Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T22:28:35.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

STONE TOOL FUNCTIONS, HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES, AND FORMATIVE LITHIC ECONOMIES IN NORTHERN TLAXCALA, MEXICO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2022

David P. Walton*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Lake-Sumter State College, 1250 N. Hancock Road, Clermont, Florida 34711, United States
*
E-mail correspondence to: dwalton@bu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High-magnification use-wear analyses create datasets that enable microeconomic studies of lithic consumption and household activities that complement macroeconomic studies of lithic production and exchange to collectively improve our reconstructions of ancient economies. In recent decades, compositional and technological analyses have revealed how certain obsidian sources and lithic technologies were exploited, produced, and exchanged in Mexico's central highlands region during the Formative period (1500 b.c.–a.d. 100). This article presents use-wear analyses of 275 lithic artifacts from four sites in northern Tlaxcala—Amomoloc (900–650 b.c.), Tetel (750–500 b.c.), Las Mesitas (600–500 b.c.), and La Laguna (600–400 b.c. and 100 b.c.–a.d. 150)—to compare household activities with lithic technologies and evaluate their roles in regional economies. Blades were used for subsistence and domestic crafting; maguey fiber extraction for textile production increased over time, especially in non-elite households. The preparation and consumption of meat acquired by hunting and other methods increased slightly over time, and bipolar tools were used as kitchen utensils. Bloodletting was practiced with two variations of late-series pressure blades, but these and other tools were neither exchanged as nor used to craft prestige goods, often viewed as driving forces of Formative economies in Mesoamerica.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Google satellite imagery of central Mexico and the locations of obsidian sources and notable Formative (ca. 1500 b.c.–a.d. 100) sites, including Amomoloc, Tetel, Les Mesitas, and La Laguna, highlighted in this article. Image courtesy of Google.

Figure 1

Table 1. Sampling strategy for high-magnification use-wear analysis. Use-wear specimen count and percentages are in parentheses. LF, Late Formative; TF, Terminal Formative.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Photographs of use-wear specimens from Amomoloc: (a and b) Bifacial drills; (c–e) bifacial points; (f) bipolar flake; Tetel: (g) percussion blade; (h) late-series pressure snapped blade segment; (i) late-series pressure proximal blade segment; (j) bloodletter; (k) bifacial point; Las Mesitas: (l) bifacial point; La Laguna: (m and n) bifacial drills; (o) bifacial knife; (p) bloodletter; (q) bifacial point; (r) unifacial scraper. Photographs by the author.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Photographs of ventral surface topographies on four unused obsidian tools. Photographs by the author.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Photographs of experimental results using obsidian tools. (a) 15 minutes of goosefoot cutting; (b) 15 minutes of maize cutting; (c) 15 minutes of turkey cutting; (d) 15 minutes of maguey leaf scraping; (e) 5 minutes of rabbit skin scraping with white arrow indicating striations; (f) 25 strokes of pig skin piercing. Photographs by the author.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Photographs of experimental results using obsidian tools. (a) 15 minutes of clay scraping; (b) 15 minutes of red ware ceramic cutting; (c) 5 minutes of boiled chicken bone cutting; (d) 15 minutes of huisache (wood) whittling; (e) 20 minutes of shell boring; (f) 5 minutes of slate cutting. Photographs by the author.

Figure 6

Table 2. Material signatures detected on specimens. Tool forms are in numbers and material signatures are in percentages. ES, early-series pressure; LF, Late Formative; LS, late-series pressure; TF, Terminal Formative.

Figure 7

Table 3. Activities and post-depositional processes detected on use-wear specimens. Values are in percentages. LF, Late Formative; TF, Terminal Formative.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Examples of use-wear characteristics linked to specific activities. (a) Soft plant cutting (Amomoloc, Specimen 50), arrows indicate striations; (b) meat cutting (Tetel, Specimen 4), arrow indicates striations; (c) maize cutting (La Laguna, Specimen 69); (d) maguey leaf cutting (La Laguna, Specimen 25); (e) shell cutting (La Laguna, Specimen 62); (f) wood cutting (Tetel, Specimen 46). Photographs by the author.

Figure 9

Figure 7. Examples of use-wear characteristics linked to specific activities. (a) Hide scraping with white arrow indicating blood residue (Amomoloc, Specimen 42); (b) maguey leaf scraping (La Laguna, Specimen 148); (c) shell and stone boring (La Laguna, Specimen 122); (d) bone whittling (Tetel, Specimen 11); (e) wood scraping (La Laguna, Specimen 65); (f) wood whittling (Amomoloc, Specimen 2). Photographs by the author.

Figure 10

Figure 8. Examples of use-wear characteristics. (a) Blood residue (Amomoloc, Specimen 4); (b) blood residue (Las Mesitas, Specimen 23); (c) hafting resin (Las Mesitas, Specimen 3); (d) striations running across a notched surface indicating hafting (Tetel, Specimen 32); (e) burnt surface (La Laguna, Specimen 66); (f) damaged tip of a bifacial point (La Laguna, Specimen 19). Photographs by the author.