-
8. Agricultural Tasks and Tools: Patterns of Stone Tool Discard Near Prehistoric Maya Residences Bordering Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
THE OLMEC PHENOMENON manifest on them: in other words, their hindrance or hazard potential. Almost all of the Olmec obsidian assemblage consists of extremely small pieces of reduction debitage, snapped prismatic blades, and percussion microblades, whereas modern assemblages are dominated by much larger fragments of glass from beer bottles and other containers. Although a glass sherd will produce a cut no matter what its size, the depth and severity of the puncture (i.e., the hindrance potential) is related to the size and thickness of the specimen and the sherd's orientation in the ground prior to incision. Most of the archaeological assemblage also bears evidence of heavy utilization. At Matacapan many Formative obsidian tools appear to have been recycled for other uses after they were no longer serviceable as cutting implements. Dulled use edges are consequently very common, even on small specimens. On the other hand, modern glass sherds are frequently discarded immediately after breaking to minimize the danger of cut and puncture wounds because fresh fractures are still extremely sharp. The hindrance potential of glass objects, then, should vary systematically in terms of the uses (or reuses) to which they are put as well as their relative sizes, which might affect variations in disposal patterns. Disposal in both contexts might still emphasize the immediate removal of glassy materials from cultural living surfaces, but households dumping small pieces of dull material might be somewhat more casual in their discard behavior. The strategy that I have adopted in this chapter is one involving an argument of enumeration. Thus, patterns from the contemporary world have been "fitted" to evidence from the past in an effort to show that the specific archaeological case can be viewed as a special instance of a more general pattern definable in the present. No independent evidence has been offered nor have other consequences of the model been derived. As a result, no tests of alternative models of land use and refuse disposal have been made to increase our confidence that the model applied is the most appropriate characterization of Olmec economy at Matacapan. If alternative models are to be rigorously evaluated, then more research must occur in the following areas. First, we need more information on other factors affecting variability in refuse disposal patterns in household contexts. Neither of the house-lot studies deals with the effects of craft specialization. Do pot179 SANTLEY ters producing ceramics in different types of contexts (e.g., household industries versus workshop industries versus manufactories) discard refuse in a similar manner? In other words, what effects, if any, do specialization and the scale of specialized production have on the organization of space and garbage disposal patterns? Moreover, does systematic variability occur by class of industry? For example, industries employing additive technologies (i.e., ceramic production) might be expected to be organized very differently from industries utilizing subtractive technologies (i.e., obsidian working) because the latter produce vast amounts of hazardous waste. Finally, does variability occur by socioeconomic level? All of the studies discussed in this chapter deal with peasant households of rather low economic status. Elites, in contrast , might be expected to behave very differently. Households in highland Guatemala rarely dig pits to dispose of their refuse. Rather, they take advantage of alternative disposal modes or fill pits with garbage that were originally dug for other purposes. Persons of high status, however, might have the economic clout for disposal in pits because such tasks would be handled by servants or clients of low rank, not by the elites themselves. I am not arguing that such was the case, only that we do not know that it was not. Second, there is a paucity of information on variation in agricultural intensity, the kinds of work gangs operative off-site, and their impact on community settlement patterns. As Killion (1987a) has pointed out, settlement patterns vary greatly in the Tuxtlas today. This variability in part is a function of environmental differences, combined with variations in agricultural intensity, the location of intensively cultivated plots relative to villages, the degree of reliance on gardens or gardenorchards , and proximity to regional centers or lines of transit leading to them. Variation of this sort may have dramatic impact on the organization of agricultural labor (e.g., cooperative versus individual), which in tum could condition the use of space on-lot as well as the kinds of materials discarded off-site. Besides agricultural implements per se, we also have very little data on the other kinds of technology...