Maney Publishing

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

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

ObsidianIndustriesandCulturalEvolutionin the Basinof

Mexico Before500 B.C.

MartinWilliam Boksenbaum
Treichlers,Pennsylvania

Paul Tolstoy
Universit6de Montr6al
Montreal,Canada

GarmanHarbottle
BrookhavenNationalLaboratory
Upton,New York

JeromeKimberlin
Richmond,California

MaryNeivens
New York,New York
Neutronactivationanalysis of a large sampleof obsidianartifactsfrom
EarlyHorizonand First Intermediatesites in the Basin of Mexico has allowed identificationof the geologic sources that were exploited.Combining
the geologic source data with obsidianmanufacturingdata in a diachronic
fashion permitsone to suggest a series of obsidianutilizationstages that
correlatewith growing culturalcomplexity.
Introduction
As part of Paul Tolstoy's ongoing Basin of Mexico
research,a large sample of obsidian was analyzed at
BrookhavenNationalLaboratory(BNL)during1977and
1978.1 The purposeof the neutronactivationanalysis
was twofold. First, it was to provide data for plotting
the movementof obsidianbothwithinandinto the Basin
of such
of Mexico. Secondly, diachronicinterpretation
movementwas to permit assessmentof the changing
importanceof obsidianutilizationduringthe course of
some 900 years. The resultsof thatanalysis,when combinedwith obsidianmanufacturing
data, suggesta series
of stages in the historyof obsidianutilization.Further,
the resultsalso bearon the natureof the Olmecpresence
in the Highlandsduringthe EarlyHorizon.
1. The work summarizedin this paperhas been made possible by
grantBNS 77-80055 from the NationalScience Foundationand by
researchsupportprovidedat the ChemistryDepartment
of Brookhaven
NationalLaboratoryby the Departmentof Energy,Office of Basic
EnergySciences.

Sites and Sources

The bulk of the obsidianartifactswas from unmixed
lower levels in excavationscarriedout at six sites in the
southernhalf of the Basin (Tolstoy 1971, 1973, 1975;
Tolstoy and Paradis1970; Tolstoy and Fish 1975; Tolstoy et al. 1977). Tolstoy'sseriationof ceramicmaterials
and the conjunctionof 25 radiocarbondates have provided a ratherfinely-scaledand secure chronologyfor
these excavatedmaterials.In addition,obsidianartifacts
fromthe surfaceof Altica, a site in the northernhalf of
the Basin, were included. Even though the Altica artifacts were fromthe surface,they could be assignedwith
some confidenceto a particulartime period, as the ceramicspresentbelongedexclusively to the intervalfrom
EH-4 to FI-3. All of the sites (FIG.1) were occupied
duringthe EH and/orthe earlyFI periods(TABLE1), that
is, priorto the developmentof urbanTeotihuacain.
Using stratifiedsampling, 589 (20.5%) of the 2,864
obsidianartifactswere chemically analyzed. Statistical
treatmentof the chemical data has indicatedthat most

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

66

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

OD

OB

TEOTIHUACAN
,

)O01

081

9
10

LAKE

SYSTEM

51

480

00

47

20km

*
340

Figure1. TheBasinof Mexico. Archaeologicalsites arenumberedas

in Tolstoy(1975);4: El Arbolillo(EastandWest);9: Tlatilco;
10: Lomade Atoto;34: Coapexco;47: Tlapacoya;48: SantaCatarina;
51: El Terremote;81: Altica. Obsidiansources,designatedby letters,
areas follows. A: Otumba;B: Pared6n;C: Pachuca;D: Pizarrin.

of the obsidianin the collectionscan be attributedto six

knownsourcesandone unknownsource.The six known
sources(FIG.2), to which 562 (95.4%) of the 589 sampledartifactsareattributed,arethe following:1) Otumba
Valley, T.A. 79,
(Barrancade los Estetes, Teotihuacain
Valley
etc.), in the hills of the SEedge of Teotihuacain
(NEBasin of Mexico), about50 km from the excavated
sites consideredhere (using straight-linedistanceto the
center of Mexico City as a rough approximation);2)
Pared6n,about95 km NEof the excavatedsites, at the
NElimits of the Basin of Mexico; 3) Pachuca(Navajas,
Cruzdel Milagro,Huasca,etc.) in SEHidalgo,about90
km northof the excavatedsites; 4) Pizarrin(Tulancingo,
Rancho Tenango, Huapalcalco, etc.) in SE Hidalgo,
about 110 km NEof the excavatedsites; 5) Altotongain
Veracruz,about 190 km east of the excavatedsites; and
6) Zinap6cuaroin Michoacin, about250 km west of the
excavatedsites.
The one unknownsource, which we will refer to as
SourceZ, was definedby the clusteringof elementvalues for seven artifacts(1.2% of the 589 in the sample).
In addition,20 (3.4%) of the 589 could neitherbe clusteredto define any new sourcesnor attributedto any of
the known sources.
Sample Strata
The samplestratawere establishedusing threedimensions: site and subphasedistinctions;visual distinctions

betweenartifacts;and manufacturing
distinctions.First,
each site and subphaseneeded to be adequatelyrepresented in the sample. This resulted, ultimately,in 13
universes.In time order, they are as follows: 1) EH-2
Coapexcosubphaseat Coapexco;2) EH-3 Ayotla subphase at Tlapacoya-Ayotla;3) the EH-3 to 4 transition
at El Terremote;4) EH-4 Manantialsubphaseat Tlapacoya-Ayotla;5) late EH-4 Manantialsubphaseat Santa
Catarina;6) early FI-1 Bomba subphaseat SantaCatarina; 7) FI-1 Bomba subphaseat Tlapacoya-Ayotla;8)
the EH-4 to FI-3 occupationof Altica; 9) FI-2 El Arbolillo subphaseat El ArbolilloEast;10) FI-3 La Pastora
subphaseat El ArbolilloEast;11) FI-3 Totolicasubphase
at Lomade Atoto;12) earlyFI-4Atotosubphaseat Loma
de Atoto; and 13) FI-4 Cuautepecsubphaseat El Arbolillo West.
Secondly,possible source-specificvisual characteristics needed to be explored. On the basis of an earlier
unpublishedanalysis by RobertCobeanon 54 selected
specimens,Boksenbaumhadhypothesizedthe following
correlationsbetweenvisually distinctivetypes and geoTable1. Chronology
in theBasinof Mexico(basedon
Tolstoy1978, 1979,n.d.).
SMaster
Sequence
650

Old
Terminology

(510)
FI-4

750
875

(425)
FI-3

Middle Preclassic

FI-2

(Zacatenco Phase in
the Basin of Mexico)

(750)

1050

(850)

1150

(950)

FI-1
EH-4
1300

(1000)

1400

(1100)

1500

EH-3Early
EH-3
2

Preclassic

(Ixtapaluca Phase in
the Basin of Mexico)

(1300)

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

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

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

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987

67

.
....
- . ...

10

17

O
0

100

200

r ''vc

300 mi

300 km

Figure2. MajorMexicanobsidiansources.1:Otumba,Mexico;2: Pared6n,Hidalgo;3: Pachuca,Hidalgo;4: Pizarrin,

9:
Hidalgo;5: Altotonga,Veracruz;6: Zinapecuaro,Michoacin;7: SanJuandel Rio, Queretaro;8: El Paraiso,Queretaro;
11:GuadalupeVictoria,Puebla;12:Pico de Orizaba,Verade Montes,Queretaro;10:Penjamo,Guanajuato;
Cadareyta
cruz;13:El Ocotito,Guerrero;14:Tequila,Jalisco;15:Teuchtitlin,Jalisco;16:Magdalena,Jalisco;17:Metzquitlin,
Hidalgo.

logic sources (Tolstoy et al. 1977): Otumba artifacts

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

was hoped that some of the visually-defined categories

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

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

68

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

had been producedby a techniquethatreleasedseveral

flakessimultaneously,such flakes being called "smashings"or "multipleflakes"(Jelinek, Bradley,andHuckell
1971;Boksenbaum1978, 1980).
A significantminorityof the obsidianwas in the form
of prismaticblades, which are releasedwhen speciallypreparedcores are pressure-flakedin the appropriate
manner.Such productionstrategy is most efficient in
mass productioncarriedout by specialistsusing special
pressure-flakingtools (Crabtree 1968; Sheets 1972,
1974, 1975; Sheets and Muto 1972; Santley 1976).
The manufacturingcategoriesultimatelyused in defining samplingstratafor estimationpurposeswere the
following: retouch-shapedspecimens; blade cores or
fragments/smashingsthereof; prismatic blades and
blade-likeridged flakes; smashingsand other multiple
flakingproducts;and other flakes and dregs (shatter).
Therewas no evidence of the debitageassociatedwith
the preliminaryshapingof blade cores, except perhaps
for fourcrestedflakesfoundat Coapexco(includedwith
the blades).Therewas little thatcould serve as evidence
of retouchor rejuvenationworkings,which is consistent
with the small number of retouch-shapedspecimens.
Finally, a numberof pieces were coded as flakes that
had been suspectedof being smashingsbut for which
indicationof simultaneousmultipleflakingwas absent.
in the case of
Such caution, it seems, was unwarranted
the items that had been called "splinteredpieces" because John Clark's work has convincinglyshown that
such pieces are one kind of bipolarflaking"core"(Kobayashi 1975; Clark 1979; Hayden 1980). Their placementin the "otherflakes and dregs"category,however,
is consistentwith the notionthata majorityof the specimensin it arenot indicativeof anythingmorethancrude
knappingtechniquesand, indeed, a considerablenumber
of them may be smashings.
Thus, 13 components, five major visual categories,
classes providedthe strataof our
andfive manufacturing
samplingscheme, designed to make it possible to apportion non-analyzed specimens to the eight source
groupingslistedearlier(the six knownsources,unknown
source"Z",and"unassigned").This was done by taking
the proportionof specimenschemicallyassignedto that
groupand weighting it for the stratumor stratathat it
represented.Thus, for example, 33 of the 70 blades
analyzedfrom Coapexco were found to belong chemically to the Zinap6cuarogroup. Of these, 23 were of
fuzzy obsidian, five were grainy, and five were gray,
constituting85.2%, 71.4%, and 15.6%,respectively,of
the chemicallyanalyzedbladesin these visualcategories
at Coapexco. The strataformed of all blades in these
categories contained 64, 31, and 61 specimens. The
probablenumberof Zinap6cuarobladesin the Coapexco

collection was estimated therefore at (64 x .852) +

(31 x .714) + (61 x .156) = 86, or at about48% of
the 178 blades that constitutethe sampleduniverse at
the site..In this connection,it is importantto note that
the correspondencebetween visual and chemical characteristicsin the analyzedmaterialhas provento be quite
consistentin samplesof adequatesize, particularlywhen
class and time range.
controlledfor manufacturing
Sourcing Results
The neutronactivationanalysisitself was carriedout
by Kimberlin,withHarbottleas BNL liaison. Procedures
developed by Kimberlinand slightly modified for the
BNL High Flux Beam Reactorwere used to chemically
characterizeobsidiansourcesamplesandartifacts.Small
slices were sawn from the obsidian artifacts. Then a
sample set, consistingof 160 sawn chips and 10 standards,was irradiated.Bombardmentwas for 71 hoursat
1.8 x 1014N/cm2/sec. After a 16-day cooling period,
each samplewas countedfor 2000 seconds on a Ge(Li)
gammadetectorcoupledto a 4000 channelpulse height
analyzerand samplechanger.
Duringthe first two monthsof the project, geologic
source sampleswere amassedand a preliminaryreactor
run was carriedout to calibratethe obsidian standard
using the BNL operatingsystem. Many sources were
evaluated,samplesof which were providedthroughthe
courtesyof several individuals(who are thankedindividuallyin the acknowledgments).
Raw datawereanalyzedusing computerprogramsand
statisticaltechniques on hand at BNL that could be
adaptedto the problem(Neivens, Harbottle,and Kimberlin 1983). The first set of statisticalanalyses was
carriedout by Kimberlinduringthe NSF grantperiod.
The bulkof the artifactspresentedno problemsin being
assignedto a particularsource. Follow-uptreatmentof
some minorclusteringproblemswas carriedout by Neivens subsequentto the NSF grant period. Her work
essentiallyconfirmedKimberlin'sinitialgroupings.The
element values for each source group are presentedin

Table2.2

2. Eliminatedby Neivens' workwere fourvery smallgroups,two of

which were unlikely groupingsof green and non-greenspecimens.
One group of 11 proposedas an unknown source group is now
attributed,in its entirety,to Otumba.Five of a groupof six attributed
to SanMartinJilotepequearenow attributedto Zinapecuaro(the sixth
is not assignedto any source group). Two artifacts,one green and
one non-green,attributedto a Quer6tarosource,are now unassigned.
Six of a group of eight, most of which were green, attributedto
anotherQueretarosource, are now attributedto Pachucaand/orPizarrin(the othertwo are unassigned).Both Kimberlinand Neivens
used only element values in the clusteringprograms.They did not
use and, for the most part, were unawareof data related to the
correlationsbetweenvisual characteristicsand sourcesthathad been
hypothesizedby Boksenbaum.

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

Journalof Field Archaeology/Vol.14, 1987 69

as sourcedat BNL.
Table2. Elemental
valuesof Basinof Mexicoartifacts
Sources*
Element

Ba

845 + 68

134 ? 16

101.2 + 30.2

105 + 10
.357 + .051
2.06 + 3.67
5.77 + .50
.243 -+ .024
.886 + .071
3.74 + .48
6.87 + .58
51.4 + 16.8
.830 + .07
56.9 + 5.8
1.26 + .12
171 + 14
1.01 ? .12

96.2
.115
5.92
4.45

+
+
+
+

6.7
.052
6.70
.30

1.86
1.77
4.59
26.6
39.6

+
+
+
+
+

.11
.26
.38
1.6
6.0

Lu
Nd
Os
Rb
Sb

+ 4.4
-+ .179
? 4.00
+ .42
.606 + .048
.909 ? .080
2.43 + .29
3.83 + .31
26.6 + 7.2
.338 + .036
28.1 + 7.9
.501 + .049
126 + 10
.291 + .065

Sc
Se
Ta
Tb
Th

2.41
2.58
1.34
.665
11.8

2.78
4.60
3.45
1.51
19.2

3.86
18.0
5.93
3.02
22.0

Tm
Yb
Zn
Zr

.358 + .102
2.61 + .24
48.1 + 25.9
148 + 23

Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe
Gd
Hf
La

50.0
.848
2.16
4.05

+ .19
+ .28
+ .13
? .069
+ .9

+ .23
+ .51
+ .29
? .15
+ 1.7

.765 + .188
6.62 + .50
60.5 + 7.2
205 -+ 37

3/4?

2.01 + .13
56.2 -+ 4.2
2.98 + .25
213 + 13
.244 + .080
+ .25
+ 1.0
+ .42
? .20
+ 1.4

1.65 + .46
16.2 + .9
257 + 132
840 + 70

134 - 158

898 + 73

104.7 - 17.6
.080 + .028
6.66 + 7.04
3.77 + .55
1.18 + .58
1.54 ? .09
4.25 + .77
19.7 + 4.9
45.9 + 7.7
1.57 + .29
70.7 + 15.2
2.36 + .41
181 ? 25
.199 + .280

163 + 14
.077 + .043
9.97 + 9.07
6.47 + .46
1.96 + .14
1.97 ? .14
3.14 + .33
17.9 + 1.4
59.3 + 11.3
1.39 + .13
106 + 8
2.14 + .20
138 + 13
1.47 -+ .17

71.6
.762
.905
4.30

2.25
13.5
3.85
2.98
20.6

.902
11.9
2.91
3.40
14.7

+ .075
+ .9
+ .27
? .26
+ 1.1

3.22
3.49
1.75
.955
21.8

+ 1.58
+ 3.2
+ 1.61
? .28
+ 3.4

1.246
12.65
217 +
644 +

+ .457
+ 2.08
85
145

1.15 + .40
11.5 + .8
206 + 14
640 + 56

543 + 38

.477
.961
4.36
5.30
48.3

6.3
.075
.420
.36

65.6
.350
1.27
7.34

+ .034

.206
.788
3.25
3.94
36.3

+
+
+
+

? .057

+ .39
+ .33
+ 13.6
.537 + .042
36.6 + 3.1
.812 + .082
142 + 10
.426 + .094
-+ .19
+ .37
+ .12
? .077
+ 1.6

.541 + .074
4.06 + .31
41.5 ? 3.3
198 + 28

6?

210 + 38
+
+
+
+

8.4
.078
1.93
.76

+ .032

? .050

+ .38
+ .27
+ 10.1
.372 + .039
36.2 + 4.0
.554 + .054
154 + 13
.372 + .072

208 + 33
65.9
.366
1.54
7.08

+
+
+
+

7.4
.049
2.35
.57

.216
.837
3.24
4.06
34.6

+
+
+
+
+

.023
.203
.43
.41
11.2

783 + 50

54.0 + 2.8
1.17 ? .06
6.09 + 15.35
5.5 + .18
.657
1.23
2.24
4.51
24.6

+
+
+
+
+

.026
.04
.14
.13
9.0

+ .20
+ .26
+ .15
? .077
+ 1.3

.375 + .045
37.0 + 3.9
.532 + .037
153 + 9
.384 + .047
3.31 + 1.06
2.72 + .40
1.39 + .12
.776 ? .076
15.7 + 1.3

.377 + .013
32.0 + 2.9
.560 + .034
129 + 4
.159 + .051
3.49 + .12
2.99 + .19
1.16 + .05
.865 ? .088
10.7 + .5

.364+ .081
2.89 + .26
38.1 + 3.67
130 + 21

.381 -+ .070
2.89 + .26
37.7 + 2.66
132 + 24

.352 + .109
2.97 + .15
65.7 + 30.7
168 + 17

2.88
2.63
1.41
.790
15.9

*Assignmentof artifactsto sourcegroupsis baseduponneutronactivationanalysisof a stratifiedrandomsamplefromTolstoy'scollection.All elemental

valuesare in partsper millionexcept for Fe, which is expressedas a percentage.The errorindicatedis one standarddeviationof the mean.The sourcesare:
4) Pizarrin,5) Altotonga,6) Zinap6cuaro,6?) highly probableZinapecuaro,7) SourceZ. See
1) Otumba,2) Pared6n,3) Pachuca,3/4?) Pachuca-Pizarrin,
"SourcingResults"in text for discussion.

Therewas difficultyin discriminatingbetweenthe two

greenobsidiansourceareas.Both PachucaandPizarrin,
however, consist of several separateobsidianoutcroppings (Spenceand Parsons1972; Charlton1979). Since
each outcroppingcould have a differentchemicalcharacter, it would be necessary to have a source sample
fromeach to obtainthe neededgeographicalsensitivity.
As it is, we find some artifactsthat clearly match our
Pachucasourceand some thatclearlymatchourPizarrin
source. Other artifactsfrom these neighboringregions
areassignedto a combinedPachuca/Pizarrin
sourcesince
we cannotassignthem to one or the otherwith statistical
certainty.
The color distinctions held up reasonablywell as
source indicatorsalthoughthey were by no means absolute. And therewere some revelations.
For the most part, the gray sample specimenswere
from Otumba.That is, 81.1% (261 specimens)of the
322 gray specimens in the sample were attributedto
Otumba.This correlationis even higher,namely91.6%
(239 of 261), if we exclude the 61 Coapexcogray artifacts. The surprisesare in the Coapexco(EH-2) materials.
One strikingCoapexcofindingis the large numberof
gray specimensattributedto the Altotongasource. Altotongaobsidianwas a 35.6% plurality(21 of 59) of the
Coapexcograys. There were only four Altotongaspec-

imens in all the other 12 samples(two grays, one clear,

one fuzzy). Further,13.6%of the Coapexcograys were
from Pared6nand 10.2%from Zinap6cuaro.
Morethanone-thirdof the 184 clear artifactswere in
the BNL analyzedsample and 65.1% of this obsidian
was attributedto Pared6n. A substantial minority
(25.4%), however, was attributedto Otumba. If one
considersthe manufacturing
classes, a strongercorrelation between clear obsidian and Pared6nemerges. All
clearbladesin the samplesarefromEarlyHorizoncomponents. And of the 14 clear blades in the EH sample,
85.7% are attributableto Pared6nand none to Otumba.
An importantdeterminationmade in this researchis
thatPared6nobsidianand the heretoforemysterious01mec Group A obsidian (isolated by Cobean and his
associates)are the same. The descriptionof the visual
characteristics
of clearandGroupA obsidianaresimilar.
all
three
clear specimensfrom our collections
Further,
that had been analyzed and attributedto Group A by
Cobeanwereanalyzedandattributedto Pared6nby Kimberlin. Hence the revelationthat the unknownGroupA
flakes and blades from the "firstpurelyOlmec occupation" at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlin, the first to have
blades"inany significantamount,"are madeof Pared6n
obsidian(Cobeanet al. 1971: 666).
Morethantwo-thirdsof the 86 green artifactswere in
the BNL analyzedsample.This obsidianwas attributable

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

70

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

Table3. Obsidianand obsidiansourcesin the Basin of Mexico sequence,EH throughFI-4.

Stage of
Obsidian
Utilization
Stage 5
(end FI-4)
Stage 4
(end EH-4,
FI-1 - FI-4)

Stage 3
(EH-3, EH-4)
Stage 2
(EH-2)

Obsidian
as % of
chipped
stone*
54.4
(81)
65.7
(1558)

68.7
(567)
53.8
(329)

Sources of obsidian as % of all obsidiant

Zinapecuaro

Altotonga

Pared6n

Hidalgo*

Sources of obsidian (blades only)t

Otumba

Blades
as % of
obsidian*
24.7
(20)
10.6
(166)

4.2
(7)

0.6
(1)

13.4
(76)
59.6
(196)

55.3
(42)
48.3
(86)

1.3
(1)
20.8
(37)

17.3
(14)

3.1
(49)

0.1
(1)

4.6
(71)

3.1
(48)

82.7
(67)
85.6
(1331)

9.7
(55)
35.9
(103)

0.9
(5)
16.7
(48)

14.1
(80)
18.5
(53)

3.5
(20)
2.4
(7)

59.9
(340)
18.8
(54)

Zinapecuaro

Altotonga

Pared6n
-

Hidalgo*

Otumba

1.8
(3)

35.0
(7)
3.0
(5)

65.0
(13)
89.2
(148)

11.8
(9)
14.0
(25)

6.6
(5)
2.8
(5)

21.0
(16)
9.0
(16)

Stage 5 = thatof Cuautepeccomponentat El ArbolilloWest.

Stage4 = thatof Late Manantialat SantaCatarina,Bombaat SantaCatarinaandTlapacoya,El Arbolilloand
La Pastoraat El ArbolilloEast, Totolicaand Atotoat Lomade Atoto.
Stage 3 = thatof Ayotla and Manantialcomponentsat TlapacoyaandEl Terremote.
Stage 2 = thatof Coapexco.
*-Total countsfor sites listed, includinga few specimensexcludedfromuniversesampledfor BNL
analysis.
stratifiedsample,as discussedin text. Unknownsource"Z"and
t-Extrapolations fromdisproportional
not tabulated,but includedin 100%.
"unassigned"
$-Pachuca, Pizarrinand unassignedgreencombined.

to the Hidalgo sources: 32 to Pachuca and 12 to Pizarrin,

while 13 were apparently from other outcroppings in the
Pachuca or Pizarrin source areas.
More than half of the 125 fuzzy obsidian artifacts
were in the BNL analyzed sample. Of these, 80.9% was
attributed to Zinapecuaro. The association is 88.2% if
only blades are considered and would be even higher if
the three source-unassigned fuzzy blades were also from
that source.
Almost tivo-thirds of the 116 grainy obsidian artifacts
were in the BNL analyzed sample. There is a correlation
with Zinapecuaro, although it is not as strong as the
fuzzy-Zinapecuaro correlation. Sixty percent of the 75
specimens was attributableto Zinapecuaro. As with the
fuzzy obsidian, the association is even higher when limited to blades. Twenty-five of the 28 fuzzy blades were
from Zinapecuaro.

Stages in the History of Obsidian Utilization

Extrapolation from the chemically analyzed sample,
using the strata discussed earlier, and comparisons of
our data with data elsewhere has enabled us to define
five stages in the history of CentralHighland Mesoamerican lithic technology (TABLES
3, 4). Stages 1, 2, and 3
occurred during the Early Horizon, a time of pan-Mesoamerican unifying elements, while stages 4 and 5 occurred during the early First Intermediate, when
regionalization seems to have occurred (Price 1976; Tolstoy 1978, n.d.).
There is considerable evidence from sites in Oaxaca,
Morelos, and the southern Gulf Coast for stages 1 and

3 (Grove 1974). Non-blade obsidian artifacts characterize the first stage.3 The third stage involved significant
numbers of prismatic blades in association with the presence of San Lorenzo-Olmec style within ceramic assemblages.
The second stage is transitional and evidence for it
has been found at Coapexco, from which the earliest
material in Tolstoy's collections was obtained. Coapexco's obsidian utilization, at least as indicated by the
collection considered, was unique. Its obsidian profile
indicates a large number of sources, with Otumba obsidian playing a relatively minor role. Otumba obsidian
is estimated to have comprised only 19% of the obsidian,
whereas the distant Zinap6cuaro obsidian is estimated to
represent a 36% plurality, and the comparably distant
Altotonga obsidian a considerable 17%.4 The Pared6n
source is estimated to have provided 18% and Pachuca/
Pizarrin 2% of the obsidian.
Further, of the 13 universes, Coapexco ranks highest
in proportion of blades to total obsidian. Some 60% of
the obsidian artifacts are blades as compared to less than
half that proportion for the second-ranking component.
3. Prismatic blades were in evidence at this time and even earlier in
some regions. The blades do not appear to have been present in any
abundance, however, and certainly do not suggest exchange systems
that were founded on the movement of such products (see Niederberger 1976).
4. The percentages are based upon an estimation procedure that
treated each component as a separate universe and with source-unassigned specimens divided proportionally among the seven identified
sources. Similar results are obtained using an alternate estimation
procedure that involves the pooling of components.

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

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987

71

Table4. The contextof obsidiansamplesfromearly village sites in the Basin of Mexico.

Site
El Arbolillo West
(4)
Loma de Atoto (10)
Loma de Atoto (10)
El Arbolillo East
(4)
El Arbolillo East
(4)
Tlapacoya-Ayotla
(47)
Santa Catarina (48)
Altica (81)

Santa Catarina (48)

Tlapacoya-Ayotla
(47)
El Terremote (51)

Tlapacoya-Ayotla
(47)
Coapexco (34)

Period
(Subphase)
FI-4
(Early
Cuautepec)
FI-4
(Atoto)
FI-3
(Totolica)
FI-3
(Early La
Pastora)
FI-2
(El Arbolillo)
FI-i
(Bomba)

Area
excavated
(sq m)

Volume of
deposit
corresponding
to material
(cu m)

54.00

Domestic refuse ca. 80 cm thick;

1 feature pit.

N
sherds

N
fragments
chipped
stone

N
fragments
obsidian

17.98

9,350

149

81

38

9.00

5.07

12,953

268

184

38

Domestic refuse ca. 50 cm thick;

3 feature pits.

9.00

3.21

5,938

214

159

25

Domestic refuse ca. 300 cm

thick, very dense, probably a
dump.
Domestic refuse ca. 200 cm
thick, very dense, probably a
dump.
Domestic refuse ca. 60 cm thick.

11.25

12.87

120,890t

368

165

40

11.25

13.80

76,000t

198

110

43

6.75

4.05

9,966

624

512

50

2.85

1,875

170

66

490

354

343

30

Context
Domestic refuse ca. 100 cm
thick; I feature pit.

N
fragments
analyzed
at BNL

FI-1
(Bomba)
EH-4-FI-2
(Manantial
through El
Arbolillo

Refuse fill of 4 feature pits (nos.

1, 6, 15, and top of 7).
Surface scatter.

252.00

EH-4
(Manantial,
late)
EH-4
(Manantial)
EH-3-EH-4
(Ayotla,
Manantial)
EH-3
(Ayotla)
EH-2
(Coapexco)

Refuse fill of 10 feature pits.

252.00

7.98

7,063

528

362

39

Domestic refuse ca. 65 cm thick.

6.75

4.50

9,017

460

333

84

Domestic refuse ca. 40-100 cm

thick, on and near 2 house
mounds; 1 feature pit.
Domestic refuse ca. 60 cm thick.

227.36

29.88

4,111

240

151

52

6.75

4.05

5,929

125

83

29

Domestic refuse ca. 45-100 cm

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

243.50

64.30

33,702

596T

318t

111

*Totalvolumeof depositremovedis generallygreaterthanshown. Only unitsshownby analysisto containlittle or no intrusivematerial

areconsideredhere.
tFigureincludesestimateof uncountedbody sherds.
tUnlike figuresin Table3, these excludespecimensthatcannotbe matchedwith ceramicsor excavateddeposits.

On the other hand, obsidian and chipped stone in general

are relatively infrequent, as indicated by the ratios of
obsidian to chipped stone and of chipped stone to pottery
sherds. Coapexco ranks 11th on an obsidian-to-chippedstone index and 10th on a chipped-stone-to-sherd index.
As to the blades themselves, the estimates indicate that
most of them were from the distant sources: 48% from
Zinap6cuaro, 21% from Altotonga, 14% from Pared6n,
9% from Otumba, and 3% from Pachuca/Pizarrin.
A first glance at Coapexco's obsidian blades and at
its ceramics of the San Lorenzo-Olmec tradition would
appear to put it in the third stage of obsidian production
and distribution. In comparing the dates for Coapexco
(EH-2), however, with the sites elsewhere that first have
significant numbers of blades, one finds that Coapexco
was earlier. The San Lorenzo subphase on the Gulf

Coast, the first purely Olmec occupation and the first

with a significant number of blades, was contemporaneous with Coapexco and the following Ayotla subphases, but the vast increase in blades occurred in San
Lorenzo B, dating to EH-3 and EH-4. Early San Jose in
Oaxaca may have been as early as EH-2, but it had a
relatively small amount of blades. Late San Jose, with
its abundantblades, began, perhaps, as early as the end
of EH-3. And obsidian blades appeared in Morelos in
EH-4.
Considering the nature of the Coapexco materials,
several questions can be raised. First, how is one to
interpretthe high proportion of blades as compared with
the low proportion of obsidian within the chipped stone
assemblage and the low ratio of obsidian to sherds?
Second, why should there have been such a variety of

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

72

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

sourcesall supplyingblades?Third,why was theresuch

an emphasison a product,blades, that suggests, if not
mass production,at least a more effective use of raw
material?Fourth,how is one to interpretthe high proportionsof the distantobsidiansin general, and of the
distantobsidianblades in particular?Fifth, how is one
to interpretthe higherproportionof blades in the more
distantsources-from blades being 30%of the Otumba
obsidian to being 83% of the Zinapecuaroobsidian?
Sixth, why would such a constellationprecedethe panMesoamericanspreadof obsidianblades?
Here are some possible answers. First, the overall
compicturesuggeststhatCoapexcowas a "middleman"
acin
that
its
inhabitants
obsidian
is,
munity
exchange;
and
sources
obsidian
from
distant
.passed
quired
significantquantitiesof it, perhapsalreadyin bladeform,
to othercommunities.This would be consistentwith the
greatemphasison blades in Coapexco, with its having
a surplus-generating
technology,andwithits havinglittle
evidenceof in situ blade-making(theredoes seem to be,
however,morevariabilityin Coapexco'sblades,as measuredby width, and in the greaternumberof imperfect
blades than in other components).Second, if obsidian
was being transportedlong distances,with peoplecarrying what was most valuable and leaving behind what
was of least use, then we wouldexpectbladesor already
preparedblade-coresto have been carried-which would
be consistent with the relatively large proportionof
blades among all sources and the greaterproportionof
blades amongthe more distantobsidians.Third,if, for
Coapexcoandits contemporaries,access to Otumbaand
Pared6nwas from the east, throughwhat has been referredto, for latertimes, as the "Teotihuacain
Corridor,"
then the Basin of Mexico communitiesmay not have
been served by any consequent blade distribution.5
Fourth,if Coapexcoservedas a home base for itinerant
blade-makers(shades of V. GordonChilde's "itinerant
smiths"[Childe 1965: 86]), who perhapsmade blades
or merely preparedblade-cores near the sources and
carriedthem(ratherthanthe heavierunfinishednodules),
thenwe wouldexpect such itinerantsto exchangeblades
with villages they passed, perhapseven producingthe
blades right there in the village. Such activity would
have helped to create a marketfor blades. Because of
the selectivity of the villagers and/or because of the
limited productionfor any one village, the itinerants
5. This is ratheruncertainlyoffered,for while it wouldbe consistent
with the relativelyequal proportionsof Otumbaand Pared6n(and
Altotonga)obsidianat Coapexcoand with the possiblysmall amount
of blades within the Basin duringEH-2, it would not be consistent
with the increasingproportionsof bladesfromOtumbato Pared6nto
Altotonga.

perhapswould have been left with a ratherwide variety

of bladesto takebackto Coapexco(includingsome notso-good-ones).Such would be consistentwith the blade
variabilityfound there. All of this would be consistent,
too, with the presenceat Coapexcoof a highly productive technologywhich:1) producedbladesfroma variety
of sources;2) overshadowedsimplerobsidianmanufacturing strategies;and 3) precededthe rapid spreadof
blade technology throughoutMesoamerica. Fifth, if
there were itinerantblade-makers,two acquisitionand
assimilationpatternsfor obsidianwere perhapspresent,
the firstresultingin crudely-produced
obsidianproducts
that
came
fromthe closest
(nodule-smashings?) probably
obsidiansources, and the second resultingin obsidian
bladesfrom itinerants,which would be of whateverobsidianthe itinerantwas using.
A finalconjecture.If indeedthe Coapexcocommunity
anticipatedsome of the featureslater characteristicof
the Olmec traditionon the Gulf Coast, and if indeed it
had developedthe organizationalstructurefor mining,
andmarketingobsidianblades,thenpermanufacturing,
the
subsequentevents on the Gulf Coast can be
haps
explainedas the applicationof such organizationalskills
(a variationof Rathje's model [Rathje 1971]) to the
resource-deficient
lowlandsof ones originallydeveloped
in the centralhighlands,andperhaps,ultimately,further
west (Covarrubiasrevisited [Covarrubias1957]). At
minimum, Coapexco's peculiarities, including its unusually high location (2600 m, an elevationwhere permanentsettlementwas rareat any period)in the southern
gatewayintothe Basinandits relativelybriefoccupation
(100 to perhaps200 years), do suggest a transitionin
the local economy that seemingly anticipatesa similar
change in otherpartsof Mesoamerica.
The third stage followed this transition.It involved
the almost simultaneousappearanceof significantnumbers of blades throughoutMesoamericatogether with
materials.This patternwas in
San Lorenzo-Olmec-style
evidence in threeBasin of Mexico components(Ayotla
subphaseat Tlapacoya-Ayotla,the EH-3 to 4 transition
at El Terremote,and Manantialsubphaseat TlapacoyaAyotla). In contrastto Coapexco, the majorityof the
obsidianin these three componentswas attributableto
Otumba.The blades comprisedonly 12%, 18%, and
12%,respectively,of the obsidianin these components.
Sourcesof the blades were varied. The manufacturing
profilefor Otumbaobsidianshows blades to have been
relativelyunimportant(5%, 1%, and 5%, respectively),
the bulkof the Otumbaobsidianhavingbeencrudeflakes
or smashings.In contrast,the modal source for blades
during Ayotla subphase(EH-3) appearsto have been
Pared6n,while duringthe EH-3 to 4 transitionand during Manantial(EH-4) it was Zinap6cuaro.With respect

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

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987

to these last two components,most of the Zinapecuaro

obsidianwas in blade form.
Thus, in the Basin of Mexico duringEH-3 and EH-4
one intwo obsidianindustrieswere contemporaneous:
volved bladesmade, often but not necessarily,of distant
obsidian;the other involved crude non-bladematerials
(smashings?)usually made from the local sources. The
first suggests that regionalspecialists(perhapsitinerant
blade-makers,perhapsvillage specialistsservedby middlemen)wereprovidingthe blades. The secondsuggests
that villagers were fashioningsharp-edgedtools themselves.
The fourthstage of obsidianutilizationis associated
influenceand the
with the decline of pan-Mesoamerican
of
of
a
appearance generalpattern regionaldevelopment.
In the Basin of Mexico it is in evidence in eight componentsthatspanthe veryend of EH-4andthe beginning
of FI-4. Thus this stage was slightly out of phase with
the early First Intermediateperiod (MiddlePreclassic).
It began, ran its course, and ended slightly in advance
of the correspondingcycle of changesin culturalstyles
thatdefinethe MiddlePreclassic.
Whencomparedwith the thirdstage, the fourthstage
shows a still higher reliance on Otumba obsidian.
of the
Otumbaobsidianmadeup morethanthree-fourths
obsidianin these eight components(late Manantialat
Santa Catarina79%, early Bomba at Santa Catarina
95%, Bombaat Tlapacoya-Ayotla96%, Altica 99%, El
Arbolilloat El ArbolilloEast 77%, EarlyLa Pastoraat
El ArbolilloEast 84%, Totolicaat Lomade Atoto 91%,
and Atoto at Loma de Atoto 78%). Blades tendedto be
of Otumbaobsidianand less prevalent(6%, 11%, 15%,
1%, 13%, 9%, 6%, and 11% of the obsidian, respectively). The manufacturing
profilesfor Otumbaobsidian
showbladesto have beensomewhatmoreimportantthan
Otumbablades were during the third stage (in fourth
stagecomponents,Otumbabladeswere6%, 11%, 14%,
1%, 14%, 10%,7%, and 14%of the Otumbaobsidian,
respectively).
Thus regionalizationfrom late EH-4 to early FI-4 in
the Basin of Mexico is indicatedby reliance, for both
blade and non-bladematerials, on the local obsidian
sources (Otumbaprimarily).But duringthis time, developmentof a blade-producing
industryfor moredistant
markets may have been taking place near the local
sources and, if so, may have been a precursorof subsequentdevelopments.The fifthstagegives some further
indicationof a trend toward that subsequentdevelopment.
That stage of obsidian utilizationis in evidence in
only one component,the Early Cuautepecsubphaseat
El ArbolilloWest (early FI-4). If the sample provides
an accuraterepresentation
of this component,thenblades

73

constituted25% of the obsidian, the largestpercentage

since EH-2 (Coapexco).Thirty-fivepercentof the blades
were from Pachuca and/or Pizarrin and 65% from
Otumba.Little Hidalgo materialother than blades was
present.The manufacturingprofileof Otumbaobsidian
showsa relativelyhighproportionof bladesas compared
with all the earliercomponents,except EH-2 Coapexco.
Nineteenpercentof the Otumbaobsidianartifactswere
blades. Finally,no sourceotherthanOtumba,Pachuca,
or Pizarrinwas utilized.
The obsidianof the FI-4 occupationof El Arbolillo
West, in fact, accordswell with the obsidianmovement
presentedby Charlton.According to Charlton'sinterpretationsof his Tezoyucaand Patlachiquephases (FI-8
and FI-9 [Charlton1978: 1233]): "The continuingabsence of Pared6nobsidianfrom the Valley of Mexico
and the existence there of both Otumbaand Navajas
obsidian factory workshops sufficient to supply local
demandsuggestthatthe Tepeapulcoareawas gearedto
productionfor foreigntrade."
Cuautepecat El ArbolilloWest, with its obsidianfrom
only Otumbaand Pachucaand/orPizarrin,seems to be
tied in tightly to a local Basin of Mexico distribution
system. Its high proportionof bladesindicatesthat, unlike the fourthstage pattern,the high productioncapability and special skill implied by blades were being
harnessed.Such an interpretationwould be consistent
with Tolstoy's suggestion that the inhabitantsof such
sites may have been a peasantrysubservientto a major
ceremonialcenterandthatCuicuilcomay have been that
ceremonialcenter (Tolstoy 1978). Thus, culturalcomplexityin the Basinmayhave beenapproachingthe level
achievedby urbanTeotihuacain.
These five stages offer supportfor several evolutionary trends.Firstis the replacementof the crudenodulesmashing technology by the productionefficiency of
blade-making.Secondis the growingimportanceof craft
specializationthat blade-makingcould imply. Third is
the creationof a significantmarketdemandfor blades,
which thus served as positive feedbackfor the growth
of blade-makingindustries.
Acknowledgments
We thankR. Zeitlinfor providingsourcesamplesfrom
the Yale Universitycollection. Othersalso due our appreciationare T. H. Charlton,J. Ericson,and R. Sidrys
for providingadditionalMexicanandGuatemalanobsidian sourcesamplesthey had collectedpersonally.

Martin William Boksenbaum has a Ph.D. in

Anthropologyfrom the City University of New York.

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

74

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

Currently he is a science teacher at Allen High

School, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and is teaching
sociology and anthropology courses as Lecturer at
Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, Center
Valley, and as Adjunct Professor at Northampton
County Area Community College, Bethlehem. He
resides at 287 Long Lane Road, Treichlers, PA 18086.
Paul Tolstoy is Professor of Archaeology at the
Universite de Montreal. He has carried out much
fieldwork and analyses of artifacts from Basin of
Mexico sites and has presented several interpretive
syntheses of the cultural sequence in the Basin of
Mexico. His academic address is: Departement
d'Anthropologie; Universite de Montreal, CP6128,
Succursale "A", Montreal, P.Q., H3C 3J7, Canada.
Garman Harbottle, of the Chemistry Department at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, has long been
involved with chemical analyses of archaeological
materials. He may be reached at Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973.
Jerome Kimberlin, who has been neutron activation
analyst for a number of archaeological projects, is
currently engaged in air pollution analysis for
Chevron, Inc.
Mary Neivens is currently writing final reports of
northern Belize fieldwork that was sponsored by the
Universidad de las Americas, Puebla, Mexico.

Cobean,RobertM., MichaelD. Coe, EdwardA. Perry,Jr.,

KarlT. Turekian,and DinkarP. Kharkar
1971 "ObsidianTrade and San Lorenzo Tenochtitlain,
Mexico,"Science 174: 666-671.
Covarrubias,Miguel
1957

Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New

York:Knopf.
Crabtree,Don E.
1968 "MesoamericanPolyhedral Cores and Prismatic
Blades," American Antiquity 33: 446-478.

Gould,RichardA., DorothyA. Koster,and Ann H. L. Sontz

1971 "TheLithicAssemblageof the WesternDesertAboriginesof Australia,"AmericanAntiquity36: 149169.
Grove, David C.
1974 "TheHighlandOlmec Manifestation:A Considerationof WhatIs and Isn't,"in NormanHammond,
ed., Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches.

Austin:Universityof Texas Press, 109-128.

Harding,ThomasG.
1967

Voyagers of the Vitiaz Strait. Seattle: University of

WashingtonPress.
Hayden,Brian
1980 "Confusionin the BipolarWorld:BashedPebbles
and SplinteredPieces," Lithic Technology9(1): 27.
Jelinek,Arthur,BruceBradley,and BruceHuckell
1971 "The Productionof SecondaryMultiple Flakes,"
American Antiquity 36: 198-200.

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

Neivens, Mary,GarmanHarbottle,and JeromeKimberlin

1983 "TraceElementalAnalysis of ObsidianArtifacts
fromNorthernBelize," in RaymondV. Sidrys,ed.,

Boksenbaum,MartinW.
1978

Lithic Technology in the Basin of Mexico During

1980

the Early and MiddlePreclassic. Ph. D. dissertation, City University of New York. Ann Arbor:
UniversityMicrofilms.
"Basic Mesoamerican Stone-Working: Nodule
Smashing?" Lithic Technology 9(1): 12-26.

Charlton,ThomasH.
1978 "Teotihuacain,
Tepeapulco,and ObsidianExploitation," Science 200: 1227-1236.
1979 "Modelosde Producci6ne Intercambioen Mesoamerica,"paper presentedat the XVI Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia,
Saltillo, Coahuila.
Childe, V. Gordon
1965

What Happened in History. Baltimore: Penguin

Books Ltd.
Clark,JohnE.
1979 "A Method for the Analysis of Mesoamerican
Lithic Industries:An Applicationto the Obsidian
Industryof La Libertad,Chiapas,Mexico,"unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah.

Archaeological Excavations in Northern Belize,

Central America. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Monograph XVII.

Los Angeles:Universityof California,321-339.

Niederberger,Christine
1976

Zohapilco: Cinco Milenios de Ocupaci6n Humana

en un Sitio Lacustre de la Cuenca de Mexico. Colecci6n Cientifica, Arqueologia, Departamento de

Prehistoria30. Mexico: InstitutoNacionalde Antropologiae Historia.

:rice, BarbaraJ.
1976 "A ChronologicalFrameworkfor CulturalDevelopment in Mesoamerica,"in Eric R. Wolf, ed.,
The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic
Ecology and Society. Albuquerque: University of

New Mexico Press, 13-21.

Rathje,William
1971 "TheOriginand Developmentof LowlandClassic
Maya Civilization," American Antiquity 36: 275-

285.
Santley,RobertS.
1976 "FormativeSettlementPatternsin the Cuauhtitlan

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

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987

Region, State of Mexico: A PreliminaryEvaluation," paper presentedat the XLII International
Congressof Americanists,Paris.
Sheets, PaysonD.
1972 "A Model of ObsidianTechnologyBased on PreclassicWorkshopDebrisin El Salvador,"Ceramica
1974

1975

de Cultura Maya 8: 17-33.

Differential Change Among the Precolumbian Artifacts of Chalchuapa, El Salvador. Ph.D. disser-

tation, University of Pennsylvania.Ann Arbor:

UniversityMicrofilms.
"The Structureof a PrehistoricIndustryin Mesoamerica (with CA* Treatment)," Current Anthro-

pology 16: 369-391.

Sheets, PaysonD., and Guy R. Muto
1972 "PressureBlades and Total CuttingEdge: An Experimentin LithicTechnology,"Science 175:632634.
Spence, MichaelW., and JeffreyR. Parsons
1972 "Prehispanic
ObsidianExploitationin CentralMexico: A PreliminarySynthesis,"in Anthropological
Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of

Michigan45. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan,

1-43.
Tolstoy,Paul
1971 "ProgressReport on ArcheologicalInvestigations
of Earlyand MiddlePreclassicOccupationsin the
Basin of Mexico, May-October 1971," unpublished report, NSF GrantGS 28609 and CUNY
FRAPGrant1203.
1973 "Preliminary
Reporton Investigationsat Earlyand
Middle PreclassicSites in the Basin of Mexico,"
unpublishedreportsubmittedto InstitutoNacional
de Antropologiae Historia.
1975 "Settlementand PopulationTrendsin the Basin of
Mexico (IxtapalucaandZacatencoPhases),"Jour1978

nal of Field Archaeology 2: 331-349.

"WesternMesoamericaBefore A.D. 900," in C.

W. Meighan, ed., Chronologies in New World Ar-

cheology.New York:AcademicPress, 241-284.

"TheOlmecin the CentralHighlands:A Non-QuintessentialApproach,"AmericanAntiquity44: 333337.
"WesternMesoamericaBefore A.D. 900," extenn.d.
sive revision and updating,as of 1980, of Tolstoy
1978.
Tolstoy,Paul, and SuzanneK. Fish
1975 "Surfaceand SubsurfaceEvidencefor Community
1979

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

Tolstoy, Paul, Suzanne K. Fish, MartinW. Boksenbaum,

KathrynBlair Vaughn,and C. EarleSmith
1977 "Early SedentaryCommunitiesof the Basin of
Mexico," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 91-106.

Tolstoy,Paul, and Louise I. Paradis

1970 "Earlyand MiddlePreclassicCulturein the Basin
of Mexico,"Science 167: 344-351.

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

75