Phantom Lithics at Chunchucmil, Yucatán, Mexico

7 Phantom Lithics at Chunchucmil, Yucatán, Mexico Bruce H. Dahlin, Marjukka Bastamow, Timothy Beach, Zachary X. Hruby, Scott R. Hutson, and Daniel Mazeau

Abstract

This chapter addresses one of the more interesting conundrums faced by the Pakbeh Regional Economy Program (PREP), which investigated the predominantly Early Classic lowland Maya site of Chunchucmil, Yucatán. Why, when it was the most accessible stone-cutting medium, was the number of artifacts made out of chert so low in all contexts, including domestic ones? Very low-quality chert, or what we call “silicified limestone,” is seemingly everywhere on the karstic landscape, and high-quality chert can be found some 30 to 60 kilometers inland in the Puuc region. We propose that silicified limestone was the primary material used to make stone tools in northern Yucatán, but that preservation and other issues of archaeological collection techniques have left this material unrecognized.

Members of the Pakbeh Regional Economy Program (PREP) have worked at the predominantly Early Classic site of Chunchucmil in northwest Yucatán for 13 years. At its peak, the city had a projected population of 35,000 to 42,500 (Hutson et al. 2008; Magnoni 2008; Magnoni et al. 2007). As a result of our extensive horizontal and test excavation programs, PREP has collected just 624 pieces of chert and chert-like material, including debitage. Of these artifacts, 299 came from our program of test pitting in residential groups that moved approximately 500 cubic-meters of earth. Thus, the density of chert artifacts is just 0.6 per cubic meter of excavated material. Another index of scarcity is the average number of chert implements consumed per household. This amounts to 0.41 chert artifacts per tested context. Of the total 624 pieces of chert we recovered at Chunchucmil, only 48 were used as tools. These include utilized flakes as well as formal and informal tools. Thus, the number of chert implements seems far too low to meet household needs, even if we cannot precisely specify what those needs were. Most of these tools were made of good-quality chert, but good-quality chert is not locally available and had to be imported. Tool-quality chert sources are located 30 to 60 kilometers inland in the Puuc region, so material could have been brought to the site fairly easily and inexpensively. The Chunchucmil Maya were not averse to importing cutting materials, because, as we have argued elsewhere, it was a specialized trade center with an active marketplace (Dahlin 2003; Dahlin and Ardren 2002; Dahlin et al. 1998; Dahlin et al. 2007; Hutson et al. 2005). As if to prove the point, our excavations produced 2,716 pieces of obsidian, which is more than four times the total number of chert artifacts. Therefore, if we add the amount of chert and obsidian, we arrive at a total of

PHANTOM LITHICS AT CHUNCHUCMIL 77

3,340 pieces (including tools and debitage). A portion (N=107) of the obsidian collection has been chemically sourced by XRF at the University of California at Berkeley, and Mazeau has visually sourced the entire collection. Ninety-two percent of the obsidian came from El Chayal, Guatemala, roughly 670 kilometers south of Chunchucmil (Figure 1.1), or nine to 13 times farther than the nearest high-quality chert sources (Mazeau 2002a and 2002b). Obviously, obsidian was far more costly to import than chert. Significantly, none of the obsidian came from ritual deposits, as is the case at some other sites (see Moholy-Nagy 1997; Rice 1987). In fact, PREP has not excavated many caches or burials. Almost all of the Chunchucmil obsidian is in the form of blades recovered from domestic or crafting contexts. In fact, more than 25 percent of the obsidian from Chunchucmil was recovered in a single residential group that was engaged in some sort of specialized craft. Nor can obsidian be considered simply as an item of wealth, because it was found equitably distributed among both elite and com-moner households within greater Chunchucmil, and obsidian artifacts typically show considerable use wear (Mazeau and Forde 2003). Finally, obsidian cannot be considered to be an essential cut-ting implement needed by all, because many households, particularly outside of greater Chunchuc-mil, probably did not have access to it (Hutson et al. 2008; Mazeau and Hixson 2005). As far as we are able to determine, all or most of the Chunchucmil obsidian was intended for practical use and should be considered together with the chert artifacts in order to understand how many cutting implements were consumed per household. Even when combined, that total still seems quite small. Obsidian, a volcanic glass, is fragile and cannot withstand great impact, especially when used in the form of prismatic blades. The edges of obsidian tools are sharp but delicate, so this material was probably reserved for making precise cuts into soft materials such as foods, fabrics, cordage, and some wood. In contrast, chert was reserved for heavier tasks, such as chopping and cutting wood, limestone, and other dense materials. Households at Chunchucmil required both fine and crude cutting implements, but they had a greater need for more heavy-duty cutting tools than the ratio of obsidian to chert artifacts implies. In short, we should expect to find more chert than obsidian artifacts, even though obsidian tools could be recycled for more heavy-duty tasks after they became dull from delicate cutting. One possible explanation for the apparent shortage of cutting implements is that they were so expensive and difficult to obtain that they were used to the point that little was left to enter the waste stream (McAnany 1993:82). Nevertheless, most of the cutting implements at Chunchucmil were not used to the point of total exhaustion. Yet another possibility is that the Maya used perishable cutting materials, which, given the high rate of organic deterioration in the subtropical environment, have long since decomposed (see Dahlin 2006). For example, slivers of hardwoods like ziracote (Central American ironwood) could have been honed to a fine edge by sharpening them with abrasive stones and leaves. Landa (Tozzer 1941:121) mentions that arrow points were sometimes made from sharp fish teeth, and although the occupation of Chunchucmil predates the time when bows and arrows were common, perhaps sharp fish teeth were used for spear points and other piercing and crude cutting implements. Some soft materials like cotton fibers could have been cut with readily available obsidian substitutes like the sharp edges of grasses, which grow locally. There is no doubt the Maya used organic cutting implements for some purposes, but since we cannot identify these activities, there is no way to test this hypothesis. In any event, organic tools probably would not have competed with chert as heavy-duty cutting implements. Silicified Limestone and Stone-Tool Production

Another possibility, one that we pursue here, is that archaeologists are not recognizing some lithic tools recovered during their excavations and surveys. Heavy, dense, and durable silicified and

78 THE TECHNOLOGY OF MAYA CIVILIZATION

capstone limestones, although they cannot be reliably fractured in a predictable manner, could have been shaped into rough chopping and pounding implements. Silicified limestone flakes can be used with some success as cutting and scraping tools, and fashioned into expedient tools with an edge that is serviceable for a limited duration (Hruby et al. 2007). Given that silicified limestones are ubiquitous at the site and that silica is a common element in regional soils (Beach 1998)—even present in architectural blocks that likely were shaped with the aid of denser capstone and silicified limestone implements—the Maya must have known of their useful cutting potential. Silicified limestone is porous and less compact than chert, oxidizes easily, is highly soluble, and thus is susceptible to the elements. It is, therefore, highly subject to weathering and other diagenetic processes. Post-depositional processes, specifically exposure to rainfall (which is moderately acidic and has a pH about 5.6) and contact with plants or other organisms that release acidic compounds into the soil, dissolve silicified limestone. Such dissolution ultimately can obliterate cutting edges, fracture patterns, and original surfaces. Moreover, many of the soil environments, especially near architecture, are rich in calcite and dolomite, which provide ready sources of calcium and magnesium to patinate and obscure surfaces. Silicified limestone does not fracture in a conchoidal manner, so it does not feature the diagnostic traits found on tools and debitage made of chert and obsidian. Most detachment scars on silicified limestone appear to have a sheared cone fracture that does not produce a significant bulb of force. Compounded with the greater frequency of inclusions in silicified limestones, worked pieces often do not look like artifacts. Moreover, the major component of the debitage produced from working silicified limestone is non-diagnostic shatter, which is rendered even less recognizable by diagenesis. Archaeologists in the northern plains, and we suspect elsewhere in karstic terrains, constantly find pieces of limestone in survey and excavation. Some may once have had cutting edges. Such nebulous objects lack concrete diagnostic traits and are routinely discarded as “pot-lid” flakes or “dog stones.” We almost certainly committed this error at Chunchucmil. Sampling Methodology We explore the hypothesis that households at Chunchucmil, and by extension within the northern Maya lowlands in general, routinely used silicified limestone to make cutting implements. At some sites, silicified limestone artifacts may have constituted the majority of the toolkit, and we are simply not recognizing these “phantom lithics,” that is, pieces that are not obvious stone tools or debitage. Our argument is built on carefully recorded data from a sample of 115 distinct operations. This sample was drawn from a much larger one that was stratified according to the 16 types of architectural groups that we recognized at the site. The 115 operations include test excavations at 110 residential groups, but we also include horizontal excavations at five households in order to slightly amplify our sample. All operations met certain minimum criteria. To be included in our sample, an operation at a single residential unit had to yield a minimum of four kilograms of ceramics or, failing that, it had to have been tested by a minimum of eight one-by-one meter test-pits. The operations discussed here represent only those residential units whose primary period of occupancy was the height of Chunchucmil during the late Early Classic and early Late Classic periods, ca. A.D. 500–700 (Mansell and Bond-Freeman 2001). Architectural groups that probably served civic-religious rather than domestic functions were excluded. We found evidence of specialized craft production at only two of these habitation groups, and activities conducted there required obsidian artifacts (Hutson 2004). We turn now to a brief description of the chert-artifact sample recovered at Chunchucmil from 1993 to 2006. We follow with discussions of the karstic geology of the Chunchucmil region and the processes that made chert and limestone formations in the Maya lowlands. We focus in this section


on two deposits of chert-like silicified limestone that might have been easily accessible to the inhabitants of Chunchucmil. Attention is then drawn to relatively well-preserved silicified limestone tools that were found inside sascab (gravel, sometimes incorrectly called marl) quarries at Chunchucmil. Minimal labor investments were required to make these tools, and they likely were discarded quickly as they became dull or broke. Moreover, the preservation of silicified limestone tools in sascaberas implies that at least some such tools were used at the site, and suggests that, over the centuries, those deposited in less protected environments might have lost their diagnostic traits, making them all but unrecognizable as tools. Chert and Chert-Like Silicified Limestone Tools

The density of non-obsidian lithic artifacts that we calculate for Chunchucmil, a mere 0.6 per cubic-meter, is quite low for an important Maya site. These non-obsidian lithic materials run the gamut from high-quality chert to silicified limestone with barely observable cryptocrystalline properties. Most of the tools are made of high-quality chert, but some are heavily patinated and many suffered an indeterminate amount of dissolution of their surfaces. Moreover, with the exception of several rather finely retouched bifacial implements (e.g., projectile points), the vast majority (91.8 percent) of the artifacts in the non-obsidian lithic collection are unretouched flakes, flake fragments, nondiagnostic debris, and a few complete and fragmentary flake cores. The collection also exhibits great diversity in both the morphology and size of complete flakes, with a standard deviation greater than 50 percent in all measured dimensions. The complete and fragmentary cores exhibit multidirectional knapping scars of various sizes, and present no significant flaking patterning. The diverse techniques and methods of production, reflected in non-standardized artifact morphology, lead us to conclude that the dominant lithic industry was flake-tool production practiced by people who lacked a high degree of knapping skill. That is, non-obsidian chipped-stone tools were typically fashioned and curated as needed by amateur knappers who also used the tools. By contrast, obsidian tool-use required professionally made prismatic blades. We suspect that material and morphological variability, as well as the apparent paucity of cutting implements in domestic contexts at Chunchucmil, created a situation where our workers and staff were good at finding obsidian and high-quality chert, but not as skilled at identifying lithic artifacts made of silicified limestone. This could have been especially true for artifacts that had few identifying morphological features and resembled naturally occurring rock fragments. In all likelihood, even more questionable tools were discarded during washing in the lab and were never cataloged or analyzed. Through discussions with our colleagues working at other sites, we strongly suspect that the tendency to discard highly questionable tools is common on other large, long-term projects. This suspicion was given considerable support in 2006 when we explored two modern quarries that contained a large number of freshly exposed nodules of silicified limestone, and simultaneously discovered some well-preserved silicified limestone tools inside ancient sascaberas. Karstic Geology, Silicified Limestone, and Dolostine Nodules in Quarries Near Chunchucmil

The limestone bedrock in the northwestern Yucatán peninsula is of Miocene to Pliocene origin (SGM 2005). Below the dense, petrocalcic surface (Isphording and Wilson 1973; Perry et al. 1989), the lithology is soft and porous with zones of sascab (saprolitic limestone) and pockets of clay sandwiched between the ground surface and the water table (Figure 7.1). The petrocalcic surface forms irregularly in the upper meter because seasonally rising groundwater, saturated in calcium, precipitates calcium carbonate near the surface. This reduces the porosity from 15 percent to just


one percent (Perry et al. 1989). Sascab forms as percolating water leaches calcium carbonate upward and downward, increasing porosity and weathering the less resistant minerals. But this leaching also leaves behind more resistant, silicified, dolomitic, and crystalline limestone, and, where it occurs, chert. Limestones near Chunchucmil are generally low in silicate minerals, but diatoms and volcanic and Saharan dusts have added some silica to these lithologies. Karst processes also create pockets in the limestone and sascab by dissolution along joints and bedding plains. Such pockets may continue to grow into sinkholes, which become reservoirs for eroding surface clays.

Figure 7.1. Idealized cross-section of the landscape near Chunchucmil. Modern Quarries Near Chunchucmil We inspected a recently opened, five-meter deep road-fill quarry located 15 kilometers east of Chunchucmil and near the village of Granada. The quarry has a number of these zones and pockets that can be seen in cross section (Figure 7.2). There are many dissolution cavities that begin at the petrocalcic surface and continue into the sascab at a depth of more than three meters. Most of these cavities are filled with red clays that washed down from the surface. We do not know to what degree the clays represent anthropogenic activity, but they do suggest a significant amount of erosion, a conclusion that Sedov et al. (2008) also reached for the area near Yalahau, northern Quintana Roo. The sascab zones in the Granada Quarry contain an abundance of nodules of silicified and denser limestone, as well as dolostone. We found more such nodules strewn about the quarry floor. At first glance, the faces of these recently broken nodules easily can be mistaken for chert. On closer inspection, however, it is apparent that the nodules tend to be softer, coarse to medium in texture, and dull: not unlike chalk. Clay and mineral inclusions are common. Some fossils were detected macroscopically. No nodules were found that, upon inspection, approached the high quality of the chert purportedly exported from sources in the Puuc region to the south and east. The water table in the Granada quarry is five to seven meters below ground surface, depending on local microtopography, and only two to three meters below the ground surface around Chunchucmil, which limits the range for ancient quarrying. Nodules of harder carbonate rocks litter the floor of a two-meter deep quarry located on the northern edge of the village of Chunchucmil and just two kilometers from the site center. These nodules were even more coarse and chalky than those found at the Granada Quarry, but we were


able to make serviceable bifaces from them. The nodules were found just one or two meters below the surface, the usual depth of ancient quarries. The material was mostly tan in color but generally resembled the Granada nodules in all other respects. These quarries demonstrate that workable silicified limestone was readily available and locally accessible.

Figure 7.2. The modern quarry near Granada, showing two clay-pockets. The Testimony of Sascaberas

The pockets containing clay, sascab, and nodules of silicified limestone—such as those noted in the quarries at Granada and north of Chunchucmil—were exploited anciently for many purposes. One important feature of these pockets, for example, is that they are located on low microtopographic surfaces, and serve as natural drains for the otherwise flat terrain. We observed that huge ponds form in these topographic lows several days after heavy rains. Not infrequently, such ponds measure several hectares in area, and inundate houselots and even whole neighborhoods. Thus, although pockets with drains may not have been observable to inexperienced surveyors like us, especially during dry periods when most of our mapping was accomplished, it is inconceivable that anyone living on this landscape would not know precisely where they were located. Furthermore, the Maya could have used them for planting deeply rooted fruit- and nut-bearing trees, like ramon, that normally do not thrive in these thin soils (Dahlin et al. 2005). Other clay pockets were exploited as sascaberas, and many of them were dug as lateral chambers into the sides of dry sinkholes. The overwhelming majority of the cap-rock roofs (i.e., the petrocalcic layer; Figure 7.3) of these artificial caverns have long since collapsed from being undercut. Indeed, modern villagers consider roof collapse to be a danger. For this reason, some smaller sinkholes and sascaberas have been intentionally filled in or walled off to protect cattle and children. Because of these obstacles, as well as the danger of contracting histoplasmosis in the


humid caverns, we did not explore many of the Chunchucmil sascaberas until Marjukka Bastamow made a concerted effort in 2006 to collect data on them for her M.A. thesis. In the process she surveyed twenty-five sascaberas.

Figure 7.3. Inside a sascabera at Chunchucmil. Sascaberas traditionally have received scant attention from archaeologists, but at Chunchucmil it was obvious that the Maya considered them to be valuable resource zones. Most archaeological interest has been in sascab, which was used as paving stone and for making plaster, stucco, and mortar (Folan 1978, 1983; Littman 1958; Morris et al. 1931; Roys 1934; Winemiller 1996, 1997). Sascab was also used to mulch gardens (Dahlin et al. 2005) and to prepare cochineal dye (Winemiller 1997). Moreover, some sascaberas have extraordinarily high humidity that is conducive to weaving cordage products such as reed mats and Panama hats; until very recently such items were produced commercially in sascaberas in traditional towns like Becal, Campeche. Dry sinkholes also often functioned as silt traps and collection areas for runoff, creating ideal conditions for silviculture (Folan 1978; Kepecs and Boucher 1996). Folan (1978:80) found that almost all of the larger sascaberas at Coba had wells dug in their floors, suggesting that they were a primary source of potable water. At Chunchucmil, this water could have been used for pot-irrigation, especially inasmuch as the phreatic water table is only about three meters below the ground surface (Dahlin and Jones 1998; Luzzadder-Beach 2000). Our intensive mapping demonstrated that ancient wells are exceedingly rare and ancient reservoirs even more so. This is particularly surprising because the densely packed urban center of Chunchucmil is located in one of the driest parts of the Yucatán peninsula, where the mean annual water-budget deficit is 600 to 700 mm (INEGI 1983; Luzzadder-Beach 2000). With so many important potential uses, one would think that every household would make an effort to exploit local sascaberas. Nevertheless, Aline Magnoni (2008), who conducts our ongoing


GIS analyses, found that only 15 percent of the 222 bounded houselots within the central 6.5 square-kilometers of the site contains a sascabera. The use of dry-laid stone walls to enclose houselots with sascaberas indicates that they were deliberately privatized and protected (Figure 7.4a and c). Moreover, Bastamow found that only 12.4 percent of the sascaberas at Chunchucmil are not clearly linked to any residential group or surrounded by a wall. These few quarries were potentially accessible to all, and are located in what may be interpreted as public spaces (e.g., unimproved commons areas, plazas, streets, or under causeways). Therefore, we can say with confidence that access to most sascabera resources was in private hands and was highly restricted.

Figure 7.4. Sample maps of residential groups with sascaberas.


Bastamow found that the 25 sascaberas she surveyed at Chunchucmil were not particularly large, measuring 0.5 to 2 meters from floor to ceiling, and just five to 100 square-meters in area. Within 11 of the 25 sascaberas surveyed, she found 22 stone tools, the majority of which were made from silicified limestone like that found in the two modern quarries. Some were made of even more porous limestone. Ten of the tools are hammers (Figure 7.5b) or simple chopping tools roughly shaped to fit the hand, and four are handaxes (Figure 7.5a). Eight more are irregularly shaped tools. The mass of these lithic artifacts ranges from 250 to 1,300 grams. No retouch was detected on any of the tools, but all show heavy use-wear and breakage, often on several edges and on both proximal and distal ends. In addition to these 22 tools, Bastamow found one unidirectional and two multidirectional flake cores with no use wear (Figure 7.5c-d), as well as 12 flakes (Figures 7.5e-f). In addition to the artifacts found inside the subterranean areas of sascaberas, 25 flakes were collected above ground, usually on bedrock less than two meters from the opening. An interesting detail is that most of these were found towards the end of the field season, raising the suspicion that once you know what to look for, you start finding it.

Figure 7.5. Silicified limestone tools found in sascaberas at Chunchucmil. Hand axe (a);

hammerstone (b); flake cores (c-d); flakes, ventral view (e); flakes, dorsal view (f).


The crudeness of form, heavy use-wear, and context of these limestone artifacts strongly suggest they were mostly ad hoc tools made for quarrying and processing sascab and silicified limestone. Furthermore, evidence of mining was clearly observable inside sascaberas; nodules of silicified limestone were found in almost all examined sascabera chambers, as well as mining debris and mining scars. One of the sascaberas even had piles of silicified limestone on its chamber floor, giving the impression that it was used as a storage place for raw material destined to be used later either as tool material or building stones. The tools found by Bastamow were strewn on the bare floors of the sascaberas. They were neither embedded in a soil matrix, nor were they directly exposed to acidic rainfall. Instead, the subterranean water inside sascaberas typically has a pH greater than 5.6 (Luzzadder-Beach 2000). As a result of this protective environment, their surfaces were not terribly eroded by dissolution. Edges and knapping scars, as well as macroscopic use wear, were easy to identify. Indeed, the edges and fracture scars on these tools were much better defined than those on many positively identified tools that we excavated from surface soils. We conclude that the sascabera environment preserved these tools, while the poorer preservation of the surface examples was due to the deleterious effects of soil chemistry. Distribution of Chert-Like Tools in Residential Groups

Because we suspected from the outset of our mapping and testing programs that sascaberas contained specialized resources, we distinguished households with sascaberas from those that lacked them and sampled them accordingly. Our testing program (841 test pits) consists of a 13 percent sample of 1,250 mapped architectural units (Hutson et al. 2008). Ten of these architectural units were classified as sascabera groups. The testing program allowed us to ask the question: If sascaberas were exploited to produce stone tools, did sascabera groups have more tools and debitage than households lacking sascaberas? Analyses of chert artifacts recovered in excavation units preceded our visits to the quarries and our sascabera investigations, that is, they dated to a time before we were aware of the possibility that silicified limestone was used to make stone tools. Thus, the majority of stone tools analyzed by the project were those that are well preserved and were collected during screening. Most of these are made of obsidian, high-quality chert, and chalcedony, but some were made of better-preserved silicified limestone. Mazeau found that an average of only 3.13 grams per cubic-meter of chert and chert-like artifacts came from the ten sascabera groups, as opposed to an average of 5.07 grams per cubic-meter of such artifacts that came from non-sascabera groups. Thus, non-sascabera groups had more recognizable tools made of materials classified as chert and better-preserved silicified limestone.1 This difference demands explanation. The hypothesis that makes the most sense to us is that households with sascaberas made and used more phantom lithics, whereas households in non-sascabera groups obtained and used more high-quality materials that tend to preserve better over time. Since the inhabitants of sascabera groups enjoyed easy access to chert-like material, little time or effort was required to make serviceable but short-lived cutting tools. When these expedient tools were exhausted, they—as in their non-sascabera group counterparts—were usually discarded nearby, typically in above-ground soil matrices where, over the centuries, climate and chemistry modified their surfaces until they are no longer identifiable as tools. In all likelihood, the number of silicified limestone tools was much greater in houselots associated with sascaberas than in the 85 percent that lack them. But non-sascabera households also probably obtained some nodules of silicified limestone from common sources or by across-the-fence exchange with their neighbors.


As a proportion of all lithics used as the site, chert and chalcedony artifacts are over-represented in the archaeological record of both sascabera and non-sascabera groups because of preservation issues. We conclude that the sum total of chert and chert-like (including those made of perishable silicified limestone) tools made and used at Chunchucmil must have been significantly greater than the archaeological record now reflects. We simply did not recognize them in our excavations because of post-depositional diagenesis. Conclusions

The rarity of high-quality chert tools at Chunchucmil and other northern lowland Maya sites should not be taken to mean that the Maya had few cutting implements. First, obsidian tools too dull to suffice for their original use could have been used to process hard materials. Second, some organic tools must have been used to a much greater extent than excavation and survey indicate. Both organic and silicified limestone tools would have had severely limited lifespans, but the latter could easily be produced by unskilled knappers, and, because little or no transportation and other market costs were involved, were attractive as low-cost cutting tools. Given a ready supply of local silicified limestone in residential groups with sascaberas, the Maya of Chunchucmil and other sites had a reduced need for high-quality cherts and chalcedonies. The excellent preservation of silicified limestone tools in the sascaberas indicates that post-depositional processes have obscured the identification of some cutting tools recovered from soil matrices. Tools made of highly soluble local silicified limestone had their cutting edges, striking platforms, bulbs of percussion, and flake scars eaten away. We raise the possibility that the Maya used such local alternatives in order to suggest that the need for imported, high-quality stone from tens of kilometers away might be exaggerated. Our observations point to an obvious need for greater attention to the phenomenon of phantom lithics—and especially to lithic tools made of silicified limestone—wherever chert tools are rare. Endnote

1. Incidentally, sascabera groups have the same amount of obsidian, ceramics, household space, and similar-sized domestic buildings as non-sascabera groups of comparable complexity.

Phantom Lithics at Chunchucmil, Yucatán, Mexico

Documents

Transcript of Phantom Lithics at Chunchucmil, Yucatán, Mexico