Zachary Nelson - Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan Reexamining a Coyotlatelco Phase Workshop From Hacienda Metepec

OBSIDIAN BIFACE PRODUCTION AT TEOTIHUACAN:REEXAMINING A COYOTLATELCO PHASEWORKSHOP FROM HACIENDA METEPEC

Zachary NelsonENTRIX Inc., 807 East South Temple, Suite 350, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, USA

Abstract

This paper provides a reanalysis of a specialized biface workshop at Coyotlatelco-phase (a.d. 650–800) Teotihuacan excavated byEvelyn Rattray in 1979. Although Teotihuacan had already declined as a major center prior to this phase, the resident population wasstill being serviced by a variety of craftsmen, including knappers. The remains of an obsidian workshop at Hacienda Metepec giveinsight into workshop production within Epiclassic-period Teotihuacan. A single workshop produced between 4,700 and 8,700projectile points similar in shape to San Marcos points. The homogeneous workmanship indicates a single knapper, perhaps overseveral years of effort.

Teotihuacan, located in the Basin of Mexico, has long been regardedas a city with important craft production sites. At its height, Classicperiod Teotihuacan (approximately a.d. 300–600) was the mostpopulous city in Mesoamerica. Craftsmen fabricated the comfortsof life inside its walls; now archaeologists are plumbing the city’sremains for clues about its industries. Archaeologists discoveredlarge surface deposits of obsidian material often associated withlarge public buildings. These sizable deposits formed the basis ofmany theories about the economic reach of the city withinMesoamerica (Andrews 1999; Clark 1986, 2003a:27–30; Cowgill1997; Millon 1981; Pasztory 1997; Santley 1984; Spence 1967,1977, 1981) and are still being investigated (Carballo 2005).Furthermore, subsequent excavations have demonstrated productionof other materials within the city, such as ceramics (Sheehy 1992),figurines (Sullivan 2004), and lapidary objects (Widmer 1991).Excavation in the outskirts of the city have also revealed areas ofcraft production (Cabrera Cortes 2004; Turner 1987).

This paper will determine the workshop status, output, andorganization of a specialized biface workshop from Coyotlatelcophase Teotihuacan, which coincides with the Epiclassic period(roughly a.d. 650–800). Although Teotihuacan’s earlier Classicperiod economic structure has been the focus of multiple projects(Drennan et al. 1990; Spence 1987), much less is known about itsEpiclassic-period economy or inhabitants (Diehl 1989; MoragasSegura 2005). Even though the Coyotlatelco phenomenon is inter-esting in its own right (Solar Valverde 2006), a full discussionof its issues are beyond this paper. Suffice to say that theCoyotlatelco phase at Teotihuacan was a period of comparativelylow population and partial abandonment, with unoccupied build-ings providing convenient locations for material storage andrefuse disposal. Yet, strong continuity in craft production persisted

within the city. The Otumba obsidian mines continued to provideraw material for large atlatl darts produced within the HaciendaMetepec barrio (Nelson 2000:42). This reanalysis of the HaciendaMetepec obsidian workshop debitage provides new informationon the nature of obsidian production in Epiclassic-periodTeotihuacan.

THE HACIENDA METEPEC WORKSHOP EXCAVATION

The obsidian workshop at Hacienda Metepec was excavated byEvelyn Rattray in 1979. The Hacienda Metepec barrio is on thefar eastern side of Teotihuacan’s East Avenue (Figure 1) (see alsoMillon et al. 1973:Map 82 section 9:N1E7). Excavations realizedwithin this barrio uncovered a large deposit of obsidian debris ina workshop setting (Rattray 1979, 1980, 1981). This location wasinitially selected for excavation because of the abundance ofCoyotlatelco ceramic material on the surface. During the courseof excavation, a large subsurface deposit of obsidian debris wasrecovered within and around the remains of a Metepec-phase apart-ment compound that was reused as a Coyotlatelco residence with aworkshop and associated dump (Rattray 1989:243) (Figure 2).

The apartment compound was a standard Teotihuacan residence(Pasztory 1997:48) in style, consisting of a sunken patio withstairs leading to a columned small room (the portico), then asecond larger room (north room) behind the first. It had been aban-doned for perhaps 50 years prior to its reuse by Coyotlatelcopeoples (Rattray 1989:243). The portico area measures 5.5 m by7 m (Rattray 1979:5) while the patio measures 10.5 m by 12.5 m(Rattray 1987:454). The initial excavation centered on the porticoarea. However, on encountering obsidian deposits mixed withhousehold refuse in clearly secondary context on the steps, thepatio area was included in the excavation, yielding large obsidiandeposits in situ nearly devoid of other cultural material (Rattray1989:243). An area of approximately 170 m2 was excavated, and

149

E-mail correspondence to: [email protected]

Ancient Mesoamerica, 20 (2009), 149–162Copyright # 2009 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.doi:10.1017/S0956536109000121

archaeologists recovered 275 kg of obsidian debris, with obsidianflakes 50 cm deep in places. For ease of discussion, the excavationis divided into five units based upon architecture and obsidian con-centrations: north room, portico, steps, patio, and outside areas(Table 1).

Although this paper focuses on the Coyotlatelco-phase work-shop, material corresponding to other ceramic phases was alsorecovered. The stratigraphy of the excavation consists of Aztecmaterial on the surface (plow zone), followed by Coyotlatelcomaterial lying on top of a possible mud floor. Then there isMetepec material over a plaster floor and continuing down two sub-sequent floors. Next is late Xolalpan material, then early Xolalpanmaterial, and finally late Tlamimilolpa artifacts above sterile soil(Figure 3) (see Rattray 1980).

DATA SET AND PROCEDURES

Excavated soil was initially sieved through a 4.76-mm screen in thefield and the artifacts were picked out by hand. In addition, Rattraytook five to 10 liters of soil samples for microdebitage analysis fromselected features (Rattray 1987). After her analysis (Rattray 1980),the microdebitage and macrodebitage were bagged and packed up.This next section details the procedures followed during this reana-lysis, not Rattray’s original analysis of the workshop (1980). All ofthe lithic material recovered from the Hacienda Metepec excavationswere examined for this reanalysis. Shelby Saberon was responsiblefor most of the initial sorting, sieving, and counting operationsunder the general supervision of John Clark. This work is documen-ted in his 1997 undergraduate honor’s thesis. The obsidian artifacts(micro- and macrodebitage) passed through nine nested screens thatseparated it by size for later analysis (Figure 4) (Saberon 1997).Screens 1–5 (sieve openings of 7.5, 5.0, 3.75, 2.5, and 1.9 cm)

trapped the bifaces and large percussion debris, while screens 6and 7 (sieve openings of 1.25 and 0.63 cm) collected the smallerpercussion material and larger pressure flaking debris, and screens8 and 9 (sieve openings of 0.28 and 0.20 cm) caught mainlypressure flakes and some percussion debitage. The material thatpassed through the smallest screen was also collected and analyzed(see Saberon 1997 for more details). After the material wasscreened, the obsidian in each screen was separated according toits visual and technological characteristics (e.g., biface fragmentversus flakes) and bagged. Once the biface fragments wereremoved, the flakes were divided by size and attributes. Completecounts were made for several lots of all the flakes and their techno-logical characteristics.

Next the large debitage (.1.9 cm) was individually weighed,measured, and examined. Biface fragments were classified along aproposed manufacturing sequence. The scars left by knapping errorsand the type of break were recorded (e.g., straight or transverse) foreach biface fragment. Flakes were also classified by their surfacecharacteristics into categories, such as primary percussion (only oneflake scar on ventral surface), secondary (two flakes scars on ventralsurface), tertiary (more than two flake scars on ventral surface), andbifacial thinning flakes. Cortex bearing flakes were also tallied.Smaller debitage did not receive a thorough analysis. Most lots wereexamined for notching flakes, but other flakes were not tallied bytype except in a few instances for comparative purposes.

The reconstructed manufacturing sequence for the workshopconsists of the following activities (Figure 4) (see Nelson 2000for a more detailed version). Large obsidian percussion flakeswere struck from cores at the Otumba quarry. These flakes (i.e.,tool blanks) were brought to Hacienda Metepec, where theywere worked into bifaces by percussion. Percussion biface 1sare modified blanks with few percussion scars. Percussion

Figure 1. Schematic plan of Teotihuacan (after Millon et al. 1973; Pasztory 1997:35) modified to show Coyotlatelco-phase ceramic dis-tribution (after Ian Robertson’s figure in Gomez Chavez and Cabrera Castro 2006:238).

Nelson150

Figure 2. Plan map of Hacienda Metepec excavations.

Table 1. Artifacts found in direct association with workshop deposit

Patio(W1S1–W1S3)

North Room(W1N2)

Portico Room(W1N1)

Steps(W1S1–E1S1)

Outside Areas(W2N1, E1N2)

Biface fragments 501 85 33 404 162Workshop debrisa (kg) 90.81 11.50 11.85 91.36 43.34Prismatic blade fragments 54 10 1 65 65Prismatic cores 4 0 0 4 2Bone tools 2 0 0 2 0Scrapers 7 3 1 8 8Saw 1 0 0 0 0Mano 0 0 1 0 0Hammerstones 2 1 0 1 0Gary large point 0 0 0 0 1Drills 1 0 0 0 1Percussion cores 2 0 0 2 2

aIncludes the weight of preforms and flakes.

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan 151

biface 2s are modified percussion biface 1s with rough, unsym-metrical faces. Percussion biface 3s are bifacial knives witheven edges and symmetrical faces. The length of a percussionbiface 3 biface was generally 1.67 times its width and averages0.7 cm in thickness. Upon finishing the percussion work, thebifaces were reworked with pressure flaking to smooth out anyirregularities (pressure bifaces) and often corner-notched. Theresulting corner-notched atlatl dart points ideally measured4.63 cm by 2.86 cm, and resembled a San Marcos point in theTexas typology, which are nicknamed “Ramec” dart points to dis-tinguish them from the cultural affiliation of San Marcos points(Figure 5) (see Hester 1986; Nelson 2000). Ramec is a compoundword formed from “RAttray and Hacienda MEtepeC”. Thus, twopossible final product types were the focus of this workshopeffort, a projectile point preform/bifacial knife (pressure biface)or a Ramec dart point.

Fortunately for archaeologists, this sequence of events did notalways result in a finished projectile point. Mistakes occurred, andit is through the knapping errors that the manufacturing processwas reconstructed. Unfortunately for the knapper,1 he broke1,241 percussion bifaces and 234 pressure bifaces, allowing hisactions to be reconstructed in detail. In addition, flakes wereremoved at each stage in the manufacturing process. Flakes aredebris removed from the bifaces. Their shape and form indicatewhether the knapper was using percussion or pressure for theirremoval. Unlike other kinds of production by-products, such asceramic wasters, obsidian flakes are both readily identifiableand hard to destroy, thus providing an excellent window into

production. Individual flakes can be assigned by size and typeto particular stages in the manufacturing process. In particular,notching flakes serve as indicators to the number of finished pro-ducts as they occur last in the manufacturing process. Thus,special efforts were made to identify and count the notchingflakes found in each screen.

WORKSHOP STATUS

Rattray thought that she found an obsidian workshop, and thissection will evaluate whether her deposit represents a workshop(with adjacent dump) or just a workshop dump. The focus of thiseffort hinges upon the identification of the type of deposit thatRattray excavated, that is, workshops should have different attri-butes than dumps. Workshops are not refuse deposits (Behm1983; Clark 1989, 1990, 1991; Healan 1992; Hester and Shafer1992; Mallory 1986; Moholy-Nagy 1990, 1992; Shafer andHester 1986). They are “delimitated spaces where workers regu-larly perform [a] specialized activity or activities, to make pro-ducts, which are also specialized, destined for sale or exchange.The products produced exceed the workers’ own needs” (Clark1989:213; author’s translation). Unfortunately, it is far easier to ident-ify the workshop refuse than the workshop itself. John Clark (1989)published a list of attributes for correctly identifying workshops.Table 2 summarizes these attributes and whether they pertain toHacienda Metepec. Based on these criteria, Hacienda Metepecrepresents a workshop with an associated dump (Nelson 2000).

Production loci may be determined by microdebitage. Healan(1995) and Moholy-Nagy (1990) have placed particular emphasis onmicrodebitage (i.e., flakes ,2 mm) as indicators of production loci.

Figure 3. Stratigraphy at Hacienda Metepec, W1N2 East profile (after Rattray 1980:Figure 5c).

1 Most specialized knappers are male (see Clark 2003b:232, footnote 1).

Nelson152

Their (separate) arguments posit that periodic cleaning of the pro-duction area would remove all but the smallest debitage. Eventhough microdebitage can also be found in dumps, they feel that ithas the most potential for identifying places of production.

Unfortunately, Hacienda Metepec was excavated in 1979, before thisrealization occurred. Yet, Rattray’s soil samples included microdebi-tage, and those samples were taken from areas that she thought wereimportant in defining workshop loci. Microdebitage at Hacienda

Figure 4. This complex figure shows the screen sizes compared with artifact size on the right with the production cycle for aRamec point also on the right. All objects are to the same scale. A blank (1) is reduced via percussion into a percussion biface1 (2). Flakes removed during this process include bulbar flakes (1a), primary blank flakes (1d), secondary blank flakes (1b), andtertiary blank flakes (1c). A percussion biface 1 is reduced via percussion into percussion biface 2 (3). The debitage includesbifacial thinning flakes (2a). Percussion biface 2 is reduced via percussion into a percussion biface 3 (4) with small percussionflakes (3a) as debitage. Percussion biface 3 is reworked with pressure flaking into a pressure biface (5). Pressure flakes are notpictured. Pressure bifaces are an end product. A pressure biface may be notched into a Ramec point (6). Notching flakes (5a)are then produced.


Metepec was recovered from 29 squares2 and sorted by weight. Thereis a clear break in the amount of debitage found in three differentsquares:3 W1N2 (north room), W1S1 (steps), and W1S2 (patio).

The distribution of microdebitage at Hacienda Metepec(Figure 6) by weight shows three loci of high concentration witheach locus possessing greater than 140 g of obsidian. The nextgreatest concentration, 70 g, lies next to the high concentration inthe patio. Because these three areas have twice the microdebitageby weight than other places in the excavation, they are likely pro-duction loci. These three areas are spatially segregated from eachother, namely, one in the possible living quarters in the northroom, one on the steps,4 and another in the patio. Additionally,the distribution of all obsidian debitage (micro- and macrodebitage)

Figure 5. Top: Ramec projectile points from Hacienda Metepec. Bottom: Ramec projectile points from nearby areas within Teotihuacan.

2 But only 20 samples could be graphed with precision. In this, and alldistributional graphs, a small proportion of the obsidian recovered couldnot be graphed because of incomplete context. However, this does notchange the relative distribution.

3 These samples include Rattray’s soil samples plus any microdebitagethat adhered to other artifacts during the original field screening. Thesamples are valid for these purposes because the samples represent multipleareas of the excavation. The largest samples are five times as large as themean of the samples (25.6). There is a quantitative difference in threesamples from the rest of the samples.

4 While the steps did contain most of the cultural material, Rattray’sexcavation journal indicates that this area (B2/B3) was largely void of cul-tural material.

Nelson154

shows high concentrations near, but not over, these productionloci (Figure 7); however, lighter concentrations of microdebitage(0–70 g) are under areas of high obsidian concentrations,suggesting that abnormally high concentrations of microdebitageindicate primary deposition while lower concentrations indicate sec-ondary deposition (see Healan 1995). The pattern shown by the dis-tribution of hammerstones and bone pressure tools (Figures 6 and 7)likewise provide indirect support for the production loci. The plot oftheir individual locations place these discarded tools around the pre-sumed production loci and within the concentrations of obsidiandebris. An explanation for these loci could be weather-related. Onnice days, it is possible that the knapper worked outside in thepatio or on the steps. When the weather was inclement, knappingoccurred inside.

Macrodebitage (flakes and production failures .2 mm) com-prise the bulk of the obsidian recovered from Hacienda Metepec(99.7%).5 Macrodebitage recovered includes broken bifaces,flakes, and a few other tools. The deposit is quite extensive for abiface-producing workshop in a city better known for prismaticblades, albeit at an earlier time period. Production errors in theform of broken bifaces, overshot flakes, and other error-correctingflakes are present in the debitage.

All the available evidence indicates that the production of bifa-cial knives and corner-notched atlatl dart points were the focus ofthis workshop. Finished products were exported out of the work-shop, leaving behind debitage and broken bifaces. A few brokenbifaces could be refitted after hours of looking for matches. Theseprovide information on the final workshop products. The pressureflaking pattern on the dart points was regular and even. Thepoints themselves were well-thinned, with good balance and form.The standard variation in biface thickness decreases from blanksto percussion biface 2 stage then increases slightly during pressure

flaking and decreases with the final product (Nelson 2000:42–43).The manufacturing sequence, as outlined previously, was designedto turn unmodified blanks into high-quality knives and dart pointsby a gradual process of removing mass and irregularities. Hence,the flakes and obsidian bifaces recovered in this context do nothave visual evidence of use or wear. A few bifaces, less than 3%,may have been used as expedient tools, but the vast majority offlakes and bifaces show no use wear.

The production loci and associated dump constitute the bifaceworkshop at Hacienda Metepec. Three areas of unusually highmicrodebitage concentrations have been identified as productionloci. They are surrounded by heavy deposits of obsidian manufac-turing debris believed to be in situ. The remarkable characteristicof this workshop is not its size but its location and product—special-ized bifaces. Hacienda Metepec lies on the outskirts of Teotihuacan,far from the center of the city and its Classic-period political core.Additionally, bifaces are relatively uncommon in artifact assem-blages in the area, as the major stone tools were prismatic blades.These considerations will be addressed after the output of this work-shop has been calculated.

PRODUCTION ESTIMATES AND SCALE OFPRODUCTION

Production estimates are useful in determining the number ofworkers at a workshop and the market for the workshop products(Costin 1991; Costin and Hagstrom 1995). However, productionestimates are difficult to generate because the product is destinedfor outside consumption and the debitage remaining in the pro-duction area represents the last manufacturing episode of the work-shop. It is possible that the workshop area was cleaned periodicallyof production debris. Thus, any production estimates are, by theirnature, minimal estimates based on the assumption that the work-shop had never been cleaned and that the full extent of thedeposit was excavated. Three methods are used to estimate thenumber of finished products from this workshop: diagnostic arti-facts, weight-reduction, and replication experiments.

Diagnostic artifacts can be useful indicators of production whenthey occur at a particular point in the manufacturing process, suchas the primary tranchet flakes in the production of tranchet bifaces atColha (Shafer and Hester 1991:86–87). The ratio of diagnosticartifacts to finished products provides a ready indicator of the quan-tity of finished products. Unfortunately, there is no clear diagnosticartifact for the manufacture of Ramec points. The most diagnosticartifacts are notching flakes, which are struck off the pressurebiface at the end of the manufacturing sequence. Though manylots were casually examined for notching flakes, six units in particu-lar were chosen for detailed analysis based upon weight and sizegradient as likely to contain high numbers of notching flakes. Thecounted number of notching flakes is 865, from these six differentcontexts. Estimating from the relative proportion of notching flakesin these samples by weight, the total number of notching flakeswithin the total excavated area would be 7,378 to 11,937 flakes ifevery single bag were analyzed for notching flakes and assumingthat all notching occurred in the workshop (Nelson 2000:106–107). Replication experiments suggest that each Ramec pointrequired a minimum of three notching flakes per corner to shapethe biface haft. This is a conservative estimate that if applied toflake estimates for the entire deposit yields a production estimateof 1,230 to 1,990 total Ramec points. This production estimate istoo low, because the mass of the deposit is too large for only

Table 2. Workshop characteristics

Workshop Characteristics Present

1. Large quantity of debitage. Yes2. Debitage includes errors and broken products. Yes3. Instruments of production present. Yes4. Broken pieces are high quality. Yes5. All production stages present. Yes6. Specialized production in limited items. Yes7. Debitage contains many tiny pieces. Yes8. Debitage is mainly unused. Yes9. High number of cores in relation to debitage. N/A10. Ratio of complete products to incomplete is low. Yes11. Percentage of domestic garbage is low compared withdebitage.

Yes

12. Spatial relationship between debitage and products. Yes13. It may be possible to refit a core. Yes14. Presence of artifacts showing manufacturing error correction. Yes15. Workshop has housing facilities for debris and commodities. Yes16. Characteristics of workshop dependent on distance fromcommodity sources.

Yes

5 Rattray reported that she recovered 30,000 sherds of ceramics from thisdeposit (1989:243), which is 7.4% of the quantity of excavated flakes (esti-mated at 403,486; see also Charlton et al. 1991:103). Although ceramics andfigurines were discovered, the majority of the artifacts recovered at HaciendaMetepec consisted of obsidian flakes.


1,990 darts being produced. For this reason, Ramec points must nothave been the sole production target. Pressure bifaces and Ramecpoints were both end products.

Another way of estimating production output involves calculatingthe weight lost between each stage in the manufacturing process.Knapping is a reductive process, so the difference in averageweight between bifaces of different stages gives an indication ofthe weight removed in the course of production. For these calcu-lations, it is necessary to use information from complete (refitted)bifaces (see Table 3). The dimensions in this table were reconstructedby measuring bifaces that had a complete dimension (such as a com-plete length from base to tip) or were refitted and hence complete.Weights were recorded from complete or refitted bifaces.

The difference in weight from blanks to the Ramec points equalsthe weight of the flakes removed during production. The weight ofthe obsidian debitage recovered (minus the weight of the blanks andbiface fragments) divided by the average weight reduction per stagegives an estimate of the number of bifaces produced:

Workshop production! Total obsidian flake weight / Change inweight.

The average weight difference between blanks and Ramec points is47.88 g. This much weight was converted into percussion andpressure flakes. The weight of the entire obsidian deposit recov-ered (275,270.41) minus the weight of the blanks and bifaces(22,282.5) equals 252,987.91 g (Nelson 2000). Then,252,987.91 g divided by 47.88 g/point equals the possiblenumber of points produced: 5,284. This is the best single estimatefor the workshop because it uses the entire mass of the recoveredmaterial in the calculation.

The weight difference between percussion biface 1s and finishedRamec points is 27.37 g. Instead of dividing the entire deposit bythis sum, it makes more sense to use the weight from screens 6–9(sieve opening 1.25–0.20 cm), because the material from screens2–5 was mainly blank fragments and large flakes created fromthe reduction of blanks into percussion biface 1s. Screens 6–9recovered percussion and pressure flakes. This gives a reducedamount (230,014.6 g) and suggests that 8,405 bifaces were pro-duced (230,014.6 g divided by 27.37 g/point).

Again, using a similar method, the difference between percus-sion biface 2s and Ramec points is 12.08 g. The flakes removedfrom percussion biface 2s would fall into screens 7–9 with sieve

Figure 6. Microdebitage distribution: (1) W1N2: C2/4, D4, E4; (2) W1S1: A2/3, B2/3; (3) W1S2: C4.

Nelson156

openings of 0.63–0.20 cm (105,815.7 g). Accordingly, it appearsthat 8,760 Ramec points were produced (105,815.7/12.08).

Finally, the difference in weight between percussion biface 3sand Ramec points is 3.41 g. The flakes removed should correspondto screens 8 and 9 (0.28 and 0.20 cm) based upon the size of theflake scars on the bifaces. The weight of screens 8 and 9 is16,251.7 g. This gives an estimated production of 4,773 projectilepoints. This estimate is low, perhaps because this sized materialwould have fallen through the screens initially used in the field.

The estimates based onweight changegive a production range indi-cating that between4,773and8,760pressure bifaces andRamecpointswere manufactured. This range exceeds the notching flake minimalnumber estimate and provides a better representation of possible pro-duction quantities, based upon the amount of debitage recoveredfrom the excavations.

Another way of estimating production is by replication exper-iments. Rattray published an estimate of this workshop’s productionbased upon replication experiments done by Jeffrey Kalin: 6,000–9,000 as the range with an 87.5% success rate (Rattray 1987:460).This estimate is based upon the number of replication failures and

the amount of debitage that is produced when replicating this dartpoint (Rattray 1987:460).

Specialized production is difficult to measure because the fin-ished products are removed from workshops. This forces the inves-tigator to estimate the probable production based upon the debitagethat remains. Estimating from notching flakes gives the probableproduction range of 1,230–1,990 points. The weight-change esti-mate increased the range to 4,773–8,760 points. Kalin’s experimen-tal data (6,000–9,000 points) mimics the weight-change range,thereby providing additional support. Thus the probable range inRamec-point production lies between 4,773 and 8,760 points.Because there were 596 irreparable bifaces6 discovered in thedeposit, this indicates that 4,177–8,404 Ramec points are missingfrom the deposit. These missing points represent the finished,exported products of Hacienda Metepec.

Figure 7. Total obsidian distribution in grams. Note that the microdebitage loci (patterned X) are not in areas of dense obsidianmaterial.

6 It is possible that some of the percussion bifaces could have been sal-vaged depending on where the break occurred, so this lower estimate avoidsdouble-counting bifaces by assuming that breaks near the tip could haveresulted in a finished, but slightly shorter point (see note 7).


A final production issue refers to irreparable errors and error rates.How proficient was the knapper? Irreparable errors are bifaces thatbroke in such a way that the knapper could not use any of the bifacepieces to fashion a shorter but still functional biface or dart.7 Therewere 596 irreparable bifaces found within the deposit. The productionrange, 4,773–8,760 points, gives an error rate of 12.5% for the lowerestimate (596/4,773) and 6.8% on the higher estimate (596/8,760).Coincidentally, Rattray notes that during Kalin’s replication exper-iments, they had an error rate of 12.5% (1987:459).

ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

The number of workers within a workshop and the time spent inworking influence the output of the workshop (Donham 1981). Asthe number of workers increases, the social organization within theworkshop may also become more complex (Kenoyer et al. 1991).People may need to supervise the production, or production maybe facilitated by assembly-line task specialization (Carrier 1992:548). Theories on task management and labor specializationabound, differentiated by the potential number of laborers within agiven establishment and their relationship to management (Carrier1992). Ancient workshop organization can only be approximated,due to the difficulty of reconstructing social behavior from materialrefuse. Likewise, archaeologists can only provide estimates based onthe debris excavated, which may not include all the debris from theworkshop. Themethod used here to estimate the number of knappersin the workshop is to work backward from the output, assuming thatlow product output would be comparable to low worker input.Ramec dart production required a specialized knowledge of knap-ping and commensurate skill and each stage of the manufacturingprocess could be performed by a single individual.

The time involved in the creation of a single Ramec projectile pointaids in roughly estimating the duration of the workshop. The work-shop has been dated to a single ceramic phase that representsseveral decades. If the workshop lasted 50 years with the high esti-mated output of roughly 8,760 points, then a single worker couldeasily make 180 points a year (8,760/50) if he made one every

other day. However, if the workshop produced 8,760 projectilepoints within a single year, then a case could be made for a morecomplex type of organization (see Costin 1991:31 for a similarexample). But how much time did the production of a Ramec pointrequire? In the process of verifying the manufacturing sequence,John Clark replicated a Ramec style point in 45 minutes. Althoughthis is not a definitive measure of prehistoric or modern activity, itserves as a cautious measure of the time involved. If the worker wasmore adept at his craft than Clark, then he could make a projectilepoint in 30 minutes. At this rate, the workshop would have been inoperation for a maximum of 4,500 hours, ceteris paribus, not includ-ing any time estimates on tasks that took place outside of theworkshopsuch as quarrying the raw material and transport time. Given theserather subjective time estimates, the organization of productionchanges according to the duration of the workshop (Table 4).

For long duration periods (i.e., more than five years), the dartsproduced would not have required more than the occasional laborof a single person. Thus, a long duration workshop could feasiblyinvolve only a single individual. However, if the duration is lessthan five years, or even a single year, then the amount of productionwould have exceeded the reasonable activity of a single person(Shafer and Hester 1986:162) and probably required a morecomplex organization within the workshop.

In an attempt to estimate the number of knappers, the exca-vation was divided into architectural sectors: north room,

Table 3. Dimensions of all bifaces versus complete and refitted bifaces

Total/Range Refits Number Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Weight (g) Difference in Weighta

Blanks 276 8.2–11.6 4.1–7.0 1.2–3.0 18.8–83.9 47.88 g3 9.95 4.95 1.8 55.00

Percussion biface 1s 410 5.5–8.6 3.0–5.3 0.80–1.80 22.3–53.0 27.37 g12 7.5 4.26 1.12 34.49



Pressure Bifaces 163 4.5–8.0 2.9–3.8 0.6–0.88 2.4–22.0 1.7 g0b 4.82b 2.94b 0.68b 8.82b

Ramec points 71 4.5–9.0 1.8–3.7 0.44–0.77 2.1–21.8 —5 4.63 2.86 0.64 7.12

aThis is the difference in weight of each biface type compared with Ramec points. bNo pressure bifaces had complete dimensions, so these values are averaged between percussionbiface 3s and Ramec points.

Table 4. Workshop duration, output, and organization

DurationDailyProductiona

Hours ofDaily Laborb

Number ofWorkers

ProbableOrganization

20 years 1.2 0.6 1 Part-timespecialist



1 year 24 12.0 .2 Full-timespecialists

aDaily production ! 8,760 points / duration / 365 days. bHours of daily labor ! dailyproduction ! 0.5 hours/point.

7 Examples of irreparable errors are midsection fragments or base frag-ments greater than one-half the average length of the biface stage to whichthey correspond (see Nelson 2000:109–111).

Nelson158

portico room, steps, patio, and outside. Also combinations ofsectors—north room " portico room, and patio " north room—to test ideas about breakage. Next these areas were comparedwith each other via a series of Chi-square tests with combinationsof the following attributes (see Nelson 2000 for additionaldescriptions of types): type of breaks quantity (straight, trans-verse, lipped, and jagged), biface fragment quantity (bases, tipsand midsections), and special attribute quantity (overshots,bulbs of percussion, and biface surface hinge fractures)(Table 5). These attributes all measure skill (or its lack), that is,the ability of the knappers to successfully remove flakes withoutdestroying the biface. Each break is a knapping error resultingfrom the force and direction of a blow through the biface.Finally, special attributes indirectly measure (1) knapping prefer-ences and (2) flaking ability in unusual cases, such as overshoot-ing the biface edge when removing flakes or if the blank’s bulb ofpercussion was removed, and (3) the presence of large hinge scarson either face of the biface.

The Chi-square test measures the difference between popu-lations. A low p value (,0.05) indicates that the populations aredifferent, that is, there may have been more than one person knap-ping, assuming that different levels of competence equals different

knappers. The large p values (see Table 6) suggest that the popu-lations are nearly homogenous—that is, one person could havecreated all the debitage found in each area. This suggests that asingle knapper was at work.

USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCT

Atlatl darts have limited use—either hunting or warfare—andpresumably there would be little game left in the neighborhood,or even the valley, to support an atlatl industry. A low populationestimate for Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacan suggests that around20,000 people lived in the remnants of the city, scattered in smallcommunities, such as Hacienda Metepec (Rattray 1979). If theusage of Coyotlatelco projectile points is similar to estimatedClassic period peasant families’ use (Sanders and Santley 1983:252), then 20,000 people would use approximately 55,000projectile points per year.8 Higher population figures increase this

Table 5. Quantity of biface breaks and error types

Steps Patio Outside North Room Portico Room N " R P " N

Type of Biface BreakStraight 186 177 70 28 53 81 205Transverse 206 206 85 26 70 96 232Lipped 69 45 18 5 14 19 50Jagged 45 47 21 5 14 19 52Biface PartBases 217 204 74 22 72 94 226Tips 219 200 89 28 50 78 228Midsection 25 41 18 8 13 21 49Special AttributesOvershot 28 39 11 5 17 22 44Bulb 51 43 17 4 12 16 47Hinge 14 8 9 1 3 4 9

N " R ! north room " portico room; P " N ! patio " north room.

Table 6. Chi-square tests

Type of Break Biface Part Special Attributes

Str, Tran, Lip, Jag Bases, Tips, Mids Over, Bulb, Hinge

Location x2 df p-value x2 df p-value x2 df p-value

All 8.718 12 0.727 14.812 8 0.063 12.264 8 0.140N, O, P, R 2.054 9 0.991 7.271 6 0.297 8.437 6 0.208N, R, O 1.968 6 0.923 6.919 4 0.140 5.356 4 0.253N, R 1.440 3 0.696 3.890 2 0.143 Insufficient dataS, P, O 5.768 6 0.450 7.293 4 0.121 7.838 4 0.098S, P 4.344 3 0.227 4.861 2 0.088 4.075 2 0.130S, P, N 6.104 6 0.412 8.554 4 0.073 4.782 4 0.310S, P, O, N " R 7.273 9 0.609 10.743 6 0.097 12.233 6 0.057

Jag ! jagged; Lip ! lipped; Mids ! midsection; N ! north room; O ! outside area; Over ! overshot; P ! patio; R ! portico room; S ! steps; Str ! straight; Tran ! transverse.

8 We calculated the usage as follows: 20,000 people / 4 people perfamily ! 5,000 families ! 11 projectile points ! 55,000. Although conjec-tural on many levels, this does provide a base estimate of projectile pointmanufacture and use.


estimate. Thus the complete output of this obsidian workshop wouldhave been insufficient to maintain the city for a single year. Further,there is no reason to assume that this is the only bifacial workshopoperating at that time. Michael W. Spence (personal communication2008; Spence 1967:509–510) notes that surface debitage in theregion indicates that multiple possible workshops/dumps are await-ing excavation. Trade or warfare within the Teotihuacan regioncould cause thousands of darts to be consumed in a relativelyshort period of time.

However, the social aspects of Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacanare beyond the scope of this paper. This phase “apparently lackedan architectural tradition, large public construction efforts, monu-mental art, and even a definable art style. We cannot even detectan elite, although it surely existed. Apparently the ideology andpower that held together the Teotihuacan world for so manycenturies ceased to exist and was not replaced” (Diehl 1989:16).Yet, social processes were still continuing during thisperiod. Either attached specialists under elite control weremanufacturing weapons for the state or independent specialistswere creating knives for a more general distribution (such astrade). Either interpretation indicates unrest in the Teotihuacanarea. These darts and bifaces were produced for specific purposes.In any event, the distribution of these projectile points is not yetknown. They occur within other areas of the Hacienda Metepecbarrio and within Teotihuacan itself (Rattray 1980), and they alsoarrived at Xochicalco (Kenneth Hirth, personal communication

2002), but further research is necessary to define their spatialdistribution.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper sought to determine the workshop status and to estimatethe output and organization of an obsidian projectile point pro-duction locale within Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacan. HaciendaMetepec was the site of an Epiclassic-period biface workshopwith its associated debris. This workshop had three spatially distinctareas of production, separated one from another by varying quan-tities of obsidian debitage. Production focused on bifacial knivesand corner-notched atlatl dart points rather than the more commonprismatic blades. Atlatl dart production is surprising consideringthat prismatic blades, rather than large darts capable of killingdeer or men, would have been used more within semi-urban dom-estic settings. The output of the workshop lies between 4,773 and8,760 points with 596 irreparable bifaces. It is believed that asingle knapper was responsible for creating all the darts and bifaces.

The workshop probably lasted only a few years because the obsi-dian deposits are fairly clean with little admixture of domestic trash(except on the stairs), and the error rate is low (6.8%–12.5%),suggesting continuous work rather than intermittent practice. Thedistribution of the projectile points is currently unknown, but theoutput of the workshop would have been insufficient to servicethe population of Teotihuacan at that time.

RESUMEN

Aunque Teotihuacan ha sido un centro de comercio importante enMesoamerica, son poco los talleres excavados en ello. Se presenta aquı losresultados de un re-analisis de una taller lıtico del fase Coyotlatelco(approx. d.C. 650–800) que fue excavado por Evelyn Rattray en 1979. El pro-posito aquı no es discutir sobre las caracterısticas del perıodo epiclasico, sinoenforcar en un taller y sus restos para dar una explicacion amplia de ello. Lasexcavaciones realizadas en el barrio Hacienda Metepec revelaron una grancantidad de deshechos lıticas hasta 50 cm de profundidad en algunoslugares. En total, Rattray excavo 170 m2 de un apartamento residencial deTeotihuacan y se recupero 275 kg de obsidiana. La obsidiana fue cernidaen el campo por un cernidor de 4.76 mm y algunas muestras de suelotambien fueron recuperadas. Casi veinte anos despues, todo esta obsidianafue re-analizado. Shelby Saberon con John Clark segregaron la lıtica portamano y tipo. La obsidiana fue cernida otra vez por nueve cernidores detamano variable. Los cernidores mas grandes (Cernidores 1–5) recuperaronartefactos. 1.9 cm como fragmentos de cuchillos bifaciales. Cernidores6–7 tenıan los artefactos medianos de 0.63–1.9 cm. Cernidores 8–9contenıan los artefactos pequenos de 0.20–0.63 cm. La materia que pasopor ellos tambien fue coleccionada. Despues de pasar por cernidores, los arte-factos fueron contado, medido, y examinada por tamano y atributos visuales.Los rasgos de las lascas fueron notados como atributos de tecnologıa. Losartefactos bifaciales recibieron mas atencion en analizar sus atributos.

Lo que fue evidente es que habıa una secuencia de manufactura en hacerlos artefactos bifaciales. Primero, lascas grandes (“tool blanks”) de obsidianade la fuente de Otumba fueron extraıdo de allı hasta Hacienda Metepec. En eltaller fueron reducidos por percusion. “Percusion Biface 1” es un cuchillobifacial rustico con poco evidencia de huellas en su superficie. “PercusionBiface 2” es una forma avanzada de Percusion Biface 1, aun con carasno-simetrica. “Percusion Biface 3” es una forma simetrica de PercusionBiface 2 con medidas 1.67 longitud/ancho y un por medio de 0.7 cm degrosor. En este momento, se termino de hacer percusion y empezo a trabajarpor presion. “Pressure Biface” es un Percusion Biface 3 que han sido

trabajado por presion para sacar lugares irregulares de sus caras y filo. Siun “Pressure Biface” tiene una muesca en los lados, se parecio com tipo“San Marcos”. Aquı este tipo de punto proyectil fue denominado comotipo “Ramec” para distinguirlo de la asociacion cultural del tipo San Marcos.

Al hacer los puntos proyectiles Ramec, muchos fueron quebradosdurante la secuencia de manufactura. En total, 1241 preformas de percusionfueron encontrados y 234 de presion. Ademas de miles de lascas que venıande todas las etapas de la secuencia de manufactura. El taller de HaciendaMetepec incluye areas identificadas como lugares de produccion. Estasareas son demarcadas por alta concentraciones de lascas finas ,2 mm(microdebitage). En base de cantidad de lascas finas, tres areas fueronnotadas: Cuarto norte, escalera, y en el patio. El producto del taller puedeser estimado. En algunos talleres hay artefactos especıficos que pueden sercontados para estimar produccion como en Colha. Pero no hay enHacienda Metepec. Entonces produccion fue estimada por comprobar lospesos de producto terminados con los preformas para saber cuanto pesofue sacado por etapa. Al comprobar la diferencia en preformas quebradospero completas, se noto que 47.88 g fueron sacado de los “tool blanks”para hacer un punto “Ramec”. Entonces cada 47.88 g de lascas de obsidianaes equivalente a un punto proyectil. Se estima que 5284 puntos proyectilesfueron manufacturados en el taller, o un rango de 4773 hasta 8760.Tambien, estima que el obrero tenıa un rango de quebrar de 6.8–12.5%basado en el tipo de errores que hizo. Aunque serıa imposible sabercuantas personas trabajaron en el taller, una distribucion “Chi square” noencontro diferencias entre lugares en el taller. Quiere decir que toda la obsidi-ana pudo ser trabajada por solo una persona. Si solo una persona trabajabaallı, entonces la organizacion del taller debe ser simple y quizas el tallerno duro por mucho tiempo. De todas formas, el taller excavado porRattray nos ayuda entender un poco un perıodo algo desconocido. Lospuntos proyectiles hechos en el taller de Hacienda Metepec y en talleresaun no-excavados tomaron un parte pequeno en la historia de Teotihuacany sus alrededores.

Nelson160

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful to Evelyn Rattray for the opportunity to study the materialshe excavated. Also, the New World Archaeological Foundation and itsdirector, John Clark, were very generous with their facilities and supportin this work. Shelby Saberon and John Clark did much of the initial

processing and subsequent analysis of the material. Ken Hirth and JohnClark aided this paper with their comments. Diligent reviewing by TomCharlton, Michael W. Spence, and an anonymous reviewer advanced thisarticle greatly.

REFERENCES

Andrews, Bradford W.1999 Craftsman Skill and Specialization: Investigating the CraftProduction of Prehispanic Obsidian Blades at Xochicalco andTeotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Behm, Jeffrey A.1983 Flake Concentrations: Distinguishing Between Flint-Working Activity Areas and Secondary Deposits. Lithic Technology12:9–16.

Cabrera Cortes, M. Oralia2004 Craft Production and Socio-Economic Marginality: Living on thePeriphery of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Report submitted to the Foundationfor the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI).Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/03090/index.html, accessed February 15, 2007.

Carballo, David2005 State Political Authority and Obsidian Craft Production at theMoon Pyramid, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Carrier, James G.1992 Emerging Alienation in Production: A Maussian History. Man(N.S.) 27:539–558.

Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton1991 Aztec Craft Production and Specialization: ArchaeologicalEvidence from the City-State of Otumba, Mexico. WorldArchaeology 23:98–114.

Clark, John E.1986 From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of Teotihuacan’sObsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology: A ResearchAnnual Supplement 2/1986: Economic Aspects of PrehispanicHighland Mexico, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 23–74. JAI PressInc., London.

1989 Hacia una definicion de talleres. In La obsidiana en Mesoamerica,edited byMargarita Gaxiola Gonzalez and John E. Clark, pp. 213–217.Colleccion Cientıfica No. 176. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, Mexico.

1990 Fifteen Fallacies in Lithic Workshop Interpretation: AnExperimental and Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. InEtnoarcheologıa primer coloquio Bosch-Gimpera, edited by YokoSugiura Yamamoto and Mari Carmen Serra Puche, pp. 497–512.Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

1991 Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal among the Lacandon Mayaof Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal,edited by Edward Staski and Livingston D. Sutro, pp. 63–88.Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University,Tempe.

2003a A Review of Twentieth-Century Mesoamerican ObsidianStudies. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation andInterpretation, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 15–54. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.

2003b Craftsmanship and Craft Specialization. In Mesoamerican LithicTechnology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by KennethHirth, pp. 220–233. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Costin, Cathy L.1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, andExplaining the Organization of Production. In ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1–56.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum1995 Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization ofCeramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru. AmericanAntiquity 60:619–639.

Cowgill, George L.1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of

Anthropology 26:129–161.Diehl, Richard1989 A Shadow of Its Former Self: Teotihuacan during the Coyotlatelco

Period. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700–900, edited by Richard A. Diehl and Janet Catherine Berlo,pp. 9–18. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Donham, Donald L.1981 Beyond the Domestic Mode of Production. Man (N.S.) 16:

515–541.Drennan, Robert D., Philip T. Fitzgibbons, and Heinz Dehn1990 Imports and Exports in Classic Mesoamerican Political Economy:

The Tehuacan Valley and the Teotihuacan Obsidian Industry. Researchin Economic Anthropology 12:177–199.

Gomez Chavez, Sergio, and Ruben Cabrera Castro2006 Contextos de la ocupacion Coyotlatelco en Teotihuacan. In El

fenomeno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Mexico: tiempo, espacio ysignificado, edited by Laura Solar Valverde, pp. 231–256. Memoriadel Primer Seminario-Taller sobre Problematicas Regionales. InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico.

Healan, Dan M.1992 A Comment on Moholy-Nagy’s “The Misidentification of Lithic

Workshops.” Latin American Antiquity 3:240–242.1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded

Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach. American Antiquity 60:689–699.

Hester, Thomas R.1986 On the Misuse of Projectile Point Typology in Mesoamerica.

American Antiquity 51:412–414.Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer1992 Lithic Workshops Revisited: Comments on Moholy-Nagy. Latin

American Antiquity 3:243–248.Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Massimo Vidale, and Kuldeep Kumar Bhan1991 Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of

Craft Specialization and Organization of Production as Reflected in theArchaeological Record. World Archaeology 23:44–63.

Mallory, John K.1986 Workshops and “Specialized Production” in the Production of

Maya Chert Tools: A Response to Shafer and Hester. AmericanAntiquity 51:152–158.

Millon, Rene1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Supplement to the

Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, edited by Victoria R.Bricker and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198–243. University of TexasPress, Austin.

Millon, Rene, Bruce Drewitt, and George Cowgill1973 The Teotihuacan Map. In Urbanization at Teotihuacan,

Mexico, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, edited by Rene Millon, University of TexasPress, Austin.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula1990 The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops. Latin

American Antiquity 1:268–2791992 Lithic Deposits as Waste Management: Reply to Healan and to

Hester and Shafer. Latin American Antiquity 3:249–251.Moragas Segura, Natalia2005 Sobreviviendo al colapso: teotihuacanos y coyotlatelcos en

Teotihuacan. Revista Espanola de Antropologıa Americana 35:33–50.

Nelson, Zachary2000 Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop at Hacienda Metepec,

Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 700–800. Unpublished Master’s


thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University,Provo, UT.

Pasztory, Esther1997 Teotihuacan, an Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman.Rattray, Evelyn Childs1979 Obsidian Production at Teotihuacan in the Coyotlatelco Phase.

Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Vancouver.

1980 Las investigaciones en la Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan, Estadode Mexico. Report presented to Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, Mexico.

1981 La industria de la obsidiana durante el perıodo Coyotlatelco.Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 27:213–223.

1987 La produccion y la distribucion de obsidiana en elperıodo Coyotlatelco en Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan: nuevos datos,nuevas sıntesis, nuevos problemas, edited by Emily McClung deTapia and Evelyn Childs Rattray, pp. 451–463. SerieAntropologica 72. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,Mexico.

1989 Un taller de bifaciales de obsidiana del perıodo Coyotlatelco en laHacienda Metepec, en Teotihuacan. In La obsidiana en Mesoamerica,edited byMargarita Gaxiola Gonzalez and John E. Clark, pp. 243–252.Coleccion Cientıfica 176. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia,Mexico.

Saberon, Shelby1997 An Obsidian Workshop Deposit at Hacienda Metepec,

Teotihuacan. Unpublished Undergraduate Honors thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Sanders, William T., and Robert S. Santley1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in

Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns:Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt andRichard M. Leventhal, pp. 243–291. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

Santley, Robert. S.1984 Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification, and the Evolution of

Complex Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and Exchange inEarly Mesoamerica, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 43–86.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester1986 Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha,Belize: A Reply to Mallory. American Antiquity 51:158–166.

1991 Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution at the MayaSite of Colha, Belize. World Archaeology 23:79–97.

Sheehy, James J.1992 Ceramic Production in Ancient Teotihuacan, Mexico: A CaseStudy of Tlajinga 33. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Solar Valverde, Laura (editor)2006 El fenomeno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Mexico: tiempo, espacio ysignificado. Memoria del Primer Seminario-Taller sobre ProblematicasRegionales. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico.

Spence, Michael W.1967 The Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 32:507–514.

1977 Teotihuacan y el intercambio de obsidiana en Mesoamerica. In LosProcesos de Cambio, XV Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana deAntropologıa, 2:293–300. Guanajuato, Mexico.

1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan. AmericanAntiquity 87:519–535.

1987 The Scale and Structure of Obsidian Production in Teotihuacan. InTeotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sıntesis, nuevos problemas, editedby Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn Childs Rattray, pp. 429–450.Serie Antropologıca 72. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,Mexico.

Sullivan, Kristin2004 Making and Manipulating Ritual in the City of the Gods: FigurineProduction and Use at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Report submitted to theFoundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.(FAMSI). Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/03021/index.html, accessed September 25, 2006.

Turner, Margaret H.1987 The Lapidary Industry of Teotihuacan, Mexico. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofRochester, New York.

Widmer, Randolph J.1991 Lapidary Craft Specialization at Teotihuacan: Implications forCommunity Structure at 33:S3W1 and Economic Organization in theCity. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:131–141.

Nelson162

Documents

Zachary Nelson - Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan Reexamining a Coyotlatelco Phase Workshop From Hacienda Metepec