analysis of an obsidian workshop at hacienda metepec, teotihuacan, mexico, ad 700-800

7/29/2019 Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop at Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 700-800.

1/437

ANALYSIS OF AN OBSIDIAN WORKSHOP AT HACIENDA METEPEC,TEOTIHUACN, MEXICO, AD 700-800.

by

Zachary N. Nelson

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Art

Department of Anthropology

Brigham Young University

August 2000


2/437

Copyright 2000 by Zachary N. Nelson

All Rights Reserved


3/437

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by

Zachary N. Nelson

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majorityvote has been found to be satisfactory.

_________________________________

Date

_________________________________Date

_________________________________Date

_________________________________

John E. Clark, Chair

_________________________________Stephen D. Houston

_________________________________Joel C. Janetski


4/437

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidates graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Zachary N. Nelson inits final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistentand acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its illustrativematerials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript issatisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library.

_________________________________Date

Accepted for the Department

Accepted for the College

_________________________________John E. ClarkChair, Graduate Committee

_________________________________Joel C. JanetskiChair, Department of Anthropology

_________________________________Clayne PopeDean, College of Family, Home and SocialSciences


5/437

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF AN OBSIDIAN WORKSHOP AT HACIENDA METEPEC,

TEOTIHUACN, MEXICO, AD 700-800.

Zachary N. Nelson

Department of Anthropology

Masters of Art

Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan, had an obsidian-tool workshop during the

Coyotlatelco phase which specialized in the production of a San Marcos type projectile point,

that has been named Ramec.


6/437

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Evelyn Rattray for permitting me to examine the obsidian collected

during the 1979 field season at Hacienda Metepec, and for the use of her notes and papers on

the subject. Further, I am indebted to Dr. John E. Clark and the New World Archaeological

Foundation for the use of their facilities and expertise during the duration of this study. I wish to

thank my wife, Julianne, for her invaluable assistance and patience. I am also grateful to Shelby

Saberon for his contributions to this thesis.


7/437

vii

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Chapter 1: Obsidian and Hacienda Metepec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1The Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Hacienda Metepec in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 2: Methods and Description of the Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Hacienda Metepecs Excavation and Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Processing of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Questions and Analytical Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Technological Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Proposed Manufacturing Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Description of the Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Other Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter 3: Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53The Commodity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Blank Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Special Treatment of Thin Blanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55The Perfect (Standardized) Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Quantity of Bifaces with Use-Wear, and Hinged Preforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Preforms as a Percentage of Total Bifaces Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Number or Quantity (from Weight) of Flakes Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Other Tools Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Obsidian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Miscellaneous Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter 4: Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Preform Weight-change Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Rattrays Field Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Unexcavated Patio Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76


8/437

viii

Error Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Frequency and Types of Breaks per Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Chapter 5: Workshop or Dump? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

What is a Workshop? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Criteria for Dump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Description of Hacienda Metepec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Evaluation of Hacienda Metepec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter 6: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix A: The Aztec and Metepec Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Metepec Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Used and Burned Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Prismatic Blade Production? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Appendix B: Extrapolations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Extrapolation based upon E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Screen 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104E1S1-W1S1, Layers 4, 4a, Screen 7 Extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105E1S1-W1S1, Layers 4, 4a, Screen 8 Extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Notching Flake Extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Bulbar Flake Extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Appendix C: Double Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Appendix D: Cumulative Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Appendix E: Raw Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428


9/437

ix

List of Tables

Table 1 Teotihuacn phases (from Rattray 1991:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 2 Screen Numbers and Sizes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Table 3 E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 3a E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Primary Flakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 3b E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Secondary Flakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 3c E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Tertiary Flakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 3d E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Pachuca and Meca Obsidian. . . . . . . . . . 39Table 3e E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Screen 8 Percussion & Pressure Flakes. 39Table 3f E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Special Artifacts and Notching Flakes. . 39Table 3g E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Summary of Complete Flakes. . . . . . . 40Table 4 W1S1 Square B4, Layer 4a, Bag 209. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Table 5 Ideal Reduction Sequence for Ramec Points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 6 Range in Biface Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 7 Mean Dimensions of Complete or Refitted Bifaces. . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 8 Notching Flake Proveniences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Table 9 Production Estimate from Average Flake Weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Table 10 Prismatic Blade Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Table 11 E1S1-W1S1, Layers 4, 4a, Screen 7 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Table 12 E1S1-W1S1, Layers 4, 4a, Screen 8 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Table 13 Notching Flake Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Table 14 Bag Numbers and Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Table 15 Screen Weights by Provenience (from Saberon 1997: Table 1). . . 138Table 16 Maximum Weight in each Screen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Table 17 Weight by Stratigraphic Layer (from Saberon 1997: Table 3). . . . 153Table 18 Preform Raw Data - Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Table 19 Preform Raw Data - Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213Table 20 Preform Raw Data - Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272Table 21 Preform Raw Data - Edges, Quarters, and Overshots. . . . . . . . . . . 277Table 22 Preform Summary Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288Table 23 Preform Summary Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289Table 24 Preforms by Break with Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291Table 25 Percussion Cores - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295Table 26 Drills - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Table 27 Eccentrics - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297Table 28 Gary Larges - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297Table 29 Obsidian Hammerstones - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298Table 30 Basalt Hammerstones - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299Table 31 Manos - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300Table 32 Needles - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300


10/437

x

Table 33 Polyhedral Cores - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301Table 34 Saws - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306Table 35 Scrapers - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307Table 36 Maguey Scrapers - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311Table 37 Bones, Chunks and Rocks - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Table 38 Tools - Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 317Table 39 Blank Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320Table 40 Blank Flakes - Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350Table 41 1s Blades - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351Table 42 1s Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355Table 43 2s Blades - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359Table 44 2s Flake - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359Table 45 Prismatic (3s) BladesRaw Data Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360Table 46 Prismatic (3s) BladesRaw Data Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 382Table 47 3s Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

Table 48 Distal Rejuvenation Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404Table 49 Ribbon Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404Table 50 Small Percussion Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405Table 51 Small Pressure Flakes - Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409Table 52 Complete vs Incomplete Flake Weight, Screens 4-6. . . . . . . . . . . . 411Table 53 Replication Experiment, Success1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424Table 54 Replication Experiment, Success2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425Table 55 Replication Experiment, Broken Preform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425


11/437

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of Teotihuacn showing location of Hacienda Metepec. . . . . 8Figure 2 Closeup Map of Hacienda Metepec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 3 Map of Hacienda Metepec excavated building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 4 Map of Hacienda Metepec overlain with Excavation grid. . . . . . . 13Figure 5 Apartment Compounds at Teotihuacn (From Pasztory 1997:48). . 14Figure 6 Stratigraphy at Hacienda Metepec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 7 Biface Fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 8 Blank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 9 1 Preform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 10 2 Preform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 11 3 Preform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 12 4 Preform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 13 Ramec dart point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 14 Primary Blank Flake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 15 Secondary Blank Flake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 16 Tertiary Blank Flake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 17 Bulbar Flake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 18 Bifacial Thinning Flake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 19 Small Percussion Flakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 20 Notching Flakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 21 Basalt Hammerstones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 22 Obsidian Hammerstones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 23 Drills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 24 Gary Large. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Figure 25 End Scrapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Figure 26 Maguey Scrapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Figure 27 Percussion Cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 28 Manos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 29 Bone Fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Figure 30 Special Blanks Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Figure 31 Use-wear on Bifaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Figure 32 Biface Quantity Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Figure 33 Otumba Obsidian Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 34 Prismatic Blades (3s Blades). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Figure 35 Exhausted Prismatic Cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Figure 36 Saws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Figure 37 Needles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure 38 Eccentrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure 39 Cumulative Frequency Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112


12/437

1

Chapter 1: Obsidian and Hacienda Metepec

Based upon criteria for identifying workshops outlined by others (Clark 1986, 1990;

Moholy-Nagy 1990), I demonstrate that Hacienda Metepec indeed had a part-time obsidian

workshop.

In this thesis, I test the proposition that the large collection of obsidian artifacts from

Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacn, resulted from specialized production activities, and that this

location was a workshop that specialized in the production of obsidian dart points on a part-

time basis. This thesis refers to the type of obsidian-dart point produced as Ramec to

distinguish them from other dart points similar in shape, but with distinct cultural associations

(Hester 1986). The Hacienda Metepec obsidian assemblage is unusual because it represents

the only obsidian tool workshop currently known at Teotihuacn (see Clark 1986).

This thesis confirms Hacienda Metepec as a workshop by examining the artifacts found

during the excavations carried out at Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacn, in 1979 under the

direction of Evelyn Rattray. It considers the issue of workshop versus dump identification and

applies identification techniques to Hacienda Metepec. Thus, the main discussion within these

pages concerns obsidian dart-point production, rather than consumption. Other studies can

address the issue of obsidian tool consumption within Teotihuacn or the Valley of Mexico at a

later time.

The first chapter of this thesis introduces the argument, and provides contextual

information about Coyotlatelco phase Teotihuacan.


13/437

2

Chapter Two describes the excavations at Hacienda Metepec and the artifacts

discovered there. The artifacts are grouped into collections based on time period. The chapter

then presents the procedures and methods used to analyze the obsidian. It gives a technological

typology to aid in classifying the artifacts, and describes the types along with their summary

statistics.

Chapter Three examines the artifacts, beginning by identifying the form of the obsidian

brought into Hacienda Metepec. It then analyzes the collections with regard to artifact

orientation, thickness, frequency, and use-wear.

Chapter Four addresses production, using minimal numbers and sample sizes to

extrapolate production estimates, and error-rate approximations.

Chapter Five makes the case that Hacienda Metepec was a projectile point workshop

by evaluating Hacienda Metepec based on published workshop and dump criteria, coupled

with the results from the previous chapters.

Finally, Chapter Six summarizes the main points presented.

The Argument

Teotihuacans obsidian industry has been under investigation for three decades, and the

extravagant claims made concerning it have made all studies of Teotihuacns obsidian of great

interest. Michael Spences 1967 survey of Teotihuacn discovered significant obsidian

concentrations. With the presumption that these concentrations represented specialized

obsidian workshops, he derived the number of individuals working within these workshops


14/437

3

from the sizes of nearby apartment compounds, and estimated numbers of adult males, all

presumably craft specialists. The production output of these full-time workers exceeded the

needs of Teotihuacn, which indicated large-scale obsidian trade. From the proximity of the

workshops to significant structures within the city, he suggested that the state controlled

obsidian tool production at Teotihuacn. Further, Spence postulated that Teotihuacn exported

large amounts of obsidian throughout Mesoamerica. Robert Santley built on Spences claim

and, based upon modern experimental data, extrapolated the actual levels of obsidian tool

production during Teotihuacns early history, thereby supporting the claim that Teotihuacn

monopolized this resource. Others have questioned the monopoly theory, most notably Clark,

Drennen et al., and Stark. They claim, for various reasons, that Teotihuacn exported little if

any obsidian outside of the valley of Mexico and, consequently, did not derive the bulk of its

power from commerce in obsidian products.

The keys to this debate are the identification of workshops in Teotihuacn and their

levels of production. If there were fewer workshops than Spence thought, then his argument is

severely compromised. Also, if identified obsidian workshops produced less than Santley

projected, as in the case of part-time rather than full-time industries, then his notions of obsidian

monopoly and commercial gain lack support.

The issues of Teotihuacn obsidian production remain to be resolved. It is clear to all

involved, however, that any claims to have identified an obsidian workshop at Teotihuacn must

address issues of identification or verification as well as estimates of production. I do that here

for the Hacienda Metepec obsidian workshop. Although its production is not relevant to the


15/437

4

main debate, the methodological concerns arising from the debate have dictated the basic

parameters of an acceptable study. Consequently, my main concerns here are to analyze the

evidence of obsidian tool production at Hacienda Metepec to determine whether or not it was

specialized. This is most convincingly done by determining past levels of production. These are

the twin tasks of my thesis.

Workshops and Dumps

Workshops are primary activity areas in which specialized production occurred. The

identification and excavation of workshops can give important insights into ancient life.

However, the workshop is often confused with its dump, because the trash appears more

prominently in the archaeological record than the actual locus of production. Dumps are far

more visible than workshops, and perhaps occur more frequently, because a workshop may

have more than one dump--especially if its operation continued over a large period of time. This

thesis examines in detail the debris generated from a proposed workshop with an adjoining

dump from Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacn, during the Coyotlatelco phase (700 A.D.- 850 A.

D.).

Hacienda Metepec in Context

The luxurious palaces of Teotihuacan were now in ruins, and squatters wereliving within jerry-built walls thrown across the floors, sometimes placing theirdead beneath the old rooms like the former inhabitants. This barbaricoccupation persisted for about 300 years after the fall of the city, during whicha red-on-buff pottery called Coyotlatelco was manufactured, no rival for the


16/437

5

beautiful wares of the Teotihuacanos, but in part fashioned on their model. (Coe1962:116)

Coes description of the Coyotlatelco phase used to be the norm among archaeologists

in the 1960s, but no longer. Through the efforts of Sanders, Parsons, and Santley (1979),

Rattray (1981), and Millon (1981), the view of the Coyotlatelco phase has changed

dramatically. Although this time period does not represent the heyday of Teotihuacns power,

Teotihuacn was still the largest city in the Basin of Mexico at the time (Sanders, Parsons, and

Santley 1979:131). The craft activities of the Classic period at Teotihuacn still existed, and

craft-persons engaged in the same types of activities that marked earlier time periods (Rattray

1981). However, the population of the city had dramatically declined from its earlier peak of

175,000 to only about 20,000 people spread across the periphery of the city in small

communities, such as Hacienda Metepec (Rattray 1979).

This population decline with its subsequent cultural degradation has attracted the

attention of many researchers, although the ultimate causes remain unknown. (For a discussion

on this phase, see Diehl 1989). The main theories postulate internal conflict, external conflict,

low migration to the city coupled with the problems of a large city (poor sanitation, high

mortality rate, and difficult water procurement) or emigration away from the city as the cause of

the fall. The identity of the Coyotlatelco people is tied to the fall of Teotihuacn: they can be

only invaders, natives, or migrants to the city, depending on the final causes of Teotihuacns

fall (Diehl 1989).


17/437

6

What archaeologists do know of this time period is that the city continued to be

inhabited. The residents used their own type of ceramics and continued to produce and use

both ceramics and obsidian tools (Rattray 1981). Whether the smaller neighborhoods

considered themselves as one city, or several villages, is still unknown, but there was probably

contact between the communities.

With the fall of Teotihuacn, the population moved outward from the city and its core,

forming small villages in the basin around the city. Other population centers sprang up at

Zumpango, Cerro Portesuelo, Cerro de la Estrella, Xico, and the Guadelupe range (Diehl

1989:16). These centers were contemporaneous with the workshop at Hacienda Metepec.

Coyotlatelco Teotihuacan was a true city by any definition based on size oreconomic criteria. However, it apparently lacked an architectural tradition,large public construction efforts, monumental art, and even a definable art style.We cannot even detect an elite, although it surely existed. Apparently theideology and power that held together the Teotihuacan world for so manycenturies ceased to exist and was not replaced. (Diehl 1989:16)

Coyotlatelco Teotihuacn, whatever it origins, still had workers engaging in ordinary activities,

such as creating dart points and ceramics. These types of ordinary activities form the subject of

this thesis, turning attention from the macro-world of Teotihuacn to one of its neighborhoods,

and into one of its workshops where the production focus was on a dart point, similar to the

San Marcos type in shape and size, called a Ramec dart.


18/437

7

Chapter 2: Methods and Description of the Artifacts

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Hacienda Metepec excavation and the

collections of artifacts found there, including the methods used to sort and classify the

collections. The chapter includes a technological typology as a descriptive and analytical tool to

aid in understanding the artifacts. This chapter begins by explaining the Hacienda Metepec

excavations, stratigraphy, and collections. Questions determine procedures, so the chapter

articulates the questions and procedures used to analyze the artifacts, as well as the methods

employed to measure them. It then explains the technological typology and describes each

collection in greater detail, with its summary statistics. These descriptions provide the needed

background for evaluating the claim that Hacienda Metepec was an obsidian workshop.

Hacienda Metepecs Excavation and Collections

The Excavation

Evelyn Rattrays 1979 excavation at Hacienda Metepec in Teotihuacn uncovered a

large deposit of obsidian artifacts and debris associated with a Metepec-phase building. The

modern history of this deposit began with the Coyotlatelco project, under Rattrays direction.

The purpose of this project was to define the Coyotlatelco phase at Teotihuacn through

intensive excavation at Hacienda Metepec. Hacienda Metepec is a neighborhood complex

within Teotihuacn, Mexico, at the east side of the city (Millon, Drewitt, and Cowgill 1973:


19/437

8

Figure1:PlanofTeotihuacn.

Copyright1972,

1993byRenMillon.

(FromPasztory

1997:35)


20/437

ExcavatedArea

Figure2:CloseupMapofHaciendaMetepec(afterMillon,Drewitt,andCowgill1973:82)

9


21/437

10

Map 82, Site 9: N1E7) situated at the end of the East Avenue (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This

barrio was chosen because of its location and because surface survey indicated a possible

Coyotlatelco presence. In terms of defining this phase, the project was successful, and the

Coyotlatelco phase acquired a fixed identity (Table 1).

One of the benefits of the project was the discovery and subsequent excavation of a

large obsidian deposit consisting of more than 223 kilograms of obsidian artifacts. This deposit,

which forms the subject of this thesis, was found adjacent to a Classic-period (Metepec)

Teotihuacn building with Classic style columns, stucco floors and elaborate wall details, and a

stairway very similar both in size and concept to the Zacuala Palacio. The porch of the structure

measures 5.5 m. by 7 m. (Rattray 1979:5). The courtyard in front measures 10.5 m by 12.5

m. (Rattray 1987:454) (Figure 3). This group was located approximately in the center of a

compartment complex that measures 50 m. by 50 m. (Ibid), and which had been abandoned

prior to its reuse by Coyotlatelco people. Rattray has not published a plan of the apartment

complex, but from her description, it appears similar to the plan of the Zacuala apartment

compound at Teotihuacn (Figure 5). The patio in front of the building is where the obsidian

workshop is believed to have been located (Rattray 1989:243).

The initial excavation of the area began with 5m by 5m squares (W1N1 and E1N1),

which were subsequently divided into 1m by 1m squares for greater control (ex: A5 in W1N1)

(Figure 4). Vertical units were defined by natural stratigraphy (Rattray 1989:244). Since the

obsidian deposit was more than 50 cm deep in places, the main obsidian layer was subdivided

into smaller, arbitrary units (ex: 4a, 4b, 4c).


22/437

11

Table 1: Correlation of Ceramic Phases from Central Mexico, Oaxaca and the Maya

Region (From Rattray 1991:7).


23/437

12

Figure3:MapofHaciendaMetepecExcavatedBuilding


24/437

13

Figure 4:Ma pofHac iendaMetepe c Overlain with Grid

Unexcavated

Unexcavated


25/437

14

Figure 5: Apartment Compounds at Teotihuacn: Plan of Zacuala apartment compound.

From Berrin 1988, fig 3.11. Copyright 1988, by Ren Millon, (copied from Pasztory

1997:48).


26/437

15

Upon discovering the Classic period building, the excavations proceeded south into

what was determined to be the patio. It was within the patio that Rattray found the main

obsidian deposit. The distribution of weight by areas are: 66 kilos in the patio; 65 kilos on the

stairs; and 10-15 kilos on each side of the stairs (Rattray 1989:244).

The obsidian was mixed with varying quantities of sherds. The patio area had very few

ceramics, but more were discovered closer to the building. Rattray interpreted this as indicating

that some areas were secondary deposits or trash dumps surrounding the area where the

obsidian was actually worked (Rattray 1989:243). The obsidian recovered (the data set)

consists of a mixture of broken bifaces, blades, flakes, and miscellaneous tools.

Overall, almost 200 m2 of the compound was excavated (Rattray 1987:454; Table 15;

Table 17). This represents a significant amount of the area of the building and patio, but not its

entirety (see Figure 4). Therefore, there it is still the possibility that more obsidian could be

found within the unexcavated areas of Hacienda Metepec.

Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy at Hacienda Metepec consisted of twelve layers (see Figure 6) and the

material therein dated to five different time periods: Aztec, Coyotlatelco, Metepec, Xolalpan

and Tlamimilolpa (see Table 1). The top three layers were within a plow zone that churned the

Aztec, Coyotlatelco, and Metepec phase ceramics and other artifacts together. According to

field notes, the Aztec material was quite sparse, the Coyotlatelco material was the most

prevalent, and the Metepec material was also common. The field notes also indicated that the

gray obsidian (Otumba) artifacts


27/437

16

Figure6:StratigraphyatHaciend

aMetepec,W1N2EastProfile(FromRattray1980,Figure5c)


28/437

17

(preforms and points) were Coyotlatelco phase, while the green obsidian (Pachuca) artifacts

were Metepec-phase material.

The surface layer (Layer 1) at Hacienda Metepec was a loose-earth plow zone (the

area had been planted with nopal) which extended down 5-7 cm. Layer 2 was a compact soil

mixed with tepetate, 15-20 cm deep. Layer 3 consisted of a uniform texture of fine earth, with

some large rocks (20-25 cm across). In some areas, Rattray subdivided layer 3 into layers 3a,

3b, 3c, and 3d to maintain stratigraphic control.

Layer 4 is the main Coyotlatelco layer, with abundant obsidian artifacts found lying on a

mud floor covering a cement floor. This main layer has been subdivided, where appropriate,

into 4a, 4b, etc. to better control the ceramics found mixed with the obsidian debris. Layer 4a

was the layer of destruction of the roof and the walls of the building. It contained large to

medium rocks, blackened earth, burnt clay, and carbon from the beams of the roof. In some

areas this layer also had a clay floor built by the Coyotlatelco people. It is 10 cm thick. Layer

4b had brown earth with fewer rocks mixed in, and had thin deposits of tepetate, and some

carbon. Layer 4c comprises the last five centimeters of earth above the concrete floor.

Layer 5 is the paved surface of the patio. It connects the paved patio in the south with

the stairs to the north. It also contains some Coyotlatelco-phase material pushed down into the

Metepec material, then the material below the cement floor continues with Metepec phase

deposits. Judging from ceramic analysis, layers 6 through 8 also date to the Metepec phase.


29/437

18

Layers 9 through 11 contain Xolalpan material, and layer 12 dates to the Tlamimilolpa

phase. These layers were discovered through stratigraphic pits, as the majority of the

excavations concentrated on the upper levels.

Assemblages

The term assemblage, as used here, refers to the material from specific strata. Each

assemblage is named after the Teotihuacn phase to which the recovered material

corresponds. Artifact dating was derived from the ceramics discovered with the obsidian. Five

assemblages have been defined on this basis.

The Aztec Assemblage

The Aztec material represents the most recent habitation at Teotihuacn. This material

consists of a mixture of prismatic blade refuse, eccentrics, and saws. These objects were

discovered in the upper layers of the excavations at Hacienda Metepec, which makes them

problematic, because these layers also had some Coyotlatelco and Metepec phase materials

mixed in (see Appendix A).

The Coyotlatelco Assemblage

The Coyotlatelco Assemblage is the main focus of this thesis. These artifacts found in

layers 3-4 (and 5) are described later in this paper, as they constitute the physical evidence of a

workshop at this location.

The Metepec Assemblage


30/437

19

Defining the Metepec Assemblage is quite awkward, because this assemblage also has

some elements mixed with the top three layers in addition to its main layers 5-8. For a

description of the contents of this assemblage, see Appendix A.

The Xolalpan Assemblage

This assemblage consists of 77 obsidian artifacts discovered in a stratigraphic pit in

W1N2 (see Figure 4). The material comes from layers 9-11 of the pit. The artifacts consist of

one Ramec point, which may have fallen down from a higher layer during excavation, six first

series blades, three first series flakes, 66 third series blades, and one prismatic core (artifact

type names after Clark and Bryant 1997).

The Tlamimilolpa Assemblage

The Tlamimilolpa assemblage is limited to four obsidian artifacts discovered in the

lowest layer of the stratigraphic pit in W1N2, layer 12. These artifacts include one first series

flake, one second series blade, and two distal rejuvenation flakes.

Because this thesis is devoted to the material associated with the obsidian

workshop, its main focus is the Coyotlatelco assemblage, with an appendix devoted to

the other material(see Appendix A).

Processing of the Collection

Field and Lab Methods

Evelyn Rattray and her workers separated the obsidian artifacts from the ceramics and

other artifacts in the field. In the field, all the dirt recovered was screened for artifacts using a


31/437

20

4.76 mm screen. In addition, soil samples (5-10 liter) were taken in order to retain the micro-

debitage that might be present (Rattray 1987:454). The expedition members washed the

artifacts, weighed them by lots, and labeled significant artifacts.

The soil samples were then examined for micro-debitage, passing the soil through three

nested screens, with screen sizes of 4.76 mm, 2 mm, and 0.96 mm. Most of the material (75%)

was caught in the larger screen, especially the broken bifaces. The middle screen retrieved

17%, and the smallest screen about 5-6 % of the artifacts. Also found mixed with the obsidian

were tiny fragments of bone and rock which Rattray believes came from the instruments used to

produce the Ramec points. (Rattray 1987:457) A bitter realization for Rattray, was that 25% of

the obsidian, by extrapolation from the soil samples, had passed through the 4.76 mm screens

used in the field (ibid.). This material would have mainly consisted of small percussion and

pressure flakes (ibid.).

Rattray completed and subsequently published a preliminary analysis (Rattray 1987),

and the obsidian artifacts then passed into the care of Dr. John E. Clark and the New World

Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) for further study. At the offices of NWAF in San

Cristbal, Chiapas, the author of this thesis used the procedures, outlined below, to analyze the

obsidian deposit with regard to obsidian dart point production.

Questions and Analytical Protocol

The most salient question in this thesis is production-related: Did Hacienda Metepec

have an obsidian workshop? Accordingly, the ultimate goal of this analysis involves quantity,


32/437

21

Figure 7: Biface Fragments

weights, identification of types, and final product quality to answer the questions of what was

made, how much was made, and how well.

Analysis of quantity and quality can answer production questions. In consequence, (and

as a summary) the material was screened and weighed to divide it by size, then sorted into

distinct types. Each biface was measured, and tallies of features relating to quality were kept,

such as thickness, type, and frequency of breaks. This information was then tabulated. It will be

used hereafter to test the proposition that Hacienda Metepec had an obsidian workshop.


33/437

22

Analytical Protocol

The first stage of the analysis at San Cristbal began by passing the obsidian artifacts

through nested wire-mesh screens, while maintaining the integrity of their provenience, i.e., lot

by lot. The screens were selected to divide the assemblage by size into manageable quantities

(see Table 2) from which extrapolations from samples to the whole collection could be made.

Shelby Saberon did this initial work, and I am greatly appreciative for his labor.

Table 2: Screen Numbers and Sizes

Screen Number USA Series Sieve Opening Measured Diagonal

1 3 7.5 cm 8.5 cm2 2 5.0 6.5

3 1 3.75 5.5

4 1 2.5 4.3

5 1.9 2.7

6 1.25 1.57

7 0.63 1.0

8 7 0.28 0.4

9 10 0.20 0.3

Thus, the screens served as gross separators of the material, while the material trapped in

certain screen sizes could be compared to specific technological activities. The larger screens,

1-5, caught the preforms and large percussion debris, while the smaller screens, 6-7, trapped

percussion debris and small percussion flakes. Then, screen 8 caught the pressure flakes. The


34/437

23

material that passed through screen 9 was also collected, and since it consisted mainly of dust

and tiny flake fragments, this material was included with screen 9 (Saberon 1997:12).

All the material in each screen was weighed as a unit, and bagged with the provenience

information. Then all the bags were placed within the original bag, thereby maintaining the

provenience information throughout. Again, this work was completed by Shelby Saberon.

Once the material was screened, it was sorted to separate the worked pieces from the

unworked flakes. The first sort, done by Shelby Saberon, divided biface fragments from the

flakes. This permitted me to see the range of variation within the biface fragments and to discern

the relationship between bifaces and flakes.

After the bifaces were removed, artifacts trapped in the larger screens (screens 3-5)

were examined by the author for blank fragments. These pieces were more difficult to detect

because in many regards they resembled unworked flakes, or minimally-worked flakes. They

are recognizable because of their attributes (explained within the technological typology) and

their large size. While the blank and biface fragments were being sought, other artifacts

encountered were also removed to understand the other kinds of debris mixed with the obsidian

workshop debris. Such artifacts included hammerstones, saws, drills, needles, eccentrics, bone

fragments, and any other artifacts that were not flakes.

Once the non-flake material was removed, the flakes were also divided. The screens

had already separated the flakes roughly by size, so the next step was to sort the flakes by

attributes. The attributive criteria were determined by first examining the collection of flakes and

the bifaces to understand the changes that took place during the manufacturing sequence. After


35/437

24

the percussion flakes in screens 4-6 were sorted, the pressure flakes were separated from the

percussion flakes in screens 7 and 8 for some lots.

The final sorts involved looking for diagnostic flakes. Diagnostic flakes are those whose

attributes (shape, or other characteristics) place them at a particular point in the manufacturing

process. In particular, this last sort involved looking for notching (performed by Shelby

Saberon) and bulbar flakes.

Technological Typology

Introduction

Typology: Science of classifying stone tools by form, techniques and technologicaltraits. Must include duplication of the technique by first observing the intentional form,then reconstructing or replicating the tool in the exact order of the aboriginal workman.Shows elements of culture. Typology cannot by based on function. (Crabtree 1972:97)

In Mesoamerican lithic studies, archaeologists use action sets (Collins 1975) or behavioral

discontinuities (Sheets 1975) to mark changes [types] within a manufacturing sequence. This

thesis follows Clark (1988a), and Clark and Bryants (1997) technological typology in that

each defined type represents some significant change in manufacturing technique from a

previous type. In giving this typology, I realize that my terms may depart from the standard

definitions; wherever this occurs, I have attempted to give adequate definitions of how the term

is being used.

Definitions


36/437

25

In flintknapping, as in all technical discussions, there are terms that may be unfamiliar to

other archaeologists. (For a primer on flintknapping terms see Crabtree 1972 and Whittaker

1994) A core is a stone from which aflake has been intentionally removed. A blank is a large

flake that reduces into a product. A uniface is a blank with one face worked (modified by

human action), while a biface has both faces worked.Reduction sequence is a term used by

flintknappers to describe the knapping process: material is removed with each blow, similar to

subtractive sculpting.Plan view, or birds eye view, means to view the biface from above, with

the biface horizontal, one face of the biface is in view. In contrast, edge view means to look at

the side or edge of the biface, perpendicular to the plan view. The center-line of the biface is

equidistant to its faces, along the edge, in edge view. Bifaces generally do not have a marked

dorsal or ventral face so there are no specific orientation terms for these surfaces.

This typology is custom-made for Hacienda Metepec. It was developed by Shelby

Saberon, John Clark and myself to identify the fine gradations inherent in the manufacture of the

Ramec point. Accordingly, the usage of some terms is site-specific and may differ slightly from

how others would use them. The determination of types is based upon observable changes in

shape and other attributes.

Blank

A blank is a large percussion flake removed from a core. It is quite large, generally

twice (almost 2.5) as long as it is wide. Because it is in essence a flake, it has all the

characteristics of a large flake, especially the percussion bulb on the ventral face. Its


37/437

26

Figure 8: Blank Fragments


38/437

27

Figure 9: 1 Preforms, showing left to right, a jagged, and two transverse breaks.

Figure 10: 2 preforms, showing, a transverse break (left) and a straight break (right)


39/437

28

distinguishing feature is its large size, being an unmodified flake, or slightly modified flake within

the collection (Figure 8).

1 Preform

The 1 Preform (Pref1) is a blank that has been modified by direct percussion. Most of

the original surface of the blank is still present, including irregularities. It still retains most of the

original longitudinal and transverse curvatures of the blank, while the cross-section is quite

thick. In edge-view, the edge is sinuous. Cortex and the original bulb of percussion from the

blank may also be present but are not significant criteria to define a 1 Preform (Figure 9).

2 Preform

The 2 Preform (Pref2) is a 1 Preform which has been modified further by percussion

and whose base is straight with rounded corners. It no longer possesses any of the original

blanks ridges. The 2 Preform in a longitudinal edge-view has a relatively straight edge. All the

edge angles are acute, and this preform does not have a straight center line because its mass is

unevenly distributed along its faces (Figure 10).

3 Preform

The 3 Preform (Pref3) is a 2 Preform that has been further modified so that it possesses

symmetrical faces. It has a straight center line, with its mass evenly distributed along its faces. It

is roughly twice as long as it is wide, and its edges are regular and uniform (Figure 11).

4 Preform


40/437

29

Figure 11: 3 Preforms, size difference may indicate possible range in Ramec points.


41/437

30

Figure 12: 4 Preforms. Left column are tips, middle column mid-sections, and right

column are bases.


42/437

31

The 4 Preform (Pref4) is a 3 Preform modified by pressure flaking. It has pressure

scars. The pressure scars are evenly spaced and run parallel to each other from base to tip (or

tip to base) (Figure 12).

Ramec Point

Ramec is a 4 Preform that has been corner-notched. The notched area is thin and deep.

In plan view, the Ramec point tapers from the base in a V-shape to its point. The Ramec point

is generally twice as long as it is wide, with parallel pressure flaking, and a straight center line

(Figure 13).

Flake Typology

Primary Blank Flakes

A primary blank flake is a large flake (in excess of 1.9 cm long) without any flake scars

on its dorsal surface, or in other words, whose dorsal surface is comprised of the blanks

original surface (Figure 14).

Secondary Blank Flakes

A secondary blank flake is a large flake with one flake scar on its dorsal surface (Figure

15).

Tertiary Blank Flakes

A tertiary blank flake has two or more flake scars on its dorsal surface (Figure 16).

Bulbar Flake


43/437

32

Figure 13a: Ramec points from Hacienda Metepec

Figure 13b: Ramec Points from nearby areas within Teotihuacn


44/437

33

Figure 14: Primary Blank Flakes. The lower middle flake is a bulbar primary blank flake.

Figure 15: Secondary Blank Flakes


45/437

34

Figure 16: Tertiary Blank Flakes. Top row showing ventral face, and bottom row showing

dorsal face.

Figure 17: Bulbar Blank Flakes. Left side showing curvature of the flake.


46/437

35

Figure 18: Bifacial Thinning Flakes. Note the lip on the upper right hand flake.

Figure 19: Small Percussion Flakes. These flakes were found in screen 6. The left column are

primary flakes, the middle column are secondary flakes, and the right column are tertiary flakes.


47/437

36

A bulbar flake has a convex dorsal surface. It also has a bulb of percussion and/or

force fractures perpendicular to the length of the flake on its dorsal surface (Figure 17).

Bifacial Thinning Flakes

A bifacial thinning flake is a flake removed when the biface was being thinned. In

appearance it is similar in shape to a tertiary blank flake, including a complex pattern of flake

scars on its dorsal surface. It differs from the tertiary blank flake in that it is thinner, slightly

convex, and has a lip on the ventral surface under the platform. Bifacial thinning flakes may have

multiple flake scars (Figure 18).

Small Percussion Flakes

This is a general category of flakes removed in the course of reduction. These flakes

were not analyzed in detail, because they can occur at any time during the reduction sequence.

These flakes could also be divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary, based upon the

number of flake scars on their dorsal surface (Figure 19).

Pressure Flakes

Flakes removed by pressure, generally twice as long as wide. Pressure flakes have a

less pronounced bulb of force than percussion flakes.

Notching Flakes

A notching flake is a conical-shaped flake, in edge view, with the proximal end of the

flake at the tip of the cone broadening into the distal end (Figure 20).


48/437

37

Figure 20: Notching Flakes

Flake Fragments

These are fragments of flakes lacking a bulb of force.

Chunks

Chunks consist of a miscellaneous category of thick, rough pieces of obsidian that are

irregularly shaped. They are neither flakes nor cores.

A complete count

Because of the sheer size of the sample (in excess of 220 kilograms), it was not feasible

to count and type every individual flake. However, all of the material in screens 1-5 was

individually examined and counted. In lieu of this, a complete count was accomplished for a

couple of units, one by Shelby Saberon and another by Zachary Nelson. The purpose of

counting each flake in the units was to generate a cross-section of the sample, and thereby

permit the extrapolation from the sample unit to the larger population of the excavated portion

of Hacienda Metepec, and from there to the level of the site; assuming that the material is


49/437

38

generally homogenous (see Appendix B). Further, several counts were taken by screen size

across the various proveniences to give another cross-section of the material.

The first count was E1S1-W1S1, layers 4 and 4a (see Table 3, below). The artifacts

from this provenience were first typed, and then counted by type. After counting the individual

flakes and fragments each group of flakes were weighed, and the average flake weight

determined. This was also done for other units (see Table 4 and Tables 50-52).

Table 3 has been divided by artifact type into tables 3a-3g. The obsidian artifacts studied inE1S1 W1S1 Layers 4, 4a are from the Otumba area (gray obsidian), unless otherwise

specified.

Table 3a: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Primary Flakes

Primary Flakes Primary with Cortex

Screen Numbe

r

Weight Averag

e

Number Percentag

e

3 1 68.6 g 68.6 g

4

5 30 278.4 g 9.6 g 5 17

6 271 518.5 g 1.91 g 46 17

7 519 284.0 g 0.55 g 73 14

Primary with Cortex represents a subset of the primary flakes. So in screen 5, 30primary flakes were discovered, and 5 of the 30 flakes had cortex, which is 17% of thenumber.


50/437

39

Table 3b: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Secondary Flakes

Secondary Flakes Secondary with

Cortex

Screen Number Weight Averag

e

Number Percentage

4 2 19 g 9.5 g

5 73 419 g 5.7 g 10 13.7

6 1,295 2,393 g 1.85 g 201 15.5

7 1,967 1,077 g 0.55 g 336 17.1

Table 3c: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Tertiary Flakes

Tertiary Flakes Flake Fragments


e

Number Weight Averag

e

5 71 300 g 4.23 g 43 211 g 4.91 g

6 2,590 3,427 g 1.32 g 1,316 1,673 g 1.27 g

7 7,324 3,164 g 0.43 g 4,876 1,828 g 0.37 g

8 2,590 320.0 g 0.12 g

9 10.1 g

Table 3d: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Pachuca and Meca Obsidian

Pachuca Obsidian Flakes Meca Obsidian Flakes


e


e

6 3 5.6 g 1.87 g 4 6.2 g 1.55 g

7 16 7.0 g 0.44 g 8 3.2 g 0.40 g

8 7 1.0 g 0.14 g 4 0.7 g 0.18 g


51/437

40

Table 3e: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Screen 8 Percussion and Pressure Flakes

Screen 8 Number Weight Averag

e

Percussion Flakes 382 158.5 g 0.41 g

Pressure Flakes 3,112 465.0 g 0.15 g

Table 3f: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Special Artifacts and Notching Flakes

Special Obsidian Pieces* Notching Flakes


e


e

6 151 454 g 3.01 g

7 311 271 g 0.87 g 2 0.5 g 0.25 g8 179 50 g 0.28 g 35 2.8 g 0.08 g

*Special Obsidian Pieces are small pieces of obsidian that did not fit into the predefined typesfor flakes or flake fragments. These consist of small oddly shaped chunks, edge-lipped flakesand fragments, overshot flakes, some biface tips, and other odds and ends.

Table 3g: E1S1-W1S1 Layers 4, 4a, Summary of Complete Flakes

Screen

Complete Flakes


e

5 174 997.4 5.73

6 4156 6338.5 1.53

7 9810 4525 0.46


52/437

41

Table 4: W1S1 Square B4, Layer 4a, Bag 209

Screen Complete Flakes Fragments Pachuca

Number Weight Average Weight Flake Blades

6 1,097 1,420 g 1.29 g 680 g 1 @ 0.6 g 5 @ 6.4 g7 1,591 697.5 g 0.44 g 896.3 g 6 @ 5.9 g

Screen 6 had the following Specials: 6 biface tips, 6 biface edges from overshot flakes,

3 biface base fragments, and one chunk.

Also found in screen 7 are the following Specials: two bulbar flakes averaging 0.8 g

each, 3 basalt flakes averaging 0.47 g each, one 2 preform biface tip, and various biface edges

from overshot flakes.


53/437

42

Measurements

Artifact measurements can only be useful if the measured attributes are consistently

quantified from the same place on each artifact. In this thesis, bifaces and other tools were

individually measured and weighed. Length refers to the maximum length from base to tip,

measured perpendicular to the base on the central axis bisecting the tip. Width is the maximum

width of a face, perpendicular to the length. Thickness is the maximum thickness of the artifact.

These dimensional measurements were measured with calipers. Weight of each preform or

fragment is recorded in grams, weighed upon a digital scale with an accuracy of 0.01 grams.

Artifacts with an unbroken dimension (length or width) were marked and the complete

dimension was used in reconstructing the target artifact for each type (Table 6).

Proposed Manufacturing Sequence

The manufacturing sequence for Ramec point began at the Otumba quarry, where

blanks of the appropriate size were struck from cores, or picked up opportunistically as natural

spalls. The blanks were then transported to Hacienda Metepec, where they were reduced by

percussion flintknapping techniques into preforms. The preforms were further refined by

percussion and pressure into Ramec points (Table 5).


54/437

43

Table 5: Ideal Reduction Sequence for Ramec Points

KnappingProcedure

Products Byproducts

Percussion

Blank9 Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary blank flakes, Bulbar

flake, Bifacial thinning flakes

Preform 1 96 Bifacial thinning flakes, Small percussion flakes, andDebris*

Preform 2 96 Bifacial thinning flakes, Small percussion flakes, andDebris*

Preform 3 96 Small percussion flakes, and Debris*

Pr

essure Preform 496 Pressure flakes and flake fragments

Ramec Point 6 Notching flakes and flake fragments*Debris includes: Flake fragments, chunks, broken preforms, and miscellaneous orunidentifiable debitage.

Description of the Artifacts

The following descriptions are limited to the metric measurements presented as mean

(0) and standard deviation (s) of the population (N) discovered for the site (after Clark 1988a)

and the area of greatest concentration. These numbers represent the entire population of each

artifact type discovered. The sample population (n) of complete or nearly complete artifacts

follows.

BLANKSLength:0 = 4.19 cm s = 1.36 N = 276Width: 0 = 3.97 cm s = 0.90

Thickness: 0 = 1.21 cm s = 0.45Largest concentration: Squares B4/B5 of unit W1S1


55/437

44

1 PREFORMSLength:0 = 4.02 cm s = 1.30 N = 410Width: 0 = 3.54 cm s = 0.88Thickness: 0 = 0.97 cm s = 0.26Largest concentration: Squares B4/B5 of unit W1S1

2 PREFORMSLength:0 = 3.86 cm s = 1.14 N = 414Width: 0 = 3.30 cm s = 0.86Thickness: 0 = 0.82 cm s = 0.17Largest concentration: Squares B4/B5 of unit W1S1

3 PREFORMSLength:0 = 3.45 cm s = 1.12 N = 417Width: 0 = 2.86 cm s = 0.85

Thickness: 0 = 0.64 cm s = 0.12Largest concentration: Squares B4/B5 of unit W1S1

4 PREFORMSLength:0 = 2.95 cm s = 1.12 N = 163Width: 0 = 2.30 cm s = 0.81Thickness: 0 = 0.60 cm s = 0.18Largest concentration: Square B5 of unit W1S1

RAMEC

Length:0 = 3.61 cm s = 1.41 N = 71Width: 0 = 2.72 cm s = 0.62Thickness: 0 = 0.63 cm s = 0.16Largest concentration: Square B5 of unit W1S1


56/437

45

Table 6: Range in Dimensions

Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Weight (gr)

Blank 8.2 to 11.6 4.1 to 7.0 1.2 to 3.0 18.8 to 83.9

1 Preform 5.5 to 8.6 3.0 to 5.3 0.80 to 1.80 22.3 to 53.0




Ramec 4.5 to 9.0 1.8 to 3.7 0.44 to 0.77 2.1 to 21.8

Point Bases 1.8 to 2.25

Other Artifacts

Some other types of artifacts were present in the deposit that also need to be

described.

Hammerstones

Two different kinds of hammerstones were used at Hacienda Metepec: basalt and

obsidian. The obsidian hammerstones are much smaller than the basalt hammerstones, and their

use could represent a particular stage in the manufacturing sequence, such as the removal of

small percussion flakes, but this has not been determined.

BASALT HAMMERSTONESLength:0 = 7.26 cm s = 1.09 N = 8Width: 0 = 6.36 cm s = 0.99

Thickness: 0 = 4.61 cm s = 0.93

These one-handed hammerstones were probably part of the instruments used in the

manufacture of Ramec points (Figure 21).


57/437

45

Figure 21: Basalt Hammerstones

Figure 22: Obsidian Hammerstones. The figure on the right consists of a round obsidian

hammerstone flanked by two flakes struck from obsidian hammerstones.


58/437

46

Figure 23: Drills

Figure 24: Gary Large Projectile Points


59/437

47

OBSIDIAN HAMMERSTONESLength:0 = 3.70 cm s = 0.77 N = 12Width: 0 = 3.60 cm s = 0.86Thickness: 0 = 2.46 cm s = 0.85

The obsidian hammerstones are small ball-shaped pieces of obsidian with a fairly thick cortex

(Figure 22). Seven of the hammerstones were found within the portico, while one was

discovered on the stairs to the north.

Drills

Drills are diamond-shaped pieces of obsidian, when viewed in plan view, with one long

axis (Figure 23).

DRILLSLength:0 = 5.47 cm s = 2.13 N = 10Width: 0 = 2.72 cm s = 0.92Thickness: 0 = 0.96 cm s = 0.24Three were found in the vicinity of the stairs.

Gary Large Projectile Points

The Gary Large projectile point is a large, unnotched projectile point with an extended

base (Figure 24). Three were found by Rattrays team (but one of those was from a surface

survey elsewhere in Teotihuacn). All are of Pachuca obsidian.

GARY LARGELength:0 = 5.45 cm s = 1.05 N = 3Width: 0 = 3.47 cm s = 0.53

Thickness:0

= 0.83 cm s = 0.12

Scrapers


60/437

48

Figure 25: End Scrapers

Figure 26: Maguey Scrapers


61/437

49

Figure 27: Percussion cores found at Hacienda Metepec

Figure 28: Manos discovered at Hacienda Metepec


62/437

50

Scrapers come in two main varieties at Hacienda Metepec: End scrapers and Maguey

scrapers.

END SCRAPERS

Length:0 = 4.93 cm s = 2.09 N = 78Width: 0 = 3.73 cm s = 1.25Thickness: 0 = 1.12 cm s = 0.61

End scrapers are mainly reworked large flakes, possibly the remains of broken blanks. Most of

them are of Otumba obsidian (Figure 25).

MAGUEY SCRAPERSLength:0 = 5.91 cm s = 2.48 N = 11Width: 0 = 3.22 cm s = 0.71Thickness: 0 = 1.02 cm s = 0.33

Maguey scrapers are almost ladle-shaped, with the ladle being a solid mass of obsidian. Most

of the use-wear evidence is on the ladle (Figure 26). Parsons and Parsons (1990) call the

modern equivalent of this tool a rejada (page 31).

Percussion Cores

These cores are not directly related to the manufacture of Ramec points. They are

believed to be casual cores, i.e., cores used opportunistically to create temporary tools. Cores

are found all over the excavation, with the greatest concentration being found on the north side

of the excavation, near the entrance of the dwelling (Figure 27).

PERCUSSION CORESLength:0 = 4.17 cm s = 1.23 N = 26Width: 0 = 3.70 cm s = 0.89Thickness: 0 = 2.45 cm s = 0.69


63/437

51

Manos

A mano is a smoothed basalt stone used for grinding maize or other cereals. The manos

found at Hacienda Metepec are one-handed, rectangular manos with a smooth flat surface

(Figure 28).

MANOLength:0 = 7.93 cm s = 2.29 N = 3Width: 0 = 6.93 cm s = 2.19Thickness: 0 = 4.03 cm s = 0.91

Bone

The bone fragments found were from long bones, but of an unidentified mammal

(Figure 29). Of the five pieces found (not including some slivers), four were long polished

pieces that could have been used for pressure flaking. They had blunted tips that

Figure 29: Bone Fragments, possibly pressure flakers.


64/437

52

look worn. Another piece was long and had a groove circling it. This piece appears to be a

work-in-progress, with the task of sawing through the bone indefinitely postponed. The spatial

distribution of the bones fragments is quite small. One pressure flaker bone was found on the

stairs, and 3 were found in the patio. The unfinished artifact was also found on the stairs.

Summary

This chapter began by looking at the context of the Hacienda Metepec excavations,

focusing on the architecture and stratigraphy of the excavations. It then described the methods

used to sort the artifacts recovered. These methods consisted of screening, identifying, and

separating significant pieces that identify the range of artifacts and form the manufacturing

sequence. The technological typology of the artifacts distinguishes specific types within the

deposit based upon distinct changes in the artifacts. Using this typology, a manufacturing

sequence was created which explained the changes in the lithics. Then the summary statistics of

the preforms were given, and those of other artifacts discovered within the matrix of the lithic

debris.


65/437

53

Chapter 3: Analysis

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the obsidian artifacts recovered from

Hacienda Metepec by type and original obsidian source. This analysis first reconstructs the

form of the obsidian brought into Hacienda Metepec, then looks at the workers method of

reducing blanks, and finally examines use-wear patterns within the artifacts. This information is

important in that it will provide needed evidence to define Hacienda Metepec as a workshop

rather than a dump. The scope of this chapter is to present the details of the Ramec point

analysis. This involves a close look at the summary data and its significance.

The Commodity

The form of the original piece of obsidian brought into Hacienda Metepec, the

commodity (Clark 1988:87), shows how much labor was invested at the quarry. Blanks with

large amounts of cortex indicate that the raw material was nodules with cortex and that little

time was spent at the quarry in removing cortex. The more cortex brought to Hacienda

Metepec, the less labor expended at the quarry.

Blank Flakes with Cortex

An indication of the amount of cortex brought into Hacienda Metepec comes from

blank flakes. These large percussion flakes removed while shaping the blanks into preforms

reveal that fairly small amounts of cortex-bearing blanks arrived at Hacienda Metepec. The


66/437

54

percentage of complete primary blank flakes with cortex is 19.3%. The percentage of complete

secondary blank flakes with cortex is 15.9%. This indicates low quantities of blanks with

cortex.

Cortex on Blanks and Preforms.

Another assessment of the number of cortex-bearing blanks relies on counting the

broken blanks with cortex and assuming a homogenous population. Blanks and Pref1s have the

most cortex (32 and 52 bifaces respectively), then the amount decreases to 12 of the Pref2,

seven of the Pref3, and one of the Pref4. Only two Ramec points had cortex. This is only 12-

13 percent of the quantities found.

Summary

The blank flakes suggest that 15.9-19.3% of the blanks arriving at Hacienda Metepec

had cortex, while biface counts indicate that 12-13% arrived with cortex. This near agreement

suggests that the commodity brought to Hacienda Metepec consisted of blanks without large

quantities of cortex. An occasional blank had cortex, but the selection process at the quarry

seemed to minimize the cortex. This suggests that the economic factors, such as lightening

transport weight, favored the removal of cortex at the quarry, or that cortex-bearing blanks

were quite rare--a case possible only if the obsidian cores were very large nodules, and the

workers could remove several blanks from a single nodule.


67/437

55

Blank Orientation

The widest part of a flake is usually at its base, where the bulb of percussion lies. Many

knappers would make this widest part the base of the biface and the thinner part the tip. But is

this true at Hacienda Metepec, or did the worker prefer a different orientation? The difficulty

with this test, lies in the scarcity of evidence. Only 137 of all the biface fragments found have a

bulb of percussion still intact. This suggests that the bulb of percussion was one of the first things

removed from the blank, possibly at the quarry. Of the 137 biface fragments found with bulbs

of percussion, 91 or 66.4% have the bulb at the base, while 32 or 23.2% have the bulb at the

tip. This indicates that the worker, for whatever reasons of his own, decided to make the bulb

into the tip almost a quarter of the time.

Special Treatment of Thin Blanks

Some blanks brought to Hacienda Metepec did not require as much effort on the part

of the flint knapper, due to their thinness, although more care was needed because thinner

blanks are more delicate. There are three types of this kind of blank. A thin blankis a blank

that needs very little shaping on either face because it is a thin-enough slab already, but the

edges of both faces have been worked. A spallis a thin blank found naturally at the quarry with

cortex on both faces. A uniface is a blank that was worked on only one face, because the

other face was flat enough that it did not need to be shaped.


68/437

56

Figure 30: Special Blanks

The discovery of these blanks is important in that it shows the importance of a

particularly desirable feature of the obsidian--relative thickness. The worker could skip several

thinning steps with these blanks, thereby reducing the time spent on a single point.

There were 19 spalls discovered at

Hacienda Metepec. Twelve of these were

blanks, six were 1 preforms, and one was a 4

Preform. Unifaces were much more common,

with 58 blanks, 102 of the 1 preforms, 49 of

the 2 preforms, 47 of the 3 preforms, four of

the 4 preforms and 5 broken Ramec points.

This totals to 265 unifaces. Thin blanks were more common than spalls, less so than unifaces.

There were 13 blanks, 23 of the 1 preforms, 16 of the 2 preforms, 23 of the 3 preforms, three

of the 4 preforms, and 5 broken Ramec points. The total was 83 thin blanks (Figure 30).

The Perfect (Standardized) Point

The blanks selected at the quarry had to have certain attributes of size and shape that

the worker modified in order to create the Ramec point. While it is unlikely that the worker had

a model physically in front of him while he was shaping bifaces, it is likely that there was a

mental image of the biface in mind, and that the worker would craft the point in accordance

with this mental image. This target image of the Ramec point had certain characteristics: It was

longer than it was wide, corner-notched at the base, and the base itself was straight or slightly


69/437

57

rounded. Beyond these general characteristics were other attributes, such as the hafting size of

the base, the specific length of the point so that it fit comfortably in the haft and the proper width

of the entire dart so that it overhung the shaft without overbalancing it.

Flintknapping is a reductive process, so that once material is removed, it is impossible

to replace it. In practical terms, this means that the worker needed constantly to keep in mind

the dimensions of the finished product as he shaped the preforms; if not, the finished point

would not fall within the acceptable range of the target point. Thus, it should be possible to

reconstruct the ideal dimensions of the Ramec points by examining the broken and discarded

points found in the debitage (Table 7). Further, it is equally possible to get a feel for the ideal

blank, and preforms in the same way.

Table 7: Mean Dimensions of Complete or Refitted Bifaces*

Blank 1 Preform 2 Preform 3 Preform 4 Preform Ramec

0 Length 9.95 cm 7.50 cm 7.00 cm 5.02 cm 4.82 cm 4.63 cm

0Width 4.95 4.26 3.45 3.01 2.94 2.86

0 Thickness 1.80 1.12 0.85 0.72 0.68 0.64

0Weight 55.00 g 34.49 g 19.20 g 10.53 g 8.82 g 7.12 g

*This table shows the mean dimensions of the bifaces which had a complete dimension (i.e.length or width). The number of blanks with a complete dimension is three, the 1 preforms had12 artifacts with complete dimensions, the 2 preforms had 6 artifacts with complete dimensions,while the 3 preforms had 14. No 4 preforms had a complete length, so this length is idealized.Ramec points had 5 artifacts with complete dimensions.

Table 7 shows the artifact lengths based upon complete or refitted bifaces. This

represents my best estimate of the ideal dimensions of the Ramec point in all its stages of


70/437

58

Figure 31: Use-wear Among Bifaces

manufacture. Obviously, the mean may not be the best representation of the ideal, since it is

itself a compromise between the variables, but this should give a close approximation of the size

of the Ramec dart point being produced at Hacienda Metepec. Refitting broken preforms is a

time-consuming task, because both pieces may or may not be present. I am indebted to Shelby

Saberon and John Clark for their work in refitting preforms.

Quantity of Bifaces with Use-Wear, and Hinged Preforms

Bifaces with Use-wear

Use-wear indicates how heavily a bifaces edge has been chipped or abraded since its

creation. While not a perfect indication of consumption, the quantity of bifaces exhibiting use-

wear patterns does indicate the relative proportion of bifaces being consumed. In a household

dump one expects all the bifaces to

show evidence of use-wear, while a

workshop setting should have very little

evidence of use-wear, because the

products of the workshop are being sent

away. Thus, use-wear can serve as an

indication of local consumption or non-

consumption.

Use-wear is based on

macroscopic observations of each artifact, and comparison of artifact edges with experimental


71/437

59

Figure 32: Biface Quantity

artifact edges, and upon personal experience. When the artifact edge was irregularly shaped,

more so than normal platform preparation would suggest, I marked it as use-wear. The artifact

edges were similar in shape to those illustrated in Clark 1988 (especially figures 93-95).

At Hacienda Metepec, blanks had the most use-wear (27), possibly due to their

greater size--when one broke, a useful length remained. Among the preforms, 1 Preforms had

26 with use-wear, while 2 Preforms had only eight, 3 Preforms had two and 4 Preforms had

one. None of the Ramec points appeared to have use-wear. As a percentage of total bifaces,

this sum is quite low--only 3%. This extremely low rate of used or worn bifaces strongly

suggests that the bifaces at Hacienda Metepec were discarded when they broke rather than

were used as tools, and that the discards were rarely pressed into service.

Preforms as a Percentage of Total Bifaces Found

Another way at looking at

allthe broken or discarded bifaces

(blanks, preforms, and Ramec

points) is to see each group as a

fraction of the whole number

found, as in Figure 32. This

illustrates the high numbers of 1

Preforms, 2 Preforms and 3


72/437

60

Preforms compared to the other types.

Blanks comprise 15.8% of all bifaces found (276/1751)

1 Preforms equal 23.4% of all bifaces (410/1751).

2 Preforms are 23.6% (414/1751).

3 Preforms are 23.8% (417/1751).

4 Preforms equal 9.3% (163/1751).

Ramec points comprise 4.1% (71/1751).

This shows that bifaces that survived the perils of percussion flaking, in general, were

successfully transformed into Ramec points.

Number or Quantity (from Weight) of Flakes Found

Primary Blank Flake

Primary blank flakes are large flakes that are mainly found in screens 1-5 at Hacienda

Metepec. As mentioned above, I looked a

analysis of an obsidian workshop at hacienda metepec, teotihuacan, mexico, ad 700-800

Documents