obsidian industries and cultural evolution in the basin of mexico before 500 b. c

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Maney Publishing

Obsidian Industries and Cultural Evolution in the Basin of Mexico before 500 B. C. Author(s): Martin William Boksenbaum, Paul Tolstoy, Garman Harbottle, Jerome Kimberlin andMary Neivens Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 65-75Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530207Accessed: 03-03-2015 22:57 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 148.224.96.21 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:57:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Obsidian Industries and Cultural Evolution in the Basin of Mexico Before 500 B.C.

Martin William Boksenbaum Treichlers, Pennsylvania

Paul Tolstoy Universit6 de Montr6al Montreal, Canada

Garman Harbottle Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York

Jerome Kimberlin Richmond, California

Mary Neivens New York, New York

Neutron activation analysis of a large sample of obsidian artifacts from Early Horizon and First Intermediate sites in the Basin of Mexico has al- lowed identification of the geologic sources that were exploited. Combining the geologic source data with obsidian manufacturing data in a diachronic fashion permits one to suggest a series of obsidian utilization stages that correlate with growing cultural complexity.

Introduction As part of Paul Tolstoy's ongoing Basin of Mexico

research, a large sample of obsidian was analyzed at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) during 1977 and 1978.1 The purpose of the neutron activation analysis was twofold. First, it was to provide data for plotting the movement of obsidian both within and into the Basin of Mexico. Secondly, diachronic interpretation of such movement was to permit assessment of the changing importance of obsidian utilization during the course of some 900 years. The results of that analysis, when combined with obsidian manufacturing data, suggest a series of stages in the history of obsidian utilization. Further, the results also bear on the nature of the Olmec presence in the Highlands during the Early Horizon.

Sites and Sources The bulk of the obsidian artifacts was from unmixed

lower levels in excavations carried out at six sites in the southern half of the Basin (Tolstoy 1971, 1973, 1975; Tolstoy and Paradis 1970; Tolstoy and Fish 1975; Tol- stoy et al. 1977). Tolstoy's seriation of ceramic materials and the conjunction of 25 radiocarbon dates have provided a rather finely-scaled and secure chronology for these excavated materials. In addition, obsidian artifacts from the surface of Altica, a site in the northern half of the Basin, were included. Even though the Altica artifacts were from the surface, they could be assigned with some confidence to a particular time period, as the ceramics present belonged exclusively to the interval from EH-4 to FI-3. All of the sites (FIG. 1) were occupied during the EH and/or the early FI periods (TABLE 1), that is, prior to the development of urban Teotihuacain.

Using stratified sampling, 589 (20.5%) of the 2,864 obsidian artifacts were chemically analyzed. Statistical treatment of the chemical data has indicated that most

1. The work summarized in this paper has been made possible by grant BNS 77-80055 from the National Science Foundation and by research support provided at the Chemistry Department of Brookhaven National Laboratory by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences.


66 Obsidian Industries in the Basin of Mexico/Boksenbaum et al.

OD c

TEOTIHUACAN OB , )O01

081

9 LAKE 10 SYSTEM

47 00 N 51 480

0 20km

340 *

Figure 1. The Basin of Mexico. Archaeological sites are numbered as in Tolstoy (1975); 4: El Arbolillo (East and West); 9: Tlatilco; 10: Loma de Atoto; 34: Coapexco; 47: Tlapacoya; 48: Santa Catarina; 51: El Terremote; 81: Altica. Obsidian sources, designated by letters, are as follows. A: Otumba; B: Pared6n; C: Pachuca; D: Pizarrin.

of the obsidian in the collections can be attributed to six known sources and one unknown source. The six known sources (FIG. 2), to which 562 (95.4%) of the 589 sampled artifacts are attributed, are the following: 1) Otumba (Barranca de los Estetes, Teotihuacain Valley, T.A. 79, etc.), in the hills of the SE edge of Teotihuacain Valley (NE Basin of Mexico), about 50 km from the excavated sites considered here (using straight-line distance to the center of Mexico City as a rough approximation); 2) Pared6n, about 95 km NE of the excavated sites, at the NE limits of the Basin of Mexico; 3) Pachuca (Navajas, Cruz del Milagro, Huasca, etc.) in SE Hidalgo, about 90 km north of the excavated sites; 4) Pizarrin (Tulancingo, Rancho Tenango, Huapalcalco, etc.) in SE Hidalgo, about 110 km NE of the excavated sites; 5) Altotonga in Veracruz, about 190 km east of the excavated sites; and 6) Zinap6cuaro in Michoacin, about 250 km west of the excavated sites.

The one unknown source, which we will refer to as Source Z, was defined by the clustering of element values for seven artifacts (1.2% of the 589 in the sample). In addition, 20 (3.4%) of the 589 could neither be clus- tered to define any new sources nor attributed to any of the known sources.

Sample Strata The sample strata were established using three dimen-

sions: site and subphase distinctions; visual distinctions

between artifacts; and manufacturing distinctions. First, each site and subphase needed to be adequately represented in the sample. This resulted, ultimately, in 13 universes. In time order, they are as follows: 1) EH-2 Coapexco subphase at Coapexco; 2) EH-3 Ayotla subphase at Tlapacoya-Ayotla; 3) the EH-3 to 4 transition at El Terremote; 4) EH-4 Manantial subphase at Tlapa- coya-Ayotla; 5) late EH-4 Manantial subphase at Santa Catarina; 6) early FI-1 Bomba subphase at Santa Catar- ina; 7) FI-1 Bomba subphase at Tlapacoya-Ayotla; 8) the EH-4 to FI-3 occupation of Altica; 9) FI-2 El Ar- bolillo subphase at El Arbolillo East; 10) FI-3 La Pastora subphase at El Arbolillo East; 11) FI-3 Totolica subphase at Loma de Atoto; 12) early FI-4 Atoto subphase at Loma de Atoto; and 13) FI-4 Cuautepec subphase at El Ar- bolillo West.

Secondly, possible source-specific visual characteristics needed to be explored. On the basis of an earlier unpublished analysis by Robert Cobean on 54 selected specimens, Boksenbaum had hypothesized the following correlations between visually distinctive types and geo-

Table 1. Chronology in the Basin of Mexico (based on Tolstoy 1978, 1979, n.d.).

SMaster Old Sequence Terminology

650 (510) FI-4

750 (425) FI-3 Middle Preclassic

875 (750) FI-2 (Zacatenco Phase in

the Basin of Mexico) 1050 (850)

FI-1 1150 (950)

EH-4

1300 (1000) EH-3Early Preclassic EH-3

1400 (1100) 2 (Ixtapaluca Phase in the Basin of Mexico)

1500 (1300)

ST = years B.C., Suess calibrated "'C years (sidereal time).

RT = uncalibrated '4C years B.C. (radiocarbon time). FI = First Intermediate. EH = Early Horizon.


Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 67

10 17

....

.

- . ...

\ r ''vc

O 100 200 300 mi 0 300 km

Figure 2. Major Mexican obsidian sources. 1: Otumba, Mexico; 2: Pared6n, Hidalgo; 3: Pachuca, Hidalgo; 4: Pizarrin, Hidalgo; 5: Altotonga, Veracruz; 6: Zinapecuaro, Michoacin; 7: San Juan del Rio, Queretaro; 8: El Paraiso, Queretaro; 9: Cadareyta de Montes, Queretaro; 10: Penjamo, Guanajuato; 11: Guadalupe Victoria, Puebla; 12: Pico de Orizaba, Vera- cruz; 13: El Ocotito, Guerrero; 14: Tequila, Jalisco; 15: Teuchtitlin, Jalisco; 16: Magdalena, Jalisco; 17: Metzquitlin, Hidalgo.

logic sources (Tolstoy et al. 1977): Otumba artifacts were thought to be the ordinary gray (ranging from pieces of cloudy, translucent gray obsidian to pieces with clear-cut narrow bands that could be dark gray, black, light gray, translucent gray, or clear, and to pieces that were opaque gray); the southern Hidalgo sources (Pa- chuca and Pizarrin) were thought to be transparent green; Zinap6cuaro obsidian was thought to be "fuzzy" (black cottony swaths in a cloudy medium); Cobean's Group A, which was first identified at Olmec San Lorenzo Tenochtitlin, was thought to be clear (transparent with perhaps some gray streaks in a colorless medium); and perhaps the grainy artifacts (high contrast, grainy-look- ing translucent gray) were from El Ocotito, Guerrero. Also distinguished were a few unusual items, such as "meca" specimens with their reddish-brown splotches, which might have identified non-local sources. While it

was hoped that some of the visually-defined categories would tend to identify particular sources, it was also recognized that variations in the materials of the geologic sources would make perfect correlation unlikely.

Thirdly, differences in the manufacturing trajectories of the obsidian from different sources needed to be as- certained. Hence, manufacturing data had to be considered. Most of the artifacts were of a simple sort, many of which could have been produced by smashing nodules of obsidian. A relatively familiar example of nodule- smashing technology is bipolar flaking, which, though more controlled, also takes place on a support. Such a production strategy could have produced sharp-edged, if irregular, tools. Villagers might have produced them with little in the way of special gear (Harding 1967; Gould, Koster, and Sontz 1971). The smashing of nodules was deduced primarily from evidence that flakes



had been produced by a technique that released several flakes simultaneously, such flakes being called "smashings" or "multiple flakes" (Jelinek, Bradley, and Huckell 1971; Boksenbaum 1978, 1980).

A significant minority of the obsidian was in the form of prismatic blades, which are released when specially- prepared cores are pressure-flaked in the appropriate manner. Such production strategy is most efficient in mass production carried out by specialists using special pressure-flaking tools (Crabtree 1968; Sheets 1972, 1974, 1975; Sheets and Muto 1972; Santley 1976).

The manufacturing categories ultimately used in de- fining sampling strata for estimation purposes were the following: retouch-shaped specimens; blade cores or fragments/smashings thereof; prismatic blades and blade-like ridged flakes; smashings and other multiple flaking products; and other flakes and dregs (shatter). There was no evidence of the debitage associated with the preliminary shaping of blade cores, except perhaps for four crested flakes found at Coapexco (included with the blades). There was little that could serve as evidence of retouch or rejuvenation workings, which is consistent with the small number of retouch-shaped specimens. Finally, a number of pieces were coded as flakes that had been suspected of being smashings but for which indication of simultaneous multiple flaking was absent. Such caution, it seems, was unwarranted in the case of the items that had been called "splintered pieces" because John Clark's work has convincingly shown that such pieces are one kind of bipolar flaking "core" (Ko- bayashi 1975; Clark 1979; Hayden 1980). Their place- ment in the "other flakes and dregs" category, however, is consistent with the notion that a majority of the specimens in it are not indicative of anything more than crude knapping techniques and, indeed, a considerable number of them may be smashings.

Thus, 13 components, five major visual categories, and five manufacturing classes provided the strata of our sampling scheme, designed to make it possible to ap- portion non-analyzed specimens to the eight source groupings listed earlier (the six known sources, unknown source "Z", and "unassigned"). This was done by taking the proportion of specimens chemically assigned to that group and weighting it for the stratum or strata that it represented. Thus, for example, 33 of the 70 blades analyzed from Coapexco were found to belong chemically to the Zinap6cuaro group. Of these, 23 were of fuzzy obsidian, five were grainy, and five were gray, constituting 85.2%, 71.4%, and 15.6%, respectively, of the chemically analyzed blades in these visual categories at Coapexco. The strata formed of all blades in these categories contained 64, 31, and 61 specimens. The probable number of Zinap6cuaro blades in the Coapexco

collection was estimated therefore at (64 x .852) + (31 x .714) + (61 x .156) = 86, or at about 48% of the 178 blades that constitute the sampled universe at the site..In this connection, it is important to note that the correspondence between visual and chemical characteristics in the analyzed material has proven to be quite consistent in samples of adequate size, particularly when controlled for manufacturing class and time range. Sourcing Results

The neutron activation analysis itself was carried out by Kimberlin, with Harbottle as BNL liaison. Procedures developed by Kimberlin and slightly modified for the BNL High Flux Beam Reactor were used to chemically characterize obsidian source samples and artifacts. Small slices were sawn from the obsidian artifacts. Then a sample set, consisting of 160 sawn chips and 10 stan- dards, was irradiated. Bombardment was for 71 hours at 1.8 x 1014 N/cm2/sec. After a 16-day cooling period, each sample was counted for 2000 seconds on a Ge(Li) gamma detector coupled to a 4000 channel pulse height analyzer and sample changer.

During the first two months of the project, geologic source samples were amassed and a preliminary reactor run was carried out to calibrate the obsidian standard using the BNL operating system. Many sources were evaluated, samples of which were provided through the courtesy of several individuals (who are thanked indi- vidually in the acknowledgments).

Raw data were analyzed using computer programs and statistical techniques on hand at BNL that could be adapted to the problem (Neivens, Harbottle, and Kim- berlin 1983). The first set of statistical analyses was carried out by Kimberlin during the NSF grant period. The bulk of the artifacts presented no problems in being assigned to a particular source. Follow-up treatment of some minor clustering problems was carried out by Nei- vens subsequent to the NSF grant period. Her work essentially confirmed Kimberlin's initial groupings. The element values for each source group are presented in Table 2.2 2. Eliminated by Neivens' work were four very small groups, two of which were unlikely groupings of green and non-green specimens. One group of 11 proposed as an unknown source group is now attributed, in its entirety, to Otumba. Five of a group of six attributed to San Martin Jilotepeque are now attributed to Zinapecuaro (the sixth is not assigned to any source group). Two artifacts, one green and one non-green, attributed to a Quer6taro source, are now unassigned. Six of a group of eight, most of which were green, attributed to another Queretaro source, are now attributed to Pachuca and/or Pi- zarrin (the other two are unassigned). Both Kimberlin and Neivens used only element values in the clustering programs. They did not use and, for the most part, were unaware of data related to the correlations between visual characteristics and sources that had been hypothesized by Boksenbaum.



Table 2. Elemental values of Basin of Mexico artifacts as sourced at BNL. Sources*

Element 1 2 3 3/4? 4 5 6 6? 7 Ba 845 + 68 134 ? 16 101.2 + 30.2 134 - 158 898 + 73 543 + 38 210 + 38 208 + 33 783 + 50 Ce 50.0 + 4.4 105 + 10 96.2 + 6.7 104.7 - 17.6 163 + 14 71.6 + 6.3 65.6 + 8.4 65.9 + 7.4 54.0 + 2.8 Co .848

-+ .179 .357 + .051 .115 + .052 .080 + .028 .077 + .043 .762 + .075 .350 + .078 .366 + .049 1.17 ? .06 Cr 2.16 ? 4.00 2.06 + 3.67 5.92 + 6.70 6.66 + 7.04 9.97 + 9.07 .905 + .420 1.27 + 1.93 1.54 + 2.35 6.09 + 15.35 Cs 4.05 + .42 5.77 + .50 4.45 + .30 3.77 + .55 6.47 + .46 4.30 + .36 7.34 + .76 7.08 + .57 5.5 + .18 Eu .606 + .048 .243 -+ .024 1.86 + .11 1.18 + .58 1.96 + .14 .477 + .034 .206 + .032 .216 + .023 .657 + .026 Fe .909 ? .080 .886 + .071 1.77 + .26 1.54 ? .09 1.97 ? .14 .961 ? .057 .788 ? .050 .837 + .203 1.23 + .04 Gd 2.43 + .29 3.74 + .48 4.59 + .38 4.25 + .77 3.14 + .33 4.36 + .39 3.25 + .38 3.24 + .43 2.24 + .14 Hf 3.83 + .31 6.87 + .58 26.6 + 1.6 19.7 + 4.9 17.9 + 1.4 5.30 + .33 3.94 + .27 4.06 + .41 4.51 + .13 La 26.6 + 7.2 51.4 + 16.8 39.6 + 6.0 45.9 + 7.7 59.3 + 11.3 48.3 + 13.6 36.3 + 10.1 34.6 + 11.2 24.6 + 9.0 Lu .338 + .036 .830 + .07 2.01 + .13 1.57 + .29 1.39 + .13 .537 + .042 .372 + .039 .375 + .045 .377 + .013 Nd 28.1 + 7.9 56.9 + 5.8 56.2 -+ 4.2 70.7 + 15.2 106 + 8 36.6 + 3.1 36.2 + 4.0 37.0 + 3.9 32.0 + 2.9 Os .501 + .049 1.26 + .12 2.98 + .25 2.36 + .41 2.14 + .20 .812 + .082 .554 + .054 .532 + .037 .560 + .034 Rb 126 + 10 171 + 14 213 + 13 181 ? 25 138 + 13 142 + 10 154 + 13 153 + 9 129 + 4 Sb .291 + .065 1.01 ? .12 .244 + .080 .199 + .280 1.47 -+ .17 .426 + .094 .372 + .072 .384 + .047 .159 + .051 Sc 2.41 + .19 2.78 + .23 3.86 + .25 2.25 + 1.58 .902 + .075 3.22 -+ .19 2.88 + .20 3.31 + 1.06 3.49 + .12 Se 2.58 + .28 4.60 + .51 18.0 + 1.0 13.5 + 3.2 11.9 + .9 3.49 + .37 2.63 + .26 2.72 + .40 2.99 + .19 Ta 1.34 + .13 3.45 + .29 5.93 + .42 3.85 + 1.61 2.91 + .27 1.75 + .12 1.41 + .15 1.39 + .12 1.16 + .05 Tb .665 ? .069 1.51 ? .15 3.02 ? .20 2.98 ? .28 3.40 ? .26 .955 ? .077 .790 ? .077 .776 ? .076 .865 ? .088 Th 11.8 + .9 19.2 + 1.7 22.0 + 1.4 20.6 + 3.4 14.7 + 1.1 21.8 + 1.6 15.9 + 1.3 15.7 + 1.3 10.7 + .5 Tm .358 + .102 .765 + .188 1.65 + .46 1.246 + .457 1.15 + .40 .541 + .074 .364+ .081 .381 -+ .070 .352 + .109 Yb 2.61 + .24 6.62 + .50 16.2 + .9 12.65 + 2.08 11.5 + .8 4.06 + .31 2.89 + .26 2.89 + .26 2.97 + .15 Zn 48.1 + 25.9 60.5 + 7.2 257 + 132 217 + 85 206 + 14 41.5 ? 3.3 38.1 + 3.67 37.7 + 2.66 65.7 + 30.7 Zr 148 + 23 205 -+ 37 840 + 70 644 + 145 640 + 56 198 + 28 130 + 21 132 + 24 168 + 17

*Assignment of artifacts to source groups is based upon neutron activation analysis of a stratified random sample from Tolstoy's collection. All elemental values are in parts per million except for Fe, which is expressed as a percentage. The error indicated is one standard deviation of the mean. The sources are: 1) Otumba, 2) Pared6n, 3) Pachuca, 3/4?) Pachuca-Pizarrin, 4) Pizarrin, 5) Altotonga, 6) Zinap6cuaro, 6?) highly probable Zinapecuaro, 7) Source Z. See "Sourcing Results" in text for discussion.

There was difficulty in discriminating between the two green obsidian source areas. Both Pachuca and Pizarrin, however, consist of several separate obsidian outcroppings (Spence and Parsons 1972; Charlton 1979). Since each outcropping could have a different chemical character, it would be necessary to have a source sample from each to obtain the needed geographical sensitivity. As it is, we find some artifacts that clearly match our Pachuca source and some that clearly match our Pizarrin source. Other artifacts from these neighboring regions are assigned to a combined Pachuca/Pizarrin source since we cannot assign them to one or the other with statistical certainty.

The color distinctions held up reasonably well as source indicators although they were by no means ab- solute. And there were some revelations.

For the most part, the gray sample specimens were from Otumba. That is, 81.1% (261 specimens) of the 322 gray specimens in the sample were attributed to Otumba. This correlation is even higher, namely 91.6% (239 of 261), if we exclude the 61 Coapexco gray artifacts. The surprises are in the Coapexco (EH-2) materials.

One striking Coapexco finding is the large number of gray specimens attributed to the Altotonga source. Al- totonga obsidian was a 35.6% plurality (21 of 59) of the Coapexco grays. There were only four Altotonga spec-

imens in all the other 12 samples (two grays, one clear, one fuzzy). Further, 13.6% of the Coapexco grays were from Pared6n and 10.2% from Zinap6cuaro.

More than one-third of the 184 clear artifacts were in the BNL analyzed sample and 65.1% of this obsidian was attributed to Pared6n. A substantial minority (25.4%), however, was attributed to Otumba. If one considers the manufacturing classes, a stronger correlation between clear obsidian and Pared6n emerges. All clear blades in the samples are from Early Horizon components. And of the 14 clear blades in the EH sample, 85.7% are attributable to Pared6n and none to Otumba.

An important determination made in this research is that Pared6n obsidian and the heretofore mysterious 01- mec Group A obsidian (isolated by Cobean and his associates) are the same. The description of the visual characteristics of clear and Group A obsidian are similar. Further, all three clear specimens from our collections that had been analyzed and attributed to Group A by Cobean were analyzed and attributed to Pared6n by Kim- berlin. Hence the revelation that the unknown Group A flakes and blades from the "first purely Olmec occupation" at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlin, the first to have blades "in any significant amount," are made of Pared6n obsidian (Cobean et al. 1971: 666).

More than two-thirds of the 86 green artifacts were in the BNL analyzed sample. This obsidian was attributable



Table 3. Obsidian and obsidian sources in the Basin of Mexico sequence, EH through FI-4. Obsidian Sources of obsidian as % of all obsidiant Sources of obsidian (blades only)t

Stage of as % of Blades Obsidian chipped Zinape- Alto- as % of Zinape- Alto-

Utilization stone* cuaro tonga Pared6n Hidalgo* Otumba obsidian* cuaro tonga Pared6n Hidalgo* Otumba

Stage 5 54.4 -

- 17.3 82.7 24.7 - - 35.0 65.0 (end FI-4) (81) (14) (67) (20) (7) (13) Stage 4 65.7 3.1 0.1 4.6 3.1 85.6 10.6 4.2 0.6 1.8 3.0 89.2 (end EH-4, (1558) (49) (1) (71) (48) (1331) (166) (7) (1) (3) (5) (148) FI-1 - FI-4) Stage 3 68.7 9.7 0.9 14.1 3.5 59.9 13.4 55.3 1.3 11.8 6.6 21.0 (EH-3, EH-4) (567) (55) (5) (80) (20) (340) (76) (42) (1) (9) (5) (16) Stage 2 53.8 35.9 16.7 18.5 2.4 18.8 59.6 48.3 20.8 14.0 2.8 9.0 (EH-2) (329) (103) (48) (53) (7) (54) (196) (86) (37) (25) (5) (16)

Stage 5 = that of Cuautepec component at El Arbolillo West. Stage 4 = that of Late Manantial at Santa Catarina, Bomba at Santa Catarina and Tlapacoya, El Arbolillo and

La Pastora at El Arbolillo East, Totolica and Atoto at Loma de Atoto. Stage 3 = that of Ayotla and Manantial components at Tlapacoya and El Terremote. Stage 2 = that of Coapexco.

*-Total counts for sites listed, including a few specimens excluded from universe sampled for BNL analysis.

t-Extrapolations from disproportional stratified sample, as discussed in text. Unknown source "Z" and "unassigned" not tabulated, but included in 100%.

$-Pachuca, Pizarrin and unassigned green combined.

to the Hidalgo sources: 32 to Pachuca and 12 to Pizarrin, while 13 were apparently from other outcroppings in the Pachuca or Pizarrin source areas.

More than half of the 125 fuzzy obsidian artifacts were in the BNL analyzed sample. Of these, 80.9% was attributed to Zinapecuaro. The association is 88.2% if only blades are considered and would be even higher if the three source-unassigned fuzzy blades were also from that source.

Almost tivo-thirds of the 116 grainy obsidian artifacts were in the BNL analyzed sample. There is a correlation with Zinapecuaro, although it is not as strong as the fuzzy-Zinapecuaro correlation. Sixty percent of the 75 specimens was attributable to Zinapecuaro. As with the fuzzy obsidian, the association is even higher when limited to blades. Twenty-five of the 28 fuzzy blades were from Zinapecuaro.

Stages in the History of Obsidian Utilization Extrapolation from the chemically analyzed sample,

using the strata discussed earlier, and comparisons of our data with data elsewhere has enabled us to define five stages in the history of Central Highland Mesoameri- can lithic technology (TABLES 3, 4). Stages 1, 2, and 3 occurred during the Early Horizon, a time of pan-Me- soamerican unifying elements, while stages 4 and 5 occurred during the early First Intermediate, when regionalization seems to have occurred (Price 1976; Tol- stoy 1978, n.d.).

There is considerable evidence from sites in Oaxaca, Morelos, and the southern Gulf Coast for stages 1 and

3 (Grove 1974). Non-blade obsidian artifacts characterize the first stage.3 The third stage involved significant numbers of prismatic blades in association with the presence of San Lorenzo-Olmec style within ceramic assem- blages.

The second stage is transitional and evidence for it has been found at Coapexco, from which the earliest material in Tolstoy's collections was obtained. Coapex- co's obsidian utilization, at least as indicated by the collection considered, was unique. Its obsidian profile indicates a large number of sources, with Otumba obsidian playing a relatively minor role. Otumba obsidian is estimated to have comprised only 19% of the obsidian, whereas the distant Zinap6cuaro obsidian is estimated to represent a 36% plurality, and the comparably distant Altotonga obsidian a considerable 17%.4 The Pared6n source is estimated to have provided 18% and Pachuca/ Pizarrin 2% of the obsidian.

Further, of the 13 universes, Coapexco ranks highest in proportion of blades to total obsidian. Some 60% of the obsidian artifacts are blades as compared to less than half that proportion for the second-ranking component. 3. Prismatic blades were in evidence at this time and even earlier in some regions. The blades do not appear to have been present in any abundance, however, and certainly do not suggest exchange systems that were founded on the movement of such products (see Niederber- ger 1976). 4. The percentages are based upon an estimation procedure that treated each component as a separate universe and with source-unassigned specimens divided proportionally among the seven identified sources. Similar results are obtained using an alternate estimation procedure that involves the pooling of components.



Table 4. The context of obsidian samples from early village sites in the Basin of Mexico. Volume of deposit N N

Area corresponding fragments N fragments Period excavated to material N chipped fragments analyzed

Site (Subphase) Context (sq m) (cu m) sherds stone obsidian at BNL El Arbolillo West FI-4 Domestic refuse ca. 100 cm 54.00 17.98 9,350 149 81 38 (4) (Early thick; I feature pit.

Cuautepec) Loma de Atoto (10) FI-4 Domestic refuse ca. 80 cm thick; 9.00 5.07 12,953 268 184 38

(Atoto) 1 feature pit. Loma de Atoto (10) FI-3 Domestic refuse ca. 50 cm thick; 9.00 3.21 5,938 214 159 25

(Totolica) 3 feature pits. El Arbolillo East FI-3 Domestic refuse ca. 300 cm 11.25 12.87 120,890t 368 165 40 (4) (Early La thick, very dense, probably a

Pastora) dump. El Arbolillo East FI-2 Domestic refuse ca. 200 cm 11.25 13.80 76,000t 198 110 43 (4) (El Arbolillo) thick, very dense, probably a

dump. Tlapacoya-Ayotla FI-i Domestic refuse ca. 60 cm thick. 6.75 4.05 9,966 624 512 50 (47) (Bomba) Santa Catarina (48) FI-1 Refuse fill of 4 feature pits (nos. 252.00 2.85 1,875 170 66 8

(Bomba) 1, 6, 15, and top of 7). Altica (81) EH-4-FI-2 Surface scatter. - - 490 354 343 30

(Manantial through El Arbolillo

Santa Catarina (48) EH-4 Refuse fill of 10 feature pits. 252.00 7.98 7,063 528 362 39 (Manantial, late)

Tlapacoya-Ayotla EH-4 Domestic refuse ca. 65 cm thick. 6.75 4.50 9,017 460 333 84 (47) (Manantial) El Terremote (51) EH-3-EH-4 Domestic refuse ca. 40-100 cm 227.36 29.88 4,111 240 151 52

(Ayotla, thick, on and near 2 house Manantial) mounds; 1 feature pit.

Tlapacoya-Ayotla EH-3 Domestic refuse ca. 60 cm thick. 6.75 4.05 5,929 125 83 29 (47) (Ayotla) Coapexco (34) EH-2 Domestic refuse ca. 45-100 cm 243.50 64.30 33,702 596T 318t 111

(Coapexco) thick, associated with 4 dwellings and intervening spaces; 28 feature pits.

*Total volume of deposit removed is generally greater than shown. Only units shown by analysis to contain little or no intrusive material are considered here.

tFigure includes estimate of uncounted body sherds. tUnlike figures in Table 3, these exclude specimens that cannot be matched with ceramics or excavated deposits.

On the other hand, obsidian and chipped stone in general are relatively infrequent, as indicated by the ratios of obsidian to chipped stone and of chipped stone to pottery sherds. Coapexco ranks 11th on an obsidian-to-chipped- stone index and 10th on a chipped-stone-to-sherd index. As to the blades themselves, the estimates indicate that most of them were from the distant sources: 48% from Zinap6cuaro, 21% from Altotonga, 14% from Pared6n, 9% from Otumba, and 3% from Pachuca/Pizarrin.

A first glance at Coapexco's obsidian blades and at its ceramics of the San Lorenzo-Olmec tradition would appear to put it in the third stage of obsidian production and distribution. In comparing the dates for Coapexco (EH-2), however, with the sites elsewhere that first have significant numbers of blades, one finds that Coapexco was earlier. The San Lorenzo subphase on the Gulf

Coast, the first purely Olmec occupation and the first with a significant number of blades, was contemporaneous with Coapexco and the following Ayotla sub- phases, but the vast increase in blades occurred in San Lorenzo B, dating to EH-3 and EH-4. Early San Jose in Oaxaca may have been as early as EH-2, but it had a relatively small amount of blades. Late San Jose, with its abundant blades, began, perhaps, as early as the end of EH-3. And obsidian blades appeared in Morelos in EH-4.

Considering the nature of the Coapexco materials, several questions can be raised. First, how is one to interpret the high proportion of blades as compared with the low proportion of obsidian within the chipped stone assemblage and the low ratio of obsidian to sherds? Second, why should there have been such a variety of



sources all supplying blades? Third, why was there such an emphasis on a product, blades, that suggests, if not mass production, at least a more effective use of raw material? Fourth, how is one to interpret the high proportions of the distant obsidians in general, and of the distant obsidian blades in particular? Fifth, how is one to interpret the higher proportion of blades in the more distant sources-from blades being 30% of the Otumba obsidian to being 83% of the Zinapecuaro obsidian? Sixth, why would such a constellation precede the pan- Mesoamerican spread of obsidian blades?

Here are some possible answers. First, the overall picture suggests that Coapexco was a "middleman" community in obsidian exchange; that is, its inhabitants ac- quired obsidian from distant sources and .passed significant quantities of it, perhaps already in blade form, to other communities. This would be consistent with the great emphasis on blades in Coapexco, with its having a surplus-generating technology, and with its having little evidence of in situ blade-making (there does seem to be, however, more variability in Coapexco's blades, as mea- sured by width, and in the greater number of imperfect blades than in other components). Second, if obsidian was being transported long distances, with people carry- ing what was most valuable and leaving behind what was of least use, then we would expect blades or already prepared blade-cores to have been carried-which would be consistent with the relatively large proportion of blades among all sources and the greater proportion of blades among the more distant obsidians. Third, if, for Coapexco and its contemporaries, access to Otumba and Pared6n was from the east, through what has been re- ferred to, for later times, as the "Teotihuacain Corridor," then the Basin of Mexico communities may not have been served by any consequent blade distribution.5 Fourth, if Coapexco served as a home base for itinerant blade-makers (shades of V. Gordon Childe's "itinerant smiths" [Childe 1965: 86]), who perhaps made blades or merely prepared blade-cores near the sources and carried them (rather than the heavier unfinished nodules), then we would expect such itinerants to exchange blades with villages they passed, perhaps even producing the blades right there in the village. Such activity would have helped to create a market for blades. Because of the selectivity of the villagers and/or because of the limited production for any one village, the itinerants

perhaps would have been left with a rather wide variety of blades to take back to Coapexco (including some not- so-good-ones). Such would be consistent with the blade variability found there. All of this would be consistent, too, with the presence at Coapexco of a highly produc- tive technology which: 1) produced blades from a variety of sources; 2) overshadowed simpler obsidian manufacturing strategies; and 3) preceded the rapid spread of blade technology throughout Mesoamerica. Fifth, if there were itinerant blade-makers, two acquisition and assimilation patterns for obsidian were perhaps present, the first resulting in crudely-produced obsidian products (nodule-smashings?) that probably came from the closest obsidian sources, and the second resulting in obsidian blades from itinerants, which would be of whatever obsidian the itinerant was using.

A final conjecture. If indeed the Coapexco community anticipated some of the features later characteristic of the Olmec tradition on the Gulf Coast, and if indeed it had developed the organizational structure for mining, manufacturing, and marketing obsidian blades, then perhaps the subsequent events on the Gulf Coast can be explained as the application of such organizational skills (a variation of Rathje's model [Rathje 1971]) to the resource-deficient lowlands of ones originally developed in the central highlands, and perhaps, ultimately, further west (Covarrubias revisited [Covarrubias 1957]). At minimum, Coapexco's peculiarities, including its un- usually high location (2600 m, an elevation where per- manent settlement was rare at any period) in the southern gateway into the Basin and its relatively brief occupation (100 to perhaps 200 years), do suggest a transition in the local economy that seemingly anticipates a similar change in other parts of Mesoamerica.

The third stage followed this transition. It involved the almost simultaneous appearance of significant numbers of blades throughout Mesoamerica together with San Lorenzo-Olmec-style materials. This pattern was in evidence in three Basin of Mexico components (Ayotla subphase at Tlapacoya-Ayotla, the EH-3 to 4 transition at El Terremote, and Manantial subphase at Tlapacoya- Ayotla). In contrast to Coapexco, the majority of the obsidian in these three components was attributable to Otumba. The blades comprised only 12%, 18%, and 12%, respectively, of the obsidian in these components. Sources of the blades were varied. The manufacturing profile for Otumba obsidian shows blades to have been relatively unimportant (5%, 1%, and 5%, respectively), the bulk of the Otumba obsidian having been crude flakes or smashings. In contrast, the modal source for blades during Ayotla subphase (EH-3) appears to have been Pared6n, while during the EH-3 to 4 transition and during Manantial (EH-4) it was Zinap6cuaro. With respect

5. This is rather uncertainly offered, for while it would be consistent with the relatively equal proportions of Otumba and Pared6n (and Altotonga) obsidian at Coapexco and with the possibly small amount of blades within the Basin during EH-2, it would not be consistent with the increasing proportions of blades from Otumba to Pared6n to Altotonga.



to these last two components, most of the Zinapecuaro obsidian was in blade form.

Thus, in the Basin of Mexico during EH-3 and EH-4 two obsidian industries were contemporaneous: one involved blades made, often but not necessarily, of distant obsidian; the other involved crude non-blade materials (smashings?) usually made from the local sources. The first suggests that regional specialists (perhaps itinerant blade-makers, perhaps village specialists served by mid- dlemen) were providing the blades. The second suggests that villagers were fashioning sharp-edged tools themselves.

The fourth stage of obsidian utilization is associated with the decline of pan-Mesoamerican influence and the appearance of a general pattern of regional development. In the Basin of Mexico it is in evidence in eight components that span the very end of EH-4 and the beginning of FI-4. Thus this stage was slightly out of phase with the early First Intermediate period (Middle Preclassic). It began, ran its course, and ended slightly in advance of the corresponding cycle of changes in cultural styles that define the Middle Preclassic.

When compared with the third stage, the fourth stage shows a still higher reliance on Otumba obsidian. Otumba obsidian made up more than three-fourths of the obsidian in these eight components (late Manantial at Santa Catarina 79%, early Bomba at Santa Catarina 95%, Bomba at Tlapacoya-Ayotla 96%, Altica 99%, El Arbolillo at El Arbolillo East 77%, Early La Pastora at El Arbolillo East 84%, Totolica at Loma de Atoto 91%, and Atoto at Loma de Atoto 78%). Blades tended to be of Otumba obsidian and less prevalent (6%, 11%, 15%, 1%, 13%, 9%, 6%, and 11% of the obsidian, respectively). The manufacturing profiles for Otumba obsidian show blades to have been somewhat more important than Otumba blades were during the third stage (in fourth stage components, Otumba blades were 6%, 11%, 14%, 1%, 14%, 10%, 7%, and 14% of the Otumba obsidian, respectively).

Thus regionalization from late EH-4 to early FI-4 in the Basin of Mexico is indicated by reliance, for both blade and non-blade materials, on the local obsidian sources (Otumba primarily). But during this time, development of a blade-producing industry for more distant markets may have been taking place near the local sources and, if so, may have been a precursor of subsequent developments. The fifth stage gives some further indication of a trend toward that subsequent development.

That stage of obsidian utilization is in evidence in only one component, the Early Cuautepec subphase at El Arbolillo West (early FI-4). If the sample provides an accurate representation of this component, then blades

constituted 25% of the obsidian, the largest percentage since EH-2 (Coapexco). Thirty-five percent of the blades were from Pachuca and/or Pizarrin and 65% from Otumba. Little Hidalgo material other than blades was present. The manufacturing profile of Otumba obsidian shows a relatively high proportion of blades as compared with all the earlier components, except EH-2 Coapexco. Nineteen percent of the Otumba obsidian artifacts were blades. Finally, no source other than Otumba, Pachuca, or Pizarrin was utilized.

The obsidian of the FI-4 occupation of El Arbolillo West, in fact, accords well with the obsidian movement presented by Charlton. According to Charlton's inter- pretations of his Tezoyuca and Patlachique phases (FI-8 and FI-9 [Charlton 1978: 1233]): "The continuing ab- sence of Pared6n obsidian from the Valley of Mexico and the existence there of both Otumba and Navajas obsidian factory workshops sufficient to supply local demand suggest that the Tepeapulco area was geared to production for foreign trade."

Cuautepec at El Arbolillo West, with its obsidian from only Otumba and Pachuca and/or Pizarrin, seems to be tied in tightly to a local Basin of Mexico distribution system. Its high proportion of blades indicates that, un- like the fourth stage pattern, the high production capa- bility and special skill implied by blades were being harnessed. Such an interpretation would be consistent with Tolstoy's suggestion that the inhabitants of such sites may have been a peasantry subservient to a major ceremonial center and that Cuicuilco may have been that ceremonial center (Tolstoy 1978). Thus, cultural complexity in the Basin may have been approaching the level achieved by urban Teotihuacain.

These five stages offer support for several evolution- ary trends. First is the replacement of the crude nodule- smashing technology by the production efficiency of blade-making. Second is the growing importance of craft specialization that blade-making could imply. Third is the creation of a significant market demand for blades, which thus served as positive feedback for the growth of blade-making industries.

Acknowledgments We thank R. Zeitlin for providing source samples from

the Yale University collection. Others also due our ap- preciation are T. H. Charlton, J. Ericson, and R. Sidrys for providing additional Mexican and Guatemalan obsidian source samples they had collected personally.

Martin William Boksenbaum has a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the City University of New York.



Currently he is a science teacher at Allen High School, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and is teaching sociology and anthropology courses as Lecturer at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, Center Valley, and as Adjunct Professor at Northampton County Area Community College, Bethlehem. He resides at 287 Long Lane Road, Treichlers, PA 18086.

Paul Tolstoy is Professor of Archaeology at the Universite de Montreal. He has carried out much fieldwork and analyses of artifacts from Basin of Mexico sites and has presented several interpretive syntheses of the cultural sequence in the Basin of Mexico. His academic address is: Departement d'Anthropologie; Universite de Montreal, CP6128, Succursale "A", Montreal, P.Q., H3C 3J7, Canada.

Garman Harbottle, of the Chemistry Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory, has long been involved with chemical analyses of archaeological materials. He may be reached at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973.

Jerome Kimberlin, who has been neutron activation analyst for a number of archaeological projects, is currently engaged in air pollution analysis for Chevron, Inc.

Mary Neivens is currently writing final reports of northern Belize fieldwork that was sponsored by the Universidad de las Americas, Puebla, Mexico.

Boksenbaum, Martin W. 1978 Lithic Technology in the Basin of Mexico During

the Early and Middle Preclassic. Ph. D. disserta- tion, City University of New York. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

1980 "Basic Mesoamerican Stone-Working: Nodule Smashing?" Lithic Technology 9(1): 12-26.

Charlton, Thomas H. 1978

"Teotihuacain, Tepeapulco, and Obsidian Exploita- tion," Science 200: 1227-1236.

1979 "Modelos de Producci6n e Intercambio en Meso- america," paper presented at the XVI Mesa Re- donda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Saltillo, Coahuila.

Childe, V. Gordon 1965 What Happened in History. Baltimore: Penguin

Books Ltd. Clark, John E.

1979 "A Method for the Analysis of Mesoamerican Lithic Industries: An Application to the Obsidian Industry of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico," unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Cobean, Robert M., Michael D. Coe, Edward A. Perry, Jr., Karl T. Turekian, and Dinkar P. Kharkar 1971 "Obsidian Trade and San Lorenzo Tenochtitlain,

Mexico," Science 174: 666-671. Covarrubias, Miguel

1957 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Knopf.

Crabtree, Don E. 1968 "Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic

Blades," American Antiquity 33: 446-478. Gould, Richard A., Dorothy A. Koster, and Ann H. L. Sontz

1971 "The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Ab- origines of Australia," American Antiquity 36: 149- 169.

Grove, David C. 1974 "The Highland Olmec Manifestation: A Consider-

ation of What Is and Isn't," in Norman Hammond, ed., Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches. Austin: University of Texas Press, 109-128.

Harding, Thomas G. 1967 Voyagers of the Vitiaz Strait. Seattle: University of

Washington Press. Hayden, Brian

1980 "Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed Pebbles and Splintered Pieces," Lithic Technology 9(1): 2- 7.

Jelinek, Arthur, Bruce Bradley, and Bruce Huckell 1971 "The Production of Secondary Multiple Flakes,"

American Antiquity 36: 198-200. Kobayashi, Hiroaki

1975 "The Experimental Study of Bipolar Flakes," in Earl Swanson, ed., Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools. The Hague: Mouton, 115-127.

Neivens, Mary, Garman Harbottle, and Jerome Kimberlin 1983 "Trace Elemental Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts

from Northern Belize," in Raymond V. Sidrys, ed., Archaeological Excavations in Northern Belize, Central America. Institute of Archaeology, Univer- sity of California, Los Angeles, Monograph XVII. Los Angeles: University of California, 321-339.

Niederberger, Christine 1976 Zohapilco: Cinco Milenios de Ocupaci6n Humana

en un Sitio Lacustre de la Cuenca de Mexico. Co- lecci6n Cientifica, Arqueologia, Departamento de Prehistoria 30. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de An- tropologia e Historia.

:rice, Barbara J. 1976 "A Chronological Framework for Cultural Devel-

opment in Mesoamerica," in Eric R. Wolf, ed., The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 13-21.

Rathje, William 1971 "The Origin and Development of Lowland Classic

Maya Civilization," American Antiquity 36: 275- 285.

Santley, Robert S. 1976 "Formative Settlement Patterns in the Cuauhtitlan



Region, State of Mexico: A Preliminary Evalua- tion," paper presented at the XLII International Congress of Americanists, Paris.

Sheets, Payson D. 1972 "A Model of Obsidian Technology Based on Pre-

classic Workshop Debris in El Salvador," Ceramica de Cultura Maya 8: 17-33.

1974 Differential Change Among the Precolumbian Ar- tifacts of Chalchuapa, El Salvador. Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

1975 "The Structure of a Prehistoric Industry in Meso- america (with CA* Treatment)," Current Anthro- pology 16: 369-391.

Sheets, Payson D., and Guy R. Muto 1972 "Pressure Blades and Total Cutting Edge: An Ex-

periment in Lithic Technology," Science 175: 632- 634.

Spence, Michael W., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1972 "Prehispanic Obsidian Exploitation in Central Mex-

ico: A Preliminary Synthesis," in Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 45. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1-43.

Tolstoy, Paul 1971 "Progress Report on Archeological Investigations

of Early and Middle Preclassic Occupations in the Basin of Mexico, May-October 1971," unpublished report, NSF Grant GS 28609 and CUNY FRAP Grant 1203.

1973 "Preliminary Report on Investigations at Early and Middle Preclassic Sites in the Basin of Mexico," unpublished report submitted to Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

1975 "Settlement and Population Trends in the Basin of Mexico (Ixtapaluca and Zacatenco Phases)," Jour- nal of Field Archaeology 2: 331-349.

1978 "Western Mesoamerica Before A.D. 900," in C. W. Meighan, ed., Chronologies in New World Ar- cheology. New York: Academic Press, 241-284.

1979 "The Olmec in the Central Highlands: A Non-Quin- tessential Approach," American Antiquity 44: 333- 337.

n.d. "Western Mesoamerica Before A.D. 900," exten- sive revision and updating, as of 1980, of Tolstoy 1978.

Tolstoy, Paul, and Suzanne K. Fish 1975 "Surface and Subsurface Evidence for Community

Size at Coapexco, Mexico," Journal of Field Ar- chaeology 2: 97-104.

Tolstoy, Paul, Suzanne K. Fish, Martin W. Boksenbaum, Kathryn Blair Vaughn, and C. Earle Smith 1977 "Early Sedentary Communities of the Basin of

Mexico," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 91-106. Tolstoy, Paul, and Louise I. Paradis

1970 "Early and Middle Preclassic Culture in the Basin of Mexico," Science 167: 344-351.


Article Contentsp. [65]p. 66p. 67p. 68p. 69p. 70p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75

Issue Table of ContentsJournal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 1-122Front MatterField Reports: Excavation and SurveySubsurface Interface Radar at Sepphoris, Israel, 1985 [pp. 1-8]Prehistoric Water Wells on the Southern High Plains: Clues to Altithermal Climate [pp. 9-28]Byzantine Nomadism in the Negev: Results from the Emergency Survey [pp. 29-42]A Survey of the Egyptian Radar Channels: An Example of Applied Archaeology [pp. 43-63]

Special StudiesObsidian Industries and Cultural Evolution in the Basin of Mexico before 500 B. C. [pp. 65-75]An Archaeometric Study of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Exchange in Argolis and Korinthia (Corinthia), Greece [pp. 77-90]Analysis of Lithic Flakes at the Calico Site, California [pp. 91-106]

Public Archaeology Forum [pp. 107-111]Archaeometric Clearinghouse XXII [pp. 113-116]News and Short Contributions [pp. 117-120]Perspectives [pp. 121-122]Back Matter

obsidian industries and cultural evolution in the basin of mexico before 500 b. c

Documents

basin tolstoy

movement of obsidian

obsidian manufacturing

jstor terms

jstor archive

utcyour use

geologic source data

terms conditions of