Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

23
Society for American Archaeology Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: An Alternative Technique Author(s): John E. Clark Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 355-376 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279907 Accessed: 29/06/2009 13:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org

Transcript of Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

Page 1: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

Society for American Archaeology

Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: An Alternative TechniqueAuthor(s): John E. ClarkSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 355-376Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279907Accessed: 29/06/2009 13:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

Page 2: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS REPORTS

Smith, Carol A. 1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-

pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.

1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regional analysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Michael E. 1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central place

analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125. Torquemada, Juan de

1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua, Mexico, D.F. Vaillant, George C.

1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.

MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES: AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUE

John E. Clark

Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique of prismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known of these ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluated and compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de- scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success- fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.

The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in- trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friars described the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un- workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtree made a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutch and a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopied or mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accord with his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his alleged misuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric material has been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure- blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accord with the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de- scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources. Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanish chroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of the discrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.

Smith, Carol A. 1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-

pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.

1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regional analysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Michael E. 1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central place

analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125. Torquemada, Juan de

1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua, Mexico, D.F. Vaillant, George C.

1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.

MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES: AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUE

John E. Clark

Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique of prismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known of these ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluated and compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de- scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success- fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.

The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in- trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friars described the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un- workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtree made a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutch and a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopied or mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accord with his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his alleged misuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric material has been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure- blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accord with the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de- scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources. Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanish chroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of the discrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.

John E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico

John E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico

Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1

Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1

355 355

Page 3: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

The hypothesis which guided this research was that the ethnohistoric descriptions of blade- making are essentially correct and should be interpreted literally. Experiments were performed to determine whether prismatic blades could be produced in the manner described. Techniques which differ radically from those described in the Spanish accounts were not considered. Finally, it was assumed that the accounts of the blademaking process, although correct, may be in- complete in subtle or minor details.

ETHNOHISTORIC DATA

At present, five major historical sources are known which describe various aspects of blade manufacture. These are the accounts of: (1) Francisco Hernandez (1959) (quoted in Ellis [1940], Feldman [1971], Fletcher [1970], Hester [1978], Marcou [1921], and Tylor [1861]); (2) Friar Torbio de Benavente or Motolinia (1973) (translations in Foster [1950], Hester [1978], Hester et al. [1971], Kidder et al. [1946]); (3) Mendieta-Las Casas-Torquemada (Friar Ger6nimo de Mendieta [1945]; Friar Bartolome de Las Casas [1974]; Fray Juan de Torquemada [1975] ). Translations of Torquemada are found in Cabrol and Coutier (1932), Crabtree (1968), Fletcher (1970), Hester (1978), Hester et al. (1971), Holmes (1919), Kidder et al. (1946), Linne (1934), Marcou (1921), Tylor (1861), and Wilson (1899). The almost verbatim similarity between these three accounts reflects plagiarism of a common source. All three accounts borrowed from a now-lost manuscript by Friar Andres de Olmos (Feldman 1969; Wilkerson 1974). (4) Friar Bernardino de Sahagun (1961, 1975, cited in Fletcher [1970] and Hester [1978]); and (5) George E. Sellers (1886). Sellers's account dif- fers significantly from the others and is concerned with a different cultural area, but it does pro- vide insight into the possible Aztec technique.

In addition to the narrative descriptions of blademaking, two authors mention pictorial repre- sentations of the process (Coutier 1952:264; Feldman 1973:90). In The Chronicles of Michoacan (Craine and Reindorp 1970) there is a representation of a "knifemaker" (Navajero) at work (Feldman 1973:90). Significant aspects of this drawing are discussed below. Coutier (1952) il- lustrates five figures from the Mappe de Quintanzin (sic) who are working stone. The third figure purportedly represents an Indian making prismatic blades.

This figure represents a seated Indian, his body and head leaning well forward, his legs crossed at the ankles; the end of his left foot slightly raised indicates that he is holding something under his foot. He holds in his hands a baton, his arms press against his chest, the upper end of his baton does not pass the shoulder on which it presses as well. One can see, also, a piece of wood equal in thickness to the Indian's calf which is fixed on the baton at the height of the hands, and whose base ends in four prongs with 'bec pro6minent' shape. One of these points rests near the end of the left foot. The subject's general expression also shows very clearly the effort required by pressure stone working. Facing the Indian appear worked cores, a small vase, and beside it, arranged in a pile, some knapped blades. Behind this Indian, blades are scattered on the ground [Coutier 1952:264; literal translation by Olivier de Montmollin, personal communication 1979].

The wealth of detail found in this drawing is, unfortunately, erroneous. The drawing in question is not from the Mappe de Quinatzin but the Mapa Toltzin (Aubin 1885). In the original drawing seven artisans are pictured, among them the one singled out and poorly copied by L. Coutier. "In this document it describes the mat-maker (petatero) and one can clearly see that what he has in his hands are vegetable fibers" (Joaquin Galarza, personal communication 1979). Coutier's claim, then, should be rejected. At the present time, only one drawing is known of artisans making pressure blades.

Numerous modern authors have attempted to describe possible methods of prismatic blade manufacture (Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940; Fletcher 1970; Joly 1883; Soll-

berger and Patterson 1976; Stoll 1886), but only Crabtree discusses them thoroughly and recon- structs one which yields true replicas. Therefore, fruitful discussion of previous experimentation necessarily focuses upon the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between Crabtree's method and the Spanish accounts will be discussed. These are: (1) the tool used; (2) the manner of

356 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 4: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

tool use; (3) the position of the worker; (4) the method of securing the core; and (5) the rate of blade manufacture.

The Tool

Tylor was the first to discuss the production of prismatic blades (1861). In his Anahuac he presents both a translation of Friar Juan de Torquemada's account, as well as information from Francisco Hernandez. According to Tylor (1861:332), Hernandez compares the wooden instru- ment central to the manufacturing process to a crossbow (see Fletcher for a differing opinion [1970:213]), suggesting that it was "T"-shaped. Tylor proposes that the top of this "T"-shaped tool was placed against the chest and then pressure-applied, in the manner later described by Crab- tree (1968). Subsequent writers and researchers followed Tylor's lead and assumed that a pressure tool in the form of a chest crutch was used. Greater credibility was given this assump- tion with the publication of Sellers's "Observations on Stone-Chipping" in which he illustrates two chest crutches and describes their use (1886:874-875, Figures 1, 2). However, recent experi- ments have demonstrated that it is not possible to use a chest crutch while in the seated position described by the Spanish friars (see below). Consequently, the accuracy of the ethnohistoric descriptions was questioned. Crabtree's discussion on this point (1968) prompted Fletcher to pre- sent more thorough ethnohistoric data, including a drawing from Sahagun of the tool used (1970:210, Figure 1), reproduced in Figure lb. The accounts given in Mendieta-Las Casas- Torquemada (hereafter "MLT") and Hernandez possibly describe such a tool.

Torquemada describes the pressure tool as a stick as "thick as a lance" and "3 cubits long" (135 cm based on the royal cubit of 45 cm; Marcou [19211). He continues:

At the head of this shaft they glue on and firmly tie a section of wood of a palm tree (as thick as the upper arm and a little more more and this has its face flat and cut |or notched ) so that it will weigh more IKidder et al. 1946:1351.

This piece of wood attached to the shaft could be the "projecting hook" (garfio saliente) mentioned by Hernandez (1959:406) (translated in Feldman [1971:214]). Hernandez (Fletcher translation [1970:212]) says the tool "looks a lot like the stock of an harquebus" (cierta raiz eminente que se parece mucho a la coxas de arcabuz; Marcou [1921:23]). Fletcher adds that the harquebus refers to a musket rather than to a crossbow (see also Marcou [1921:23]). The sixteenth-century har- quebus had a straight stock which was held against the chest when fired (Fletcher 1970:213). Fletcher presents this as evidence for a tool that was similarly used against the chest. Interesting- ly, examples of both crossbows and harquebuses of this time period had had hooklike attachments at the stock end (Figure 2). Therefore, the analogy to the stock of an harquebus, or even the er- roneous comparison to a crossbow, would refer to a hooklike tool rather than a "T"-shaped tool. Examples of the probable tool(s) are shown in Figure 1. Both a and b of Figure 1 are taken from Sahagun. Figure la was copied as accurately as possible from Plate 778, Book 11, of the Floren- tine Codex (Sahagun 1963). Figure lb is an enlarged copy of the tool illustrated by Fletcher (1970: Figure 1C). The Fletcher drawing is somewhat stylized, at the cost of changing significant details. The attached piece of wood is described "as thick as the upper arm or a little more" but the shaft is as "thick as a lance." These proportions are indicated in Figures la and lc. In Figure lb the at- tached piece shown is actually smaller than the lance and therefore does not accord well with the descriptions. The morphology of the hook end of the tool is also significantly different in Figures la and lb. Figure ic is more stylized and of slightly different proportions than the one illustrated by Sahagiin. However, both are functionally very similar in overall dimensions and general pro- portions. In summary, ethnohistoric evidence now points convincingly to the use of a tool with a hook rather than a chest crutch. Thus, the major unquestioned assumption underlying previous experimental work was incorrect.

The tool used by Crabtree had a copper bit inserted in the working end (1968:452). Sellers men-

357

Page 5: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

tions that bone, buckhorn, or walrus tusk could also have been used (1886:874, 875). In contrast, none of the Spanish accounts explicitly mention the use of a bit. Most describe a wooden attach- ment which is probably the projecting hook. The "face" of this piece is "smoothed and trimmed" or "flat and notched" (Kidder et al. 1946:135; Feldman 1971:213).

Sahagun, in the Dibble and Anderson translation of the Florentine Codex, mentions that "The obsidian seller is one who, [with] a staff with a crosspiece, forces off blades" (1961:85). A casual reading of this passage could be construed as evidence for a "T"-shaped tool such as used by Crabtree; however, this is the textual description of the tool pictured in Figure la. This "crosspiece" must be the attached hook. The Aztec terms for this are "itzcolotli" and "ezcolotli" which mean "obsidian armature" and "blood armature," respectively.

a. b.

I

I

I

! "

C.

Figure 1. Conquest period representations of tools used to manufacture prismatic blades: a. tool il- lustrated by Sahagun (1963:Plate 778); b. Fletcher drawing of tool a (1970;Figure ic); c. tool pictured in the Relaci6n de Michoacan (Tudela y Nuiiez 1977:Lamina XXIX).

I

i

358 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 6: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS 359

a.

/ //

fl

//

/

b. ;0

Figure 2. Implements with prominent hook attachments which were compared to the Aztec pressure flaking tool: a. Arcabucero firing an arcabus with a hook at the stock end (Diccionario Enciclopedico Univer- sal 1972:322); b. Spanish crossbow with hook at the stock end (Craine and Reindorp 1970:Plate 17).

Page 7: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Colotli means "framework," "armature," or "cone-shaped cap" like a dunce cap. It apparently refers to an instrument used in flaking obsidian, possibly a jig .... Ezcolotli, literally, "blood armature" is to me obscure in meaning. So far I haven't been able to find another etymology in which the root ez means any- thing other than "blood" [translations and notes by Thelma D. Sullivan, personal communication].

In a footnote to this term, ezcolotli, Thelma D. Sullivan asks whether or not a sharp-pointed instru- ment, such as employed in bloodletting, was used in blade manufacture (personal communication 1980). These terms, then, are possible allusions to a bit, or at least to the special shape of the at- tached piece of wood used as the "projecting hook." Such a piece would be generally shaped like a dunce cap and possibly terminate in a very sharp point (colotli also means "horn"; Simeon 1977). Perhaps the term ezcolotli "blood armature" can be interpreted as the bit of, or similar in shape to, a bloodletting instrument. A common bloodletting implement pictured in the Mexican codices is a bone awl. Possibly, then, Aztec artisans used sharp-pointed bone bits in their pressure flaking tools. These glosses may, however, merely refer to the special pointed shape of the hook attachment as shown for the tools in Figure 1.

Replication experiments have shown that blades can be detached with a wooden-tipped chest crutch (Crabtree 1968:449; Sheets and Muto 1972:632) or a wooden punch (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:582; Barnes 1947:625; Sheets 1977:143). The results of these experiments suggest that other wooden-tipped tools, such as the one described for the Aztecs, would also produce satisfactory results.

It is noteworthy that Kidder claims to have found a tool fitting the MLT description in a Basket- maker II cave (Kidder et al. 1946:135). The tool in question

consists of an antler or very hard bone point mounted on a wooden shaft .... The length ... is 3 3/4 inches [9.5 cm], of which 6/16 of an inch [.8 cm] projects beyond the end of the shaft; the width appears to be uniformly 1/4 of an inch [.6 cm]. The projecting portion tapers to 1/8 of an inch [.3 cm] at the extreme end. The shaft is a piece of an old atlatl spear shaft 35 inches long [87.5 cm]. The bone point is bound to the smaller end of this by seizings of skin overwrapped with sinew. The larger end is worked to a rounded point [Guernsey and Kidder 1921:96].

Although the authors assert that this tool was definitely a "stone flaker," it varies significantly from the verbal and drawn representations left by the Spaniards (see Figure 3). The shaft is shorter and thinner, and the wooden attachment does not fit the description of being as "thick as the fleshy part of the arm" (Kidder et al. 1946:135). Further, the stone flaker also has a bit, whereas bits are not mentioned in the Spanish accounts. Considering all of these differences, it is doubtful that the tool reported by Guernsey and Kidder is the same one described in the ethno- historic accounts.

/

/

/

Figure 3. Basketmaker pressure-flaker from the American Southwest. (Guernsey and Kidder 1921: Figure 15).

360 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 8: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

Tool Use

Neither Crabtree nor Coutier were able to produce blades with a chest crutch tool in the man- ner described by the early chroniclers (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:580; Crabtree 1968). In order to remove prismatic blades, Crabtree had to secure the obsidian core in a vise, stand over it, and, with a chest crutch, press off blades with a "downward and outward" force (1968:453). This ac- cords well with one technique recorded by Sellers (1886:874) but differs significantly from the Spanish ethnohistoric accounts.

Hernandez (1959:406) states that the artisans "pulled" (arrancar) blades off the core (Feldman 1971:214). This implies a motion toward the chest rather than away from it as described by Crab- tree (see Sheets [1977:144]). According to MLT, "they press against [towards] the chest" (Flet- cher 1970:210) (aprietan hacia el pecho [Mendieta 1945:57]). However, Motolinia says that they gave a "push" (empujon) with the tool (1973:45). This is evidence for use of the tool in the manner described by Crabtree, but Motolinia may have used "push" in the same sense that MLT use "press," to "press towards the chest."

Sahag?un records the actual native term for blade removal. This has been translated as "forcing off" blades (Sahagun 1961:85) or as "pressing off" blades (Thelma D. Sullivan, personal commu- nication). The actual term, tlapaneua, means "to lift off the surface." "Dibble and Anderson etymologize this (apparently) from tlapani 'to break', 'to shatter', and eua, 'to lift up', 'to raise'. Another possibility is pani, 'on the surface' which is pan in composition and eua. In any case the meaning is clear: 'to flake' 'to lift off.' " A related phrase, niqueua in iztle (Sahagun 1963:227), means "I lift off obsidian [flakes and blades]." (Translations and notes courtesy of Thelma D. Sullivan.) The Aztec term, then, literally means to raise or lift off a blade from the surface of the obsidian core. As will become clear in the following discussion, this implies a certain method of securing and working the core and a working motion towards the chest as recorded in MLT.

Feldman (1973:90) notes that a picture of a blademaker at work is shown in The Chronicles of Michoacan (Craine and Reindorp 1970; Tudela and Nunez 1977). The drawing in question is shown in Figure 4. A small group of knifemakers (Navajeros) is unquestionably represented. The central figure is holding the tool pictured in Figure ic and has a core between his feet. The critical question is whether or not this artisan is actually working. When this drawing is viewed in context, it is doubtful that he is. In the two plates which show the government officials, 23 small groups of artisans are pictured. The common feature of all these pictures is that each group is shown with the unique tools and/or products of its trade. In the case of the navajeros shown in Figure 4, these apparently were the tool, the core between the feet, and the unique sitting posi- tion. With one possible exception, none of these artisans is pictured in a working pose. This is probably true of the knifemakers as well. If the navajeros in this drawing are actually producing blades, we could infer that the end of the shaft and not the hook attachment was the working tip, that the tool was pushed away from the chest, and that the core was held upright between the feet. This is contrary to much of the evidence given in the written descriptions. Therefore, rather than overinterpret an ambiguous and stylized drawing, it is the author's view that the navajeros are not shown working. Certain distinguishing features of the craft are pictured only: namely, the tool, method of securing the core, and the products. The two rectangles to the left of the central figure are undoubtedly these products. They probably do not represent cores since they differ from the core represented in the same drawing and others illustrated in Sahagun (1963:Plates 763, 778, 786; see also Fletcher [1970:Figure 1]). It is more likely that they are "snapped" or sec- tioned prismatic blades (see Sahagun [1963; Plate 779] for other examples of blade fragments).

Working Position

The major point made by Coutier and Crabtree is that one cannot sit on the ground, hold the core with the feet, and press off blades with a 5-foot chest crutch (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:580; Crabtree 1968:446). This problem is resolved when a different tool is substituted. All of the Spanish accounts state or imply that the worker sat on the ground while detaching blades from a

361

Page 9: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

1_4 45

Figure 4. Navajeros-"Knifemakers" or those who produce "prismatic blades" (Navajas). Taken from the Relaci6n de Michoacan, Lamina XXIX (Tudela y Nuiiez 1977).

core. This is also shown in Figure 4. Crabtree's interpretation of Torquemada's account to justify a standing position (Crabtree 1968:448) has been corrected by Fletcher (1970:210-211). Sellers also mentions that, for at least one technique, the artisan sat on the ground with the core between his feet (1886:874). Hernandez is even more specific; he describes the working position as "en- cogidas las piernas" (Marcou 1921:23). This could mean either "squatting or sitting on the ground with the legs flexed and the knees spread" (Fletcher 1970:210-211). Feldman translates a parallel passage as "arching laterally the legs" (1971:214).

362 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 10: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

Holding the Core

The major problem which must be solved in order to produce prismatic blades is that of stabi- lizing the core. Crabtree (1968:448) stresses this point:

My experiments have definitely proven, for me, that it is impractical, if not impossible, to sit on the ground, hold the core with the naked feet, and remove prismatic blades by the pressure method. The outward force necessary to remove a blade is so great that no degree of muscular development would suffice to immobilize the core sufficiently to accomplish removal.

Movement of the core during blade removal can ruin both the blade and the core. Crabtree's suc- cessful replication results from using a vise to immobilize the core. A similar vise used by North American Indians is described by Sellers (1886:874). However, the Spanish accounts unanimously agree that the core was held with the naked feet. Hernandez (1959:406) states "sujetando la piedra con los dedos gordos de los pies y arqueando lateralmente las piernas arrancan los artesanos laminas gruesecillas" "grasping the stone with the three big toes and arching laterally the legs, the artisans pull off small thick [narrow?] flakes" (translation in Feldman 1971:214). The artisan pictured in Figure 4 is also holding the core between the unprotected big toes of the feet. Motolinia describes the artisan as holding the core "between the feet" (Feldman 1971:214). Tor- quemada (Thompson translation) records th hey place their bare feet together, and with them they press against [apretar] the stone as though with pincers or the vise of a carpenter's bench" (Kidder et al. 1946:135; emphasis supplied). This is the passage that Crabtree suggests may have been miscopied; he proposed that "or" could have been "and" (1968:448). He was later shown to be in error (Fletcher 1970:211). The reference to pincers and a carpenter's vise is an analogy on- ly. The Spaniards, who apparently were familiar with such devices and would have mentioned their use, state that the core was held with the naked feet. Sellers describes a similar technique. However, he further adds that each core was "commonly held by being sufficiently embedded in hard earth to prevent its slipping" (1886:874). With "the stone in a slight indentation . . . pre- viously prepared, to give the proper angle and to prevent slipping" (1886:874), the craftsmen were able to remove blades. The Aztecs, and other Mesoamerican artisans, could easily have made use of a "slight indentation" to stabilize the core (Barnes 1947:103); as discussed below, this may be depicted in Plate 763, Book 10, of the Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1961). In this light, Torquemada's description, "They press against the stone as though with pincers or a vise" (Kid- der et al. 1946:135; emphasis supplied), is more appropriate. They could have pressed the core in- to a small depression in hard earth. The core would thus be held between the feet and, at the same time, be pressed firmly into the ground. This is also implied by Sahagun's phrase "estribando con los pies" (1975:572), "pressing with the feet" (translation supplied). The verb estribar means to firmly rest the weight of one thing on another (Diccionario de la Lengua Espanfiola 1970). There- fore, the feet were placed on the core, pressing it downward into the ground.

Rate of Manufacture

The Spanish accounts describe a more rapid rate of blade manufacture than may be possible with the Crabtree chest crutch-and-vise technique. With the Crabtree method, the core must be constantly adjusted during blade removal to expose a new working face and the vise reset. The frequency of these adjustments increases as the core becomes more attenuated. This process would undoubtedly be faster with an assistant, but the Spanish accounts specifically state that "an Indian, one of these craftsmen" manufacture the blades (see Torquemada in Kidder et al. 1946:135; emphasis supplied). They also mention that "in a very short time these craftsmen detach from the stone in the said manner more than twenty knives" (Torquemada in Kidder et al. 1946:135). The length of time encompassed by "a very short time" is open to question; however, Clavigero placed this figure at more than 100 blades per hour (MacCurdy 1900:421). "Hacian estas navajas con tal presteza, que en una hora sacaban un artifice [sic] mas de ciento"

363

Page 11: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

(Clavigero 1964:258). "They made these knives with such quickness that in one hour a craftsman removed more than a hundred" (translation supplied). The accuracy of this statement may be questioned. Clavigero was an eighteenth-century Jesuit priest who relied heavily upon the works of Juan de Torquemada and Francisco Hernandez to write his Historia Antigua de Mexico (Ronan 1973). In all probability his statement is an exaggeration (or extrapolation) of Torquemada's 20 blades "in a very short time." However, there is the possibility that he derived this information from an unknown document or native Nahua informants with whom he labored several years. Such a production rate as recorded by Clavigero would certainly be possible were time not wasted readjusting the core in a vise.

Because of the time required to change the position of the core in a vise, I have found it more convenient to remove as many blades as possible from the immobile core before repositioning it. This creates a flat facet on the core face which is subsequently repeated on other sides of the core. The resultant core is square or rectangular in transverse cross section, whereas most prehistoric examples are round. However, if the core did not have to be secured in a vise, the blades could be removed in a continuous spiral all around the core as has been postulated in several reports (Holmes 1900:414; Kidder et al. 1946:137). This can be achieved using a vise but requires even more changes in the position of the core and would probably not be executed "in a very short time" (see Torquemada in Fletcher 1970:210), or "with such quickness" (Clavigero 1964:258).

Interestingly, Crabtree uses this same argument for the use of the vise. He reasons that much time would be wasted in repositioning the core between the feet after each blade removal (1968:448). Although it is true that the core must be repositioned, the time required is negligible and, with practice, could probably be done solely with the feet. This takes only a fraction of the time needed to readjust a core in a vise.

This argument of relative production time may be spurious due to my lack of extensive ex- perience with the Crabtree technique. Actual blade removal requires only a fraction of a second (Crabtree 1968:472). With a core of the proper shape Crabtree can remove as many as 20 blades before changing core position. This could be done in 2 minutes or less (Crabtree, personal commu- nication August 1979). At this production rate it would be possible to produce more than 100 blades in an hour. However, relative manufacturing rates of each technique should be subjected to controlled experimentation to determine how they compare to Clavigero's statements.

Summary

In the foregoing discussion it was shown that the Crabtree technique differs significantly from the descriptions given by the early Spanish friars. Crabtree states:

if we are to take the translated version of the Friar's observations verbatim, we have the picture of an Indian sitting flat on the ground, legs straight out in front of him, holding a very sharp core between his naked feet, and pressing off blades with a crutch that measures well over five feet. This simply will not work [1968:450].

Excepting the tool used, Crabtree is correct in this literal assessment of the Spanish accounts. Both this technique and the working position became the hypothesis to be tested experimentally. The tool used in the experiments was the hooked implement described by Hernaindez and il- lustrated by Sahagun. Apparently, the tip of the hook was placed on the edge of the core, and blades were subsequently removed by pulling the shaft portion of the tool towards the chest. This method was tested with positive results.

EXPERIMENTS

Several experiments were carried out to test the various aspects of blade manufacture outlined above. Those problems that previous research had found particularly difficult were emphasized (i.e., removing blades while sitting on the ground and holding the core in the naked feet).

364 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 12: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

365 REPORTS

50 cms

a. b. c. d.

Figure 5. Tools used in blade production experiments. Designed after those shown in Figure 1.

I

I

Page 13: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Several assumptions were made at the start of this research. First, the tool illustrated by Sahagun was presumed to be a pressure flaker and also to be accurate in its stated proportions (see Figure la, b). Second, it was further assumed that the working portion of this tool was the hook mentioned by Hernandez (1959). An alternative use of the tool was suggested by Fletcher (1970: 212), but the technique seemed to be less plausible than the one postulated for this study.

Given the above considerations, several experiments were conducted to resolve the major discrepancies between the Crabtree technique and the ethnohistoric accounts. These are: (1) the form of the tool; (2) the method of securing the core; (3) the working position; and (4) the material used as a working bit for the tool.

The Tool

The first experiments tested the functional adequacy of the tool itself. A tool was constructed following the proportions given in the Sahagfin drawing and measurements in the MLT descrip- tion. Because of the author's size, a cubit was calculated at 50 cm instead of 45 cm. The resultant tool was 150 cm long, with an attached piece 33 cm long. This was attached 22 cm from the end of the shaft, placing the working bit 55 cm from the proximal end of the tool (see Figure 5a; this is labeled the proximal end since it is closest to the worker when the tool is being used). A copper bit was also inserted into the "hook" portion of the tool.

In the first experiment a core was secured upside down in a vise. The copper-tipped tool was used in a simulated seated position; it was necessary to stand and put one foot on the vise to stabilize it and to use the other foot as a fulcrum for the tool. This experiment demonstrated that blades could be removed with the lever tool in question. I then turned to the remaining problems: how to secure the core with the feet, the working position, and the material used as the working bit for the tool.

Holding the Core

Subsequent experiments focused on the problem of securing the core. The core used in these experiments is shown in Figure 6. Several attempts to hold this core with the unaided feet failed. Crabtree's contention that "The outward force necessary to remove a blade is so great that no degree of muscular development would suffice to immobilize the core sufficiently to accomplish removal" (1968:448), appears to be correct. After this failure alternative methods, which still made use of the feet, were sought to immobilize the core. Following a suggestion from Crabtree (personal communication December 1978), a post was planted in the ground which would give support to the distal end of the core during blade removal. It was indeed possible to stabilize the core in this manner, and replicas of Mesoamerican prismatic blades were successfully produced; some of these are shown in Figure 6. However, in this experiment it was necessary to tilt the core platform approximately 60? from the plane surface of the ground. A small hole was necessary for the proximal end of the pressure tool so that the proper angle, approximately 102?, could be at- tained between the core's platform surface and the tip of the pressure flaker. In actuality, the core contacted only the bottom 3-5 cm of the post and also the surface of the ground. It became apparent that the post might not be necessary. Another experiment was conducted in which a small depression was shaped in "hard earth" to hold the core. It met with equal success, although the core position was slightly different-the long axis of the core being more parallel with the sur- face of the ground. This new position also solved the problem of the hole needed for the proximal end of the pressure tool.

As noted above, Plate 763, Book 10 of the Florentine Codex (Sahagfin 1961) pictures a core resting on the ground in what may be a slight depression-artistically represented by cross hatch- ing (represented by shading in the facsimile edition). This could be a portrayal of the position of a core during blade removal. The plate is a rebus of quetzaoliztli, "emerald," and, as such, shows recognizable pictures of feathers with jade, representing the precious green quetzal feathers, and an obsidian core, itzli. An obsidian core resting on its side within a slight depression may have

366 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 14: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

I

--

:7:w

ll- - 1---W

m m

0 -4 Cl)

5 cms

1 N-~I~

Figure 6. Experimental core and prismatic blades removed from the core. *^

~~~~~~~~~~I

Page 15: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Figure 7. Schematic representation of forces involved in prismatic blade manufacture: a. force of feet pushing the core into a slight hollow in the ground; b. outward force pushing tip of pressure against the core platform; c. force perpendicular to force b and toward the worker which fractures off a blade.

been a common sight (since blades were produced at the marketplace), and, as such, a logical choice to portray the iztli of the rebus.

In the experiments mentioned above, the core was held between and with the naked feet. Pressure from the feet pushed the core against the post or depression in the ground as shown in Figure 7a rather than pressing it between the feet. At first, the core was held with the big toes of the feet, as described by Hernandez. Although it was possible to immobilize the core in this man- ner, I found it much easier, more comfortable, and more effective to secure the core with the heels.

One of Crabtree's objections to holding the core with the naked feet was that the sharp ridges would cut them (1968:449). Fletcher dismisses this argument by mentioning the "horny" state of feet that have never known shoes and rarely sandals (1970:212). Crabtree later negates his own objection by showing that the obtuse angles in question are best suited for planing rather than cutting (1973, 1977).

The author's experience was that a well-prepared core was "slippery" rather than dangerous. After making an unsuccessful attempt to cut the skin of the feet with the obtuse-angled ridges on a core, I discovered that these ridges do allow for a grip on the core in the same way as a vise. When pressure is exerted, the flesh on the bottom of the feet conforms to the contours of the

ridges and flutes and prevents core movement. This is similar to what happens with the use of a vise; it is necessary to embed these ridges in the wood of a vise in order to hold the core when

pressure is applied. Crabtree's objection to the sharpness of a core's ridges has been misunderstood. He is well

aware of the cutting properties of the obtuse-angled ridges. What Crabtree intended was that the

edge of the core platform (the juncture of the platform and core face) is extremely sharp, especial- ly if overhang is not removed (personal communication August 1979). The author's experience confirms this observation. However, a core can be secured by placing the feet just below this

sharp edge. Consequently, it is not a significant detriment to blade manufacture by this method.

Working Position

Two holding positions can be employed in using the pressure tool, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. The first requires a slight depression for the proximal portion of the tool in order to obtain the prop-

_ I I

368 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 16: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

Figure 8. Working position #1.

er angle with the core platform. With the core secured between the feet, the tip of the pressure tool is placed near the upper rim of the platform that faces the worker. The worker's left hand is near the crotch of the pressure tool (formed by the shaft and the hook). This hand stabilizes the proximal end of the tool, while at the same time forcing the tip of the pressure tool against the core platform; this holds the tip of the tool to the core platform. Next, the worker pulls towards his chest with the right hand, which is situated midway on the shaft. Pushing with the left hand and pulling with the right forces a blade off the core. These forces are diagramed in Figure 7. This technique worked very well but was unsatisfactory because a special depression was needed for the proximal portion of the tool and because of the spread position of the hands. The Spanish ac- counts do not mention a depression (which is quite noticeable) and seem to imply that both hands were used in pulling the tool toward the body; the drawing of the blademaker in Figure 4 may be evidence for this. In order to pull with both hands, the proximal end of the tool has to be held sta- tionary in some other manner to free the left hand. The easiest way to do this is to brace the tool against the body. This constitutes the second technique pictured in Figure 9. The proximal portion of the tool is placed on the worker's abdomen and both hands on the shaft's midsection. The tip of the hook is forced into the core platform by pushing with, or flexing, the abdominal muscles. Once this pressure is exerted, the worker pulls both arms towards his chest and a blade is removed. This technique resolves the problem of the hands and eliminates the depression needed for the proximal end of the pressure tool in the first technique. It also allows, or dictates, that the core be

369

Page 17: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

ML :

Figure 9. Working position #2.

370

_ :

:;

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i E-1-00 "I

[Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 18: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

flat on the ground with the platform facing the worker. As can be seen in Figure 7, the depression needed to hold the core is very slight.

Tool Bit

The above experiments resolve many of the discrepancies between the Crabtree technique and that recorded by the Spanish chroniclers. The only remaining problem is that of the working bit. The Spaniards describe an attachment of palm wood. They also mention that this is to make the part weigh more. Since dry palm wood is quite light, the weight attributed to this piece suggests that "palm" may be an emic rather than an etic category; in other words it could possibly be of a heavy hardwood and not an actual palm. As mentioned previously, Crabtree has removed prismatic blades using a wooden-tipped tool. However, it was necessary to resharpen the wooden tip after each blade removal. Also, "In order to remove a blade from a core, the platform must be isolated so that just the platform area of the blade will contact the wooden pressure tip" (Crab- tree 1968:449). The tip of the tool used in this process "is not sharp, but it is very blunt in order to give it strength" (1968:449). Crabtree also suggests that some of the tropical hardwoods would make good tool tips (1968:450). Several experiments with wooden-tipped tools followed these observations from Crabtree. The wood used was extremely hard granadillo (Dalbergia granadillo); a cubic meter of this wood weighs 1,142 kg (Miranda 1976(Vol. 2): 21). Experiments demonstrated that this wood was so hard that it was slick and would not "grip" the core platform as does cop- per. Two tool tips of different morphology were unsuccessfully tried; these are pictured in Figures 5 b and d. In another experiment a blunt bit of seasoned oak wood was successfully used. Two blades were removed with this tool, but the process of blade removal compacted the wood, making it slick, and the tip could not be used a third time without resharpening. The apparent rapidity with which blades were made is evidence against this constant resharpening. It was mentioned previously that the word tajada, used to describe the wooden attachment of the tool, also means "notched." The oak wood tip of the pressure tool was notched to check the adequacy of such a tool. Several blades were removed with this modified bit, but it also became slick from compac- tion. Nonetheless, it was more effective than the blunt, rounded tip because it allowed for a better "grip" on the core and thus more pressure could be applied. This phenomenon is also known for antler pressure-flakers which become notched from use. In the latter case the notched tips help prevent tool slippage. This could also be true of the Aztec tool. In addition, the Mesoamerican practice of thoroughly abrading core platforms may have been to prevent slippage (Michael Spence, personal communication 1979), which is a problem with a wooden bit.

In the final experiments a wooden bit of palm wood was tested without success. The tool was the same form and size as that shown in Figure 5d. Because of the "softness" of the palm bit it was impossible to remove even small flakes with this tool. However, different varieties of palm should be tested. A very hard palm is known in Chiapas, Mexico-in fact, it is described as hard- wood. Although it is very difficult to obtain, present-day Chamula Indians of the Chiapas high- lands use this wood for billy sticks. The wood has important Precolumbian ritual importance (Morris 1979:66). These factors make this wood a likely candidate for the palm attachment men- tioned in the MLT description of the pressure tool.

One plausible interpretation of the Aztec gloss of the attached "crosspiece" was presented above as evidence for the possible existence of a bone bit, or awl, such as mentioned by Sellers (1886:874-875). This information became available long after the experiments described herein were completed; therefore, a bone-tipped tool was not "tested." However, it is the author's view that special bits were a functional necessity and that bone is the most likely candidate for such tools.

Summary

The above-described technique of rismatic blade manufacture corresponds more completely to the Spanish descriptions than the Crabtree technique. The worker uses a tool approximately

371

Page 19: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

three cubits (135-150 cm) long, which has a smaller piece of wood attached at one end; this forms a hook. This tool is used while the worker is in a seated position, at the same time holding the core between his naked feet. The proximal end of the pressure tool is near the crotch of the worker or can be placed on his abdomen. The tip of the hook, or bit, is carefully placed on the top rim of the core platform that faces the worker. Pressure is exerted outward (parallel to the surface of the ground), either with the left hand or abdominal muscles, forcing the bit of the tool against the core platform at an angle of approximately 102?. Just after this outward pressure is applied, the worker pulls the shaft of the tool toward his body and a blade is forced off the core. These forces are schematically diagramed in Figure 7. A well-removed blade flies a few centimeters into the air directly above the core, rotates, and falls harmlessly to the ground near the core. The Spanish described the blades as "springing off the stone" (see Torquemada in Kidder et al. 1946:135). This is an accurate description of blades removed by this technique. (Improperly removed blades can fly into the face or over the shoulders of the worker, and so safety precautions to protect the face are necessary with this technique.)

The above-described experiments failed to resolve the problem of the working bit of the tool. This is described as "a section of wood of a palm tree (as thick as the upper arm and a little more and this has its face flat and cut or notched) so that it will weigh more" (see Torquemada in Kid- der et al. 1946:135). The reason for the weight of this piece is unknown. Perhaps Feldman is cor- rect when he translates the passage from Mendieta as "thick like the fleshy part of the arm and sometimes larger and has its front flat and notched, and this piece serves as the heaviest part" (1971:213; emphasis supplied). No function is equated with the weight as translated here. However, this may merely be poetic license on the part of the translator, since Mendieta clearly states that the purpose of this piece is so that it will weigh more: "y sirve este trozo para que pese mds aquella parte" (1945:57). The thickness may have been necessary to give strength to the tip. Marcou suggests that

The smaller piece attached to the end of the lance or baton, no doubt served to shift the center of gravity and to bring the weight of the lance, which the artisan had to hold in a somewhat tilted fashion, onto the point in contact with the obsidian IMarcou 1921:22; literal translation by Olivier de Montmollin].

This would explain the need for a heavy piece of wood but fails to explain both the Hernandez ac- count, which refers to a hook, and the drawing from Sahagfun. Marcou also assumes that the working portion of the tool is the end of the lance and not the attached piece. Admittedly, the drawing in Figure 4 could be interpreted in this manner. However, the weight of the evidence seems to contradict this. For example, blades removed in this position would not be "lifted off" the core but rather propelled into the ground, as is the case with the Crabtree technique.

It was noted that more experimentation with the working bit of the tool needs to be done, preferably with wood bits. Other materials should also be tested (i.e., chert, jade, bone, antler, shell).

Manufacturing errors resulting from the technique described here are similar to those detailed for the chest crutch method (Crabtree 1968; Sheets and Muto 1972; Clark 1979); however, the recovery procedures are somewhat different. For example, the author found it difficult to remove hinge fractures. This was accomplished with the side-by-side technique (Sheets and Muto 1972:633) or by reversing the core (Crabtree 1968:467). It was not possible to place the working tip of the tool directly on the hinged mass as is possible with a chest crutch tool. The limitations and advantages of the hooked tool in relation to different core shapes and sizes and the resultant blades remain to be determined. It is presently impossible for the author to hold very small cores with his feet and still leave enough space between them for the tip of the pressure tool. This dif- ficulty would be compounded using a larger, blunt wooden bit. Also, alternative uses of the tool and working positions postulated by others (but still in keeping with the written descriptions) should be investigated to determine their feasibility. Finally, relative production rates of each technique need to be quantified.

372 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 20: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

CONCLUSIONS

Replication experiments demonstrate that prismatic blades can be produced in the manner described by the Spanish chroniclers. Most of the discrepancies between the technique described by Crabtree and these ethnohistoric accounts have been resolved. A salient difference between the experiments described above and those of previous researchers was the form of the tool used. Previous to Fletcher's article (1970), it was assumed that the Spanish accounts described a chest crutch, albeit, a very long one. The change to a lever tool with a hook attachment resulted in a general experimental confirmation of the ethnohistoric descriptions.

The experiments detailed above are clearly preliminary; they point to other relevant problems and do not entirely resolve the old ones. The major problem is to determine the limitations of the Aztec technique and pressure-flaking tool. In view of the specialized nature of the blademaking craft, intensive experience with the technique will be required before these can be fully evaluated.

Although the technique described herein is presented as the one witnessed by the Spaniards, it may not have been pan-Mesoamerican nor have had great temporal duration. Subtle changes noted in prismatic blade platforms through time (Epstein 1964; MacNeish et al. 1967; Sheets 1978; Rovner 1975; Johnson 1976) may be indicative of different techniques. For example, with the Preclassic technique each platform was individually prepared. Crabtree (1968:449) men- tions that such preparation was necessary when he used a wooden-tipped chest crutch. Similar platforms are also characteristic of Preclassic percussion blades. For these percussion blades, platform size was a function of technique; careful preful preparation was necessary to isolate the plat- form sufficiently, so that a large, flat surface of the hammerstone would contact the core at only that point (Clark 1979:243-245). The platform preparation of Preclassic prismatic blades may be analogous and therefore indicative of a different technique. However, the problem of technique- specific attributes has yet to be tested adequately through replication experiments. All variations of pressure flaking as well as related techniques should be analyzed. In particular, indirect per- cussion should be given greater consideration (as argued by Sheets [1977]), especially since it is still used by the Lacandon Indians of the Mexican tropical lowlands to make blades (Bruce 1976; Maler 1901; Mulleried 1939; Tozzer 1907), and in addition, Coutier has claimed to have produced perfect replicas of prismatic blades by this technique (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:582; Coutier 1952:263). If and whent technological peculiarities of these various techniques have been demonstrated experimentally, the archaeological record can be assessed more accurately to see if there was more there was more than one technique. In this regard, Crabtree's observation (1968:478) is very apropos: "No amount of theorizing by merely examining a flake or blade scar will give a true pic- ture of these techniques; only by replicating can we change theory to fact." In order to determine the number of techniques employed in Mesoamerica and their spatial-temporal coordinates, tech- nological studies of the minute details of both cores and blades must be combined with a similarly rigorous experimental replication program. Only after this has been done will it be possible to ascertain the importance of the Aztec technique and whether or not the Crabtree technique was used in Precolumbian Mesoamerica.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful for the liberal support of the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) which sponsored and encouraged this research. Numerous individuals were also very generous with their help. I am deeply indebted to Don E. Crabtree for his numerous suggestions and his sustaining encourage- ment throughout all phases of this study. Olivier de Montmollin willingly guided me through difficult French publications and provided literal translations of key passages. The text was rendered more understandable through the thoughtful editing of Cathy Starr and the typing of Frances T. Mendez. Douglas D. Bryant and Ralph Hilt of the NWAF provided photographic services which greatly improved the illustrations, especially in making enlarged tracings of important drawings. I greatly appreciate the special effort of Joaquin Galarza, of the Musee de i'Homme, and Thelma D. Sullivan of Centro de Investigaciones Filologicas de la Universidad Na- cional Autonoma de Mexico for their ethnohistoric research. Joaquin Galarza researched the difficult prob- lem of the purported illustrations from the Mappe Quinatzin. Thelma D. Sullivan provided meticulous transla-

373

Page 21: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

tions and notes of key passages and words from the Florentine Codex. My thanks also go to Thomas A. Lee, Jr., Thomas R. Hester, Fred W. Nelson, and Oscar Rodriguez who made available materials concerning prismatic blade manufacture, accessi ble to me.

REFERENCES CITED

Aubin, Joseph M. A. 1885 M6moires sur la peinture didactique et l'6criture figurative des anciens Mexicains. Mission Scien-

tique au Mexique et dans l'Amerique Centrale. Paris. Barnes, Alfred S.

1947 The production of long blades in Neolithic times. American Anthropologist 49:625-630. Bruce, Roberto D.

1976 Textos y dibujos Lacandones de Naja (edici6n trilingue). Colecci6n cientifica lingiiistica #45. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia-Secretaria de Educaci6n Pfiblica, Mexico.

Cabrol, Alexis, and L. Coutier 1932 Contribution a l'etude de la taille de l'obsidienne au M6xique. Bulletin, Societe Prehistorique

Franqaise 29:12:579-582. Clark, John E.

1979 A method for the analysis of Mesoamerican lithic industries: an application to the obsidian industry of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Clavigero, Francisco Javier 1964 Historia antigua de M6xico. Editorial Porrfia, Mexico.

Courtis, M. de 1865 Note relative a la fabrication des couteaux Asteques en obsidienne. Archives de la Comission Scien-

tifique du Mexique 1:452-453. Paris. Coutier, L.

1952 Travail de la pierre par pression et par choc chez les anciens Mexicains et Egyptiens. Compte Rendfi de la 13e Session. Congres Prehistorique de France 1950:261-266.

Crabtree, Don E. 1968 Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades. American Antiquity 33:446-478. 1973 The obtuse angle as a functional edge. Tebiwa 16:1. 1977 The obtuse angle as a functional edge. In Experimental archaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E.

Yellen, and William MacDonald, pp. 38-51. Columbia University Press, New York. Craine, Eugene R., and Reginald C. Reindorp (translators and editors)

1970 The chronicles of Michoacan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola

1970 (Decimonovena edici6n). Real Academia Espaniola, Madrid. Diccionario Enciclop6dico Universal (fifth ed.)

1972 Tomo 1. Credito Editorial Sanchez, S.A. (CREDSA). Valencia y Barcelona, Espafia. Ellis, Henry Holmes

1940 Flint-working techniques of the American Indians: an experimental study. Ohio State Museum, Columbus.

Epstein, Jeremiah F. 1964 Towards the systematic description of chipped stone. XXXV International Congress of Americanists,

1:155-169. Mexico. Feldman, Lawrence H.

1969 A Franciscan ethnographic school: plagiarism among six early colonial authors. Katunob 7:2. 1971 Of the stone called iztli. American Antiquity 36:213-214. 1973 Stones for the archaeologist. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research

Facility 18:87-104. Berkeley. Fletcher, Charles S.

1970 Escapable errors in employing ethnohistory in archaeology. American Antiquity 35:209-213. Foster, Elizabeth Andros (translator)

1950 Motolinia's history of the Indians of New Spain. The Cortez Society, Berkeley. Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred V. Kidder

1921 Basket-maker caves of northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 8, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Hernfindez, Francisco 1959 Historia natural de Nueva Espana (Vol. 2). Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico, Mexico.

Hester, Thomas R. (editor) 1978 Archaeological studies of Mesoamerican obsidian. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican Art,

Archaeology and Ethnohistory, No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.

374 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

Page 22: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

REPORTS

Hester, Thomas R., Robert N. Jack, and Robert F. Heizer 1971 The obsidian of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Contributions of the University of California

Archaeological Research Facility No. 13. Berkeley. Holmes, William Henry

1900 The obsidian mines of Hidalgo. American Anthropologist 2:405-416. New York. 1919 Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities. Part I. Introductory. The lithic industries. Bureau

of American Ethnology Bulletin 60. Washington, D.C. Johnson, Jay

1976 Chipped stone artifacts from the western Maya periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Joly, N. 1883 Man before metals. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Trubner, London.

Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 561. Wash-

ington, D.C. Las Casas, Friar Bartolom6 de

1974 Los indios de Mexico y Nueva Espaha: antologia. Con notas, etc. de Edmundo O'Gorman. Editorial Porrua, Mexico.

Linn6, Sigvald 1934 Archaeological researches at Teotihuacan. Ethnographic Museum of Sweden, n.s. vol. 1. Stockholm.

MacCurdy, George G. 1900 The obsidian razor of the Aztecs. American Anthropologist 2:417-421.

MacNeish, Richard S., Antoinette Nelken-Terner, and Irmgard Weitlaner de Johnson 1967 The prehistory of the Tehuacan valley Vol. 2: The nonceramic artifacts. University of Texas Press,

Austin. Maler, Teoberto

1901 Researches in the central portion of the Usumatisintla Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology II. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Marcou, Ph. 1921 Procede de Azteques pour la taille par 6clatement des couteaux ou rasoirs d'obsidienne. Journal

de la Societe des Americanistes de Paris 13(n.s.):17-24. Mendieta, Fray Ger6nimo de

1945 Historia eclesidstica. Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe, Mexico. Miranda, Faustino

1976 La vegetaci6n de Chiapas: 2a Parte. Ediciones del Gobierno del Estado, Tuxtla Guti6rrez, Chiapas, Mexico.

Morris, Walter F., Jr. 1979 A catalog of textiles and folkart of Chiapas, Mexico: Vol. 1. Publicaciones Pokok de la Cooperativa

de Artesanas Indigenas, San Crist6bal, Chiapas, Mexico. Motolinia, Fray Torbio

1973 Historia de los indios de la Nueva Espana. Con notas, etc. de Edmundo O'Gorman. Editorial Porrfua, Mexico.

Mulleried, Federico K. G. 1939 Las puntas de flecha de los Lacandones. XXVII Congreso de Americanistas 1: 322-337. Mexico.

Ronan, Charles E. 1973 Francisco Javier Clavigero, 1731-1787. In The Handbook of Middle American Indians (Vol. 13.),

edited by Howard F. Cline, pp. 276-297. University of Texas Press, Austin. Rovner, Irwin

1975 Lithic sequences from the Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Sahagun, Fr. Bernardino de 1961 Florentine Codex: general history of the things of New Spain, Book 10-the people, translated by

Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. 0. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Museum of New Mexico, No. 14, Part XI. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1963 Florentine Codex: general history of the things of New Spain, Book 11-earthly things, translated by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. 0. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Museum of New Mexico, No. 14, Part XII. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

1975 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espana. Con notas, etc. de Angel Maria Garibay K. Editorial Porrufa, Mexico.

Sellers, George Ercol 1886 Observations on stone chipping. Smithsonian Report for 1885, Part 1:871-891.

Sheets, Payson D. 1977 The analysis of chipped stone artifacts in southern Mesoamerica: an assessment. Latin American

Research Review 12:1.

375

Page 23: Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades an alternative technique

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

1978 Artifacts. In The prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vol. 2, Part 1, edited by Robert J. Sharer, pp. 2-131. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sheets, Payson D., and Guy Muto 1972 Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science 175:632-634.

Simeon, Remi 1977 Diccionario de la lengua nahuatl o mexicana. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico.

Sollberger, J. B., and L. W. Patterson 1976 Prismatic blade replication. American Antiquity 41:517-531.

Stoll, Otto 1886 An early visit to the El Chayal obsidian quarries in Guatemala. Reprinted in 1978 in Archaeological

Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, edited by Thomas Hester. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican Art, Archaeology and Ethnohistory No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.

Torquemada, Fray Juan de 1975 Monarquia indiana (quinta edici6n). Introduccion por Miguel Le6n Portilla. Editorial Porrfia,

Mexico. Tozzer, Alfred M.

1907 A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Archaeological Institute of America, New York.

Tudela, Jos6, and Jos6 Corona Nufiez 1977 Relacion de Michoacan (1541). (Facsimile edition). Balsal Editores, Mexico.

Tylor, Edward B. 1861 Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern. London.

Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. 1974 The ethnographic works of Andr6s de Olmos, precursor and contemporary of Sahagfin. In Sixteenth

century Mexico: the work of Sahagun, edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 27-77. University of New Mex- ico Press, Albuquerque.

Wilson, Thomas 1899 Arrowpoints, spearheads and knives of Prehistoric times. Report of the U.S. National Museum for

1897. Washington, D.C.

EASEMENTS AND ARTIFACTS: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Glenn F. Tiedt

A 1980 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code introduced a new concept of the "qualified conservation contribution" which provides income tax benefits to the donor of historic land areas and certified historic structures. Archaeological sites can be either, and archaeologists who understand the charitable contribution provisions of the Internal Revenue Code will recognize opportunities to protect archaeological resources through donations of land or easements. This article describes the tax concepts in sufficient detail to enable ar- chaeologists to help interested landowners begin to explore charitable contributions as alternatives to sales.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 traditionally has been of little interest to archaeologists. Even to historical archaeologists it has been of much too recent vintage to merit investigation. Yet

buried in the Code are several important tools that have been used in the past by other disciplines to preserve and protect significant resources. It is the purpose of this report to publicize those

tools and demonstrate how they can be used for the good of archaeology.

1978 Artifacts. In The prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vol. 2, Part 1, edited by Robert J. Sharer, pp. 2-131. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sheets, Payson D., and Guy Muto 1972 Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science 175:632-634.

Simeon, Remi 1977 Diccionario de la lengua nahuatl o mexicana. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico.

Sollberger, J. B., and L. W. Patterson 1976 Prismatic blade replication. American Antiquity 41:517-531.

Stoll, Otto 1886 An early visit to the El Chayal obsidian quarries in Guatemala. Reprinted in 1978 in Archaeological

Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, edited by Thomas Hester. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican Art, Archaeology and Ethnohistory No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.

Torquemada, Fray Juan de 1975 Monarquia indiana (quinta edici6n). Introduccion por Miguel Le6n Portilla. Editorial Porrfia,

Mexico. Tozzer, Alfred M.

1907 A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Archaeological Institute of America, New York.

Tudela, Jos6, and Jos6 Corona Nufiez 1977 Relacion de Michoacan (1541). (Facsimile edition). Balsal Editores, Mexico.

Tylor, Edward B. 1861 Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern. London.

Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. 1974 The ethnographic works of Andr6s de Olmos, precursor and contemporary of Sahagfin. In Sixteenth

century Mexico: the work of Sahagun, edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 27-77. University of New Mex- ico Press, Albuquerque.

Wilson, Thomas 1899 Arrowpoints, spearheads and knives of Prehistoric times. Report of the U.S. National Museum for

1897. Washington, D.C.

EASEMENTS AND ARTIFACTS: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Glenn F. Tiedt

A 1980 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code introduced a new concept of the "qualified conservation contribution" which provides income tax benefits to the donor of historic land areas and certified historic structures. Archaeological sites can be either, and archaeologists who understand the charitable contribution provisions of the Internal Revenue Code will recognize opportunities to protect archaeological resources through donations of land or easements. This article describes the tax concepts in sufficient detail to enable ar- chaeologists to help interested landowners begin to explore charitable contributions as alternatives to sales.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 traditionally has been of little interest to archaeologists. Even to historical archaeologists it has been of much too recent vintage to merit investigation. Yet

buried in the Code are several important tools that have been used in the past by other disciplines to preserve and protect significant resources. It is the purpose of this report to publicize those

tools and demonstrate how they can be used for the good of archaeology.

Glenn F. Tiedt, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225 Glenn F. Tiedt, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225

Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/82/020376-06$1.10/1

Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/82/020376-06$1.10/1

376 376 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982] [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]