appendix E: Tool Database……………………………………………………………………...80 Database Legend Table E1: Provenience and Basic Attribute Table Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling Table

53

Appendix A: Tables of Standard Deviation Variance by Tool Type

Table A1: Mean and Deviation For All Tool Types Analyzed

Length Width Thickness Tool # of tools analyzed* Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Cores 16 70.31 24.13 59.88 24.6 37.94 18.94 Discoidals 3 106 19.97 84.67 8.08 42 10.39 Expedient Bifaces

6 91.5 23.4 61 11.97 33.33 10.13

Utilized Flakes

91 46.56 16.03 41.01 17.15 11.7 7.86

Oval Bifaces

3 123.67 55.23 53 24.25 22.33 10.02

Lenticular Bifaces

3 130.33 24.03 37.67 3.22 11.3 1.53

Perforators 9 37.89 14 28.7 8.47 7.44 3.17 Scrapers 5 51.4 14.79 38 16.6 14 4.9 Uniface 8 96.13 31.48 51 15.67 29.1 12.1 *complete tools only

Table A2: Core Variance

Number M.O. #* Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

34 5n 337 Chalcedony 34 -1.50 24 -1.46 11 -1.42 55 8f 45 Colha 38 -1.34 33 -1.09 11 -1.42 56 158 8L 135 Colha 44 -1.09 36 -0.97 36 -0.10 40 275 5h 258 Chalcedony Blend 50 -0.84 49 -0.44 49 0.58 54 92 8c 32 Colha 51 -0.80 57 -0.12 31 -0.37 27 5c 50 Burned 52 -0.76 45 -0.60 40 0.11 63 327 14h 308 White Chert 60 -0.43 42 -0.73 18 -1.05 58 164 8m 174 Colha 70 -0.01 47 -0.52 22 -0.84 30 374 17a 307 Chalcedony 76 0.24 57 -0.12 34 -0.21 33 401 5f and h 288 Chalcedony 78 0.32 85 1.02 50 0.64 49 281 20d 338 Colha 84 0.57 62 0.09 27 -0.58 32 206 20e 376 Chalcedony 89 0.77 103 1.75 52 0.74 38 18 8L 116 Chalcedony 93 0.94 60 0.01 38 0.00 45 118 14f 149 Colha 94 0.98 66 0.25 67 1.53 37 6 8k 93 Chalcedony 96 1.06 80 0.82 41 0.16 52 372 5g 240/227 Colha 116 1.89 112 2.12 80 2.22

*numbers designated by Maxine Oland (1998, 1999)

Table A3: Discoidal Variance

Number M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance66 416 18 394 Colha 84 -1.10 76 -1.07 48 0.58 65 233 5f 229 Chalcedony 111 0.25 92 0.91 48 0.58 67 113 12i 110 Colha 123 0.85 86 0.16 30 -1.15

54

Table A4: Expedient Biface Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

74 8m 174 Chalcedony 51 -1.73 50 -0.92 16 -1.71 89 133 12c 195 Colha 87 -0.19 56 -0.42 37 0.36 72 357 18a 209 Chalcedony 93 0.06 68 0.58 45 1.15 71 180 3 1 Chalcedony 95 0.15 57 -0.33 28 -0.53 87 56 8e 30 Colha 100 0.36 82 1.75 39 0.56 91 143 5b 90 Colha 123 1.35 53 -0.67 35 0.16

Table A5: Oval Biface Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

226 172 8 2 Colha 64 -1.08 25 -1.15 12 -1.03 218 7b 217 Colha 134 0.19 67 0.58 32 0.97 215 149 12a 179 Colha 173 0.89 67 0.58 23 0.07

Table A6: Utilized Flake Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

98 20e 376 Burned 38 -0.53 16 -1.46 7 -0.59 99 5j 275 Burned 39 -0.47 16 -1.46 4 -0.98 101 80 12i 82 Chalcedony 39 -0.47 22 -1.11 3 -1.10 107 58 8j 78 Chalcedony 44 -0.16 15 -1.52 4 -0.98 108 330 5e and g 298 Chalcedony Blend 63 1.03 21 -1.17 5 -0.85 113 189 5 4 Colha 48 0.09 20 -1.23 4 -0.98 114 184 8 9 Colha 52 0.34 62 1.22 46 4.37 116 247 17a 307 Colha 41 -0.35 29 -0.70 4 -0.98 119 334 7abc 295 Colha 67 1.27 38 -0.18 13 0.17 122 149 8h 60 Colha 81 2.15 36 -0.29 13 0.17 123 162 8m 134 Colha 80 2.09 57 0.93 27 1.95 128 8j 95 Patinated 27 -1.22 11 -1.75 4 -0.98 130 320 20a 312 Quartz 50 0.21 30 -0.64 13 0.17 133 285 17 241 Burned 41 -0.35 23 -1.05 5 -0.85 137 3 6 Colha 47 0.03 28 -0.76 16 0.55 141 274 5d 211 Colha 69 1.40 33 -0.47 6 -0.72 146 270 17 243 Quartz 49 0.15 20 -1.23 10 -0.21 331 10 39 Burned 40 -0.41 43 0.12 7 -0.59 342 89 8L 138 Burned 34 -0.78 30 -0.64 5 -0.85 343 183 8 2 Chalcedony 46 -0.03 34 -0.41 10 -0.21 344 186 11 2 Chalcedony 41 -0.35 32 -0.53 12 0.04 345 297 16 254 Chalcedony 29 -1.10 33 -0.47 29 2.21 346 239 17 256 Chalcedony 21 -1.59 34 -0.41 7 -0.59 348 226 18 215 Chalcedony 27 -1.22 45 0.23 7 -0.59 349 221 18 215 Chalcedony 54 0.46 45 0.23 6 -0.72 351 13 12p 169 Chalcedony 25 -1.34 36 -0.29 5 -0.85

55

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance353 325 14h 308 Chalcedony 52 0.34 66 1.46 12 0.04 354 234 15b 205 Chalcedony 59 0.78 75 1.98 14 0.30 355 421 17a 307 Chalcedony 18 -1.78 39 -0.12 3 -1.10 356 379 17b 264 Chalcedony 34 -0.78 35 -0.35 5 -0.85 357 342 17c 265 Chalcedony 37 -0.60 15 -1.52 8 -0.47 358 398 17d 31 Chalcedony 48 0.09 28 -0.76 6 -0.72 361 8i 80 Chalcedony 57 0.65 55 0.82 19 0.93 364 3 8m 174 Chalcedony 54 0.46 59 1.05 9 -0.34 365 166 8m 174 Chalcedony 29 -1.10 39 -0.12 10 -0.21 366 59 12a 7 Chalcedony Blend 42 -0.28 56 0.87 15 0.42 370 359 18 209 Chalcedony Blend 40 -0.41 61 1.17 7 -0.59 372 23 8d 34 Chalcedony Blend 32 -0.91 47 0.35 7 -0.59 373 39 8e 58 Chalcedony Blend 41 -0.35 45 0.23 14 0.30 374 2 8L 116 Chalcedony Blend 57 0.65 58 0.99 16 0.55 376 202 9 1 Colha 30 -1.03 22 -1.11 6 -0.72 377 185 9 4 Colha 62 0.96 31 -0.58 11 -0.09 380 70 12i 110 Colha 58 0.71 87 2.68 30 2.33 381 41 12i 110 Colha 79 2.02 94 3.09 34 2.84 382 203 13a 128 Colha 71 1.52 49 0.47 13 0.17 386 117 14f 149 Colha 51 0.28 52 0.64 28 2.08 387 376 14h 309 Colha 21 -1.59 35 -0.35 8 -0.47 388 377 14h 309 Colha 47 0.03 25 -0.93 10 -0.21 393 392 16c 269 Colha 53 0.40 43 0.12 8 -0.47 395 351 16c 270 Colha 44 -0.16 77 2.10 10 -0.21 398 258 17d 305 Colha 45 -0.10 31 -0.58 9 -0.34 399 317 20a 312 Colha 49 0.15 58 0.99 12 0.04 400 367 20c 333 Colha 46 -0.03 37 -0.23 6 -0.72 405 211 7b 217 Colha 63 1.03 46 0.29 16 0.55 406 401? 7c 219 Colha 48 0.09 22 -1.11 12 0.04 407 340 7d 224 Colha 33 -0.85 26 -0.88 6 -0.72 408 22 8a 1 Colha 52 0.34 32 -0.53 7 -0.59 409 105 8c 27 Colha 51 0.28 37 -0.23 21 1.19 410 145 8c 27 Colha 51 0.28 36 -0.29 15 0.42 411 68 8c 28 Colha 76 1.84 44 0.17 19 0.93 412 102 8c 88 Colha 43 -0.22 52 0.64 15 0.42 414 147 8f 46 Colha 24 -1.41 34 -0.41 8 -0.47 418 104 8j 95 Colha 39 -0.47 79 2.22 41 3.73 419 154 8k 93 Colha 33 -0.85 39 -0.12 12 0.04 420 157 8L 123 Colha 25 -1.34 44 0.17 11 -0.09 422 69 8L 138 Colha 46 -0.03 28 -0.76 10 -0.21 423 160 8m 134 Colha 64 1.09 52 0.64 14 0.30 424 77 8m 174 Colha 35 -0.72 35 -0.35 9 -0.34 427 8a 21 Gray Chert 57 0.65 45 0.23 13 0.17 429 35 8m 174 Gray Chert 33 -0.85 42 0.06 14 0.30

430 8L 142 Grayish-Brown chert 51 0.28 35 -0.35 9 -0.34

431 205 8L 135 Limestone 56 0.59 44 0.17 13 0.17

56

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance433 142 8m 174 Unidentified 67 1.27 35 -0.35 17 0.68 435 388 20a 281 Patinated 24 -1.41 24 -0.99 7 -0.59 438 418 14h 309 Quartz 49 0.15 67 1.52 18 0.81 441 8L 116 Quartz 27 -1.22 55 0.82 10 -0.21 447 328 5f 248 Chalcedony 37 -0.60 46 0.29 13 0.17 448 236 5g 233 Chalcedony 41 -0.35 65 1.40 10 -0.21 449 307 5k 282 Chalcedony 32 -0.91 29 -0.70 6 -0.72 450 353 7a and b 266 Chalcedony 17 -1.84 21 -1.17 4 -0.98 452 299 5f 229 Chalcedony Blend 43 -0.22 48 0.41 11 -0.09 453 417 5f 288 Chalcedony Blend 41 -0.35 41 0.00 9 -0.34 454 309 5k 282 Chalcedony Blend 27 -1.22 18 -1.34 5 -0.85 456 332 5e and g 298 Colha 66 1.21 37 -0.23 8 -0.47 457 288 5f 237 Colha 105 3.65 52 0.64 7 -0.59 459 259 5f and h 288 Colha 64 1.09 41 0.00 20 1.06 460 353 5g 240 Colha 74 1.71 66 1.46 15 0.42 462 396 5m 323 Colha 59 0.78 44 0.17 6 -0.72 463 339 7a 224 Colha 33 -0.85 23 -1.05 4 -0.98 466 313 5f 288 Quartzite 47 0.03 40 -0.06 12 0.04 467 290 5e 218 Red Creamy chert 56 0.59 80 2.27 13 0.17

Table A7: Lenticular Biface Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

168 11 8j 124 Brown Chert 107 -0.97 34 -1.14 10 -0.87174 2 1 Colha 155 1.03 39 0.41 11 -0.22179 47 7a 171 Colha 129 -0.06 40 0.73 13 1.09

Table A8: Perforator Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

254 5f 229 Burned 39 0.08 18 -1.26 8 0.175439255 8a 1 Burned 56 1.29 32 0.39 14 2.070175256 227 18 215 Chalcedony 37 -0.06 27 -0.20 5 -0.77193 257 3 3 Colha 58 1.44 24 -0.55 6 -0.45614 258 297 16 14 Colha 22 -1.14 34 0.63 6 -0.45614 260 84 13a 158 Colha 24 -0.99 38 1.10 4 -1.08772 261 329 5e and g 298 Colha 24 -0.99 35 0.75 7 -0.14035 262 5k 282 Colha 31 -0.49 14 -1.73 6 -0.45614 263 256 7c 252 Colha 50 0.87 36 0.87 11 1.122807

57

Table A9: Scraper Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance265 220 18 220 Chalcedony 66 0.99 50 0.72 15 0.20 268 302 17 212 Colha 36 -1.04 24 -0.84 9 -1.02 270 129 8g 49 Colha 67 1.05 58 1.20 20 1.22 271 17a 307 Gray Chert 38 -0.91 19 -1.14 9 -1.02 272 170 8 9 White Chert 50 -0.09 39 0.06 17 0.61

Table A10: Uniface Variance

Tool # M.O. # Subop Lot Material Length Variance Width Variance Thick Variance

312 260 7b 208 Chalcedony Blend 104 0.25 35 -1.02 18 -0.92 314 200 9 1 Colha 127 0.98 75 1.53 34 0.40 315 198 3 6 Colha 81 -0.48 45 -0.38 25 -0.34 323 265 5f and h 288 Colha 62 -1.08 35 -1.02 18 -0.92 325 156 8k 130 Colha 132 1.14 64 0.83 41 0.98 327 90 8m 134 Colha 46 -1.59 36 -0.96 14 -1.25 329 394 5n 343 Patinated 123 0.85 65 0.89 47 1.48 330 136 12p 156 Water Damaged 94 -0.07 53 0.13 36 0.57

58

Appendix B: Attribute Tables by Tool Type

Table B1: Percentage of Raw Materials by Tool Type

Tool Type Burned Chal- cedony

Chalcedony/Colha Blend

Chalcedony/Quartz Blend Colha Patinated Quartz Local/

Other Total Tools

Abrader 0%(0) 0% 0%(0) 33%(1) 67%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Burin 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(1) 1 Burin Spall 100%(3) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Chopper 0%(0) 0%(0) 6%(1) 6%(1) 61%(11) 0%(0) 11%(2) 17%(3) 18 Core 5%(2) 31%(12) 3%(1) 5%(2) 41%(16) 0%(0) 8%(3) 8%(3) 39 Discoidal 0%(0) 25%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 25%(1) 4 Drill 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 50%(1) 2 Expedient Biface 0%(0) 26%(7) 0%(0) 4%(1) 41%(11) 7%(2) 4%(1) 19%(5) 27 Utilized Fragment 18%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 9%(1) 55%(6) 0%(0) 9%(1) 9%(1) 11 Gouge 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1 Hammerstone 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 44%(4) 0%(0) 11%(1) 44%(4) 9 Lenticular Biface 7%(1) 29%(4) 0%(0) 0%(0) 43%(6) 0%(0) 0%(0) 21%(3) 14 Macro-flake 0%(0) 14%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 71%(5) 0%(0) 0%(0) 14%(1) 7 Oval Biface 8%(5) 8%(5) 3%(2) 3%(2) 65%(40) 5%(3) 3%(2) 5%(3) 62 Perferator 27%(3) 9%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 64%(7) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 11 Scraper 9%(1) 36%(4) 0%(0) 9%(1) 27%(3) 0%(0) 0%(0) 18%(2) 11 Stemmed Blade 0%(0) 13%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 63%(5) 13%(1) 0%(0) 13%(1) 8 Tranchet Adze 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 100%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2 Triangular Biface 0%(0) 33%(1) 0%(0) 0%(0) 67%(2) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3 Uniface 9%(2) 9%(2) 4%(1) 0%(0) 65%(15) 9%(2) 0%(0) 4%(1) 23 Utilized Flakes 9%(17) 20%(38) 3%(5) 6%(12) 44%(82) 4%(7) 5%(10) 8%(15) 186 Total 8%(37) 17%(80) 3%(13) 5%(23) 50%(233) 3%(15) 4%(20) 10%(46) 445

Table B2: Number of Breaks by Tool Type

Tool Type Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge Fire

Cracked Lateral Crescent Irregular/Fragment Natural Total

Breaks Total Tools

Abrader 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Burin 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Burin Spall 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 Chopper 12 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 6 18 Core 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 1 23 39 Discoidal 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 Drill 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Expedient Biface 5 14 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 21 27 Utilized Fragment 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 11 11 Gouge 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hammerstone 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 9 Lenticular 2 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 14 Macro-flake 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 7 Oval Biface 2 46 1 2 0 6 0 0 7 0 62 62 Perferator 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 11

59

Tool Type Whole Snap Impact Diagonal Hinge Fire Cracked Lateral Crescent Irregular/

Fragment Natural Total Breaks

Total Tools

Scraper 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 7 11 Stemmed Blade 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 8 Tranchet Adze 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Triangular Biface 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 Uniface 6 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 23 Util. Flake 63 92 5 2 3 6 2 1 15 2 128 186 Total 130 199 12 6 4 20 4 1 68 3 321 445

Table B3: Number of Incidences of Edge Damage Categorized by Tool Type

Tool Type Batter Chipping Dulling/Polish Striations Total

Abrader (3) 2 1 0 0 3 Burin (1) 0 0 0 0 0 Burin Spall (3) 2 2 0 0 4 Chopper (18) 12 10 6 2 30 Core (39) 22 1 0 0 23 Discoidal (4) 3 2 0 0 5 Drill (2) 0 1 2 0 3 Expedient Biface (27) 20 16 5 1 42 Utilized Fragment (11) 3 7 3 0 13 Gouge (1) 0 1 1 1 3 Hammerstone (9) 8 0 0 0 8 Lenticular (14) 6 8 0 0 14 Macro-flake (7) 4 3 1 0 8 Oval Biface (62) 50 29 14 2 95 Perferator (11) 2 9 4 0 15 Scraper (11) 4 9 4 0 17 Stemmed Blade (8) 7 4 0 0 11 Tranchet Adze (2) 2 0 0 0 2 Triangular Biface (3) 0 3 0 0 3 Uniface (23) 12 15 2 0 29 Utilized Flake (186) 27 150 71 6 254 Total 186 271 113 12 582

60

Table B4: Number of Recycling Incidences by Tool Type

Tool Pressure Flake Resharpening Retouch ReuseNumber of Tools

with Multiple Wear Types

Total

Abrader (3) 0 1 0 3 1 5 Burin (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burin Spall (3) 0 1 1 1 1 4 Chopper (18) 1 9 0 2 9 21 Core (39) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Discoidal (4) 0 2 0 1 1 4 Drill (2) 0 0 1 0 1 2 Expedient Biface (27) 0 7 2 1 14 24 Utilized Fragment (11) 0 2 3 2 2 9 Gouge (1) 1 1 0 0 1 3 Hammerstone (9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lenticular (14) 1 2 1 0 4 8 Macro Flake (7) 0 1 0 1 2 4 Oval Biface (62) 0 20 14 10 28 72 Perforator (11) 0 0 3 0 2 5 Scraper (11) 0 6 0 1 6 13 Stemmed Blade (8) 1 2 1 0 2 6 Tranchet Flake (1) 0 1 0 0 0 1 Tranchet Adze (2) 0 1 0 0 0 1 Triangular Biface (3) 1 0 0 0 0 1 Uniface (23) 0 10 7 3 8 28 Utilized Flakes (186) 10 31 19 1 64 125

Totals 17 97 54 26 124 336

61

Table B5: Percent of Fire Damage by Tool Type

Tool Type Number Fire Damaged

Total Number

Percent with Fire Damage

Abrader 0 3 0% Burin 0 1 0% Burin Spall 0 3 0% Chopper 2 18 11% Core 8 39 21% Discoidal 1 4 25% Drill 0 2 0% Expedient Biface 6 27 22% Utilized Fragment 2 11 18% Gouge 0 1 0% Hammerstone 2 9 22% Lenticular Biface 1 14 7% Macro-flake 2 7 29% Oval Biface 14 62 23% Perferator 4 11 36% Scraper 2 11 18% Stemmed Blade 1 8 13% Tranchet Adze 0 2 0% Triangular Biface 2 3 67% Uniface 5 23 22% Utilized Flakes 28 186 15%

Total 87 445 18%

62

Appendix C: Distribution Tables of Tools at the Laguna de On Site

Table C1: Showing the Density of Tools for Each Excavated Subop Area

Subop Number of Tools

Area Excavated (m²) Tools/m²

2 5 20 0.25 3 9 20 0.45 5 69 43.6 1.58 7 28 28 1 8 138 70 1.97 9 3 4 0.75

10 4 4 1 11 2 2 1 12 36 77 0.47 13 13 8 1.63 14 21 34.7 0.6 15 5 4 1.25 16 14 17 0.82 17 50 15 3.33 18 19 8 2.38 20 23 16.25 1.42

Total 439 371.55 1.18

Table C2: Area distribution for Manufacturing Related Lithics by Subop

Subop Number of Tools Artifacts/m²

2 0 0 3 1 0.05 5 16 0.37 7 2 0.07 8 20 0.29 9 0 0

10 0 0 11 0 0 12 11 0.14 13 0 0 14 4 0.12 15 2 0.5 16 2 0.12 17 15 1 18 1 0.13 20 4 0.25

63

Table C3: Bifacial Tool Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 8

Tool type Number of

Tools in Subop 5

Tools/m² Number of

Tools in Subop 8

Tools/m²

Chopper 3 0.07 6 0.09 Discoidal 1 0.02 1 0.01 Expedient Biface 5 0.11 7 0.10

Gouge 0 0.00 1 0.01 Lenticular 0 0.00 2 0.03 Oval Biface 5 0.14 23 0.33 Tranchet Adze 0 0.00 2 0.03 Triangular 1 0.02 1 0.01 Total: 16 0.37 43 0.61

Table C4: Tool Density Comparison Between Subop 5 and Subop 12

Tool Type Number of Tools in Subop 5 Tools/m²

Number of Tools in

Subop 12 Tools/m²

Burin 0 0.00 0 0.00 Burin Spall 1 0.02 1 0.01 Drill 1 0.02 0 0.00 Utilized Fragments 3 0.07 1 0.01

Perforator 3 0.07 1 0.01 Scraper 0 0.00 0 0.00 Stem. Blade 1 0.02 2 0.03 Uniface 3 0.07 1 0.01 Util. Flk 31 0.71 8 0.10 Total: 43 0.99 14 0.18

64

Table C5: Material Distribution by Subop

Subop Burned Chalced/blends Colha Patinated Quartzite Local/other Total No Provenience 0 1 3 0 0 2 6 Subop 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 Subop 3 0 3 6 0 0 1 10 Subop 5 5 27 30 2 4 7 75 Subop 7 4 7 17 0 1 0 29 Subop 8 12 22 75 8 6 17 140 Subop 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Subop 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 Subop 11 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Subop 12 2 12 20 0 2 5 41 Subop 13 1 2 9 0 0 1 13 Subop 14 0 7 9 2 1 3 22 Subop 15 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 Subop 16 0 3 12 0 0 0 15 Subop 17 5 11 26 0 4 8 54 Subop 18 0 10 7 0 0 2 19 Subop 20 4 4 13 1 1 1 24

Table C6: Area Distribution for Oval Bifaces

Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 2 0.10 3 2 0.1 5 6 0.14 7 3 0.11 8 23 0.33 9 0 0.00

10 2 0.5 11 0 0.00 12 4 0.05 13 1 0.13 14 4 0.12 15 0 0.00 16 1 0.06 17 8 0.53 18 2 0.25 20 3 0.18

65

Table C7: Area Distribution for Expedient Bifaces

Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 1 0.05 3 2 0.1 5 5 0.11 7 0 0 8 7 0.1 9 0 0

10 1 0.25 11 0 0 12 4 0.05 13 2 0.25 14 2 0.06 15 0 0 16 1 0.06 17 0 0 18 1 0.13 20 0 0

Table C8: Area Distribution For Utilized Flakes

Subop Number of tools Tools/m²

2 0 3 1 0.05 5 30 0.69 7 13 0.46 8 61 0.87 9 2 0.5

10 1 0.25 11 2 1 12 8 0.1 13 6 0.75 14 8 0.23 15 2 0.5 16 8 0.47 17 23 0.65 18 8 1 20 12 0.74

66

Table C9: Area Distribution for Unifaces

Subop Number of tools Tools/m² 2 0 0 3 1 0.05 5 3 0.07 7 4 0.14 8 7 0.1 9 1 0.25

10 0 0 11 0 0 12 1 0.01 13 1 0.13 14 0 0 15 0 0 16 0 0 17 3 0.2 18 1 0.13 20 1 0.06

Table C10: Percentage of Raw Material found at Each Subop

Subop Burned Chalcedony and Blends Colha Patinated Quartzite Local/Other Total

NumberSurface/ no prov. 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 6

Subop 2 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5

Subop 3 0.0% 30.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10

Subop 5 6.7% 36.0% 40.0% 2.7% 5.3% 9.3% 75 Subop 7 13.8% 24.1% 58.6% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 29 Subop 8 8.6% 15.7% 53.6% 5.7% 4.3% 12.1% 140 Subop 9 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 Subop 10 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 Subop 11 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 Subop 12 4.9% 29.3% 48.8% 0.0% 4.9% 12.2% 41 Subop 13 7.7% 15.4% 69.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 13 Subop 14 0.0% 31.8% 40.9% 9.1% 4.5% 13.6% 22 Subop 15 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 Subop 16 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15 Subop 17 9.3% 20.4% 48.1% 0.0% 7.4% 14.8% 54 Subop 18 0.0% 52.6% 36.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 19 Subop 20 16.7% 16.7% 54.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 24 Total 7.3% 24.4% 50.7% 3.2% 4.3% 10.1% 467

67

Table C11: Area Distribution of Tools with Fire Damage

Subop Number of tools with Fire Damage Tools/m²

2 1 0.05 3 1 0.05 5 13 0.30 7 11 0.39 8 26 0.37 9 0 0.00

10 2 0.50 11 0 0.00 12 6 0.08 13 3 0.38 14 4 0.12 15 0 0.00 16 1 0.06 17 9 0.60 18 3 0.38 20 7 0.43

Total 87 0.23

68

Appendix D: Illustrations

Illustration D1: Area Map of Northern Belize and Site of Laguna de On

69

Illustration D2: Photograph of a Discoidal from Laguna de On Island

Illustration D3: Photograph of a Broken Stemmed Blade from Laguna de On Island

70

Illustration D4: Drawing of a Tranchet Adze (Drawn by D. Baily, provided by M. Masson)

71

Illustration D5: Photograph of a Broken Triangular Biface from Laguna de On

Island

Illustration D6: Drawing of a Triangular Biface (Drawn by A. Deane, provided M. Masson)

72

Illustration D7: Photograph of Broken Lenticular Bifaces from Laguna de On

Island

Illustration D8: Photograph of Broken Oval Bifaces from Laguna de On Island

73

Illustration D9: Photograph of Expedient Bifaces from Laguna de On Island

Illustration D10: Photograph of Choppers from Laguna de On Island

74

Illustration D11: Photograph of Unifaces from Laguna de On Island

Illustration D12: Photograph of a Drill Fragment from Laguna de On Island

75

Illustration D13: Photograph of Scraper Fragments from Laguna de On Island

Illustration D14: Photograph of Hammerstones from Laguna de On Island

76

Illustration D15: Photograph of Abraders from Laguna de On Island

Illustration D16: Photograph of Cores from Laguna de On Island

77

Illustration D17: Photograph of Utilized Flakes from Laguna de On Island

78

Illustration D18: Topographic Map of Laguna de On Island (provided by M. Masson)

79

Database Legend Lot: SRF=surface find Tool: ABR=Abrader BRN=Burin BRNS=Burin Spall CHPR=Chopper DISC=Discoidal DRIL=Drill EXBF=Expedient Biface UFBL=Utilized Flake Blade UFLK=Utilized Flake UFPB=Utilized Flake, Prismatic Blade FRAG=Fragment GOUG=Gouge HAMS=Hammerstone LENT=Lenticular Biface MFLK=Macro Flake OVBF=Oval Biface PERF=Perferator SCRP=Scraper STMB=Stemmed Blade TADZ=Tranchet Adze TRBF=Triangular Biface UNIF=Uniface Material: COLH=Colha Chert CHAL=Chalcedony LOCL=Local unidentified material CHQB=Chalcedony and Quartz blend CHCL=Chalcedony and Colha Chert blend QRTZ=Quartz GRAY=Gray Chert WHTE=White Chert GRAN=Granite LIME=Limestone BURN=Fire damaged, can not identify PTNA=Patinated, can not identify H20D=Water damaged, can not identify OTHR=Other or Unidentified

80

Edge Angle: RA=Resharpening Angle PA=Proximal Angle DA=Distal Angle LA=Lateral Angle LLA=Left Lateral Angle RLA=Right Lateral Angle

81

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 1 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x Edge

An

gle

1 32 12a 7 ABR 73 56 21 CHQB PROX 2 31DA

2 5 4 ABR 45 30 20 COLH PROX 33 110 12e 31 ABR 119 45 28 COLH WHOL 3 55

4 141 8m 114 BRN 32 15 19 LOCL DIST 3 39

5 12k 159 BRNS 24 8 5 COLH MED 3 52

6 91 8c 28 BRNS 53 22 21 COLH WHOL 3 65

7 273 5q 348 BRNS 26 9 8 COLH LAT 3 54LA

8 132 12f 35 CHPR 73 64 34 CHCL WHOL 3 33

9 298 16a 222 CHPR 80 52 24 CHQB FRAG 2 34DA

10 176 7 1 CHPR 60 64 17 COLH WHOL 2 48RA

11 194 7 3 CHPR 82 53 33 COLH WHOL 2 60RA

12 61 12b 33 CHPR 50 72 16 COLH WHOL 1 46

13 115 14a 144 CHPR 40 49 13 COLH WHOL 3 51

14 389 20a 281 CHPR 87 81 31 COLH WHOL 3 32DA

15 144 8a 21 CHPR 74 47 24 COLH FRAG 3 65

16 146 8e 58 CHPR 125 86 59 COLH FRAG 2 32LA

17 148 8h 60 CHPR 32 67 15 COLH FRAG 2 31DA

18 73 8i 81 CHPR 34 33 23 COLH WHOL 1 78

19 94 8k 114 CHPR 84 53 35 COLH WHOL 2 65

20 241 5k 282 CHPR 59 63 18 COLH WHOL 3 59DA

21 150 8i 111 CHPR 100 48 20 GRAY WHOL 222 36 12a 179 CHPR 73 59 27 LOCL WHOL 2 79

23 348 5o 347 CHPR 95 45 29 GRAY FRAG 1 37DA

24 150 12k 113 CHPR 149 96 48 QRTZ WHOL 2 70

25 248 5r 364 CHPR 71 65 41 QRTZ WHOL 3 59DA

26 321 20b 301 CORE 81 50 44 BURN FRAG 227 5c 50 CORE 52 45 40 BURN WHOL 228 17 14f 149 CORE 74 46 32 CHAL FRAG 229 237 17a 256 CORE 56 41 24 CHAL FRAG 230 374 17a 307 CORE 76 57 34 CHAL WHOL 2 46

31 383 17b 264 CORE 46 25 19 CHAL FRAG 332 206 20e 376 CORE 89 103 52 CHAL WHOL 233 401 5fh 288 CORE 78 85 50 CHAL WHOL 234 5n 337 CORE 34 24 11 CHAL WHOL 335 311 5p 352 CORE 43 52 42 CHAL FRAG 236 8i 80 CORE 37 25 14 CHAL FRAG 337 6 8k 93 CORE 96 80 41 CHAL WHOL 238 18 8l 116 CORE 93 60 38 CHAL WHOL 239 12h 5 CORE 28 37 17 CHAL FRAG 340 275 5h 258 CORE 50 49 49 CHCL WHOL 341 99? 61 413 CORE 57 43 21 CHQB FRAG 342 30 8d 137 CORE 40 44 22 CHQB FRAG 243 16 206 CORE 25 17 11 COLH FRAG 144 111 12h 51 CORE 70 73 42 COLH FRAG 245 118 14f 149 CORE 94 66 67 COLH WHOL 246 391 15a 202 CORE 54 53 57 COLH FRAG 3

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 2 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x Edge

An

gle

47 375 17a 301 CORE 68 63 39 COLH FRAG 348 382 17b 267 CORE 31 15 14 COLH FRAG 349 281 20d 338 CORE 84 62 27 COLH WHOL 250 361 5e 347 CORE 27 20 21 COLH DIST 351 268 5fh 288 CORE 34 22 10 COLH FRAG 252 372 5g 240/227 CORE 116 112 80 COLH WHOL 253 385 7abc 295 CORE 51 51 34 COLH FRAG 354 92 8c 32 CORE 51 57 31 COLH WHOL 2 34RA

55 8f 45 CORE 38 33 11 COLH WHOL 256 158 8l 135 CORE 44 36 36 COLH WHOL 257 8m 174 CORE 40 37 19 COLH FRAG 258 164 8m 174 CORE 70 47 22 COLH WHOL 159 410 15g 204 CORE 48 41 26 QRTZ FRAG 360 238 17a 255 CORE 31 19 23 QRTZ FRAG 361 34 8k 130 CORE 74 68 40 QRTZ FRAG 262 218 18 215 CORE 49 52 21 H2OD PROX 263 327 14h 308 CORE 60 42 18 WHTE WHOL 264 43 8m 134 CORE 50 44 20 WHTE FRAG 365 233 5f 229 DISC 111 92 48 CHAL WHOL 2 55LA

66 416 18 394 DISC 84 76 48 COLH WHOL 2 80

67 113 12i 110 DISC 123 86 30 COLH WHOL 3 41

68 31 8i 180 DISC 36 34 20 WHTE FRAG 3 70

69 355 16 206? DRIL 22 22 5 COLH WHOL 3 45

70 5e 218 DRIL 11 9 5 GRAY PROX 3 41

71 180 3 1 EXBF 95 57 28 CHAL WHOL 272 357 18a 209 EXBF 93 68 45 CHAL WHOL 2 74LA

73 17 8g 510 EXBF 28 34 14 CHAL PROX 3 50

74 8m 174 EXBF 51 50 16 CHAL WHOL 3 39RA

75 181 3 6 EXBF 54 60 28 COLH PROX 276 364 14h 320 EXBF 63 42 27 COLH DIST 3 67

77 153 8k 93 EXBF 61 62 38 COLH PROX 3 58LA

78 134 8l 116 EXBF 75 61 30 PTNA PROX 3 44RLA

79 38 8e 57 EXBF 42 47 19 WHTE DIST 3 76

80 169 2 3 EXBF 40 35 9 CHQB DIST 3 39

81 179 5 5 EXBF 55 37 12 CHAL PROX 3 40LA

82 10 4 EXBF 28 27 8 PTNA MED 3 25LA

83 86 8o 187 EXBF 25 35 11 CHAL PROX 3 44, 69PA

84 5a 47 EXBF 28 40 25 CHAL DIST 3 55DA

85 83 12i 110 EXBF 43 54 15 COLH PROX 386 16c 270 EXBF 29 19 10 COLH FRAG 3 50

87 56 8e 30 EXBF 100 82 39 COLH WHOL 388 101 13b 159 EXBF 51 38 18 COLH DIST 3 55DA

89 133 12c 195 EXBF 87 56 37 COLH WHOL 1 52LA

90 96 12p 156 EXBF 54 43 17 COLH FRAG 3 34LA

91 143 5b 90 EXBF 123 53 35 COLH WHOL 2 73LA

92 139 14c 146 EXBF 127 57 23 GRAN DIST 3 31

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 3 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

93 5f 288 EXBF 31 43 16 GRAY MED 3 41LA

94 42 13b 159 EXBF 114 64 27 WHTE STEM 2 50LA

95 346 5j 283 EXBF 77 42 19 GRAY PROX 3 64LA

96 33 12g 176 EXBF 90 69 31 QRTZ PROX 3 40LA

97 188 SRF EXBF 60 56 21 COLH PROX 3 46

98 20e 376 UFBL 38 16 7 BURN WHOL 3 56LA

99 5j 275 UFBL 39 16 4 BURN WHOL 3 13RLA

100 8g 49 UFBL 48 28 8 BURN FRAG 3101 80 12i 82 UFBL 39 22 3 CHAL WHOL 3 7DA

102 368 20c 333 UFBL 38 14 4 CHAL MED 3 35LA

103 308 5k 282 UFBL 23 10 5 CHAL DIST 3 45LA

104 371 5k 286 UFBL 17 15 9 CHAL PROX 3 45

105 10 8a 1 UFBL 42 36 16 CHAL MED 3 46LA

106 94 8i 81 UFBL 23 36 6 CHAL DIST 3 21

107 58 8j 78 UFBL 44 15 4 CHAL WHOL 3 23LA

108 330 5eg 298 UFBL 63 21 5 CHCL WHOL 3 21LA

109 219 18 215 UFBL 23 13 8 CHQB DIST 3 45LA

110 347 5j 283 UFBL 43 16 7 CHQB DIST 2 69LLA, 51RLA

111 397 5m 323 UFBL 10 24 2 CHQB MED 3 14LA

112 5 5 UFBL 41 32 11 COLH MED 3 32LA

113 189 5 4 UFBL 48 20 4 COLH WHOL 3 26LA

114 184 8 9 UFBL 52 62 46 COLH WHOL 2115 360 18 209 UFBL 45 32 7 COLH DIST 3 22LA

116 247 17a 307 UFBL 41 29 4 COLH WHOL 3 15LA

117 400 20a 287 UFBL 26 59 10 COLH DIST 2 40, 76RA

118 5eg 290 UFBL 30 33 6 COLH PROX 3 26RLA

119 334 7abc 295 UFBL 67 38 13 COLH WHOL 3 35LA

120 341 7d 224 UFBL 23 16 8 COLH LAT 3 21

121 7d 224 UFBL 20 23 4 COLH PROX 3 35RLA

122 149 8h 60 UFBL 81 36 13 COLH WHOL 2 35LA

123 162 8m 134 UFBL 80 57 27 COLH WHOL 2 46

124 362 8q 344 UFBL 70 44 21 COLH DIST 3 63LA

125 8l 116 UFBL 57 31 9 LOCL LAT 3 50

126 8m 174 UFBL 41 21 11 LOCL MED 3 35

127 365 14h 320 UFBL 19 26 10 PTNA DIST 3 46, 54RA

128 8j 95 UFBL 27 11 4 PTNA WHOL 3 24

129 165 8m 174 UFBL 52 35 11 PTNA DIST 3 40

130 320 20a 312 UFBL 50 30 13 QRTZ WHOL 2 40LLA

131 303 7d 224 UFBL 41 29 10 QRTZ PROX 3 35LA

132 8l 138 UFBL 34 23 14 QRTZ PROX 3 58

133 285 17 241 UFPB 41 23 5 BURN WHOL 3 19LA

134 266 5fh 288 UFPB 39 47 14 CHAL MED 3 30LLA, 35RLA

135 5l 291 UFPB 43 34 11 CHAL MED 3 28LA

136 292 17 7 UFPB 37 42 15 CHCL DIST 3 30LLA, 37RLA

137 3 6 UFPB 47 28 16 COLH WHOL 3 53LLA, 32RLA

138 199 5 10 UFPB 61 31 10 COLH PROX 3 30LLA, 40RLA

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 4 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

139 295 17 7 UFPB 58 32 10 COLH DIST 2 33LLA, 54RLA

140 289 17 221 UFPB 46 40 9 COLH MED 3 25LLA, 24RLA

141 274 5d 211 UFPB 69 33 6 COLH WHOL 3 22LA

142 121 8a 11 UFPB 41 54 15 COLH PROX 3 38LA

143 124 8c 124 UFPB 40 28 8 COLH MED 3 39LA

144 393 8q 344 UFPB 18 47 16 COLH MED 3 32LA

145 17 221 UFPB 8 14 6 GRAY MED 3 38LA

146 270 17 243 UFPB 49 20 10 QRTZ WHOL 3 36LLA, 60RLA

147 20e 376 FRAG 43 26 17 BURN WHOL 2 52

148 5eg 218 FRAG 44 21 20 BURN FRAG 2 59LLA

149 314 5f 288 FRAG 30 14 7 CHQB WHOL 2 36DA, 43LA

150 60 12a 179 FRAG 26 16 6 COLH FRAG 3 31

151 13b 159 FRAG 48 17 10 COLH STEM 2 53

152 390 15a 202 FRAG 49 35 8 COLH FRAG 3 35

153 208 20e 376 FRAG 52 24 9 COLH FRAG 3 56, 60RA

154 7c 252 FRAG 33 19 10 COLH FRAG 2155 65 8i 80 FRAG 24 14 14 COLH FRAG 3 54

156 344 5l 293 FRAG 49 29 14 QRTZ PROX 3 57LA

157 284 17 389 FRAG 53 36 15 WHTE FRAG 3 48LA

158 123 8c 26 GOUG 79 42 21 COLH WHOL 3 56RLA

159 254 17d 290 HAMS 40 41 16 COLH FRAG 2160 399 5j 315 HAMS 80 68 65 COLH WHOL 2161 8a 11 HAMS 21 23 9 COLH FRAG 3162 8e 58 HAMS 61 47 33 COLH WHOL 2163 8j 79 HAMS 40 29 15 GRAY FRAG 3164 140 12e 31 HAMS 44 49 42 LIME WHOL 1165 8g 56 HAMS 45 42 41 LOCL WHOL 3166 228 17 247 HAMS 83 60 44 QRTZ WHOL 2167 SRF HAMS 56 54 50 OTHR WHOL 1168 11 8j 124 LENT 107 34 10 LOCL WHOL 3 25LA

169 8b 8 LENT 39 29 6 BURN LAT 3 49

170 192 3 1 LENT 20 22 8 CHAL PROX 3 92LA

171 17 256 LENT 35 25 11 CHAL DIST 3 31LA

172 15 12a 179 LENT 32 31 7 CHAL MED 3 21LA

173 14e 148 LENT 17 25 6 CHAL DIST 3 18LA

174 2 1 LENT 155 39 11 COLH WHOL 3 30LA

175 304 17 7 LENT 74 50 14 COLH PROX 3 32LLA, 36RLA

176 216 18 215 LENT 65 40 11 COLH PROX 3 51, 35RA

177 112 12i 67 LENT 28 7 9 COLH PROX 3 40LA

178 414 20e 376 LENT 44 35 9 COLH PROX 3 19LA

179 47 7a 171 LENT 129 40 13 COLH WHOL 3 48

180 SRF LENT 38 28 10 OTHR PROX 3 35LA

181 199 14a 144 LENT 29 34 12 GRAY MED 3 52LA

182 217 17a 256 MFLK 72 47 20 COLH WHOL 3 54LLA, 36RLA

183 213 17c 279 MFLK 60 48 23 COLH DIST 1184 8j 95 MFLK 48 42 22 COLH FRAG 3

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 5 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

185 8m 174 MFLK 32 43 15 COLH FRAG 3 65DA

186 246 8p 380 MFLK 71 62 27 COLH WHOL 3 76DA

187 229 17 247 MFLK 49 42 18 WHTE FRAG 3188 12a 179 MFLK 39 39 14 CHAL MED 3 35LA

191 7d 224 OVBF 28 19 6 BURN DIST 3 35, 35LA

192 8i 91 OVBF 41 36 9 BURN PROX 3 30LA

193 20e 376 OVBF 28 28 14 BURN PROX 3 66

194 8d 380 OVBF 43 35 12 BURN MED 3 32LA

195 5 3 OVBF 74 39 15 BURN PROX 3 32LA

196 222 18 215 OVBF 26 15 8 CHAL PROX 3 75

197 25 12a 179 OVBF 46 50 19 CHAL PROX 3 36LA

198 4 14a 144 OVBF 30 27 14 CHAL FRAG 3 42LA

199 5 5b 54 OVBF 105 61 30 CHAL PROX 2 64LA

200 195 3 3 OVBF 37 34 11 CHAL PROX 3 35

201 187 10 3 OVBF 30 42 14 CHCL MED 2 36LA

202 201 10 3 OVBF 98 56 23 CHCL PROX 2 48LA

203 14h 309 OVBF 29 24 7 CHQB FRAG 3 28

204 257 5h 258 OVBF 17 36 12 CHQB MED 3 31LA

205 109 2 1 OVBF 35 40 13 COLH PROX 3 35LA

206 182 8 1 OVBF 43 50 17 COLH MED 3 42LA

207 363 16 206 OVBF 51 31 15 COLH PROX 3 64LA

208 291 17 221 OVBF 70 38 19 COLH PROX 3 60LLA, 55RLA

209 286 17 241 OVBF 25 14 7 COLH PROX 3210 212 17 241 OVBF 65 51 32 COLH DIST 3 54LLA, 60RLA

211 232 17 243 OVBF 48 43 21 COLH PROX 3 54LLA, 59RLA

212 242 17 379 OVBF 30 48 16 COLH MED 3 38LLA, 41RLA

213 282 17 389 OVBF 36 70 18 COLH DIST 3 35

214 356 18 209 OVBF 72 68 23 COLH DIST 3 60DA, 42LA

215 149 12a 179 OVBF 173 67 23 COLH WHOL 3 41LA

216 9#? 13b 159 OVBF 35 19 11 COLH FRAG 3 55

217 116 14c 148 OVBF 54 45 13 COLH DIST 3 37

218 7b 217 OVBF 134 67 32 COLH WHOL 2 54LA

219 262 7c 262 OVBF 84 54 17 COLH MED 3 42LA

220 108 8d 34 OVBF 49 40 16 COLH PROX 3 37LA

221 50 8m 134 OVBF 30 43 15 COLH DIST 3 62

222 398 8p 355 OVBF 20 31 14 COLH PROX 3 40LA

223 178 2 2 OVBF 65 60 28 COLH DIST 3 70, 54RA

224 3 6 OVBF 29 41 16 COLH MED 3 47LA

225 177 5 5 OVBF 17 26 8 COLH PROX 3 21LA

226 172 8 2 OVBF 64 25 12 COLH WHOL 3 52LA

227 174 8 5 OVBF 62 50 24 COLH MED 3 52LA

228 196 8 5 OVBF 34 44 16 COLH MED 3 38

229 8 7 OVBF 73 49 21 COLH PROX 2 45

230 310 17 221 OVBF 26 37 14 COLH PROX 3 40LA

231 272 20e 370 OVBF 76 39 20 COLH PROX 3 55LA

232 207 20e 376 OVBF 90 73 35 COLH DIST 2 45, 40RA

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 6 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

233 120 8c 27 OVBF 47 57 21 COLH MED 3234 71 8c 32 OVBF 26 17 9 COLH PROX 3 45LA

235 107 8c 32 OVBF 49 40 14 COLH MED 3 44LA

236 125 8d 34 OVBF 78 54 21 COLH DIST 2 37LA

237 106 8e 28 OVBF 33 47 18 COLH DIST 3 41LA

238 109 8e 57 OVBF 50 55 21 COLH DIST 3 53LA

239 57 8i 81 OVBF 40 44 15 COLH MED 2 32LA

240 155 8k 130 OVBF 46 51 15 COLH MED 3 45LA

241 8k 130 OVBF 45 56 24 COLH DIST 3 51

242 75 8m 134 OVBF 49 42 14 COLH MED 3 32LA

243 78 8m 174 OVBF 56 36 14 COLH PROX 3 31LA

244 175 SRF OVBF 53 34 19 COLH DIST 3 44DA

245 37 12g 179 OVBF 84 53 19 GRAY PROX 3 45LA

246 230 14h 310 OVBF 18 32 11 PTNA FRAG 2247 5c 86 OVBF 10 13 7 PTNA DIST 3 39LA

248 132 8j 95 OVBF 33 27 14 PTNA FRAG 3249 345 5l 293 OVBF 26 20 16 QRTZ LAT 3250 8d 134 OVBF 18 44 19 QRTZ MED 3 61LA

251 17 7 OVBF 40 38 17 H2OD PROX 3 60LLA, 52RLA

252 98 12i 82 OVBF 67 57 19 H2OD DIST 3 30LA

253 12k 159 PERF 33 21 5 BURN MED 3 23LA

254 5f 229 PERF 39 18 8 BURN WHOL 3 51LA

255 8a 1 PERF 56 32 14 BURN WHOL 3 39LA

256 227 18 215 PERF 37 27 5 CHAL WHOL 3 22

257 3 3 PERF 58 24 6 COLH WHOL 3 62LA

258 297 16 14 PERF 22 34 6 COLH WHOL 3 40

259 224 18 215 PERF 32 33 9 COLH DIST 3 47,70RA,31DA

260 84 13a 158 PERF 24 38 4 COLH WHOL 3 36LA

261 329 5eg 298 PERF 24 35 7 COLH WHOL 3 51DA, 30LLA

262 5k 282 PERF 31 14 6 COLH WHOL 3 49LA

263 256 7c 252 PERF 50 36 11 COLH WHOL 3 34

264 8k 114 SCRP 32 19 16 BURN DIST 3 61

265 220 18 220 SCRP 66 50 15 CHAL WHOL 2 55

266 27 13a 158 SCRP 26 18 6 CHAL LAT 2 55

267 18a 394 SCRP 26 23 17 CHAL FRAG 3 83

268 302 17 212 SCRP 36 24 9 COLH WHOL 3 45DA

269 264 24 378 SCRP 39 17 9 COLH FRAG 3 50DA

270 129 8g 49 SCRP 67 58 20 COLH WHOL 2 57

271 17a 307 SCRP 38 19 9 OTHR WHOL 3 69DA

272 170 8 9 SCRP 50 39 17 OTHR WHOL 3 70

273 293 7b 8 SCRP 61 27 11 CHAL FRAG 2 71

274 263 7c 219 SCRP 33 15 11 CHQB LAT 3 44

275 148 12a ? STMB 176 50 19 CHAL WHOL 3 53, 71RA

276 173 2 1 STMB 55 31 21 COLH PROX 3 61LA

277 95 12b 10 STMB 66 37 16 COLH STEM 3278 119 14f 149 STMB 64 25 17 COLH STEM 3 72

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 7 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

An

gle

279 279 5k 282 STMB 87 60 13 COLH PROX 3 24LA

280 168 8m 174 STMB 41 31 18 COLH PROX 3 59LA

281 8 10 STMB 39 23 17 PTNA DIST 3 69

282 3 1 STMB 11 18 9 OTHR PROX 3302 66 8k 114 TADZ 71 62 23 COLH DIST 3303 131 8m 134 TADZ 55 45 20 COLH MED 3 55LA

305 5 10 TRBF 43 52 11 CHAL PROX 3 27LA

306 52 12a 7 TRBF 83 64 13 COLH WHOL 2 29

307 85 8c 77 TRBF 67 46 15 COLH FRAG 3 59

308 264 7c 219 UNIF 37 31 11 BURN DIST 2 53LA

309 8d 34 UNIF 21 19 6 BURN DIST 3 39LA

310 395 20c 349 UNIF 51 51 12 CHAL LAT 3 28RA

311 14 8k 114 UNIF 29 23 8 CHAL LAT 3 24

312 260 7b 208 UNIF 104 35 18 CHCL WHOL 3 46

313 46 7a 171 UNIF 32 46 15 COLH PROX 2 66RA, 49LA

314 200 9 1 UNIF 127 75 34 COLH WHOL 3 70LA

315 198 3 6 UNIF 81 45 25 COLH WHOL 2316 7 208 UNIF 32 11 7 COLH LAT 3 54

317 358 18 209 UNIF 43 51 28 COLH MED 2318 114 13a 158 UNIF 39 43 12 COLH PROX 2 36RLA

319 245 17a 249 UNIF 35 62 23 COLH DIST 3 30

320 17a 256 UNIF 33 29 15 COLH FRAG 2 46DA

321 380 17b 264 UNIF 34 37 15 COLH PROX 3 62PA

322 267 5fh 288 UNIF 39 27 14 COLH PROX 2 75LA

323 265 5fh 288 UNIF 62 35 18 COLH WHOL 3 43LA

324 72 8d 34 UNIF 49 21 15 COLH LAT 3 46LA

325 156 8k 130 UNIF 132 64 41 COLH WHOL 2 49DA, 71LA

326 76 8m 134 UNIF 12 35 14 COLH MED 3 45

327 90 8m 134 UNIF 46 36 14 COLH WHOL 3 50LLA, 26RLA

328 161 8m 134 UNIF 35 31 17 PTNA LAT 2 34

329 394 5n 343 UNIF 123 65 47 PTNA WHOL 3330 136 12p 156 UNIF 94 53 36 H2OD WHOL 2 54DA

331 10 39 UFLK 40 43 7 BURN WHOL 3 22DA

332 17 243 UFLK 26 22 5 BURN PROX 2 26, 60RA

333 17 249 UFLK 19 33 9 BURN DIST 3 27

334 204 12k 113 UFLK 86 78 23 BURN DIST 2 57PA

335 13b 159 UFLK 64 23 11 BURN FRAG 3 43RLA

336 17a 249 UFLK 24 35 9 BURN DIST 3 39RA

337 244 17a 249 UFLK 14 33 9 BURN DIST 3338 7c 252 UFLK 26 24 10 BURN FRAG 3 51

339 8c 26 UFLK 43 41 11 BURN PROX 3 28LA

340 8k 93 UFLK 19 41 9 BURN DIST 3 60

341 8k 130 UFLK 24 34 11 BURN FRAG 3 70

342 89 8l 138 UFLK 34 30 5 BURN WHOL 3 33

343 183 8 2 UFLK 46 34 10 CHAL WHOL 2 25

344 186 11 2 UFLK 41 32 12 CHAL WHOL 2 24LA

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 8 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

345 297 16 254 UFLK 29 33 29 CHAL WHOL 3 26RLA

346 239 17 256 UFLK 21 34 7 CHAL WHOL 3 38DA, 41LLA

347 223 18 215 UFLK 27 47 10 CHAL DIST 3 39LA

348 226 18 215 UFLK 27 45 7 CHAL WHOL 2 20DA

349 221 18 215 UFLK 54 45 6 CHAL WHOL 3 23LA

350 259 12d 305 UFLK 29 30 5 CHAL DIST 3 27DA

351 13 12p 169 UFLK 25 36 5 CHAL WHOL 3 60RA

352 28 13b 159 UFLK 19 29 8 CHAL MED 3 21LA

353 325 14h 308 UFLK 52 66 12 CHAL WHOL 2 41

354 234 15b 205 UFLK 59 75 14 CHAL WHOL 1 56LA

355 421 17a 307 UFLK 18 39 3 CHAL WHOL 3 20LA

356 379 17b 264 UFLK 34 35 5 CHAL WHOL 3 22LA

357 342 17c 265 UFLK 37 15 8 CHAL WHOL 2 42DA

358 398 17d 31 UFLK 48 28 6 CHAL WHOL 2 45RA, 30LA

359 8d 34 UFLK 15 27 3 CHAL DIST 3 12DA

360 93 8d 34 UFLK 21 46 9 CHAL MED 3 39

361 8i 80 UFLK 57 55 19 CHAL WHOL 1 72

362 12 8k 130 UFLK 28 42 8 CHAL PROX 3 20LA

363 1 8l 142 UFLK 43 48 11 CHAL DIST 2 21

364 3 8m 174 UFLK 54 59 9 CHAL WHOL 2 42

365 166 8m 174 UFLK 29 39 10 CHAL WHOL 2 39

366 59 12a 7 UFLK 42 56 15 CHCL WHOL 3 30LA

367 381 17b 264 UFLK 45 51 9 CHCL FRAG 2 32

368 335 7d 224 UFLK 35 14 9 CHCL FRAG 2 51

369 301 16 14 UFLK 25 31 10 CHQB PROX 3 41LLA

370 359 18 209 UFLK 40 61 7 CHQB WHOL 3 22LA

371 14h 309 UFLK 26 24 7 CHQB FRAG 3 21

372 23 8d 34 UFLK 32 47 7 CHQB WHOL 2 20

373 39 8e 58 UFLK 41 45 14 CHQB WHOL 2 42

374 2 8l 116 UFLK 57 58 16 CHQB WHOL 2 41, 62RA

375 324 18a 394 UFLK 23 64 12 OTHR DIST 3 34LA

376 202 9 1 UFLK 30 22 6 COLH WHOL 3 26LA

377 185 9 4 UFLK 62 31 11 COLH WHOL 2 35

378 354 16 206 UFLK 23 26 10 COLH FRAG 3 46

379 228 18 215 UFLK 31 33 7 COLH FRAG 3 35

380 70 12i 110 UFLK 58 87 30 COLH WHOL 2 45

381 41 12i 110 UFLK 79 94 34 COLH WHOL 2 48

382 203 13a 128 UFLK 71 49 13 COLH WHOL 1 26, 53RA

383 13a 158 UFLK 26 25 8 COLH LAT 3 48LA

384 22 13b 159 UFLK 17 20 5 COLH PROX 2 47

385 100 13b 159 UFLK 20 30 7 COLH DIST 3 35LA

386 117 14f 149 UFLK 51 52 28 COLH WHOL 2 76

387 376 14h 309 UFLK 21 35 8 COLH WHOL 3 43

388 377 14h 309 UFLK 47 25 10 COLH WHOL 3 28

389 14h 310 UFLK 37 42 10 COLH DIST 3 27

390 235 15b 205 UFLK 57 25 10 COLH LAT 3 40RA

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 9 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

391 334 16a 234 UFLK 27 43 9 COLH PROX 3 23LLA

392 16b 254 UFLK 42 20 7 COLH DIST 3 54

393 392 16c 269 UFLK 53 43 8 COLH WHOL 3 33LLA

394 420 16c 269 UFLK 31 39 11 COLH PROX 3 49LA

395 351 16c 270 UFLK 44 77 10 COLH WHOL 2 39

396 243 17a 249 UFLK 22 42 7 COLH MED 3 22LLA, 27RLA

397 253 17d 290 UFLK 25 20 27 COLH PROX 2 36LLA, 52RLA

398 258 17d 305 UFLK 45 31 9 COLH WHOL 3 43LA

399 317 20a 312 UFLK 49 58 12 COLH WHOL 3 28

400 367 20c 333 UFLK 46 37 6 COLH WHOL 3 19

401 20d 338 UFLK 37 48 14 COLH PROX 2 46

402 306 20e 370 UFLK 34 42 12 COLH PROX 3 84

403 209 20e 376 UFLK 32 27 4 COLH FRAG 3 16

404 20e 384 UFLK 19 46 18 COLH FRAG 3 69

405 211 7b 217 UFLK 63 46 16 COLH WHOL 3 49LLA

406 401? 7c 219 UFLK 48 22 12 COLH WHOL 3 32

407 340 7d 224 UFLK 33 26 6 COLH WHOL 3 23

408 22 8a 1 UFLK 52 32 7 COLH WHOL 3 23DA, 74LLA

409 105 8c 27 UFLK 51 37 21 COLH WHOL 2 38LA

410 145 8c 27 UFLK 51 36 15 COLH WHOL 2 59LA

411 68 8c 28 UFLK 76 44 19 COLH WHOL 3 32LLA

412 102 8c 88 UFLK 43 52 15 COLH WHOL 2 41

413 103 8d 134 UFLK 46 39 11 COLH FRAG 3 39

414 147 8f 46 UFLK 24 34 8 COLH WHOL 2 40

415 8i 111 UFLK 20 27 6 COLH FRAG 3 49

416 151 8j 78 UFLK 39 44 16 COLH DIST 2 65PA, 55LA

417 8j 78 UFLK 44 28 15 COLH DIST 1 50LA

418 104 8j 95 UFLK 39 79 41 COLH WHOL 2 31

419 154 8k 93 UFLK 33 39 12 COLH WHOL 3 29

420 157 8l 123 UFLK 25 44 11 COLH WHOL 3 59

421 127 8l 138 UFLK 40 49 17 COLH DIST 3 44

422 69 8l 138 UFLK 46 28 10 COLH WHOL 2 20LLA

423 160 8m 134 UFLK 64 52 14 COLH WHOL 2 61RLA

424 77 8m 174 UFLK 35 35 9 COLH WHOL 2 35

425 167 8m 174 UFLK 29 38 13 COLH MED 3 28

426 163 8m 174 UFLK 43 59 20 COLH PROX 2 29LA

427 8a 21 UFLK 57 45 13 OTHR WHOL 2 40

428 8j 95 UFLK 33 44 33 OTHR FRAG 1429 35 8m 174 UFLK 33 42 14 OTHR WHOL 3 24DA

430 8l 142 UFLK 51 35 9 OTHR WHOL 3 28

431 205 8l 135 UFLK 56 44 13 OTHR WHOL 3 16

432 20e 335 UFLK 28 15 5 LOCL LAT 3 20

433 142 8m 174 UFLK 67 35 17 LOCL WHOL 3 45

434 231 11f 46 UFLK 28 50 15 PTNA DIST 3 23LLA, 60RLA

435 388 20a 281 UFLK 24 24 7 PTNA WHOL 3 48

436 8f 45 UFLK 23 35 15 PTNA FRAG 1 38

Appendix E: Lithic Tool Database Table E1:Provenience and Basic Attributes 10 of 10

Tool

#

Max #

Subo

p

Lot

Tool

Leng

th

Widt

h

Thick

Mater

ial

Portio

n

Corte

x

Edge

Ang

le

437 135 8l 138 UFLK 48 53 7 PTNA LAT 3 35

438 418 14h 309 UFLK 49 67 18 QRTZ WHOL 2 41RA

439 290 17a 256 UFLK 11 21 6 QRTZ FRAG 3 41DA

440 40 8k 114 UFLK 97 49 19 QRTZ FRAG 3 28RA

441 8l 116 UFLK 27 55 10 QRTZ WHOL 2 24

442 287 8p 380 UFLK 62 79 22 QRTZ PROX 2 55RA

443 300 17c 265 UFLK 41 31 6 OTHR FRAG 3 25

444 214 17c 279 UFLK 21 28 8 OTHR DIST 3 14DA

445 7c 219 UFLK 29 18 11 BURN FRAG 3 27

446 350 5eg 226 UFLK 35 25 7 CHAL DIST 2 32LA

447 328 5f 248 UFLK 37 46 13 CHAL WHOL 3 30LA

448 236 5g 233 UFLK 41 65 10 CHAL WHOL 2 25

449 307 5k 282 UFLK 32 29 6 CHAL WHOL 2 23LA

450 353 7ab 266 UFLK 17 21 4 CHAL WHOL 3 8

451 280 7abc 339 UFLK 25 51 6 CHAL DIST 3 20RA

452 299 5f 229 UFLK 43 48 11 CHQB WHOL 3 12DA

453 417 5f 288 UFLK 41 41 9 CHQB WHOL 3 42LA

454 309 5k 282 UFLK 27 18 5 CHQB WHOL 3 10DA

455 12p 169 UFLK 20 25 4 COLH DIST 3 16LA

456 332 5eg 298 UFLK 66 37 8 COLH WHOL 2 27RLA

457 288 5f 237 UFLK 105 52 7 COLH WHOL 3 21LA

458 312 5f 288 UFLK 27 28 6 COLH DIST 3 50RLA

459 259 5fh 288 UFLK 64 41 20 COLH WHOL 2 38LA

460 353 5g 240 UFLK 74 66 15 COLH WHOL 2 22LA

461 5k 286 UFLK 34 20 9 COLH FRAG 3462 396 5m 323 UFLK 59 44 6 COLH WHOL 3 29LA

463 339 7a 224 UFLK 33 23 4 COLH WHOL 1 20

464 333 5eg 298 UFLK 71 38 8 COLH DIST 2 40RLA

465 352 5m 311 UFLK 17 26 4 OTHR DIST 3 25LA

466 313 5f 288 UFLK 47 40 12 QRTZ WHOL 3 32DA

467 290 5e 218 UFLK 56 80 13 OTHR WHOL 2 19RLA

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 1 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Lo

catio

n

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

1 ABR very heavy batter on lateraledges and on one facet

burin taken off one side

batter marks knocked off one side

snap medial white chalcedony

2 ABR dulled down on edges

biface reused in postclassic

snap haft thick patina

3 ABR batter on all edges

chips on all edges

reused as batterer from heavy damage on left lateral

resharpened on distal, on ventral and dorsal

diagonal distal patina heavy on one end, then fades away to nothing on other end

4 BRN batter on lateraledges

thin narrow flakes taken off

snap medial

5 BRNS light chips on one edge

snap proximal and distal

6 BRNS batter chips knocked off then used again

retouch on unifacial edge

burin lateral made from prepared

macroflake

7 BRNS batter piece is the result of a resharpening episode

edge beveled and dulled

8 CHPR heavy batter impact scars burin knocked off slight burn (probably not from postclassic)

9 CHPR light dulling impact right lateral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 2 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

10 CHPR batter on platform

chips and impact scars ondistal and right lateral edge

11 CHPR batter resharpening on 1 lateral, patina on one side and then resharpened

patina on one side

12 CHPR chips on both lateral edges, impact scars ondistal

distal end half cortex--only

appropriate for rough work

13 CHPR batter hinge fractures all over

dulling end of biface (distal) resharpened into cutting impliment

14 CHPR batter heavy impact scars on edges

pressure flake retouch still visible on left lateral and large resharpening flake taken off on left lateral

evidence for hafting

15 CHPR batter chips, impacts edge serrated speckled patina

16 CHPR batter chopper probably a reused core FRAG

resharpening 90% patina if not reworked somewhat and

used it would just be a core FRAG

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 3 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

17 CHPR chipping on distal

striations on righ tlateral

resharpening on distal because of lack of patina

speckled patina FRAG is distal end of macroflake

18 CHPR batter a few striations

fire damage small nodule burned and made

one edge with steep angle

19 CHPR heavy batter on lateral edges and dorsal/distal tip

impact flakes (also have batter in them)

impact ventral/distal, right lateral

speckled patina cortex platform, piece could have originally been

made a blank and then used

20 CHPR batter resharpened on distal

21 CHPR batter on proximal and laterals (halfting?)

chips dulling some resharpening speckled patina

22 CHPR dulling possible in one spot

resharpened on one corner or possibly damage from platform batter

23 CHPR distal resharpened on distal

hinge distal and dorsal

24 CHPR batter steep edge angle result of resharpening

material makes telling use wear difficult, tool has

characteristincs of SCRPs, but it much to big

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 4 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

25 CHPR probably a blank, only has batter associated with

flaking

26 CORE manufactural batter

burned

27 CORE some batter burned red28 CORE fire shattered29 CORE heavy batter in

one spot20% patina

30 CORE heavy batter on all edges

failure to thin

31 CORE 32 CORE batter on 3

edgesold pre-postclassic core was picked up and attempts were made to shape but were abandoned

90% patina

33 CORE batter34 CORE batter35 CORE fire damage no use wear36 CORE speckled patina

37 CORE manufactural batter

many usable large flakes knocked off,

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 5 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

38 CORE blank, only partially knapped, probably

stopped when found geoid hole

39 CORE batter40 CORE batter41 CORE fire cracked42 CORE 43 CORE batter44 CORE batter fire damage45 CORE batter many large usable

flakes knocked off

46 CORE batter47 CORE burins knocked off

end

48 CORE flake blade core49 CORE manufactural

batterlarge usable flakes were knocked off a

tablet

50 CORE batter fire medial burned red/damaged

51 CORE batter patina except where a couple of flakes were knocked off

52 CORE patina53 CORE batter

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 6 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

54 CORE batter impact scars resharpening55 CORE speckled patina

56 CORE some batter some fire damage 90% patina

57 CORE core FRAG, it is a primary reduction

flake

58 CORE 90% patina59 CORE batter60 CORE 61 CORE many usable large

flakes knocked off,

62 CORE natural medial water damage or weathering aparent

63 CORE manufactural batter

large flakes knocked off

64 CORE light specs of patina, but thick on edge

one edge may be used but looks

more like natural breakage

65 DISC batter heavy on all edges

piece is very chunky

66 DISC very heavy batter around edges

classic tool may have been reused as a chopper

irregular proximal pops and fractures on 1 facet

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 7 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

67 DISC batter on distal and lateral edges

impacts on distal and lateral edges

resharpened(after patinated) attempted, then some batter on distal tip and right lateral

full patina except around edges

made from macroflake with bulb removed

68 DISC manufactural chips

edge sharpened on both facts

snap proximal

69 DRIL chips dulling retouch, pressure flakes

piece seems very worn down

70 DRIL light dulling snap proximal71 EXBF lateral sides impact scar on

distalresharpening flakes off one lateral edge

some cortex on proximal end and both

surfaces

72 EXBF batter on edges snap distal biface was unusually thick

73 EXBF batter some impact scars

snap proximal burned red on edges

rough biface, unusually thick

74 EXBF batter chips all edges resharpened from original flake

5% patina beveled edge, platform flaked out;

tool made from very thick flake

75 EXBF light light snap medial water damage poor materials, break very rough

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 8 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

76 EXBF batter snap medial use wear hard to asses due to hardness of

materal, 'stage 2' with rough facets--probably used as expedient biface

77 EXBF batter on lateraledges

impacts on lateral edges

very thick width, heavy resharpening of lateral edges but no thinning evidence

30% patina very rough tool

78 EXBF batter edge resharpenedbut rough

impact lateral full patina very rough tool, may have been discarded due to material defect

79 EXBF stage one, was shortened probably because of an inclusion and the whole end was knocked off to avoid it

too probably a stage one that was shortened because

they found an inclusion and then the whole end was knocked of to avoid

it

80 EXBF chips dulling retouch mostly on one side

snap distal snap on an inclusion; may be a

blade tip or the proximal end of a

biface

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 9 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

81 EXBF batter chips dulling some resharpening flakes taken off

snap medial

82 EXBF chips retouch fire distal and proximal bulbs popped, piece was fire damaged before patina laid on

patina

83 EXBF batter on end impact scars onlateral edges

end resharpened snap medial lateral edges concave

84 EXBF batter on distal irregular proximal very chunky, may have been used to smash/pulverize

85 EXBF manufactural batter

reworked from regular OVBF

snap haft break halfting notches

86 EXBF chips beveled edges snap medial87 EXBF batter on distal failure to thin, tool

reject, no use evident

beveled on latereals, possibly

resharpened

88 EXBF impacts on lateral edges

snap proximal not much wear on distal probably was resharpened and then haft break caused the tool

use to be discontinued

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 10 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

89 EXBF batter on proximal end

chipping and impacts on distals and laterals

almost all cortex except where sharpened on

edge

90 EXBF batter glassy, burned beveled edge91 EXBF batter heavy patina water damage no wear on distal,

proximal end all cortex, may be an

unused blank

92 EXBF edges dulled irregular proximal93 EXBF batter chipping resharpened on 1

lateralsnap lateral irregular breakage

due to fire damage

94 EXBF chips on left lateral edge

heavy striations on right lateral, ventral

heavy striations on right lateral edge, ventral

beveleing on left lateral ventral edge

impact distal

95 EXBF heavy batter heavy chipping snap one end burned one end possibly reharpened for

hafting

96 EXBF batter impact scars attempt to thin tool on one lateral

snap medial one edge beveled, unusual form, but

well made and shaped

97 EXBF batter hinge fractures from manufacture

snap haft burned on tip biface is plano-convex

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 11 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

98 UFBL light chips hinge distal heavy fire damage on dorsal

90% patina edge wear difficult to determine due to

patination

99 UFBL right lateral dorsal chipping

fire cracked proximal burned to a dark grey, poped bulbs

100 UFBL chipping heavy burning and popped bulbs everywhere, too burned to tell much use wear

101 UFBL light dulling on edges

102 UFBL chipping dulling snap distal and medial

103 UFBL dulling irregular medial/proximal

one facet of dorsal fully patinated, could be PERF

FRAG

104 UFBL batter snap medial/distal105 UFBL batter on lateral

edges and proximal

bifacial thinning continued after snap break

some retouch on laterals and possibly on break

snap proximal fire damaged irregular break on one end

106 UFBL dulling retouch, pressure flakes on 1 remaining original edge

impact distal

107 UFBL dulling retouch on left lateral dorsal and right ventral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 12 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

108 UFBL chips on left lateral edge

one long flake taken off to resharpen whole right lateral edge

cresent distal

109 UFBL impact on distal retouch on left lateral

snap medial left lateral edge broken naturally

110 UFBL edges roughed up

resharpened on leftlateral

diagonal distal

111 UFBL chips on laterals

snap distal and proximal

112 UFBL chipping dulling fire distal and proximal heavy burning, popped bulbs

113 UFBL chipping dulling retouch snap distal hafting notches114 UFBL 80% patina115 UFBL chips, impacts dulling pressure flakes on

right lateral, ventral and left lateral dorsal

snap medial burned on the edges

116 UFBL chips on distal and lateral edges

117 UFBL chips on edges resharpened and retouch

snap right lateral light burn

118 UFBL dulled edges snap medial119 UFBL chips on lateral

edges

120 UFBL chips on left lateral edge and dorsal

snap lateral and proximal

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 13 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

121 UFBL heavy chipping on right lateral edge and light on left lateral edge

snap distal and medial full patina on one corner

122 UFBL dulling on lateral edges

slight striations in notches

snap distal hafting notches

123 UFBL impact scars dulling 40% patina platform flaked off

124 UFBL batter on distal and lateral edges

thickness suggests resharpening from broader piece

snap medial

125 UFBL chips light dulling patina on edges

126 UFBL light chips dulling snap distal distal tip knocked off

127 UFBL chips dulling resharpening on left lateral

snap medial full patina use wear difficult toasses because of

full patina

128 UFBL slight chipping on edge

90% patina primary shaping flake

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 14 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

129 UFBL light chips snap distal full, thick patina wear difficult to determine because

of patina

130 UFBL chipping on left lateral

slight polish snap distal poor material, right lateral edge all

cortex

131 UFBL dulling on lateral edges

snap distal

132 UFBL batter on proximal end (probably attempt to thin)

chips on lateral edges

snap distal

133 UFPB chips on lateral edges (mosty right lat)

resharpening on left lateral edge

30% patina

134 UFPB chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

retouch on left lateral edge

snap 2 on distal and one on proximal

it snapped on distal, then still used until snap again and then proximal end

snaped and use stopped

135 UFPB chipping dulling resharpening on one lateral edge, ventral

burned heavy damage due to fire damage

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 15 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

136 UFPB chips on lateral edges

snap medial distal tip battered off

137 UFPB chips water damaged

138 UFPB chips worn off snap medial edge damage may be due to the

thinness of edges

139 UFPB chips on lateral edges

snap distal cortex on platform

140 UFPB chips and impacts on lateral edges

snap and hing distal and proximal respectively

141 UFPB heavy chipping hinge proximal

142 UFPB chipping on left lateral edge

dulling on left lateral

snap distal and proximal

143 UFPB chips dulling retouch snap and impact proximal and distal respectively

water damage

144 UFPB batter chips dulling snap proximal and distal 5% patina unifacial

145 UFPB chips of off edge

snap proximal and distal

146 UFPB batter on proximal

chips on lateral edges

right lateral resharpening

snap distal

147 FRAG batter chips possibly used has an expedient SCRP

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 16 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

148 FRAG chipping dulling lateral distal may have been used as scrapper

149 FRAG chips resharpening on distal and right lateral

150 FRAG chips slight retouch snap proximal and distal may be FRAG of formal tool

151 FRAG chip major retouch, but no pressure flake

burned, before retouch

152 FRAG light dulling snap laterals(2)153 FRAG chips, impact

scarsdulling resharpening on

both facets, beveled retouch

snap lateral and one end

154 FRAG batter may have been a drill, but hard to tell because of burning

burned

155 FRAG batter on one edge

this FRAG probably knocked off in recycling episode

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 17 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

156 FRAG snap distal cannot determine amount of wear

because the material is so hard, wear appears on

laterals

157 FRAG chipping on right lateral edge

irregular medial

158 GOUG chipping polish striations on dorsal, on the ridge

resharpening and pressure flakes on dorsal distal

impact lateral roughly made on proximal end, but

no use on proximal end(except batter from manufacture)

159 HAMS heavy burning, brakage

160 HAMS very heavy batter

161 HAMS heavy batter FRAG is by-product of impact

162 HAMS batter badly burned163 HAMS heavy batter impact too damaged to tell

164 HAMS batter165 HAMS batter166 HAMS heavy batter on

proximal endMFLK reused as HAMS

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 18 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

167 HAMS batter168 LENT batter on lateral

edgesimpacts on distal

one haft notch

169 LENT fire proximal, distal, lateral

heavy burn, pops on one side

heavy patina on one side

too burned to determine wear

170 LENT probably proximal tip retouched because the very tip is chunky

snap proximal

171 LENT batter chips snap distal plano-convex, inculsions

172 LENT chips pressure flaking on edges

snap proximal and distal

173 LENT light chipping snap proximal and distal FRAG may be part of halft and thus the reason for

break

174 LENT manufactural batter

no use evidence obvious, tool was preasure flaked

175 LENT chips, hinge fractures (manufacture)

snap haft full patina on one facet

176 LENT batter chips resharpeningon distal

irregular distal grey color from water damage

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 19 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

177 LENT snap proximal and distal not much use wear except damage

from manufacture

178 LENT batter chips may have been resharpened from old flake because patina not on edge sharpening flake scars

snap haft

179 LENT chips on lateral edges and distal

on lateral edges and distal end

retouched edges snap proximal break on haft location

180 LENT snap haft extremly fine, high quality material--

exotic?

181 LENT manufactural batter

snap proximal and medial

possible water damaged colha chert

182 MFLK some batter chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

2 ends used for scraping

30% patina water damaged scrapper edge angle=66

183 MFLK manufactural batter

tool never finished due to failure to thin

water damaged

184 MFLK heavy batter on unbroken side

fire proximal heavily burned failure to thin

185 MFLK chips resharpening on one side

65% patina

186 MFLK187 MFLK snap lateral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 20 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

188 MFLK batter on lateraledges

chips on lateral edges

failure to thin snap proximal and distal burned stage 1 MFLK

191 OVBF batter mostly on one lateral edge

retouch on both lateral edges one side retouched then battered heavily

snap distal highly burned, some popped bulbs

192 OVBF batter dulling fire medial fire damage tool is completely white, probably

from fire damage

193 OVBF batter snap medial fire fractured patina194 OVBF impacts dulling resharpeningon

one lateral edgesnap distal and proximal worn down and

rounded (may be from grinding or water washed)

195 OVBF chipping dulling fire distal badly burned, many popped bulbs

has proximal notches--probably

for halfting

196 OVBF batter retouch on one lateral

snap haft

197 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges

impacts on end snap haft surfaces very smooth

198 OVBF batter fire proximal and distal fire damage

199 OVBF batter no wear on proximal end

slight beveling snap medial most of edge damage on one

facet

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 21 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

200 OVBF on tip dulling on one surface

proximal tip is worn and retouched--used as pererator

retouch on lateral edges and tip

snap proximal snap due to haft stress, striations on

middle of surface(possibly

post-depositional)

201 OVBF batter retouch on one lateral edge

snap distal and proximal break on haft location

202 OVBF batter on lateraledges

chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

some retouch snap distal

203 OVBF batter dulling snap medial one facet fire popped

burning damage made use wear

hard to determine

204 OVBF heavy batter heavy chipping snap proximal and distal

205 OVBF batter dulling snap haft burn on tip speckled patina break on haft location

206 OVBF impacts on lateral edges (one edge has major flakes taken off)

snap proximal and distal 10% patina irregular breaks

207 OVBF batter snap haft208 OVBF chips, hinge

fractures snap haft very thick and very

narrow, unusual

209 OVBF batter on proximal

sides reworked

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 22 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

210 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges and distal

resharpened in postclassic from classic form (patina)

irregular medial fire damaged

211 OVBF battered on edges

snap haft 2% patina

212 OVBF chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

striations on dorsal surface

attempts to reuse, blows knocked of on snap break

diagonal right lateral

213 OVBF dulling snap distal patina on edges

not much hard use,very well made,

may be from classic tool type

214 OVBF batter on lateraledges and distal

impacts on distal

snap haft light patina

215 OVBF distal impact scars

retouch on one lateral edge (not patinated), resharpened on distal

full patina except where retouched

216 OVBF chips one edge flaked off snap proximal and distal

217 OVBF batter chips, impact scars

snap medial wear probably frommanufacture

218 OVBF batter on all sides

chipping some resharpening snap right lateral burned red snap break done for hafting purposes

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 23 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

219 OVBF batter on lateraledges

chips on lateral edges

retouch, half snap was resharpened to be rehafted

snap distal and proximal slight burn red

220 OVBF batter on one lateral edge

one facet has major impact scars

attempts to thin snap haft proximal tip smoothed off, very wide for a typical

OVBF

221 OVBF batter on lateraledges

attempts to resharpen (failure to thin seems likely)

snap medial very narrow

222 OVBF batter impacts scars on one end

may have resharpening

snap haft

223 OVBF heavy on all edges includingon snap break

resharpening on use edge, thinning attempt on one side at break

snap medial very thick

224 OVBF batter on lateraledges

impacts on right lateral

snap distal and proximal burned red on edges

225 OVBF lateral edge batter

on lateral edges chipping

snap haft and tip tip flaked off from impacts

226 OVBF some batter edges resharpened from something bigger but not used

batter appears to be partially due to

attemps to thin

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 24 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

227 OVBF batter on both lateral edges, but heavier on one

resharpening on one lateral edge and one facet

snap haft

228 OVBF batter chips dulling some wear on the snap break (proximal end) with retouch

batter on one lateral edge and retouch on other

snap distal and proximal after first break toolwas still used until

it broke again

229 OVBF batter on lateraledges

chips on lateral edges

snap medial red banding in material

230 OVBF batter resharpening flakes off proximal end

snap haft resharpening on proximal end, may be reuse or was

worked for hafting

231 OVBF batter chips snap medial slight burn damage most of the use wear on one lateral

232 OVBF heavy batter on right lateral edge

resharpening on distal and left lateral but not much use, must of snapped right lateral after resharpening

snap haft

233 OVBF heavy batter on lateral edges

heavy batter on lateral edges could be due to reuse as an abrader or it could be due to failure to thin

retouch on one lateral

snap and fire medial and proximal respectively

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 25 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

234 OVBF batter snap distal wear probably frommanufacture

235 OVBF heavy batter heavy chipping heavy dulling some edge maintenance

snap proximal and distal segment is closer to being the

proximal end then the distal end of

tool

236 OVBF Impacts on distal

after tool snapped, they tried to remake into ovate but failed

resharpening on distal and one lateral edge

irregular distal

237 OVBF batter on three edges

impact scars onlateral edges

biface is very thick, probably reduced from a larger biface

resharpening end and retouch/thinning on lateral edges

snap proximal distal angle very sharp

238 OVBF batter heavy on one lateral

impacts on distal

distal and other lateral edge resharpened

snap haft

239 OVBF batter on lateraledges

snaps haft cortex covers 20% of one surface

240 OVBF batter on lateraledges

no retouch evidence snap and flake on distal

snap proximal and distal speckled patina flake on distal end odd, could have

been re-flaked and then a snap break

occurred

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 26 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

241 OVBF heavy batter on edge

polish on one lateral side

no wear on snapped end, 1 impact scar form thinning

a few retouch flakes on right and left lateral edge

snap and impact proximal and left lateral respectively

biface was originally larger

and was cut down on left lateral so it became very thick

and narrow

242 OVBF batter chips, lateral impact scars

resharpening scar on distal snap break, lateral edge retouched

snap medial and haft

243 OVBF distal end shows sharpening on corner

reused from larger biface

snap distal no obvious wear, may have been

small celt, proximalend very thin

244 OVBF batter polish diagonal distal tool is by-product of a diagonal

fracture, tool found on east side of site

245 OVBF manufactural batter

laterals may have been resharpened

snap medial light specked patina

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 27 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

246 OVBF heavy batter on distal

this is a by-product of recycling, resharpening flakes taken out of distal

90% patina

247 OVBF batter irregular distal full patina248 OVBF batter on one

endFRAG may be by-product of recyclingepisode

irregualr lateral full, thick patina possibly archaic

249 OVBF on use edge, chipping

on used edge retouch on used edge

patina on used edge

250 OVBF batter on lateraledge

fire medial fire popped fire damage so heavy that wear

hard to determine

251 OVBF batter on proximal

chips and hinge fractureas on lateral edges

fire medial

252 OVBF batter on distal edge

impact scars snap medial

253 PERF chips on lateral edges

burned red

254 PERF edges dulled fire fractured distal burned, popped bulbs

255 PERF chipping snap distal burned256 PERF batter from

hitting platformchipping light patina

257 PERF batter dulling retouch on edges

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 28 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

258 PERF chips slight burn259 PERF chips, impact dulling on tip retouch on left

lateral ventralsnap medial

260 PERF heavy chipping on left lateral

light dulling on distal/right lateral

snap distal

261 PERF most on distal and left lateral, some on right lateral edge

262 PERF chipping many flakes taken off at odd angles a

flake

263 PERF chipping mostly on platform andproximal lateral

retouch on left lateral

flake platform thin and used as PERF

most likely

264 SCRP batter on dorsal chipping on dorsal, impact on ventral

very smal, probablyresharpened from larger tool

fire proximal burned red

265 SCRP batter chips dulling thin coat patina patina thick on edges--makes

edge wear hard to see

266 SCRP chips dulling snap lateral267 SCRP chips, impact

scarsspeckled patina

268 SCRP chips on distal dulling on distal resharpening on distal

snap left lateral partial burn on distal

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 29 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

269 SCRP chips on distal and laterals

right lateral resharping and used for non-scrapping purpose

snap left lateral

270 SCRP batter on all sides and platform

polish on distal distal end flaked for SCRP edge

distal end resharpened

probably not resharpened much,

very large for a typical scrapper

271 SCRP SCRP flaked off of a core

preassure flaking on distal, grey

chert

272 SCRP batter chips, large impact scar on ventral/right

edges resharpened

white chert

273 SCRP chips one facet used on distal and lateral, other facet used on dorsal on the end

fracture lateral polish, spurred on one end, three sides used for

SCRP, fourth side unused

274 SCRP light chipping impact proximal no retouch evidence,

thumbnail SCRP

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 30 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

275 STMB batter primarily from resharpening, use hard to tell

resharpening on dorsal and ventral; done so roughely it wouldn't be very usable except for battering

patina where not resharpened

276 STMB batter hinge fractures snap haft

277 STMB impact scars ondistal

lateral edges heavily reduced (but still part of original form)

snap haft light patina

278 STMB batter snap stem279 STMB batter chipping blade edges

preasure flaked, retouch

snap medial

280 STMB batter impact scars onleft lateral

snap haft 75% patina tranchet flake taken off end

281 STMB batter fire medial full patina282 STMB lateral sides snap distal break caused by

hafting stress, grey chert

302 TADZ batter distal end more heavily worked--either resharpeningor orignal work, batter on snap break

snap medial snap manufactural error

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 31 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

303 TADZ heavy batter on lateral edges

distal resharpening flakes removed then it snapped

snap distal and proximal looks like haft snapped and then reused until distal snapped; tranchet

flake taken off distal

305 TRBF flakes chipped off

fire medial burned popped bulbs, colored redish

306 TRBF impact scars pressure flaked edges, not much

use wear except a few impact scars

probably from production

307 TRBF chips on original edges

snap all three corners of triagular form

red on original edges, fire popped bulbs

possible heat treatment

308 UNIF chips dulling snap proximal burned309 UNIF chips on dorsal resharpening on

left lateralsnap medial red from fire

damage

310 UNIF chips on left lateral edge

no edge maintenance

snap distal and right lateral

tool heavily worked on dorsal surface--

it may be either recycled from a formal tool or a

preform

311 UNIF chipped on one edge

polished on same edge

irregular distal and proximal worked on one side

312 UNIF batter on lateraledges

retouch on lateral edges

impact left lateral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 32 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

313 UNIF chips on lateral edges

retouch on right lat and dorsal

snap distal

314 UNIF batter on ventral resharpening on laterals and distal, on dorsal resharpening on left lateral and dorsal

maybe a utilized blank

315 UNIF light resharpening on right lateral

very thick thinning flake knocked off

proximal right lateral

316 UNIF some batter chipping distal resharpened into PERF

retouch on one lateral and on distal tip

burned

317 UNIF chips on right and left lateral/distal

resharpening on distal

snap, impact proximal, distal respectively

edge missing (no edge angle)

318 UNIF chips on right lateral

couple of chips on snap

snap medial chips probably from retouch, snap

on haft location

319 UNIF batter on 2 edges

chips on 2 edges

impact distal biface seemed squared off on one

end, may be another type of tool

320 UNIF heavy batter on tip and one lateral edge

snap medial

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 33 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

321 UNIF heavy batter many hinge scars

proximal end was lobbed off tool for resharpenig purposes

snap distal light patina

322 UNIF batter thickness indicates possible reuse

reflaked edges snap medial heavy patina very thick, possibly resharpened from

larger biface, many impact scars

323 UNIF batter impact one end could possibly be a stem of a STMB

but cannot determine, it is very

thick overall

324 UNIF light chips retouch on lateral edges

shatter laterals, proximal and distal

325 UNIF batter on lateraledges

impact scars ondistal

distal end resharpened and possibly lateral edges (because of steep angles)

80% patina

326 UNIF chips retouch snap medial burned on one facet

327 UNIF batter on ventral

chips on ventral

resharpening and retouch on all sidesexcept distal end

burned pink

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 34 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

328 UNIF batter chips, hinge fractures

diagonal left lateral

329 UNIF full patina heavy patina means it may be from before the postclassic, tool

may be a preform

330 UNIF batter on all edges

impact scars onright lateral

series of flakes knocked off distal/dorsal possible retouch on right lateral, bifacial resharpening

possibly utilized on right lateral but it could be attempts

at sharpening

331 UFLK chipping on distal/dorsal

badly burned, bulb pop

332 UFLK one spot of heavy batter (may be an abrader)

chips pressure flaking snap medial

333 UFLK chips on lateral edges and end

snap distal fire burned

334 UFLK chips, 1 impact on right lat.

primary flakes usedfor cutting

335 UFLK batter on dorsalsurface and right lateral only

burin lateral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 35 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

336 UFLK heavy chips on sharp edge

resharpening snap proximal burned or water damabed to grey

color

337 UFLK snap distal338 UFLK on distal resharpening

flakessnap and fire both edges burned

339 UFLK chips on right lateral edge

dulling on right lateral

snap medial could be a blade, platform crushed

340 UFLK chips on dorsal snap medial thinning flake takenout of dorsal

341 UFLK batter chips resharpening on ventral

snap and fire proximal and left lateral respectively

fire damaged

342 UFLK impact scars light polish retouch burned red use wear difficult todetermine because

of extensive retouch

343 UFLK batter chips popped bulbs 20%patina cortex platform344 UFLK chips snap distal345 UFLK chips on right

and left lateralsnap distal and proximal

346 UFLK chips, impact scars on distal and left lateral edge

snap right lateral 10% patina probably used for cutting

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 36 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

347 UFLK chips, impact scar on distal

snap medial burn damage bulb popped

348 UFLK349 UFLK chips flake hit off

distal/dorsal for resharpening

350 UFLK dulling util edges pressure flaked

351 UFLK dulling distal was resharpened

352 UFLK light dulling on 1 edge

diagonal and irregular

proximal and distal

353 UFLK chips, impact scars

resharping flaked

354 UFLK chips dulling beveled on proximal end

snap left lateral speckled patina

355 UFLK chips on lateral edges

hinge flake

356 UFLK chips hinge flake357 UFLK chipping, hinge

fracturesheavy patina, probably recycled classic tool

heavy patina on cortex only

358 UFLK chips on dis and one lateral edge

5% patina

359 UFLK small chips dulling snap distal 80% patina whole FRAG is the by product of a diagonal break

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 37 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

360 UFLK chipping dulling resharpening and retouch present

snap distal and proximal most of utilized edge broken off

361 UFLK batter hinge scars on ventral

sharpened on proximal and right lateral

fire popped

362 UFLK chips on right lateral dorsal, left lateral ventral

snap medial no wear on medial break

363 UFLK chips and impacts on distal and lateral edges

some retouch snap medial

364 UFLK chips fire damage365 UFLK light dulling on

left lateral dorsal

snap proximal 50% patina

366 UFLK chipping on lateral edges/distal

snap distal one facet has full patina

367 UFLK chips, hinge fractures(manufacture)

snap cannot be determined medial or lateral

368 UFLK slight batter on one lateral edge

light patina

369 UFLK chips on left lateral edge

dulling on right lateral edge

snap distal

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 38 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

370 UFLK small chips on distal and left lateral

impact right lateral/dorsal

371 UFLK chipped on right lateral edge

dulling on right lateral edge

snap distal and right lateral

left lateral missing and distal snap, all

that remains of original edge is

right lateral

372 UFLK chipping on distal

speckled patina cortex on platform

373 UFLK chips dulling resharpening on left lateral edge

374 UFLK chips dull most of original edge gone and been resharpened

375 UFLK light chipping snap medial unidentified chert material

376 UFLK chips retouch on right lateral ventral, pressure flaked

snap distal large impact scar on left laterall, on

the dorsal side

377 UFLK chips on lateral edges

beveled on cortex edge

378 UFLK chips snap and irregular right lateral, proximal respectively

379 UFLK chips retouch on utilized edge

snap medial

380 UFLK batter on distal edge

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 39 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

381 UFLK impact along right lateral dorsal

speckled patina distal end of flake snapped off

382 UFLK chips platform reshaprened to beveled edge

383 UFLK chips on distal/dorsal, right lateral and ventral

half burned

384 UFLK pressure flake remnants but used edge mostly missing

snap medial use wear undetermined,

broken from use, used edge gone

385 UFLK chips retouch on right ventral

snap medial

386 UFLK batter on left lateral edge and dorsal

water damage made from macroflake,

crushed platform

387 UFLK heavy chipping on distal

water damage(turned grey)

2-facet platform

388 UFLK chips on rounded edges

10% patina specks

389 UFLK small chips on left distal

piece was a thinning flake and has been reused as a UFLK

water damage

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 40 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

390 UFLK chips, impact scars

resharpening flakes on 1 lateral edge other side has 3 snap breaks

3 snaps 1 lateral

391 UFLK chips dulling snap medial392 UFLK light dulling natural

fracture(inclustion)proximal

393 UFLK chips light dulling on left lateral, distal and right lateral

pressure flakes on right lateral

394 UFLK chips dulling snap distal395 UFLK chips on right

lateral edgedullling on right lateral

snap distal/left lateral light patina

396 UFLK heavy dulling on edges of lateral edges, polish on dorsal

striations on ventral

397 UFLK resharpening snap proximal cortex platform398 UFLK striations fire dorsal/distal 30% burned 10% patina fire shattered on

dorsal

399 UFLK batter near platform

chips on dorals and right lateral edge

hinge fracture musthave knocked off

the platform

400 UFLK chipping damage

dulling

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 41 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

401 UFLK chips dulling snap and fire distal, proximal respectively

burned heavily, most of edge popped or snapped off

402 UFLK retouch and batter on snap break

snap distal edge damage on retouch probably

from wear

403 UFLK batter chipping snap laterals and proximal

404 UFLK chips impact medial raw material usually waxy,

possibly may not have been

utilized(edge damabe probably

due to trampling/natural

processes)

405 UFLK chips dulling resharpening flakes on right lateral edge

speckled patina

406 UFLK on snapped end and one lateral edge

dulling on snap and 1 lateral edge

pressure flaked edge only on one facet on one lateral

snap distal half burned no platform

407 UFLK chipping polish snaped area looks to have been used has a PERF

snap left lateral, distal burned and fire popped

polish

408 UFLK chips, impact scars on distal

dulling on distal left lateral resharpened to steep angle

popped bulbs

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 42 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

409 UFLK batter on distal/ventral

impacts on distal/ventral

resharpened to beveled edge on distal

primary flake

410 UFLK chips on 1 lateral and proximal

dull on 1 lateral and proximal

striations possibly PERF retouch snap proximal half bulb left on proximal right

lateral

411 UFLK chips on left lateral edge

dull on left lateral

412 UFLK striations on distal

water discoloration

platform prepatory flake knocked off

413 UFLK chips on dorsal and ventral distal

414 UFLK batter on proximal

chips on distal dulling on distal natural lateral speckled patina

415 UFLK pressure flaked, seriation on lateral

snap proximal

416 UFLK batter on all edges except distal

heavy chipping resharpening snap proximal 50% patina

417 UFLK batter on ventral

chips snap medial full, thick patina probably archaic

418 UFLK batter on ventral

chips on dorsal, impact scars on dorsal

419 UFLK chips notches on distal

420 UFLK distal chips primary flake platform batter

distal end resharpened

manufacture failure/failure to

thin

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 43 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

421 UFLK dorsal chipping snap proximal

422 UFLK dhipping on left lateral/ventral

dulling on left lateral/ventral

423 UFLK light chipping on right lateral

may have removed whole edge to make new edge on right lateral

speckled patina

424 UFLK chips on distal dulled on distal snap right and left lateral edges

cortex covers 70% of one facet

425 UFLK heavy batter on right lateral edge

heavy chipping on right lateral

left lateral knocked off, possibly to resharpen but no wear

snap proximal 80% patina

426 UFLK chips, impact snap medial 90% patina edges beveled

427 UFLK chipping popped bulbs grey chert428 UFLK chipping on

one edgedulling on one edge

irregular proximal grey chert

429 UFLK chips dulling snap medial patina on edge grey chert

430 UFLK heavy chipping on distal/right lateral

many hinge fractures on left lateral, greyish-

brown chert

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 44 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

431 UFLK chips on distal and left lateral

tool is anomolous, but chips too regular to be

natural, made out of limestone

432 UFLK chips snap lateral and one end

433 UFLK edge dulling use wear not totallyconvincing--may

be natural

434 UFLK chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

full patina

435 UFLK batter on platform

chips on right lateral and distal

snap distal

436 UFLK light dulling right lateral resharpening

snap medial light specs of patina, but thick on edge

use difficult to determine because

of patina

437 UFLK chips used as cutting tooland possibly PERF composite tool

resharpening snap left lateral thick full patina archaic

438 UFLK chipps on all sides, even platform

dulling resharpening burned resharpened in postclassic

439 UFLK dulling on utilized edge

snap distal

440 UFLK chips dull

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 45 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

441 UFLK batter on edges, mostly on dorsal

2% patina cortex platform

442 UFLK light dulling resharpening on right lateral, ventral

snap distal cortex platform, primary reduction

flake

443 UFLK light chipping light dulling snap right and left lateral and proximal

Chert is white in color

444 UFLK chips on distal and lateral edges

snap medial 5% patina (on edges)

Chert is white in color

445 UFLK chips on dorsal dulling on dorsal

fire lateral edges burned red

446 UFLK light chipping snap proximal447 UFLK on lateral

edges chippingdulling on lateral edges

retouch on distal snap distal some retouch on snap

448 UFLK chipping dulling reflaked on distal to create new edge

449 UFLK chips retouch450 UFLK chipping feathering, edge so

thin it may have chipped naturally,

very small

451 UFLK on distal and proximal and on snap break

chips on snap snap proximal/medial

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 46 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

452 UFLK chips on distal

453 UFLK batter on 1 edge

speckled patina may be a flake of a core, batter may be

due to flaking process

454 UFLK chips on right lateral ventral

striations on distal/dorsal

455 UFLK chips on distal, impact scars

snap medial

456 UFLK chipping457 UFLK chips on all

sidesstriations some pressure

flake retouch

458 UFLK right lateral dorsal chipping

light dulling snap distal

459 UFLK light chipping light dulling pressure flaked in one spot on one lateral edge

460 UFLK chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

water damaged

461 UFLK chipping snap proximal, distal, and lateral

could be lateral FRAG of stemmed

unifacial blade

462 UFLK chips on lateral edges

dulling on lateral edges

lateral left lateral

Appendix E: Tool Database Table E2: Edge Damage and Recycling 47 of 47

Tool

#

Tool

Batte

r

Chipi

ng

Dullin

g

Stria

tions

Reus

e

Maint

enan

ce

Brea

k typ

e

Brea

k Loc

ation

Burn

ing

Patin

a

Wea

therin

g

Comm

ents

463 UFLK batter resulting in cresent scars

chips retouch chip scars slight burning single facet platform

464 UFLK light chipping on right lateral

snap proximal

465 UFLK chips snap medial/proximal chert is grey in color

466 UFLK dulling impact lateral467 UFLK batter on

platformchips dulling pressure flaked on

right lataeral edge, ventral

possibly burned chert is creamy redin color