11â¨Intermittent Domestic Lapidary Production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas,...

IIII

Housework: Craft Production andDomestic Economy in AncientMesoamerica

2009Archeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association, Number 19

Kenneth G. Hirth, Editor

Contributions byAndrew BalkanskyFrances BerdanElizabeth BrumfielRonald CastanzoMichelle CroissierVeronique, DarrasJason De LeónKenneth HirthJesus Carlos Lascanco ArceBlanca MaldonadoDeborah NicholsChristopher PoolErick RochetteJeffrey SahagúnMari Carmen Serra PucheEdward StarkCarl WendtRandolf Widmer

11

Intermittent Domestic Lapidary Productionduring the Late Formative Period at Nativitas,

Tlaxcala, Mexico

Kenneth G. HirthPenn State University

Mari Carmen Serra PucheUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

Jesus Carlos Lazcano ArceUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

andJason De Leon

University of Washington

“The lapidary [is] well reared, well advised; a counselor,informed in his art; an abrader, a polisher; one who workswith sand; who glues [mosaic] with thick glue, workswith abrasive sand, rubs [stones] with fine cane, makesthem shine. . .The bad lapidary. . . scrapes [the stones]who roughens them; who raises a clattering din. [Heis] stupid, bird[-like]. He scrapes [the stones]; rough-ens, shatters, pulverizes, ruins, damages them; raises aclattering din.” (Sahagun 1961:28)

Lapidary work was an important craft in prehispanicMesoamerica. Lapidary craftsman made a variety of the

precious ornamental regalia worn by rulers and elite mem-bers of society. These regalia ranged from beads, labrets andearspools, to pendants and mosaic masks. Sahagun identifiesthe lapidary craftsman by the work done and the technologyemployed to produce finished goods. In the preceding epi-graph Sahagun identifies the lapidary as one who abrades,cuts, drills, polishes, and fashions a variety of materials.While Sahagun (1959:80–81, 1961:28) focuses on the pre-cious materials that the lapidary processed (jade, turquoise,amethyst, opal, and rock crystal), archaeological investiga-

tions indicate that they also worked an array of semi-preciousitems including shell, slate, pyrite, and obsidian (Charltonet al. 1991; Di Peso 1974; Hempenius Turner 1987; OtisCharlton 1993).

The study of prehispanic lapidary work is importantfor two reasons. First, most of the items produced wereitems of personal adornment and costume regalia. Thesegoods helped mark the status of the individuals who worethem and were used in ceremonies and ritual enactmentsat all levels of society. Lapidary items were high valuegoods that were used in burial and ritual contexts through-out Mesoamerica from the Early Formative period onward.Second, lapidary work is one of the prestige good produc-tion systems that can be readily studied using archaeologicaldata. Although production debitage is small, lapidary workproduces durable waste in the form of cutout debitage, shat-ter, partially drilled and broken pieces, tools, adhesives, andabrasives (Charlton et al. 1991; Costin 1991; Kenoyer et al.1991; Kovacevich 2007; Rochette, this volume; Widmer,this volume). Study of where lapidary work took place,

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 157–173, ISSN 1551-823X,online ISSN 1551-8248. C© 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-8248.2009.01019.x.

158 Kenneth G. Hirth, Mari Carmen Serra Puche, Jesus Carlos Lazcano Arce, and Jason De Leon

Figure 1. Location of Nativitas, Xochitecatl, and Cacaxtla in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Basin.

and how these goods were controlled and distributed isfundamental to the study of the structure and operationof prestige goods economies throughout Mesoamerica andelsewhere.

During the Formative period, many areas of Mesoamer-ica were organized as ranked societies in which the circula-tion of prestige goods played an important role in regulatingsocial relations within and between groups (Aizpurua andMcAnany 1999; Clark and Blake 1994; Dalton 1977; Lesure1999; Smith and Schortman 1989). Emerging elite are be-lieved to have sponsored the production of prestige goodsand controlled their distribution as a strategy of buildingsocial clientages within society (Brumfiel and Earle 1987;Earle 2002; Hayden 2001; Lesure 1999; Peregrine 1991;Schortman and Urban 1992). While the prestige goods econ-omy is an important theoretical framework for understand-ing the emergence of complex society, very little is knownabout how prestige goods were produced, used, or circulatedin social contexts in Mesoamerica.

This presentation examines the evidence for lapidarycraft production recovered in 1998 and 2000 at the rural siteof Nativitas, Tlaxcala, Mexico (Figure 1). Excavations hererecovered evidence for the manufacture of jade beads andother small lapidary items from a Late Formative (550–150

B.C.) household located on Terrace 5 (Figure 2). The loca-tion of a lapidary craftsman manufacturing high value pres-tige goods in a rural domestic workshop was an unexpectedsurprise. The obvious questions were how was this house-hold obtaining the raw material it worked and for whomwas it producing the finished goods? The Terrace 5 house-hold was not located near a civic-precinct or attached to anelite residence, which suggests that the artisan was an inde-pendent craftsman who produced lapidary goods as a partthe household’s normal subsistence regime. We character-ize the lapidary as being male because that is how Sahagun(1961:28) describes and depicts this artisan in the FlorentineCodex. Nevertheless, the work is not physically demandingand would not preclude female participation in productionactivities. The evidence for lapidary production is presentedhere along with a discussion of what crafting on Terrace 5 in-dicates about the organization of domestic craft productionduring the Late Formative period. This evidence consists ofworked and unworked raw material, partially worked andbroken artifacts, and several types of tools used in lapidarymanufacturing. Nativitas lapidary production is best mod-eled as intermittent production by an artisan residing in ahousehold whose primary activities were focused on subsis-tence agriculture.

159

Figure 2. Terrace 5 Features.

The Site of Nativitas

The site of Nativitas is located in the eastern hill regionof the Bloque Nativitas-Xochitecatl in the northern Puebla-Tlaxcala valley 23 km northwest of the city of Puebla, Mex-ico (Figure 1). The Bloque Nativitas-Xochitecatl consistsof a series of low hills and mesas covering approximately10 sq km. It was an important area of prehispanic settle-ment in the northern valley of Puebla-Tlaxcala, with ma-jor occupations during the Late Formative (550–150 B.C.)and Epiclassic periods (A.D. 650–850) (Serra Puche 1998).

Two well known sites are located here. The earliest of thesewas the large site of Xochitecatl which was the centerof a powerful chiefdom during the Late Formative period(Armillas 1995a, 1995b; Davila 1975; Serra Puche 1998;Spranz 1970, 1978). The other important center was the siteof Cacaxtla which rose to power during the Epiclassic periodafter the decline of Teotihuacan (Armillas 1995a; Foncer-rada de Molina 1993). Both of these sites are located alongthe western margins of the Bloque Nativitas-Xochitecatlwhere they overlook the agriculturally productive Puebla-Tlaxcala valley.


Settlement survey has documented prehispanic occu-pation throughout the Bloque Nativitas-Xochitecatl (GarcıaCook 1981; Serra Puche 1998). One important area wasthe hill overlooking the modern town of Nativitas, locatedthree km east of the important civic-ceremonial center ofXochitecatl. The site of Nativitas was a dispersed rural com-munity with two major occupations. The earliest was duringthe Late Formative period, contemporaneous with the siteof Xochitecatl, while the later coincided with the growth ofCacaxtla.

Both the Late Formative and Epiclassic were periodsof regional competition within the Puebla-Tlaxcala valley(Garcıa Cook 1981; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973). Duringthe Late Formative period the Puebla-Tlaxcala valley ap-pears to have been divided up into a series of competingchiefdoms with large centers located at Xochitecatl, Tlalan-caleca, Totimehuacan, Coapan, and possibly Cholula (Car-ballo and Pluckhahn 2007; Davila 1975; Garcıa Cook 1981;Mora 1975) (Figure 1). The Epiclassic was also a period ofpolitical turmoil and regional competition in Central Mexicoafter the decline of Teotihuacan (Diehl and Berlo 1989). Dur-ing both periods a good portion of rural settlement appearsto have moved to the margins of the valley and onto defend-able hillsides. This seems to have occurred at the end of theClassic period around Cholula where significant rural pop-ulation growth occurred on Cerro Zapotecas located 3 kmwest of the Cholula pyramid (Mountjoy and Peterson 1973)(Figure 1). The occupation at Nativitas grew in response tothese larger regional conditions and provided agriculturalsupport for the centers of Xochitecatl and Cacaxtla.

Excavations were conducted at Nativitas between 1998–2004 and 2007–2008 as part of the ongoing Proyecto Ar-queologico El Hombre y sus Recursos en el Sur del Valle deTlaxcala under the direction of Mari Carmen Serra Pucheand Carlos Lazcano Arce (Serra Puche et al. 1998, 2000).1

These excavations uncovered a series of domestic structuresdating to the Late Formative and Epiclassic-Early Postclas-sic period. Specifically, excavations on Terrace 5 in 1998 and2000 uncovered the remains of a Late Formative residentialgroup that contained evidence for lapidary work which isthe focus of this discussion.

The layout of the Terrace 5 residence is illustrated inFigure 2. Excavations identified the partial remains of a rockwall residential building and a small associated outbuildingalong with associated floors, artifactual debris, burials, andother features (Serra Puche et al. 1998, 2000). The mainresidential structure probably had a roof made of perishablematerial that was supported by posts identified during ex-cavation. One burial (number 5) was recovered inside thestructure at the southwest corner of the residence. Two addi-tional burials (7 and 10) were located near a hearth feature

outside the residence near its northwestern corner. Addi-tional rock alignments were identified along the westernedge of the excavation but it could not be determined whatthese might represent. A compact earthen floor was identi-fied across the interior of the structure. Ceramic and lithicremains were recovered from this floor which, together withits layout, confirm that it was a residential building.

The area immediately south of the residential structureswas a patio area that contained a small 2 × 3 m outbuild-ing with a stone foundation. A compact earthen pedestriansurface was identified in several areas of the patio as well asinside the small outbuilding. The old patio surface could beidentified on the south side of the outbuilding which was im-portant because evidence for lapidary work was associatedwith the earthen floor of the patio.

The evidence for lapidary work was found on the occu-pation surface in two areas at Terrace 5. The first work areawas excavated in 1998 and is located inside and along thewestern wall of the residential structure (Figure 2). A totalof 977 chert microdrills and 420 jade fragments were recov-ered from two excavation squares in this area.2 The secondwork area was identified during the 2000 field season. Thisarea was located on the patio surface 1.5 meters south ofthe small outbuilding. Production debris was concentratedin unit S113E259, square 4, around a circular organic stainthat appeared to be the remains of a wooden post. While thispost may have supported a roofed over work area, the con-centration of debitage around its base suggests that it morelikely was a half-post set vertically in the ground as a lowwork station. The production debris concentrated aroundthis post consisted of 3,919 pieces of jade debitage, 169chert microdrills, 41 small basalt grinding disks, and oneperforated stone disk that may have been a tool used withthe grinding disks (Figure 3). Both the jade debitage andthe small basalt disks occurred in compact concentrations20–30 cm in diameter adjacent to one another; the chertdrills were scattered around them (Figure 4). An additional80 chert microdrills and 27 jade fragments were found inthe three adjacent excavation squares to the north and southof unit 4.

The evidence indicates that there were two lapidarywork areas in the Terrace 5 domestic structure. The patiowas the main area used for crafting. It is here that most ofthe jade debitage was recovered along with chert drills andthe basalt disks used in lapidary work. The second work areawas inside the east structure and had higher concentrationsof chert drills than jade debitage. Whether this was wherethe drills were made or just where they were stored is un-clear. Both of these work zones are small, with concentratedproduction debitage suggesting highly discrete productionareas within the household like those Clark (1991a, 1991b)

161

Figure 3. Patio post hole and basalt disks.

Figure 4. Patio concentration of jade. Oval shows jade concen-tration.

reports for flaked stone reduction among the Lacandon. Un-fortunately, problems with the land owner early in the 2000field season forced excavations to be terminated before thepatio and the remainder of the structures on Terrace 5 couldbe completely investigated. The lapidary production debrisand technological categories from these excavations are de-scribed below.

Jade Production Debitage

Lapidary debitage consists of 4,657 small pieces of ap-ple green jade recovered from the two production areas.The majority of this material (96.7%, n = 4505) consistsof small irregular jade fragments (Table 1). These frag-ments are percussion shatter, produced when nodules andlaminar pieces of jade were intentionally fragmented intosmall pieces ranging from 3–20 mm in length (Figure 5).In their unmodified form these pieces resemble a coarsegravel and could be misinterpreted as waste. Close inspec-tion, however, reveals that these jade fragments are actuallythe first stage in a sequence of small bead manufacture pro-duced by intentionally breaking jade nodules into sectionsusing percussion. It is this first stage of production thatSahagun refers to as “shattering” in the epigraph to thischapter.

Also included with this irregular jade debitage werea small number of unfinished and broken artifacts that in-clude bead blanks, partially drilled bead preforms, brokenbeads, two small tubular beads, and one small earspool(Figures 6–7, Table 1). While small in number (3.3%,n = 152), these unfinished artifacts provide the completepicture of how the manufacturing process proceeded fromfragmenting the jade nodule through the final finishing of acompleted bead.

Visual inspection of the jade pieces revealed virtuallyno variation in color or type of raw material. The majority ofthe jade is a homogenous, high quality light green jade iden-tical to jade recovered from the Motagua Valley (Garber et al.1993; Hammond et al. 1977; Hirth and Hirth 1992, 1993;Kovacevich 2007; Rochette, this volume). The homogeneityin color and texture suggests that the majority of the frag-ments, preforms, and beads were processed from a few jadenodules recovered from the same deposits. No weatheredsurface or exterior cortex was noted on any of the pieces, in-dicating that these nodules arrived either as cobbles collectedfrom alluvial deposits or in some partially processed form.Analysis using INAA and LA-ICP-MS of three of these jadepieces at California State University, Long Beach by HectorNeff confirmed that the raw material was a Motagua source.3

Only one piece of extraneous material was recovered fromthe excavations. This piece was also analyzed and the resultsindicate that it was similar to artifacts recovered from theAlta Verapaz region of Guatemala (Hector Neff, personalcommunication).

The focus of lapidary work was the production of smalljade beads. Manufacture was a four-step process and em-ployed a relatively simple technology. First, nodules werebroken into small pieces to create a wide range of shapesand sizes. Second, a small jade fragment was selected from


Table 1. Counts of greenstone, chert microdrills and basalt grinding artifacts and debitage recovered on Terrace 5.

Greenstone Production Debitage Frequency Percent

Percussion Fragments and Shatter 4,505 96.7Bead Preform 29 .6Partially Drilled Preform 44 1.0Bead Fragment 76 1.6Tubular Bead 2 >.1Small Earspool 1 >.1

Total Greenstone 4,657 100.0Chert Microdrills Frequency Percent

Raw Material 4 .3Flakes with Cortex 18 1.5Interior Flakes 79 6.4Triangular Blades 53 4.3Prismatic Blades 137 11.2Microdrill Preforms 3 .2Large Microdrills 72 5.9Medium Microdrills 246 20.1Small Microdrills 125 10.2Microdrill Fragments 51 4.2Unidentified Fragments and Shatter 438 35.7

Total Chert Microdrills 1,226 100.0Basalt Grinding Disks Frequency Percent

Disk Preforms 2 4.9Single Convex Disks 7 17.1Bi-Convex Disks 18 43.9Double Convex Disks 14 34.1

Total Basalt Grinding Disks 41 100.0

Figure 5. Jade percussion shatter.

the percussion fragments and was shaped into a rough beadpreform by grinding and abrading (Figure 6). These beadpreforms were often intentionally irregular or slight rectan-gular in form so that they could be stabilized in a small jig ordie. Third, once stabilized, bead preforms were then drilledto create a suspension hole for the bead. Drilling was a dif-ficult task and bead preforms occasionally broke or wereabandoned before completion, examples of which were re-

Figure 6. Jade bead preforms.

covered in the collections (Figure 7). Fourth, after drillingbeads were brought to their finished form and polished to amedium to high luster (Figure 8).

The initial stage of breaking jade nodules into fragmentsmight seem like a wasteful way to process a high valuecommodity like jade. However, from the perspective of thecraftsmen it was a time saving and effective way to producesmall workable raw material in short amount of time. Piecesthat were too small for bead production could have been usedin the manufacture of small decorative mosaics, although

163

Figure 7. Broken perforated beads.

Figure 8. Finished jade beads.

there is no indication that any mosaic work took place onTerrace 5. While effective, this technique did produce wasteand it is interesting that despite the Motagua jade sourcebeing 1200 km away, the Nativitas lapidaries were moreinterested in saving time than making efficient use of everypiece of raw material by sawing pieces into usable preforms.Of course what is waste? Small fragments could have beenexchanged to other artisans making mosaics or processedinto a grinding compound used to cut both jade and othersofter materials. Furthermore, jade may not have been asscarce as we sometimes think it was and may have circulatedand been accessible to domestic craftsmen through inter-regional exchange networks.

The use of percussion to segment and section jade nod-ules apparently was a common technique used by lapidariesin Mesoamerica. The epigraph from Sahagun at the begin-ning of this chapter illustrates this point. Although he refersto the bad lapidary as a person who shatters, pulverizes, anddamages the stone, Sahagun (1961:26) seems to be describ-ing both a commonly used technique and its misapplica-tion at the same time. Fragmentation by percussion seemsto have been a regular aspect of lapidary work since he

Figure 9. Chert drills.

Figure 10. Chert drill tips.

describes good lapidaries as regularly “breaking” raw ma-terial when they worked amethyst and bloodstone. Afterbreakage, craftsmen could then select the piece of stoneto be worked (Sahagun 1959:81). This is the same patternfound archaeologically by Kovacevich (2007) and Rochette(this volume) in the Maya region.

Lapidary Microdrills

Drills are an indispensable component of the lapidarytoolkit needed to produce jade beads. A total of 1,226 smallmicrodrills and microdrill preforms were recovered fromTerrace 5 (Figures 9–10). These drills are small, averag-ing 12.8 mm in length (SD = 2.6) and 6.6 mm in width(SD = 1.6). They vary in shape from short to long depend-ing on their intended usage and stage of use. Short drills wereused for initial hole drilling and have blunt edges. Longerdrills were needed for interior hole drilling and the perfora-tion of thick beads. The diameter of drill tips ranges from.8–2.0 mm in width depending on their length and degree of


Figure 11. Microdrill manufacturing byproducts. A) Core plat-forms removed from chert microcores during core rejuvenation,B) Triangular chert blade used as a preform for preparing amicrodrill.

wear (Figure 10). The shape of the microdrills suggests thatthey were end hafted into a shaft (e.g. see Aldenderfer 1991,Figure 8; Aldenderfer et al. 1989) that was rotated by handor with the help of a bow drill (Figure 9).

Microdrills were manufactured from small microbladesand flakes of white chert that were removed using pressurefrom small hand-held cores like those documented for smallcore obsidian blade production at Xochicalco (Flenniken andHirth 2003; Hirth this volume). The different stages of drillpreparation found in the assemblage makes it clear that mi-crodrills were manufactured by the artisans who used themat Terrace 5 (Figure 11). The complete microdrill manufac-turing sequence was recovered beginning with initial coreshaping, removal of triangular and prismatic blades, core

rejuvenation, shaping drill preforms and finished micro-drills, to their final use, breakage, and eventual discard(Table 1).

Although no complete cores were found, the shape ofthe chert microblades and the core platforms removed dur-ing core rejuvenation (Figure 11A) indicate that microcoreswere conical in form. The most frequent preforms used tomake microdrills in the collections were small blades witha triangular cross-section (Figure 11B). Microdrills usuallywere shaped with long tapering tips that often broke off dur-ing use. Tips were probably reshaped on blades several timesuntil all the usable length was exhausted; then drills werediscarded. Few chert flakes other than microdrill preformswere found in the collections. This is logical because thesame material used to drill jade beads would also make auseful abrasive to shape jade preforms and finished pieces. Itis likely that most small waste flakes and broken microdrillswere recycled into abrasives to use in grinding activities(Flenniken and Hirth 2003).

Three lines of evidence corroborate that the microdrillsrecovered at Terrace 5 were used to drill jade beads. Thefirst and most obvious is that all drills occur together withdrilled pieces of jade. This is a first order expectation forlapidary production and occurs in the jade production ar-eas at Cancuen (Kovacevich 2007). Second, the chert drillswere hard enough to drill and abrade the jade recovered inthe workshop. These drills have a MOHS hardness of 7.0compared to a MOHS hardness of 6.5–7.0 for the jade inthe collection. Third, the size of the microdrills correspondsto the size of the holes drilled in the whole and broken jadebeads recovered in the Terrace 5 workshop. Together theselines of evidence confirm the practice of lapidary work onTerrace 5.

In addition to jade, one small onyx vessel in the shape ofan incurving wall bowl or tecomate was recovered invertedover a red jar as part of an offering associated with theconstruction of the house. Inside the onyx bowl was a greenstone figure lying on its back (Figure 12). While cache andburial offerings are always difficult to interpret, the locationof the figure inside the covered jar may represent the spiritof the household head or the craftsman residing here. Whileonyx is easier to work than jade, no production debitage ofthis material was recovered at Terrace 5. It is likely that thegreenstone figure was made in the workshop while the onyxbowl came into the household as a gift or trade item.

Basalt Grinding Disks

One interesting set of artifacts was a cluster of 41 smallconvex basalt disks recovered on the patio surface adjacent

165

Figure 12. Onyx vessel offering from Terrace 5. Top: Originalrelationship of the onyx vessel, jade figure, and ceramic jar, Below:drawing of the jade figure 5. Drawing by Fernando Botas.

to the large concentration of jade debitage (Figure 3). Thesedisks range from 25.8 to 32.6 mm in diameter (X = 29.6,SD = 1.63) and were manufactured from a fine grainedvesicular basalt. There small size and compact groupingsuggest that they may have been stored in a perishablebag or basket. The disks occur in three forms: single con-vex, bi-convex disks and double-convex disks (Figures 13and 14). Single convex disks are flat on one side and con-vex on the other; they range from 11–21 mm in thickness(Figure 13, upper). Bi-convex disks are lozenge shaped, havea convex profile on both sides, and average 12.3 mm inthickness (Figure 13, middle). Double-convex disks have an

Figure 13. Basalt grinding disks Upper Row: single convex, Mid-dle Rows: bi-convex, Bottom Row: double-convex on one side,convex on the other Drawing by Fernando Botas.

additional convex protrusion on one or both sides whichmakes them thicker (19.7 mm) than simple bi-convex disks(Figure 13, lower). As with the chert microdrills, the recov-ery of a piece of unworked raw material along with two diskpreforms within this cache indicates that basalt disks weremade within the Terrace 5 household.

Although the exact function of these disks remains un-clear, microscopic examination of their surfaces reveals thatthey were used as grinding disks. Wear is found on theexterior surfaces of all three forms and rotational striations


Figure 14. Basalt grinding disks: Upper: Biconvex disks, Lower:Double-convex disks.

Figure 15. Striations on biconvex basalt disk. White areas onphotograph are vesicles in the disks that are filled with residue ofgrinding slurry.

are evident on the convex surface of several double-convexdisks (Figures 14 (lower) and 15). In several cases thesestriations appear in what seems to be a thin layer of resincovering the surface of the disk. The slightly vesicular natureof the basalt made them especially well adapted for grindingbecause the vesicles could hold abrasives in a wet slurry.Traces of this slurry can still be viewed in many of thesevesicles (Figure 15).

The shape of the disks and the wear on their surfacessuggests that they were used to polish or abrade concavesurfaces like those found on jade plaques and pyrite mir-rors, although neither were found in the production debris.A more likely possibility is that some disks were used topolish the frontal surfaces and throats of small earspools, abroken example of which was recovered in the jade debitage.This could account for the formation of the double-convexdisks as they are similar to ear spool polishers recovered

Figure 16. Drop of mastic found with grinding disks onTerrace 5.

from Kaminaljuyu (Kidder et al. 1946: Fig 153a). It is alsopossible that they were used to shape other materials suchas wood, reed, or bone. Whatever their function, we believethey were used in abrading and/or polishing activities withinthe workshop.

Adhesives

An interesting technological element was the recoveryof a small amount of what appears to be resin from the patiowork area that may have been used as an adhesive in con-junction with lapidary activities (Figure 16). This materialwas found together with the basalt grinding disks and pres-ence of this material adhering to the surface of several disksindicates that they were used together. The amount of adhe-sive preserved is small and it is unclear if it is a carbonizedorganic resin (Berdan et al., this volume) or chapopote im-ported from the Gulf Coast (Wendt, this volume). Possiblefunctions in a lapidary context would include use as adhesivein hafting microdrills to shafts, in mounting grinding disksin composite lapidary tools, or in finishing decorative mo-saics. As mentioned above, this last use is problematic sinceno mosaic inlays were recovered from Terrace 5. Neverthe-less, it is clear that this material was employed as a cementor binder with the basalt grinding disks since it covers theirsurfaces and displays circular striations (see Figure 15).

Intermittent Production andMulticrafting at Terrace 5

The Terrace 5 workshop represents a unique and in-triguing situation. In most respects, the residents of the Ter-race 5 household resemble other Late Formative agriculturalhouseholds excavated at Nativitas. Its residential architec-ture and ceramic and lithic inventories are the same as thosefound in other domestic contexts (Serra Puche 1998, 2009).What sets the residents of the Terrace 5 household apartfrom other houses excavated at Nativitas (Serra Puche et al.

167

1998, 2000) is their involvement in small-scale lapidaryproduction. Both of the lapidary work areas identified inthis residence only show evidence for working one mate-rial, jade. Although this may be a result of sampling error,there is no indication that materials such as onyx, shell, orother metamorphic stones from neighboring areas of CentralMexico were worked into beads or other types of artifacts.Clearly the frequency and intensity of jade work was limitedby the distance and difficulty of getting raw material fromthe Motagua source.

The logical conclusion is that lapidary production wasan intermittent craft activity within the Terrace 5 household.How it contributed to the overall economic well being of thehousehold is less clear, although the burial information sug-gests that the residents of this household were prosperous.Cache and burial offerings recovered from this householdinclude some unique and important materials including aslate pendant, pieces of green stone, a green stone figure,an onyx vessel, and a complete tortoise shell along withthe usual ceramic vessels. Likewise, several pieces of greenstone were included as part of the offering with burial 5 in-dicating that jade use was not restricted to only elite. Finally,the scale of production suggests that there was no more thanone artisan involved in this work at any one time, and thenonly on an intermittent basis.

While this would seem to be a good case for single com-modity craft production, the situation is a bit more complexthan first appearances suggest. The cache of 41 basalt disksin the patio work area raises the possibility that they wereused in processing materials other than jade. Although theymay have been employed in the manufacture of ear spools assuggested above, there was only one partial jade ear spoolrecovered in this assemblage and the percussion technol-ogy used to shape beads is not conducive for preformingearspools. These basalt disks could reflect the practice of aseparate craft either in perishable materials or some type ofraw material that was not recovered in the excavated portionof the residence.

All craftsmen need tools to carry out their craft. Whereand how prehispanic craftsmen obtained them is rarely dis-cussed although it is important for: (1) identifying craftproduction in the archaeological record, and (2) understand-ing what skills an artisan needed to practice his or her trade(Clark 1990). The manufacture of tools by craftspersons topractice his or her craft was called contingent productionin chapter 2 and there are two indications for this kind ofproduction at Terrace 5.

The first form of contingent production was the man-ufacture of the chert microdrills needed to perforate jadebeads. Technological evidence indicates that these drillswere produced within the household using a hand-held mi-

croblade reduction strategy like that used to produce obsid-ian blades at Xochicalco (Flenniken and Hirth 2003). Smallpressure microblades are the perfect preform for manufac-turing the small chert drills that were an indispensible com-ponent of lapidary toolkits. Chert microdrills have been re-covered in crafting contexts in Oaxaca (Feinman and Nichols2000; Parry 1987), the Maya region (Aldenderfer 1991; Ko-vacevich 2007), and Central Mexico (Hirth 2006; Hirth et al.2006), as well as elsewhere in the Americas (Arnold 2001;Preziosi 2001). Chert microdrills certainly were producedat Terrace 5 and we suspect that microblade production wasa regular part of the technological toolkit of all lapidarieswho needed drills to create suspension holes in hard sub-stances. The presence and use of microblade technologyunderscores that craftsmen needed diverse skills to produceand use the tools of their craft. It is highly unlikely thatTerrace 5 craftsmen could have obtained microdrills fromoutside their household even if they wanted to since theydon’t occur in, and weren’t produced for, general householdconsumption anywhere that we know of in Central Mexico.It is more likely that microblades and the microdrills weremade by an individual in this household using a specializedflaked stone pressure technology to do so.

Another example of contingent production that showsthis same level of ingenuity is the manufacture of the basaltgrinding disks (Figures 3, 13 and 14). To our knowledgeno tools of this type, much less a whole cache, have everbeen reported in Mesoamerica. These materials represent ahighly specialized toolkit of the type sometimes recovered inmortuary contexts with individuals inferred to be craftsmen(e.g. Kidder et al. 1946, Minor Grave 7). The unique andspecialized nature of these tool kits is the best argument fortheir manufacture by the craftsmen who used them.

Contingent production is a consistent dimension ofthe multicrafting activities carried out at Terrace 5. Whilelapidary skills were required to manufacture jade beads,the ability to produce flaked (microblades, microdrills) andground stone tools (basalt grinding disks) also were requiredas contingent crafting skills. Only one craft activity resultedin the production of jade items for use outside the house-hold; the other two produced a few critical tools consumedwithin the household as part of the manufacturing process(c.f. Anderson and Hirth 2009; Hirth and Castanzo 2006).The important point is that craftsmen needed to possessmultiple skills to perform their tasks. This is a dimension ofmulticrafting that needs to be recognized in any analysis ofdomestic craft production.

In chapter two it was argued that intermittent craftingprovided households with a way of maximizing their overallsubsistence productivity while minimizing risk through ac-tivity diversification. Households strive to be self-sufficient


for their food needs, and as a result can produce specialized,low demand commodities that augment household produc-tivity without endangering their survivability. In some wayssmall scale craft production with low or periodic demandmay have been optimal for households because it moreclosely matches their labor availability and output capac-ity. What is important is that high output is not a require-ment for successful production since intermittent craftingprovides a flexible, low risk solution to meeting prehispanicdemand.

One of the advantages of intermittent crafting is thatthere is no real restriction on the types of goods that house-holds can produce. Households are free to produce bothutilitarian and wealth items as long as they can procure theraw materials, master the knowledge necessary to manufac-ture them, and distribute the finished products to intendedconsumers, whether elite or non-elite. Moreover, it is overtlybiased to expect a sharp division between the production ofutilitarian and wealth goods in non-elite households beforeinvestigation begins. This is a topic for empirical research,not a priori determination. While elite households certainlywere motivated to obtain wealth goods in large quantities, themodel of intermittent production does not preclude the pro-duction of wealth goods in non-elite households for purposesof exchange. The key variables, of course, are whether ex-otic raw materials are generally accessible (see Rochette, thisvolume) or intentionally restricted and whether the techni-cal knowledge and training are readily available. If resourcesand training are not widely available then the production ofwealth goods may more closely conform to the expectationsof attached production under elite control.

Conclusions

The evidence suggests that prestige goods in the formof jade beads, a few small earspools, and at least one smallgreenstone figure were manufactured during the Late For-mative period in small quantities by artisans residing ina rural, non-elite household at the site of Nativitas, Tlax-cala. The evidence for lapidary production consists of smallfragments of jade percussion shatter, bead blanks, partiallydrilled bead preforms, broken beads, and incompletely fin-ished items including small tubular beads and one small earspool. It is likely that the greenstone figure was manufac-tured here even though no direct evidence in the form ofsawed jade cutoffs was recovered in the workshop debris.A total of 4,657 pieces of high quality jade were recoveredalong with 1,226 microdrills and 41 abrading disks. Thescale of production in the Terrace 5 domestic workshop wasboth small and intermittent. There were no full-time special-

ists in this residence, and crafting probably was incorporatedas an additional production activity into a domestic house-hold whose primary activity was subsistence agriculture. Itis a good illustration of intermittent crafting as discussed inthis volume.

What is particularly important about lapidary produc-tion at Nativitas is that high value items do not appear tohave been produced under the control of supervising elite.Instead, the domestic workshop was located in a non-elite,rural context. It was far removed from high ranking elite onXochitecatl and the craftsmen at Nativitas were not part ofan elite household. Nevertheless, the jade used in the work-shop originates in the Rio Motagua valley over 1200 kmaway, well beyond the presumed procurement sphere of anormal household.

The Nativitas example of craft production from Ter-race 5 raises important questions about what specializationmeans as an analytical category in studying craft production(e.g. Clark 1995; Costin 1991; Flad and Hruby 2007; Rice1981). The lapidary work at Terrace 5 reflects the use of ahighly specialized microdrill technology in what by all ap-pearances is an ordinary, small rural household. The basaltgrinding disks are specialized and unique tools that have notbeen reported elsewhere in Mesoamerica. The scale of jadebead production is very low and production is restricted toa narrow range of forms made from an exotic commodity.Without question, artisans were engaged in a “specialized”activity, but it implies nothing about the complexity, scale,integration, or organization of work.

An important question for a broader understanding ofMesoamerican economic systems is how production wasintegrated into the broader political economy of Late For-mative Central Mexico. There are two possible ways thisproduction could have been organized: either as a form ofindependent commercial production at the household levelor as a form of consignment production. In both cases pro-duction would have taken place in domestic contexts byindependent craft producers.

The commercial model would argue that productionwas undertaken by independent craft specialists who ob-tained jade on their own independently of elite involvementthrough long distance exchange. The fact that craftsmenwere located in rural contexts is not a problem in and ofitself because it conforms to the pattern of dispersed inde-pendent craft specialists reported at the time of the Conquestfrom the neighboring regions of Huejotzingo and Tlaxcala(Anguiano 1987; Brumfiel 1987). I find this explanationplausible given the many innovative ways that householdsmake use of economic opportunities. The only problem withthis explanation is accounting for how jade in the form ofunworked nodules could have reached the Puebla-Tlaxcala

169

valley from the Rio Motagua jade source. While prob-lematic, we still understand very little about the extent orstructure of Formative period trade networks anywhere inMesoamerica (see for example Neff et al. 2006a, Neff et al.2006b, Sharer et al. 2006). That jade moved over long dis-tances through household procurement networks is a possi-bility that ought not be discarded before we have the empir-ical data to do so.

An alternative and equally possible explanation is thatNativitas lapidary production represents a form of con-signed production from elites at Xochitecatl. This expla-nation would place the procurement of raw material in thehands of the elites who subsequently made it available forwork in a small domestic workshop like Terrace 5. In theconsignment model the relationship between patron and ar-tisan can take several forms. It could be a service performedfor direct payment or part of the tequitl (service) obligationthat independent craftsmen fulfilled for their lord as partof fealty or tribute obligations (Carrasco 1978). Consignedproduction cannot, in my view, by construed as attachedproduction because there is no prolonged dependence ofthe craftsman on the sponsoring patron. In both possibilitiescited above, consignment production is possible only whenindependent craftsmen are already present and supportingthemselves through both craft and subsistence activities. Inmost instances independent craft specialization is a precon-dition for any kind of periodic consigned production and thepatron is dependent on the presence of these craftspersonsfor the manufacture of specialty items.

Prestige goods certainly were important in the chiefdomsocieties of Formative period Mesoamerica. What is notclear at this time, is what the relationship was between thecraftsmen who produced them and the elite who consumedthem. The data for lapidary production at Terrace 5 suggeststhat the connection between elite and the craftsmen whoproduced prestige goods may be more distant than currentprestige goods models suggest. If there is one thing that istrue about the history of science it is that theory aboundsin the absence of data. It is only as solid empirical data arecollected on craft production that we will begin to understandif and how elite were involved in the manufacture of prestigegoods in Central Mexico during the Formative period. Thatevidence has not as yet been found.

It is true that elite have a vested interest in increasingthe flow and accumulation of prestige goods. But we cannotassume that elite maintained exclusive control over the pro-duction of prestige goods during the Formative period beforewe find evidence for craftsmen closely associated with, ordirectly attached to, elite households. At this point it wouldbe a mistake to interpret the evidence for craft production atNativitas in light of a theory of elite control that has yet to

be confirmed in Mesoamerica during the Formative period.What we can say with confidence is that Nativitas craftsmenwere independent artisans who engaged in the intermittentproduction of small amounts of lapidary goods that con-tributed to both the household’s social life and domesticeconomy. Whether independent artisans of the type foundat Nativitas were an anomaly or a foundational feature ofcraft production will not be resolved until comprehensiveresearch is conducted on all aspects of the Mesoamericaneconomy in both the rural and urban contexts where workoccurred.

Notes

1. The Terrace 5 excavations were conducted under thesupervision of Mari Carmen Serra Puche and Jesus CarlosLazcano Arce. Kenneth Hirth was invited to analyze thelithic materials from Xochitecatl and Nativitas during thesummer of 2004 and he is indebted to the directors of theproject for the opportunity to examine these materials. JasonDe Leon assisted in the analysis of the flaked stone lithicmaterials, in particular the analysis of the chert microdrills.

2. An additional 291 jade fragments were also recov-ered from the 1998 excavations whose provenance was mis-placed in the lab. It is likely that these materials also camefrom these two excavated squares.

3. Four pieces of jade were analyzed by Hector Neffusing INAA and LA-ICP-MS at the IIRMES lab at the Cali-fornia State University at Long Beach. Three pieces of jadewere selected that appeared representative of the majorityof pieces in the collection. Samples 1 and 3 fall within hisMotagua Dark group based on enriched chromium levels.This group includes three samples from the Pakal mask atPalenque and two samples from Burial 5 at the Pyramid ofthe Moon, Teotihuacan. Sample 2 falls within his MotaguaLight group based on low chromium levels; this group alsoincludes two samples from Burial 5 at the Pyramid of theMoon, Teotihuacan. The fourth sample was an unusual ma-terial with a grey color. It is distinguished from the othersamples by high potassium, rubidium, barium, and rare earthelements; it groups materials from the Alta Verapaz regionof Guatemala which is its presumed source area. Analysis ofthese materials was made possible through NSF grant BCS0604712.

References

Aizpurua, Isaza, and Patricia McAnany1999 Adornment and Identify: Shell Ornaments

from Formative K’axob. Ancient Mesoamerica10:117–127.


Aldenderfer, Mark1991 Functional Evidence for Lapidary and Car-

pentry Craft Specialties in the Late Classic of theCentral Peten Lakes Region. Ancient Mesoamerica2:205–214.

Aldenderfer, Mark, Larry Kimball, and April Sievert1989 Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands:

The Use of Functional Data in a Complex SocietySetting. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:47–60.

Anderson, J. Heath, and Kenneth Hirth2009 Obsidian Blade Production for Craft Con-

sumption at Kaminaljuyu. Ancient Mesoamerica20:163–172.

Anguiano, Marina1987 Annexo II. Division del trabajo en Tlaxcala

a Mediados del Siglo XVI. In Padrones deTlaxcala del Siglo XVI y Padron de Nobles deOcotelolco. Teresa Rojas, ed. Pp. 25–48. MexicoCity: CIESAS, Coleccion Documentos 1.

Armillas, Pedro1995a Cacaxtla, Xochitecatl y Otros Lugares de la

Zona Arqueologica de Cacaxtla. In Antologıa deCacaxtla, Volumen 1. Angel Garcia Cook andBeatriz Merino Carrion, eds. Pp. 68–72. MexicoCity: INAH.

1995b Informe del Levantamiento Topografico dela Zona Arqueologica de Cacaxtla. In Antologıade Cacaxtla, Volumen 1. Angel Garcia Cook andBeatriz Merino Carrion, eds. Pp. 49–67. MexicoCity: INAH.

Arnold, Jeanne2001 The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom:

The Chumash of the Channel Islands. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In

Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies.Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timoth Earle, eds. Pp.102–118. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Brumfield, Elizabeth, and Timothy Earle1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex So-

cieties: An Introduction. In Specialization,Exchange, and Complex Societies. Elizabeth

Brumfiel and Timothy Earle, eds. Pp. 1–9.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carballo, David, and Thomas Pluckhahn2007 Transportation Corridors and Political Evo-

lution in Highland Mesoamerica: SettlementAnalysis Incorporating GIS for Northern Tlaxcala,Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology26:607–629.

Carrasco, Pedro1978 La Economıa del Mexico Prehispanico. In

Economıa Polıtica e Ideologıa en el MexicoPrehispanico. Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda,eds. Pp. 13–74. Mexico: Editorial Nueva Imagen.

Charlton, Thomas, Deborah Nichols, and Cynthia OtisCharlton

1991 Aztec Craft Production and Specialization:Archaeological Evidence from the City-State ofOtumba, Mexico. World Archaeology 23:98–114.

Clark, John1990 Fifteen Falacies in Lithic Workshop Interpre-

tation: An Experimental and EthnoarchaeologicalPerspective. In Etnoarqueologıa: Primer Colo-quio Bosch-Gimpera. Yoko Sugiyama and MariCarmen Serra, eds. Pp. 497–512. Mexico City:UNAM.

1991a Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal amongthe Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. InEthnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal. E. Staskiand L. Sutro, eds. Pp. 63–78. AnthropologicalResearch Papers No. 42. Tempe: Arizona StateUniversity.

1991b Modern Lacandon Lithic Technology andBlade Workshops. In Maya Stone Tools: SelectedPapers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference.Thomas Hester and Harry Shafer, eds. Pp.251–265. Madison: Prehistory Press.

1995 Craft Specialization as an ArchaeologicalCategory. Research in Economic Anthropology16:267–294.

Clark, John, and Michael Blake1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Gen-

erosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies inLower Mesoamerica. In Factional Competitionand Political Development in the New World.Elizabeth Brumfiel and John Fox, eds. Pp. 17–30.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

171

Costin, Cathy1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Doc-

umenting, and Explaining the Organization ofProduction. In Archaeological Method and Theory.Michael Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1–56. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press.

Dalton, George1977 Aboriginal Economies in Stateless Societies.

In Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Timothy Earleand Jonathon Ericson, eds. Pp. 191–212. NewYork: Academic Press.

Davila, Patricio1975 La Fase Tezoquipan (Protoclasico) de Tlax-

cala. In Arqueologıa I, XIII Mesa Redonda de laSociedad Mexicana de Antropologıa, Pp. 107–115.

Di Peso, Charles1974 Casas Grandes. The Medio Period. Volume

2. Dragoon and Flagstaff, Arizona: The AmerindFoundation and Northland Press.

Diehl, Richard, and Janet Berlo1989 Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihua-

can A.D. 700–900. Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks.

Earle, Timothy2002 Bronze Age Economics. Boulder: Westview

Press.

Feinman, Gary, and Linda Nicholas2000 High-Intensity Household-Scale Production

in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Perspective fromEjutla, Oaxaca. In Cultural Evolution: Contem-porary Viewpoints. Gary Feinman and LindaManzanilla eds. Pp. 119–142. New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers.

Flad, Rowan, and Zachary Hruby2007 “Specialized” Production in Archaeological

Contexts: Rethinking Specialization, the SocialValue of Products, and the Practice of Production.In Rethinking Craft Specializatin in ComplexSocieties: Archaeological Analysis of the SocialMeaning of Production. Zachary Hruby andRowan Flad, eds. Pp. 1–19. Arlington: Archaeo-logical Papers of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, Number 17.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Kenneth Hirth2003 Handheld Prismatic Blade Manufacture in

Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technol-ogy: Experimentation and Interpretation. KennethHirth, ed. Pp. 98–107. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press.

Foncerrada de Molina, Marta1993 Cacaxtla. La Iconografıa de los Olmeca-Xicalanca.

Instituto de Investaciones Esteticas. Mexico City:UNAM.

Garber, James, Kenneth Hirth, David Grove, and JohnHoopes

1993 Ritual use of Jade in Mesoamerica. In Jadeand Ritual in Mesoamerica. Fred Lange, ed. Pp.211–231. Provo:University of Utah Press.

Garcıa Cook, Angel1981 The Historical Importance of Tlaxcala in the

Cultural Development of the Central Highlands. InHandbook of Middle American Indians, Supple-ment 1, Archaeology. Victoria Bricker and JeremySabloff, eds. Pp. 244–276. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Hammond, N, A. Spinall, S. Feather, J. Hazelden, T.Gazard, and S. Agrell

1977 Maya Jade: Source Location and Analysis.In Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Timothy Earleand Jonathon Ericson, eds. Pp. 35–67. New York:Academic Press.

Hayden, Brian2001 Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Chief: The

Dynamics of Social Inequality. In Archaeologyat the Millennium: A Sourcebook. Gary Feinmanand Douglas Price, eds. Pp. 231–272. New York:Kluwer Academic Press.

Hempenius Turner, Margaret1987 The Lapidaries of Teotihuacan, Mexico: A

Preliminary Study of Fine Stone Working in theAncient Mesoamerican City. In Teotihuacan.Nuevos Datos, Nuevas Sıntesis, Nuevos Proble-mas. Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn Rattray,eds. Pp. 465–471. Mexico City: UNAM.

Hirth, Kenneth2006 Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient Cen-

tral Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of UtahPress.


Hirth, Kenneth, Bradford Andrews, and J. Jeffrey Flenniken2006 A Technological Analysis of Xochicalco Ob-

sidian Blade Production. In Obsidian CraftProduction in Ancient Central Mexico. KennethHirth, ed. Pp. 62–95. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press.

Hirth, Kenneth, and Ronald Castanzo2006 An Experimental Study of Use-wear Stria-

tion on Obsidian Prismatic Blades. In ObsidianCraft Production in Ancient Central Mexico.Kenneth Hirth, ed. Pp. 318–327. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

Hirth, Kenneth, and Jason De Leon2009 A Lapidary Tool Assemblage and Craft Pro-

duction in a Late Formative Household: Terrace 5,Nativitas, Tlaxcala. In Vida y Tradicion en el Sitiode Nativitas. Mari Carmen Serra Puche and JesusCarlos Lascano Arce, eds. Mexico City: UNAM.(In press)

Hirth, Kenneth, and Susan Hirth1992 Objektbeschreibungen: The El Cajon Jades.

In Die Welt der Maya. A. Eggrebrecht andN. Grube, eds. Pp. 300, 368–530-551. Mainzam Rhein: Roemer un Pelizaeus-Museum,Hildescheim, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

1993 Jade and Marble: An Analysis of their Styleand Ritual Usage in Prehistoric Central Honduras.In Jade and Ritual in Mesoamerica. Fred Lange,ed. Pp. 173–190. Provo: University of UtahPress.

Inomata, Takeshi2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite

Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society. CurrentAnthropology 42:321–349.

Kenoyer, Johnathan M., Massimo Vidale and KuldeepKumar Bhan

1991 Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khamb-hat, India: Patterns of Craft Specialization andOrganization of Production as Reflected in theArchaeological Record. World Archaeology23:44–63.

Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings and Edwin M. Shook1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala.

Publication 561. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington.

Kovacevich, Brigitte2007 Ritual, Crafting and Agency at the Classic

Maya Kingdom of Cancuen. In Mesoameri-can Ritual Economy. E. Christian Wells, andKarla Davis-Salazar, eds. Pp. 67–114. Boulder:University of Colorado Press.

Lesure, Richard1999 On the Genesis of Value in Early Hierarchi-

cal Societies. In Material Symbols: Culture andEconomy in Prehistory. John Robb, ed. Pp.23–55. Center for Archaeological Investigations.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Mora, Raziel1975 El Preclasico de Tlaxcala: fases Tezompan-

tepec, Tlatempa y Texoloc. Arqueologıa I, XIIIMesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana deAntropologıa, Pp. 97–106.

Mountjoy, Joseph, and David Peterson1973 Man and Land in Prehispanic Cholula. Van-

derbilt Publications in Anthropology No. 4,Nashville.

Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael Glascock, RonaldBishop, M. James Blackman, Michael Coe,George Cowgill, Richard Diehl, Stephen Houston,Arthur Joyce, Carl Lipo, Barbara Stark, andMarcus Winter

2006a Methodological Issues in the Provenance In-vestigation of Early Formative MesoamericanCeramics. Latin American Antiquity 17:54–76.

Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael Glascock, RonaldBishop, M. James Blackman, Michael Coe,George Cowgill, Ann Cyphers, Richard Diehl,Stephen Houston, Arthur Joyce, Carl Lipo, andMarcus Winter

2006b Smokescreens in the Provenance Investiga-tion of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics.Latin American Antiquity 17:104–118.

Otis Charlton, Cynthia1993 Obsidian as Jewelry: Lapidary Production in

Aztec Otumba, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica4:231–243.

Peregrine, Peter1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specializa-

tion. World Archaeology 23:1–11.

173

Preziosi, Aimee2001 Standardization and Specialization: The Channel

Island Microdrill Industry. In The Origins ofthe Pacific Coast Chiefdom. The Chumash ofthe Channel Islands. Jeanne Arnold, ed. Pp.151–163. Salt Lake City: University of UtahPress.

Rice, Prudence1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production:

A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22:219–240.

Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de1959 Florentine Codex. General History of the

Things of New Spain, Book 9, The Merchants.Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson, trans.,Monographs of the School of American Research,No. 14, Part 10, Santa Fe.

1961 Florentine Codex. General History of theThings of New Spain, Book 10, The Merchants.Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson, trans.,Monographs of the School of American Research,No. 14, Part 11, Santa Fe.

Schortman, Edward1989 Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. Amer-

ican Antiquity 54:52–65.

Schortman, Edward and Patricia Urban1992 Resources, Power, and Interregional Interac-

tion. New York: Plenum.

Serra Puche, Mari Carmen1998 Xochitecatl. Tlaxcala: Gobierno del Estado

de Tlaxcala.

Serra Puche, Mari Carmen, and Jesus Carlos Lascano Arce2009 Vida y Tradicion en el Sitio de Nativitas.

Mexico City: UNAM. (In press)

Serra Puche, Mari Carmen, et al.1998 Proyecto Arqueologico “El Hombre y sus

Recursos en el sur del Valle de Tlaxcala duranteel Formativo y el Epiclasico.” Informe Tecnico deExcavacion Febrero-Abril/1998.

2000 Proyecto Arqueologico “El Hombre y susRecursos en el sur del Valle de Tlaxcala durante elFormativo y el Epiclasico. Sitio Nativitas” InformeTecnico Parcial de Excavacion, 2a Temporada,Enero-Abril/2000.

Sharer, Robert, Andrew Balkansky, James Burton, GaryFeinman, Kent Flannery, David Grove, JoyceMarcus, Robert Moyle, T. Douglas Price, ElsaRedmon, Robert Reynolds, Prudence Rice, CharlesSpencer, James Stoltman, and Jason Yaeger

2006 On the Logic of Archaeological Inference:Early Formative pottery and the Evolutionof Mesoamerican Societies. Latin AmericanAntiquity 17:90–103.

Smith, Kipp, Rita, and Edward Schortman1989 The Political Impact of Trade in Chiefdoms.

American Anthropologist 91370–385.

Spranz, Bodo1970 Investigaciones Arqueologicas en el Cerro

Xochitacatl, Tlaxcala. Temporada 1969–1970.Comunicaciones 1:37–38.

1978 Die Pyramiden vom Cerro Xochitecatl, Tlaxcala(Mexico)/Las Piramides del Cerro Xochicalco,Tlaxcala (Mexico). Wiesbaden: Franz SteinerVerlag.

Number 19

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERSOF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Cathy Costin, General Series Editor

HOUSEWORK: CRAFT PRODUCTION AND DOMESTIC ECONOMYIN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

2009

Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (1551-823x) is publ ished in March on behal f of American AnthropologicalAssociation by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774.

Mailing: Journal is mailed Standard Rate. Mailing to rest ofworld by IMEX (International Mail Express). Canadian mail is sent by Canadian publicationsmail agreement number 40573520. POSTMASTER: Send all address changes to Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,Journal Customer Services, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148-5020.

Publisher: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Cornrnerce Place, 350 MainStreet, Malden, MA 02148; Telephone: 781 388 8200; Fax: 781 388 8210. Wiley Periodicals, lnc. is now part of John Wiley & Sons.

Information for Subscribers: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association is published in one issue per year. lnstitutionalsubscription prices for 2009 are: Print & Online: US$30 (US), US$29 (Rest of World), € 19 (Europe), ±: 15 (UK). Prices are exclusive of tax.Asia-Pacific GST, Canadian GST and European VAT will be applied at the appropriate rates. For more information on current tax rates, pleasego to www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/journaLordering_and_payment.html#Tax. The price includes online access to the current and all on-line back files to January 1st 1997, where available. For other pricing options, inc\uding access information and terms and conditions, please visitwww.interscience.wiley.com/journal-info.

Delivery Terms and Legal Title: Prices include delivery ofprintjournals to the recipient's address. Delivery terms are Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU);the recipient is responsible for paying any import duty or taxes. Legal title passes to the customer on despatch by our distributors.

Copyright and Photocopying: © 2009 American Anthropological Association. AlI rights reserved. o part of this publication may be reproduced,stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with their local Reproduction Rights Organization(RRO), e.g. Copyright CJearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA O 1923, USA www.copyright.com, provided the appropriate fee ispaid directly to the RRO. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotionalpurposes, for creating new collective works or for resale. Special requests should be addressed to: [email protected].

Back Issues: Single issues from current and recent volumes are available at the current single issue price from [email protected]. The ArcheologicalPapers ofthe American Anthropological Association is available for purchase for $25 (US customers), f.12 (Rest ofWorld customers) and $15 for AmericanAnthropological Association members. Earlier issues may be obtained frorn Periodicals Service Company, 11 Main Street, Germantown, NY 12526,USA. Tel: + 1 (518) 537-4700, Fax: + 1 (518) 537-5899, Email: [email protected].

Journal Customer Services:For ordering information, claims and any enquiry concerning your journal subscription please go to interscience.wiley.com/support or contact yournearest office:Americas: Email [email protected]; Tel: + 1 781 3888598 or 1 8008356770 (Toll free in the USA & Canada).Europe, Middle East and Africa: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +44 (O) 1865778315Asia Pacific: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +656511 8000Associate Editor: Michelle S. SathanProduction Editor: Jon Speilburg, Email: [email protected]: Kristin McCarthy, Email: [email protected]

Print Information: Printed in the United States of America by The Sheridan Press, Inc.

Online Information: Thisjournal is available online at Wiley IntetScience. Visit www.interscience.wiley.com to search the articles and register for tableof contents e-mail alerts.Access to this journal is available free online within institutions in the developing world through the AGORA initiative with the FAO, the HI-ARJ initiative with the WHO and the OARE initiative with UNEP. For information, visit www.aginternetwork.org. www.healthinternetwork.org, and

www.oarescience.org.

Aims and Scope: The Archaeological Papers ofthe American Anthropological Association (AP3A) is published on behalf ofthe ArchaeoJogical Divisionofthe American Anthropological Association. AP3A publishes original monograph-Iength manuscripts on a wide range ofsubjects generally consideredto fall within the purview of anthropological archaeology. There are no geographical, temporal, or topical restrictions. Organizers of AAA symposia areparticularly encouraged to submit manuscripts, but submissions need not be restricted to these or other collected works.

Author Guidelines: For submission instructions, subscription and all other information visit: www.blackwellpublishing.com/apaa.

Disclaimer: The Publisher, American Anthropological Association and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising fromthe use of information contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those ofthe Publisher, American Anthropo-logical Association and Editors, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the Publisher, American AnthropologicalAssociation and Editors of the products advertised.

ISSN 1551-823x (Print)ISSN 1551-8248 (Online)

11â¨Intermittent Domestic Lapidary Production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas,...

Documents

Transcript of 11â¨Intermittent Domestic Lapidary Production during the Late Formative Period at Nativitas,...