ku · Tehuacan Valley and found significant flaws with the original analysis and subsequent typology. In the Valley of Oaxaca, Flannery (1986) re - constructed Early Archaic life

u n i ve r s i t y o f co pe n h ag e n

Design and Function of Lowe and Sawmill Points from the Preceramic Period of Belize

Stemp W James Awe Jaime J M Prufer Keith M Helmke Christophe

Published inLatin American Antiquity

DOI1071831045-6635273279

Publication date2016

Document licenseUnspecified

Citation for published version (APA)Stemp W J Awe J J M Prufer K M amp Helmke C (2016) Design and Function of Lowe and SawmillPoints from the Preceramic Period of Belize Latin American Antiquity 27(3) 279-299httpsdoiorg1071831045-6635273279

Download date 24 Sep 2020

There has been renewed interest in the Pre-ceramic period of Belize since the signifi-cant work of archaeologists in the 1980s

and 1990s (Hester et al 1980a 1980b 1981 1996Iceland 1997 Kelly 1993 Pearson and Bostrom1998 Pohl et al 1996 Zeitlin 1984 Zeitlin andZeitlin 2000 see MacNeish 1981 1982 1983MacNeish and Nelken-Terner 1983a 1983b Mac-

Neish et al 1980) This is primarily due to thefact that the quantity of evidence for a Paleoindianand Archaic period presence in Belize has in-creased in recent years based on the recovery ofPleistocene faunal remains and lithics from a num-ber of locations throughout the country (egAylesworth et al 2011 Helmke and Ishihara 2001Lohse and Collins 2004 Lucero et al 2011

DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF LOWE AND SAWMILL POINTS FROMTHE PRECERAMIC PERIOD OF BELIZE

W James Stemp Jaime J Awe Keith M Prufer and Christophe GB Helmke

To date 81 stemmed and barbed preceramic (Archaic) points (8000ndash900 BC) have been identified in Belize Fifty-four areLowe points 21 are Sawmill points Four more are provisionally classified as Allspice and two as Yarsquoaxchersquo points Thesestemmed bifaces are frequently beveled on alternate-opposite edges and demonstrate variable degrees of resharpening andreworking which affects blade shape and tool size Numerous functions have been attributed to these artifacts specificallythey have been called spear points dart points harpoons and knives Metric data from these bifaces limited macrowearand microwear analyses and design features such as barbs and alternate-opposite edge beveling have been used tointerpret likely tool functions Results suggest that Lowe points were affixed to throwingthrusting spears and also servedas knives whereas the Sawmill points were used as spear-thrower dart points and as knives New dating informationsuggests that alternate-opposite edge beveling and consequently beveled bifaces may be much older than 2500ndash1900 BCwhich is the date currently assigned to these specimens

Hasta la fecha 81 puntas pre-ceraacutemicas (Arcaico) (8000ndash900 aC) pedunculadas y con aletas han sido descubiertas a lo largode Belice Cincuentaicuatro han sido identificadas como puntas de tipo Lowe 21 como puntas Sawmill y seis han sidoclasificadas de manera provisional de las cuales cuatro son Allspice y dos Yarsquoaxchersquo Estos bifaces pedunculados estaacuten fre-cuentemente biselados sobre los bordes alternos-opuestos y muestran grados variables de retoques y reavivamiento lo cualafecta tanto la forma de la laacutemina como el tamantildeo del instrumento Se han atribuido numerosas funciones a estos artefactosespeciacuteficamente como puntas de lanza puntas de dardo arpones y cuchillos Los datos meacutetricos de estos bifaces el anaacutelisislimitado de las macro y microhuellas de uso y las caracteriacutesticas del disentildeo tales como las aletas y el biselado alterno-opuestose han utilizado para interpretar las posibles funciones de estas herramientas Los resultados sugieren que las puntas de Lowefueron enmangadas en lanzas arrojadizas y tambieacuten sirvieron como cuchillos mientras que las puntas Sawmill fueron utilizadascomo puntas de dardo en propulsores asiacute como tambieacuten como cuchillos La nueva informacioacuten acerca de la cronologiacutea sugiereque el biselado del borde alterno-opuesto y consecuentemente los bifaces biselados podriacutean ser mucho maacutes antiguos que 2500ndash1900 aC fecha actualmente asignada a estos especiacutemenes

W James Stemp Department of Sociology Anthropology and Criminology Keene State College Keene NH 03435-3400 USA (jstempkeeneedu)Jaime J Awe Department of Anthropology Northern Arizona University Flagstaff AZ 86011-5200 USA(jaimeawenauedu)Keith M Prufer Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131 USA(kmpunmedu)Christophe GB Helmke Institute of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies University of Copenhagen Karen BlixensVej 4 DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark (cgbhhumkudk)

Latin American Antiquity 27(3) 2016 pp 279ndash299Copyright copy 2016 by the Society for American Archaeology

DOI 1071831045-6635273279

279

280 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol 27 No 3 2016

Rosenswig 2004 2015 Rosenswig and Masson2001 Rosenswig et al 2014 Stemp and Awe2013 Stemp et al 2016) In particular additionalstemmed and barbed bifaces have been recoveredthat conform to the technological and stylistic cri-teria of two types of points Lowe and SawmillThese have been considered Late Archaic (ca2500ndash1900 BC) in date (Iceland 1997 Kelly1993 Lohse 2010 Lohse et al 2006) Neverthe-less the function and chronology of these toolsremains unclear Lowe points have been variouslyreferred to as knife blades thrusting spear pointsprojectiledart points and harpoon heads (egClark and Cheetham 2002 Hester et al 1980aIceland and Hester 2001 Kelly 1993 Lohse 2010Lohse et al 2006 MacNeish and Nelken-Terner1983a MacNeish et al 1980 Rosenswig 2015Stemp and Awe 2013 Valdez and Aylesworth2005) The proposed functions of Sawmill pointshave included dart points and knives (Kelly 1993Lohse 2010 Stemp and Awe 2013) Tool functionis addressed in this paper by analyzing tool mor-phology metric data and limited macrowear andmicrowear evidence derived from the largest sam-ple of documented Lowe and Sawmill points dis-covered in modern-day Belize These data arecompared to ethnographic ethnological and ex-perimental tools with known functions as well asother archaeological evidence

Chipped Stone Points in Archaic Mesoamerica

Although our study focuses on point types identi-fied in what is traditionally known as the LateArchaic period of Belize hunter-gatherers in otherregions of Mesoamerica produced similar varietiesof stemmed and barbed bifaces in the Preceramicperiod Therefore it is worthwhile briefly com-menting on sites with diagnostic Archaic chippedstone points in these regions MexicoMacNeish et al (1967) established one of the firstpreceramic lithic typologies in Mesoamerica basedon excavations in the Tehuacan Valley Projectilepoint types including Coxcatlan Hidalgo LermaPedernales and Tortugas were used as chrono-logical markers to date levels and the timing ofoccupations at various sites Hardy (1996) has

since performed a reanalysis of a small percentageof the thousands of lithics recovered from theTehuacan Valley and found significant flaws withthe original analysis and subsequent typology

In the Valley of Oaxaca Flannery (1986) re-constructed Early Archaic life based on excavationsat Guila Naquitz Cave He recovered an assem-blage of 1716 flakes bifacial choppers macroflaketools and bifaces including Lerma and Trinidadpoints as well as two Pedernales points (Hole1986) Evidence of Archaic-period occupation inthis valley also was discovered at Cueva Blancaand Gheo-Shih In terms of lithic technology manyprojectile points of the Coxcatlan Hidalgo LaMina San Nicolas Tilapa and Trinidad types wereidentified at Gheo-Shih (Flannery and Spores1983) At Cueva Blanca Archaic-period levelsalso yielded point types like those from the Tehua-can Valley including La Mina San NicolasTrinidad and Pedernales (Flannery and Spores1983) The rhyolite Xaagaacute biface fragment is an-other example of a ldquoPedernalesrdquo-like Archaic pointfrom Oaxaca (Winter 2007196ndash197 Figure 93)

In the Central Balsas region of Guerrero ar-chaeologists working in the Xihuatoxtla rockshel-ter recovered modified river cobbles and otherchipped stone tools and debitage in levels radio-carbon dated to the Archaic period They alsofound a stemmed indented base point fragmentthat they called Pedernales based on its similarityto Pedernales points from Guila Naquitz in Oaxacaand the Tehuacan Valley (Ranere et al 20095017Figure 5A) Perttula (200973) noted that this pointcame from a layer that is ldquoat least 5000 to 6000years older than the known age of Pedernalespoints from Texasrdquo and should be given a differenttype name based on location of recovery and as-sociated time period

In Michoacan Archaic period occupation wasdocumented in Cueva de los Portales At differentlevels within the cave there are flaked tools madefrom andesite and obsidian Tools include heavychoppers scrapers gravers blades and numerousstemmed point types such as San Nicolas GaryAbasolo Nogales La Mina Tortugas and Peder-nales (Faugegravere 2006)

Along the Pacific coast of the Isthmus ofTehuantepec Oaxaca lithic evidence associatedwith the Archaic period specifically a short-stemmed basally notched Pedernales-like point

made from gray rhyolite was discovered at thesite of Barrio Tepalcate (Winter 2007196ndash197Figure 93) GuatemalaLos Tapiales a Paleoindian campsite also con-tained a significant Archaic-period component Inaddition to the fluted-point base fragment and aldquoflutingrdquo flake there was an assemblage ofroughly 1400 chipped stone artifacts mostly con-sisting of basalt obsidian and chalcedony flaketools as well as 14 biface fragments and a unifa-cial obsidian point (Gruhn and Bryan 1977)

From surface finds Brown (1980) identifiedPalaeoindian and Archaic-period sites in theGuatemalan highlands based on two Palaeoindianpoints and nine Archaic-period points includingLerma El Riego Flacco and Abasolo The iden-tification of the Archaic-period points was basedon similarities with the types recognized by Mac-Neish in the Tehuacan Valley (Brown 1980317ndash318 Figure 4) HondurasSchefflerrsquos (2008 2012) work in the El GiganteRockshelter provides solid evidence for early pre-ceramic occupation with a series of radiocarbondates extending back to the Palaeoindian periodAlso recovered from the rockshelter were projec-tile points from levels that were dated to the EarlyArchaic that he describes as stylistically similarto the Pedernales type (Scheffler et al 2012603) BelizeIn addition to the Tehuacan Valley MacNeish andNelken-Terner (1983a 1983b) excavated sites innorthern Belize and developed a preceramic lithictypology there as well Their stone tool sequencewith some revision included six phases or com-plexes (Lowe-ha Sand Hill Orange Walk BelizeMelinda and Progreso) that extended from about9000ndash2000 BC and included point forms termedldquoLerma-likerdquo ldquoPedernales-likerdquo and ldquoShumla-likerdquo among others Nevertheless this analysisand categorization of the diagnostic tool types innorthern Belize suffered from some of the sameproblems as the Tehuacan Valley typology (seeHester 1986413) Given these issues and the sub-sequent work of Hester et al (1980a 1980b 1995

1996) Kelly (1993) and Iceland (1997 2005)these phases as well as the point type designa-tions are no longer considered valid

Preceramic Points from BelizeIn Belize there are only seven confirmed points(Lohse 2006214ndash216) from the Paleoindian pe-riod (ca 11000ndash8000 BC) and one possible point(Stemp et al 2016) from the PaleoindianEarlyArchaic (ca 8000ndash6000 BC) In contrast thereis abundant evidence of Late Archaic (3400ndash900BC) stone tool technology In terms of bifacialpoints Lowe and Sawmill are the two main typesfrom this time period although there may be somesub-variation in the Lowe type (see Stemp andAwe 201324 26) A third provisional categoryof Allspice points has been suggested by Kelly(1993216) and we propose a fourth provisionalpoint type named Yarsquoaxchersquo In this paper wepresent quantitative and qualitative data for 54Lowe 21 Sawmill four Allspice and two Yarsquoax-chersquo points recovered throughout Belize (Figure1 Table 1 Supplemental Tables 1ndash4)

Most of the preceramic points from Belize aremade from chert that is heavily to completelypatinated Both off-whiteyellowish and hard whitepatinas have been associated with points recoveredin northern Belize Nearly all of the less patinatedbifaces were made from chert from the ldquochert-bearing zonerdquo [CBZ] of northern Belize (seeLohse 2010 Lohse et al 2006 Stemp and Awe2013) The Lowe point from Pulltrouser Swampwas made from chalcedony (Iceland 1997194) Lowe PointsLowe points (Figure 2) are ldquocharacterized bybroad shoulders often with sharply defined barbswide stems that are square or slightly expandingand occasionally sub-parallel oblique flaking ontheir bladesrdquo (Lohse et al 2006217) Typicallytheir wide straight-sided stems are ground alongthe edges from barb tip to barb tip (Kelly1993210) The barb angles on most Lowe pointsare between 45ondash65o (Kelly 1993210 Stemp andAwe 201320 Table 1) They often possess pro-nounced alternate-opposite beveling on left edgesand an off-white patina with a yellowish stain(Kelly 1993210)

Stemp et al] DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF LOWE AND SAWMILL POINTS 281


Figure 1 Locations in Belize where Lowe Sawmill Allspice and Yarsquoaxchersquo points have been found (map by C Helmke)


Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)

Sawmill PointsSawmill points (Figure 3andashd) are ldquosomewhat nar-rower and appear more delicately flaked thanLowe pointsrdquo and ldquoare characterized by fine par-allel-oblique pressure flaking occasionally trend-ing into a beveled blade sharp barbs defined bydeep basal or corner notches and have expandingstems that sometimes retain a false fluterdquo (Lohse

et al 2006217) The barb angles for these pointsare generally narrower than those on the largerLowe points (Kelly 1993216 Stemp and Awe201320ndash21 Table 1) with most ranging between30ondash45o The edge beveling on the Sawmill pointsis similar to that described for the Lowe pointsSawmill points usually developed a ldquovery hardwhite patinardquo (Kelly 1993216)


Figure 2 Selection of Lowe points (a) point found under the Hawksworth Bridge San Ignacio (b) point JuaD98122found near Ladyville (c) point JuaD98124 found near Ladyville (also see Figure 7b) (d) unprovenanced point (PNK360) (also see Figure 7a) (e) point found in a rockshelter near Indian Creek in western Belize (f) unprovenanced point(PNK 1268) (g) Point found at Blackman Eddy (h) unprovenanced point (i) point SB-BF-1 from Big Falls ToledoDistrict (j) point SB-BF-2 from Big Falls Toledo District (k) point SB-BF-3 from Big Falls Toledo District (photographsby J Awe K Prufer and W J Stemp)


Figure 3 (a) Sawmill point in a private collection from Corozal northern Belize (b) Sawmill point found on the westbank of the Mopan River in Callar Creek village (c) Sawmill point RTI 18 (d) Sawmill point RTI 13 (e) ProvisionalAllspice point (RTI 64) from the Sibun River Valley Cayo District (f) Provisional Yarsquoaxchersquo point found on land man-aged by the Yarsquoaxcheacute Conservation Trust (g) Provisional Yarsquoaxchersquo point from the Bladen Nature Reserve southernBelize (photographs by J Awe M Caal L McLoughlin and W J Stemp)

Allspice PointsAlthough few Allspice points have been identifiedthere is some morphometric standardization tothese artifacts Allspice points are long somewhatnarrow points with short barbs and long expandingstems with variable degrees of basal thinning (Fig-ure 3e) Stem bases are either flat or concave andstem edges are ground like other preceramicpoints These points also possess alternate-oppo-site edge beveling The points have the same heavywhitish-yellow patina as Lowe points (Kelly1993216) Based on the damage to the barbs onthree of the Allspice points reliable measurementsof barb angles are not possible Yarsquoaxchersquo PointsStemp and Awe (201328) posited that a point re-covered from the Bladen Nature Reserve was anew type based on the style and dimensions of itsstem Following the recent discovery of a secondpoint with a similar stem we propose a new provi-sional type called Yarsquoaxchersquo in recognition of thegentlemen who found themmdashMr Lee McLoughlinand Mr Maximiliano Caal from the Yarsquoaxcheacute Con-servation Trust Both points possess a short wideand expanding ldquoearedrdquo stem with a basal concavityPoint stems are basally thinned on both faces butnot fluted This stem style is somewhat similar tothose on points from El Gigante Honduras (seeabove) The shapes of the blades differ due to thealternate-opposite edge beveling on one of them(Figure 3f) and minor edge resharpening on oneedge of the second (Figure 3g) The barb angles ofthe points measure 45 ondash55o Both of these artifactsare heavily patinated

Dating of Preceramic Points from BelizeAlthough most of these bifaces are surface findsthere are three associated radiocarbon dates re-ported (2500ndash1900 cal BC) for Lowe points(Kelly 1993215 Pohl et al 1996363 Table 1)Points without associated radiocarbon dates in-cluding Sawmill and Allspice have been assignedto the Late Archaic period based on stylistic andtechnological similarities to the Lowe points in-cluding stems barbs and corner-notching LateArchaic points are frequently resharpened usingan alternate-opposite edge beveling technique thathas not been reported on any Paleoindian point

(Lohse et al 2006) or Preclassic Classic or Post-classic Maya (ca 1200 BCndashAD 1500) bifacefrom Belize (Hester 1985)

The current dating of beveled points from Be-lize may require rethinking because Keith Pruferrsquosproject recently recovered a pointknife fragmentwith alternate-opposite edge beveling in theToledo District of Southern Belize from a contextassociated with two radiocarbon dates spanning10200ndash10500 BP (Figure 4a) Despite the lackof a diagnostic basestem on this point fragmentthis discovery suggests that this type of bevelingmay have appeared earlier than currently thoughtin Belize By way of comparison alternate-oppo-site edge beveling on North American points isintroduced in the Late Paleoindian-Early Archaicperiod on Dalton points (8500ndash7500 BC) OtherEarly Archaic points including Hardaway-Dalton(8000ndash7000 BC) Hardin Barbed (8000ndash5500BC) and Thebes points (8000ndash6000 BC) arealso resharpened using this technique (Goodyear1982 Justice 1995) In southern Texas and north-ern Mexico alternate-opposite edge beveled lance-olate Lerma points and stemmed Bandy (Martin-dale) Bulverde and Abasolo points date from theEarly to Middle Archaic period (ca 8000ndash3000BC Turner et al 2011) The early date for thebiface fragment with alternate-opposite edgebeveling from southern Belize also raises ques-tions concerning the gap in the current pointchronology of that country from roughly 9000 to2500 BC

Although Sawmill points have been suggestedas examples of Late Archaic technology no ra-diocarbon dates are currently associated with themKelly (1993216) suggested they were youngerthan the Lowe and Allspice points based on theirdegree of patination Given the early date associ-ated with the beveled tool from southern Belizewe will break with tradition and refer to LoweSawmill Allspice and Yarsquoaxchersquo points simply asldquopreceramicrdquo throughout the rest of this paper

Preceramic Biface Function Metric AnalysisTo determine the functions of preceramic bifacesfrom Belize we performed metric analyses forcomparison with hafted stone points in archaeo-logical and ethnographic collections from Northand South America and Australia (Shea 2006 Shott


1997 Thomas 1978) Only the Lowe and Sawmillpoints were included in this part of the analysisbased on sample sizes We chose size rather thanmass for metric analysis primarily due to the ab-sence of published weights for many of the pointsincluded in this study and the fact that we couldnot weigh the points held in private collections

Biface preforms such as the Lowe point stemsfrom Northern Belize (Kelly 1993219 Figure 10g

h) were not included in any of the metric analysesArtifacts that were significantly damaged such asthe blades of the two Lowe points from Uitz CahAkal (Lohse 2010329 Figure 8) were includedin only some of the metric analyses Moreovermeasurements (primarily length and width) frompoints that were substantially reduced in size dueto resharpening or other reworking such as theLowe point from Sibun (McAnany 201031 Figure


Figure 4 (a) Two views of a beveled pointknife fragment from the Toledo District of Southern Belize Photographs ofprojectile damage (b) The Lowe point discovered by Ada Awe Wood with a cone-like fracture of the distal end (c) TheBlack Rock 1 point with a hinge-terminating bending fracture of the distal end (photographs by J Awe and K Prufer)

23 McAnany et al 2004296 Figure 1) wereomitted from calculations in Table 1Maximum Length Width Thickness and Neck WidthLowe and Sawmill points differ in terms of bothoverall length and width For those that are wholeor almost whole the mean maximum length andwidth for Lowe points are 836 mm and 553 mmwhereas Sawmill points average 683 mm longand 396 mm wide The least damaged and re-workedresharpened Lowe point is theJuaD98124 specimen which is 965 mm longand 552 mm wide The Actun Tzimin pointwhich measures 636 mm long and 331 mm wideis the least modified whole Sawmill point Neitherpoint is the largest of its type Both points are ex-curvate in outline which suggests that this is likelythe original shape of Lowe and Sawmill pointsOne of the excurvate point fragments withoutbeveling from Uitz Cah Akal confirms this

Lowe points are quite long (Table 1 Figure5a) when compared to examples in Thomas (1978)and Shott (1997) Nonetheless the lengths ofmany Sawmill points overlap with those of theThomas (1978) and Shott (1997) hafted dartpoints specifically within the 45ndash85 mm rangeIn this range there is no statistically significantdifference in the lengths between the Sawmill vsThomas (1978) points (t = 19668 df = 10 p lt005) or Sawmill vs Shott (1997) points (t =17119 df = 21 p lt 005) based on Welchrsquos t-testWhen all lengths are included the differences be-tween the Sawmill vs Thomas (1978) points (t =44867 df = 21 p lt 005) and Sawmill vs Shott(1997) points (t = 33296 df = 27 p lt 005) aresignificant Nevertheless Cundy (1989) andHutchings (1997) demonstrate that dart points canvary in terms of their lengths and widths and thatsome dart tips are quite large Some Australianaborigine javelins are tipped with long and narrowstone bone and metal points (Cundy 1989109ndash111 Figure 28 Newman and Moore 20132615Figure 1 2616Figures 2ndash3)

In terms of the maximum widths the Loweand Sawmill points are significantly different fromthe hafted dart points in Table 1 Lowe points aresubstantially wider than the hafted dart pointswhereas the Sawmill points tend to overlap to aminimal degree with the Thomas (1978) and Shott

(1997) points (Figure 5b) One important func-tional aspect related to the width of points con-cerns depth of penetration Wide points may notpenetrate as deeply as narrow ones although forceupon impact undoubtedly affects this relationship(see Hrdlicka 2003 Whittaker 2010)

Measurements of biface thickness indicate thatthe Lowe points are much thicker than the haftedarchaeological examples (Shott 1997 Thomas1978) Although the mean thickness of theSawmill points is less than that of the Lowe pointsthe Sawmill points are still thicker than theThomas (t = 30146 df = 7 p lt 005) and Shott (t= 32551 df = 5 p lt 005) points Neither pointtype would be classed as a dart based on thesedata

Neck width may be the most important criterionfor determining the function of a biface used as aprojectile because the width of the neckstem isrelated to the diameter of the foreshaftshaft of theprojectile When comparing the data for maximumneck width for the hafted specimens (Table 1 Fig-ure 6a) the Sawmill points overlap significantlybut the Lowe points do not There is no significantdifference in neck widths between the Sawmilland Thomas (1978) points (t = 08574 df = 25 plt 005) or Shott (1997) points (t = 03396 df = 26p lt 005) Neck width supports the suggestion thatSawmill points could have served as dart points

Corliss (1972Table 1) provides some addi-tional support for Sawmill points as darts basedon neck widths that ranged from 093 cm to 128cm Yet many dart point neck widths in his Figures4ndash7 exceeded 150 cm and he omitted some ex-amples with necks that were wider (Corliss197214) Hutchings (199773) provided a widerrange for foreshaft diameters from North Ameri-can spear-throwers (06ndash19 cm) and experimentsinvolving the use of Clovis points on elephantsby Frison (1989769 Table 2) included larger fore-shaft diameters (139ndash222 mm) In contrast meanhaftforeshaft diameters of 20 mm (Shea2006823ndash824) 22 mm (Huckell 1982219 Table1) 23 mm (Hughes 1998355 Table III) and 24ndash25 mm (Gramly 1984113) have been suggestedfor thrusting spears which may provide supportfor the use of some (N = 7 167 percent) Lowepoints as throwingthrusting spear tips

In addition to the metric analyses using the in-dividual Lowe and Sawmill point dimensions



Figure 5 Absolute frequency distribution of Lowe Sawmill and archaeological and ethnographic dart points in Shott1997 and Thomas 1978 by (a) length (mm) and (b) width (mm) Note that individual curves are unstacked and that thegridlines represent increments of two in absolute frequency (charts by C Helmke and W J Stemp)

(length width thickness and neck width) Shottrsquos(1997) and Thomasrsquos (1978) data were combinedto establish 95 percent confidence intervals (CI)around sample means using standard deviationcalculated for each of these four dimensions

CI = X plusmn 196(s)

The CI ranges were then used to determine

whether individual Lowe and Sawmill pointscould be identified as spear-thrower dart pointsbased on these four dimensions Results (Table2) indicate that 19 Lowe points fell into the CIrange for only one dimension based on compar-isons with the combined data from Shott (1997)and Thomas (1978) In contrast most (889 per-cent) of the 18 Sawmill points were within the CIranges for two or more dimensions using the same


Figure 6 Absolute frequency distribution of Lowe Sawmill and archaeological and ethnographic dart points in Shott1997 and Thomas 1978 by (a) neck width (mm) and (b) tip cross-sectional area (mm2) Note that individual curves areunstacked and that the gridlines represent increments of 2 in absolute frequency (charts by C Helmke and W J Stemp)

comparative data These calculations indicate thatSawmill points could have been dart points butLowe points most likely were not Tip Cross-Sectional Area (TCSA)The tip cross-sectional area (TCSA) of a pointhas been used to argue that some stone artifactswere likely used as projectiles of different types(ie arrow spear-thrower dart throwing spear)based on ldquothe force necessary to penetrate a targetto a lethal depthrdquo (Sisk and Shea 20112) TCSAof a bifacial point with a rhomboidal cross-sectionis calculated by multiplying half of its maximumwidth by its maximum thickness (Hughes1998354 Table II Sisk and Shea 20113 Figure1) Comparisons of the TCSAs from points inShea (2006825 Table 1) with those for Loweand Sawmill points suggest that both of these bi-faces types are too wide and thick to have servedas effective dart points (Table 1 Figure 6b) More-over Hughesrsquos (1998356 Table IV) estimatedthreshold values for TCSAs for thrusting spears(310 mm2) flight spears (210 mm2) and dartpoints (67 mm2) indicate that Lowe and Sawmillpoints would not have been effective dart pointsNevertheless 875 percent (N = 14) of the Lowepoints would have made serviceable thrustingspears and 80 percent (N = 4) of the Sawmillpoints would have been effective throwing spearsbased on these thresholds The analysis of stoneprojectile points and knives from Australia byNewman and Moore (2013) demonstrates thatsome aboriginal peoples designed tools that didnot place significant emphasis on TCSA Ameset al (2010298) also calculated that TCSA cor-rectly identified only 73 percent of Thomasrsquos(1978) and Shottrsquos (1997) dart points

Preceramic Biface Function Macrowear and Microwear

The possible functions of the Lowe and Sawmillpoints were also investigated based on use-wearbut a number of factors limited this analysisSpecifically a more detailed program of use-wearanalysis was hampered by the fact that a signifi-cant number of points held in private collectionswere not accessible for examination Macrowearand microwear analyses were also limited to asmall number of artifacts because the majority

were recovered as surface finds As a result theyare heavily patinated and were subject to multiplepost-depositional alterations

Despite these issues 27 points were examinedfor macrowear evidence that could indicate useas projectiles (Dockall 1997 Fischer et al 1984Odell and Cowan 1986 Titmus and Woods 1986)and five points were examined for microwearspecifically striations and microscopic linear im-pact traces [MLITs] (Fischer et al 1984) A 10xhand lens and a 10xndash40x digital microscope [eS-cope] were used to document the presence of lon-gitudinal macrofractures (bending snap coneand ldquospin-offrdquo fractures of the tip) lateralmacrofractures (ldquoburin-likerdquo fractures of the tip)distaltransverse fractures distal end crushingneck bending fractures and barb shear fracturesThe digital microscope was also used to locateand identify wear traces at 200x magnification

Macrowear analysis indicated that seven (350percent) of 20 Lowe points and two (289 percent)of seven Sawmill points retained evidence con-sistent with their use as projectiles On the Lowepoints macrowear was represented by longitudinalfractures on the distal ends of five points (Figures2c d 4b c 7a) a transverse fracture on one point(Figure 2b) and a lateral fracture on another (Fig-ure 2k) The bending fracture on the distal end ofthe JuaD98124 point (Figure 7b) is also associ-ated with a rotary motion break Whether this wasdue to the impact of a spinning projectile with itstarget cannot be determined Use-related damageon the Sawmill points included a neck bendingfracture (Figure 3c) and a barb shear fracture nodamage was observed on the distal ends of the ar-tifacts most likely due to resharpening

Some fractures were discounted as resultingfrom projectile impact based on the difference instone coloration of the flake scar(s) resulting fromimpact and the surrounding patinated tool surfaceFor example we concluded that the tip fractureon the point from Actun Tzimin (Lohse 2010326Figure 6D) resulted from damage sustained post-patination This approach was also used to dis-count the shear barb fractures on three Lowepoints Although we attributed the distaltransversefracture on the JuaD98122 point to projectileimpact use-wear analysts have cautioned thatthese types of fractures may also be the productof manufacture accidental breakage or other uses


(Ahler 197158 Dockall 1997326) In some in-stances such as the Lowe point from San Ignacio(Iceland 1997192 Figure 44b) and another fromLowe Ranch (Hester et al 1980b19 Figure 1)tool repair may have removed evidence of trans-verse breaks to the blades of the point

Microwear evidence consistent with projectileuse was recorded on two of five (40 percent) ofthe least patinated Lowe points The Billy Whitepoint (Figure 7c) retained a microscopic linearimpact trace (MLIT) below the distal end fractureThe Caves Branch Rockshelter point had bothweak linear polish below the distal tip break andmicropolish consistent with contact with bone(Figure 7d) Whether bone contact was due toprojectile use or butchery using the point as aknife cannot be determined based on availableevidence Distinguishing spear points from dartpoints based on this limited macrowear and mi-crowear dataset was not possible Neverthelesswe believe tha there is sufficient evidence to sug-

gest the use of some Lowe and Sawmill points asprojectiles

Preceramic Biface Function Design FeaturesThe functions of these preceramic bifaces can alsobe approached from the perspective of design fea-tures specifically large barbs alternate-oppositeedge beveling and edge serrationBarbsBarbs are common features on projectile pointsbut not all projectile points will necessarily havebarbs (Newman and Moore 2013) Barbs preventpoints from becoming dislodged from their targets(Cundy 198936 Flenniken and Wilke 1989151)Because thrusting spears are designed to be easilywithdrawn from the target to allow additionalthrusts they generally do not have barbs(Hughes1998358) Thrusting spears could havebarbed points if the foreshaft was detachable and


Figure 7 Photomicrographs of projectile damage (a) step terminating bending fracture on the tip of PNK360 Lowepoint (b) bending fracture with ldquotwistingrdquo on tip of JuaD98124 Lowe point (c) Linear polish (MLIT) just below thebreak on the Billy White Lowe point (d) Lowe point from Caves Branch Rocksheltermdashweak linear polish (left side) andbone polish (right side) (photomicrographs by K Prufer and W J Stemp)

would stay embedded in the animal (see Sullivan[1980] for repeating lances) In the absence of arepeating lance barbs would seem to argue againstthe use of Lowe and Sawmill points asstabbingthrusting tools Nevertheless the barbingof points would be advantageous for huntingaquatic prey Throughout coastal locations in theAmericas there are numerous examples of stoneand bone or ivory points with large rear-facingbarbs used as harpoons to hunt sea mammals andfish (Mason 1902) Relatedly long (130 mm)metal harpoon heads were made by the Siona ofAmazonian Ecuador for hunting manatee largefreshwater fish and caiman (Timm et al 19892Figure 1)

Chipped stone knives with their original handlesstill intact were not usually barbed (Hester 1970Sollberger 1971 Willoughby 1902) In NorthAmerica however some barbed bifaces withouthandles were classified as knives based on use-wear analyses Thebes points which are commonlybeveled and have barbs are often consideredknives based on the lack of damage associatedwith impact (White 201385) The barbs are out-flaring and these points also possess wide stemsthat are generally the same width as the barbs(OrsquoBrien and Wood 1998134 Figure 328 White201381 Figure 2) unlike Lowe and Sawmillpoints Alternate-Opposite Edge Beveling and Edge Serration Alternate-opposite edge beveling has been inter-preted as evidence of stone tool resharpening(Sollberger 1971) This resharpening techniquewould have conserved raw material and extendedthe use-life of a maintainable tool (Bleed 1986)Stone points were frequently rejuvenated whilestill hafted because retouching the point in the

haft is much more time and energy efficient thanremoving and rehafting it (Frison 1978125 Morse1971)

Preceramic points from Belize may have beenused as knives based on their serrated edges andthe beveling of alternate-opposite tool edges dueto resharpening (see Bradley 1997 Flenniken andWilke 1989 Goodyear 1974 1982391 Sollberger1971) The interpretation of beveled and serratedbifaces as knives is primarily based on use-wearanalysis of North American bifaces such as Dal-ton Thebes and Hardin points (Justice 199551ndash56) Given the presence of wear associated withcutting or slicing of soft substances such as meator hide (Ahler 1971 Michie 1973 Yerkes andGaertner 1997) Dalton points have been inter-preted as knives Nevertheless this kind of bevel-ing is not exclusive to stone tools used as knivesResharpening of only one side of each edge mayhave been done for other reasons Points mayhave been beveled on alternate-opposite edges toaffect the aerodynamics of flight specifically sta-bility and rotation There is evidence supportingthe rotation and stability hypotheses for beveledpoints on short straight shafts used in a wind tun-nel (see Lipo et al 2012) In contrast Pettigrewet al (2015597) concluded that there was no re-lationship between beveled points and directionof rotation for longer projectiles with flexibleshafts based on their experiments using beveledand unbeveled points on spear-thrower darts Theyalso demonstrate that stabilization due to alternatebeveling seems unlikely given the variation ob-served between throws Additionally Pettigrewet al (2015599) tested whether alternate-oppositeedge beveling would rotate a point upon impactwith its target thus creating a more severe woundAlthough their results are inconclusive they didobserve that beveled dart points can turn in a car-


Table 2 Number of Lowe and Sawmill Points above the 95 Confidence Intervals (CI) around the Mean using StandardDeviation Calculated for the Point Dimensions (Length Width Thickness and Neck Width) based on Dart Point Data

from Thomas (1978) and Shott (1997)

Point Type (N) Four dimensionsa Three dimensionsb Two dimensionsc One dimensiond

Lowe (42) 0 0 0 19Sawmill (18) 1 4 9 2a95 CI for length - 204-8262 mmb95 CI for width - 1187-3374 mmc95 CI for thickness - 25-743 mmd95 CI for neck width - 731-2296 mm

cass It may be that hunters beveled and serratedtheir stone dart points because they believed thatdoing so would increase their lethalness

DiscussionIf there was no projectile technology in the Pre-ceramic period of Belize hunters would have beenlimited to certain close-quarter hunting tacticspossibly involving disadvantage or ambush tech-niques (Churchill 199317 Rasic and Slobodina200882) In terms of the types of prey availableto Archaic-period hunters in Belize there are lim-ited faunal data from this period Pohl et al(1996363ndash364) ldquofound the remains of freshwaterfish (Cichlasoma sp Ictalurus sp Synbranchussp) snakes (Colubridae) small mammals suchas armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and espe-cially turtles (Staurotypus sp)rdquo in association withthe Lowe point from Pulltrouser Swamp in north-ern Belize Lohse (2010323 Table 1) recoveredthe remains of common agouti (Dasyprocta) ar-madillo snakes and possibly white-tailed deer(Artiodactyl) from Late Archaic contexts in ActunHalal in Western Belize This evidence suggestsa diet that included both aquatic and terrestrialanimals of various types and sizes in addition toplant foods (see Iceland and Hester 2001293Pohl et al 1996)

Based on the limited use-wear analysis for theLowe and Sawmill points it can be argued thatsome of these bifaces served as projectile pointsMetric data suggest that they were designed toserve different functions (Rasic and Slobodina2008 White 201374ndash75 for function vs style)Because the neck widths of Lowe and Sawmillpoints are significantly different each type wasdesigned to fit into a handleshaft of different di-ameters Based on neck widths Lowe points seemto have been designed as heavy armatures slottedinto thicker handles or shaftsforeshafts Their TC-SAs indicate their use as thrusting spears Al-though the large barbs would seem to contradictthis Lowe points may have made effective har-poons by preventing aquatic prey from slippingfrom the point The Sawmill points seem betterdesigned as dart points given their neck widthsand the 45ndash85 cm range of length measurementsMoreover confidence intervals (CI) calculatedbased on the four dimensions from the Sawmill

points support their likely use on spear-throwerdarts Yet the limited number of TCSAs calculatedfor the Sawmill points do not support this pro-posed function

Both point types also likely made serviceableknives This could be accomplished if the foreshaftwas removed and held in the hand as a haftedknife (Rasic and Slobodina 200879) Not onlywould the wider shoulders of the preceramicpoints provide broader blades for opening largerwounds when used as projectiles (Flenniken andWilke 1989151) they would produce long ser-rated edges for cutting and sawing (Goodyear1974 Rasic and Slobodina 2008) Using Sawmilland Lowe points as both projectile points andknives would have minimized the need for addi-tional formal tools in the toolkits of preceramicpeoples who inhabited Belize Because metricdata suggest that Lowe and Sawmill points repre-sent two different types of tools this might indi-cate different strategies or prey for those hunterswho used one or the other (see Churchill 1993Ellis 1997 Hrdlicka 2003 Hughes 1998 Shott1993 Whittaker 2010 for speed thrustforce uponimpact range hide thicknesspenetration depthwound size and environments) It is also possiblethat Lowe points hafted onto thrustingthrowingspears or harpoons were used in conjunction withSawmill dart points to finish off wounded prey(Hughes 1998395 Rasic and Slobodina 200882see Cundy 1989 Ellis 1997)

Geographically Lowe and Sawmill points arequite widely distributed and overlap significantlyin northern central and western Belize Basedon the locations where Lowe and Sawmill pointshave been found it seems unlikely that these pointtypes can be used as ethnic markers for culturallydistinct preceramic populations that exclusivelyinhabited different parts of Belize The suggestionthat any one group of hunter-gatherers identifiedby point type was culturally connected to the ear-liest regional Maya pottery traditions such as Cu-nil and Swazey (Awe 1992344ndash350 Clark andCheetham 2002306) is not supported (see Lohse2010315ndash318 342 Rosenswig 2015138) Thechert assemblages associated with the earliest ce-ramics in western Belize and eastern Guatemalafor example consist of core and flake technologyand do not demonstrate any evidence of bifaceproduction (Aoyama 2010 Aoyama and Munson


2012 Stemp 2012 Yacubic 2006) Moreover Ice-land (1997 Lohse et al 2006222) noted a hiatusin the artifact record in northern Belize betweenroughly 1900ndash1300 BC This divides the lithictechnology of the Late Archaic into the Early Pre-ceramic facet (3400ndash1900 BC) to which Lowepoints are currently assigned and the Late Prece-ramic facet (1500ndash900 BC) Even if the 2500ndash1900 BC dates for Lowe points are accepted asapplying to all stemmed and barbed point typesconventional glottochronology suggests that thespeakers of proto-Maya lived sometime between4000 and 3500 BP (Brown and Wichmann 2004Kaufman 1976) Alternate models stipulate thedates around 6500 to 6000 BP for the branchingof Wastek from proto-Mayan (Atkinson 2006)and more recent proposals push the dates to theother extreme to 2200 BP using automated lex-ical comparisons (Holman et al 2011) As suchany substantiation of cultural continuities that ex-tended from the Early Preceramic facet of theLate Archaic into the earliest Maya times neces-sitates a more detailed chronological frameworkfor the preceramic points in relation to other lithictechnology material culture and linguistics

ConclusionsA multitude of factors climatic and environmentalamong them (Rosenswig 2015) likely contributedto a longer reliance on mobile hunting and gath-ering for preceramic peoples in Belize than forthose living in other regions in Mesoamericawhere more permanent sedentism and food-pro-duction developed earlier (eg Blake et al 1995Cheetham and Clark 2002 Iceland and Hester2001 Lohse 2010 MacNeish and Nelken-Terner1983a Rosenswig 2006a 2006b 2015 Zeitlinand Zeitlin 2000) There is still much we do notknow about the preceramic people who lived inBelize diligent work and fortuitous finds haveincreased our knowledge of this time period andprovided a better sense of how its inhabitants de-signed and used their stone tools For hunting andgathering populations the need for reliable hunt-ing tools was paramount Tools likely also had tobe maintained with relative ease and using a toolfor more than one purpose as need arose wouldplace a premium on portable multi-purpose ones(Bleed 1986)

If Sawmill points were dart points and kniveswhereas the larger Lowe points were affixed tothrustingthrowing spears or harpoons and werealso used as knives this may account for overlapin their regional distributions Because of the largebarbs on both types of points these tools mayhave been used to hunt aquatic mammals reptilesand fish Spears and darts may not necessarilyhave been used for the same prey Whether thesetwo biface types were contemporaneous cannotbe known based on the limited dating evidenceThe early example of beveling from southern Be-lize raises the possibility that tools with bevelingon alternate-opposite edges are older in this partof the world than the Late Archaic period requiringrevision of the current preceramic chronology(eg Lohse et al 2006222 Figure 8)

Acknowledgments Preceramic point data and photographswere made available thanks to the hard work and generosityof many people In particular the authors would like to thankRob Rosenswig (SUNY-Albany) and several Belizeans whoshared their individual finds or collections with us The authorsalso extend their gratitude to Carolyn Keller Department ofSociology Anthropology and Criminology Keene State Col-lege who ran the CI analysis Research in Belize has beenconducted under the auspices of the Belize Institute of Ar-chaeology (IOA) At the IOA we are particularly grateful forthe assistance of Dr John Morris Dr Allan Moore RafaelGuerra Melissa Badillo and Antonio Beardall This workwas made possible through a Keene State College FacultyDevelopment Grant awarded to W J Stemp by a Social Sci-ence Research Council of Canada Grant and Tilden FamilyFoundation Grants to Jaime Awe and funding from the Al-phawood Foundation provided to K Prufer We would liketo thank the editor Geoffrey Braswell and John Clark andthe five anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpfulcomments

Data Availability Statement The lists of known LoweSawmill Allspice and Yarsquoaxchersquo points from Belize used inthis study are published online in Supplemental Tables 1ndash4

Supplemental Materials Supplemental materials are linkedto the online version of this article which is accessible viathe SAA member login at wwwsaaorg Supplemental Table 1 Lowe Points from Belize Supplemental Table 2 Sawmill Points from Belize Supplemental Table 3 Allspice (Provisional) Pointsfrom Belize Supplemental Table 4 Yarsquoaxchersquo (Provisional) Pointsfrom Belize


References CitedAhler Stanley A 1971 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers

Shelter Missouri Missouri Archaeological Society ResearchSeries 8 edited by WR Wood Missouri ArchaeologicalSociety and the University of Missouri-Columbia Co-lumbia

Ames Kenneth M Kristen A Fuld and Sara Davis 2010 Dart and Arrow Points on the Columbia Plateau of

Western North America American Antiquity 75287ndash325Aoyama Kazuo 2010 Los artefactos litiacutecos y la organizacioacuten socioeconoacutemica

del Preclaacutesico en Ceibal In XXIII Simposio de Investiga-ciones Arqueoloacutegicas en Guatemala 2009 edited byBarbara Arroyo Adriana Linares and Lorena Paiz pp956ndash963 Museo Nacional de Arqueologiacutea y EtnologiacuteaGuatemala

Aoyama Kazuo and Jessica Munson 2012 Ancient Maya Obsidian Exchange and Chipped

Stone Production at Caobal Guatemala Mexicon 3434ndash42

Atkinson Quentin 2006 From Species to Languages A Phylogenetic Approach

to Human Prehistory Unpublished PhD thesis Departmentof Psychology University of Auckland Auckland NewZealand

Awe Jaime J 1992 Dawn in the Land between the Rivers Formative

Occupation at Cahal Pech Belize and its Implication forPreclassic Developments in the Maya Lowlands Unpub-lished PhD dissertation Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity of London England

Aylesworth Grant R Brent D Suttie Bruce TempletonAshley Brzezicki William J Webb and A William Mc-Grath

2011 Preliminary Report on the 2010 Activities of theMount Allison University Archaeological Field School inBelize In Research Reports from the Programme forBelize Archaeological Project Vol 5 edited by Brett AHouk and Fred Valdez Jr pp 229ndash233 MesoamericanArchaeological Research Laboratory Occasional PapersNo 12 University of Texas at Austin Austin

Blake Michael John E Clark Barbara Voorhies GeorgeMichaels Michael W Love Mary E Pye Arthur A De-marest and Barbara Arroyo

1995 Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic andFormative Periods on the

Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica Ancient Mesoamer-ica 6161ndash183

Bleed Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons Main-

tainability or Reliability American Antiquity 51737ndash747

Bradley Bruce A 1997 Sloan Site Biface and Projectile Point Technology

In Sloan A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansasedited by D F Morse pp 53ndash57 Smithsonian InstitutionPress Washington DC

Brown Cecil H and Soslashren Wichmann 2004 Proto-Mayan Syllable Nuclei International Journal

of American Linguistics 70(2)128ndash186Brown Kenneth L 1980 A Brief Report on Paleoindian-Archaic Occupation

in the Quiche Basin Guatemala American Antiquity45313ndash324

Churchill Steven E 1993 Weapon Technology Prey Size Selection and Hunting

Methods in Modern Hunter-Gatherers Implications forHunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic ArcheologicalPapers of the American Anthropological Association411ndash24

Clark John E and David Cheetham 2002 Mesoamericarsquos Tribal Foundations In The Archaeology

of Tribal Societies edited by W A Parkinson pp 278ndash339 International Monographs in Prehistory ArchaeologicalSeries 15 University of Michigan Ann Arbor

Corliss David W 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points An Index of Culture

Continuity and Change Occasional Papers of the IdahoState University Museum 29 Idaho State UniversityPocatello

Cundy B J 1989 Formal Variation in Australian Spear and Spearthrower

Technology British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 546 Oxford

Dockall John E 1997 Wear Traces and Projectile Impact A Review of the

Experimental and Archaeological Evidence Journal ofField Archaeology 24321ndash331

Ellis Christopher J 1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips

An Ethnographic Perspective In Projectile Technologyedited by H Knecht pp 37ndash74 Plenum Press NewYork

Faugegravere Brigitte 2006 Cueva de los Portales un sitio arcaico del Norte de

Michoacaacuten Meacutexico Instituto Nacional de Antropologiacuteae Historia Seacuterie Arqueologiacutea 494 Meacutexico

Fischer Anders Peter V Hansen and Peter Rasmussen 1984 Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile

Points Experimental Results and Prehistoric ExamplesJournal of Danish Archaeology 319ndash46

Flannery Kent V 1986 Guila Naquitz Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture

in Oaxaca Mexico Academic Press OrlandoFlannery Kent V and Ronald Spores 1983 Excavated Sites of the Oaxaca Preceramic In The

Cloud People Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec andMixtec Civilizations edited by Kent V Flannery and JoyceMarcus pp 20ndash26 Percheron Press Clinton Corners

Flenniken J Jeffrey and Philip J Wilke 1989 Typology Technology and Chronology of Great

Basin Dart Points American Anthropologist 91149ndash158Frison George C 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains Academic

Press New York 1989 Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on

African Elephants American Antiquity 54766ndash784Goodyear Albert C 1974 The Brand Site A Techno-functional Study of a

Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas Research Series No7 Arkansas Archaeological Survey Fayetteville

1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon inthe Southeastern United States American Antiquity47382ndash395

Gramly Richard M 1984 Kill Sites Killing Ground and Fluted Points at the

Vail Site Archaeology of Eastern North America 12110ndash121

Gruhn Ruth and Alan Bryan 1977 Los Tapiales A Paleo-Indian Campsite in the


Guatemalan Highlands Proceedings of the AmericanPhilosophical Society 121235ndash273

Hardy Karen 1996 The Preceramic Sequence from the Tehuacan Valley

A Re-evaluation Current Anthropology 37700ndash716Helmke Christophe GB and Reiko Ishihara 2001 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Cueva Migdalia

Barton Creek Valley Cayo District Belize The BelizeValley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project 7(1)111ndash151

Hester Thomas R 1970 A Study of Wear Patterns on Hafted and Unhafted

Bifaces from Two Nevada Caves In Contributions of theUniversity of California Archaeological Research FacilityNo 7 pp 44ndash54 University of California Berkeley

1985 The Maya Lithic Sequence in Northern Belize InStone Tool Analysis Essays in Honor of Don E Crabtreeedited by Mark G Plew James C Woods and Max GPavesic pp 187ndash210 University of New Mexico PressAlbuquerque

1986 On the Misuse of Projectile Point Typology inMesoamerica American Antiquity 51412ndash414

Hester Thomas R Harry B Iceland Dale B Hudler andHarry J Shafer

1996 The Colha Preceramic Project Preliminary Resultsfrom the 1993-1995 Field Seasons Mexicon 1845ndash50

1995 The Colha Preceramic Project A Status ReportTexas Papers on Latin America No 95ndash03 Teresa LozanoLong Institute of Latin American Studies University ofTexas at Austin Austin

Hester Thomas R Thomas C Kelly and Giancarlo Ligabue 1981 A Fluted Paleo-Indian Projectile Point from Belize

Central America Working Papers in Archaeology No 1Center for Archaeological Research University of Texasat San Antonio San Antonio

Hester Thomas R Harry J Shafer and Thomas C Kelly 1980a A Preliminary Note on Artifacts from Lowe Ranch

A Preceramic Site in Belize In The Colha Project SecondSeason 1980 Interim Report edited by Thomas R HesterJack Eaton and Harry J Shafer pp 229ndash232 Universityof Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Lig-abue Venice

1980b Lithics from a Preceramic Site in Belize A PreliminaryNote Lithic Technology 99ndash10

Hole Frank 1986 Chipped Stone Tools In Guila Naquitz Archaic

Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca Mexicoedited by Kent Flannery pp 97ndash139 Academic PressOrlando

Holman Eric W Cecil H Brown Soslashren Wichmann AndreacuteMuumlller Viveka Velupillai Harald Hammarstroumlm SebastianSauppe Hagen Jung Dik Bakker Pamela Brown OlegBelyaev Matthias Urban Robert Mailhammer Johann-Mattis List and Dmitry Egorov

2011 Automated Dating of the Worldrsquos Language FamiliesBased on Lexical Similarity Current Anthropology 52841ndash875

Hrdlicka Daryl 2003 How Hard Does It Hit A Revised Study of Atlatl

and Dart Ballistics The Atlatl 16(2)15ndash18Huckell Bruce B 1982 The Denver Elephant Project A Report on Experi-

mentation with Thrusting Spears Plains Anthropologist27217ndash224

Hughes Susan S 1998 Getting to the Point Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric

Weaponry Journal of Archaeological Method and Theo-ry 5345ndash403

Hutchings W Karl 1997 The Paleoindian Fluted Point Dart or Spear Armature

The Identification of Paleoindian Delivery Technologythrough the Analysis of Lithic Fracture Velocity PhDdissertation Department of Archaeology Simon FraserUniversity Vancouver

Iceland Harry B 1997 The Preceramic Origins of the Maya The Results of

the Colha Preceramic Project in Northern Belize Unpub-lished PhD dissertation Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Texas at Austin Austin

2005 The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transitionin Northern Belize Evidence for the Ethnic Identity ofthe Preceramic Inhabitants In New Perspectives on For-mative Mesoamerican Cultures edited by Terry G Powispp 15ndash26 British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 1377 Oxford

Iceland Harry B and Thomas R Hester 2001 Lowland Mesoamerican Archaic In Encyclopedia

of Prehistory Vol 5 Middle America edited by Peter NPeregrine and Melvin Ember pp 292ndash302 Kluwer Aca-demic Nowell

Justice Noel D 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midconti-

nental and Eastern United States A Modern Survey andReference Indiana University Press Bloomington

Kaufman Terrence 1976 Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland

and Associated Areas of Meso-America World Archaeology8101ndash118

Kelly Thomas C 1993 Preceramic Projectile-Point Typology in Belize

Ancient Mesoamerica 4205ndash227Lipo Carl P Robert C Dunnell Michael J OrsquoBrien Veronica

Harper and John Dudgeon 2012 Beveled Projectile Points and Ballistics Technology

American Antiquity 77774ndash788Lohse Jon C 2005 Preceramic Occupation in Belize Research Reports

in Belizean Archaeology 2441ndash457 2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya Latin American

Antiquity 21312ndash352Lohse Jon C Jaime Awe Cameron Griffith Robert M

Rosenswig and Fred Valdez Jr 2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize Updating the Pa-

leoindian and Archaic Record Latin American Antiquity17209ndash226

Lohse Jon C and Michael B Collins 2004 Lithic Artifacts Recovered in Association with Pleis-

tocene Fauna from Actun Halal Cave Western BelizeUnpublished report on file with the Western BelizeRegional Cave Project Bloomington and the Institute ofArchaeology Belmopan Belize

Lucero Lisa J Patricia A Beddows and Andrew Kinkella 2011 Diving the Sacred Pools of Cara Blanca Belize Re-

search Reports in Belizean Archaeology 8233ndash240McAnany Patricia A 2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Per-

spective Cambridge University Press Cambridge McAnany Patricia A Satoru Murata Ben S Thomas Sandra

L Loacutepez Varela Daniela Finamore and David G Buck 2004 The Deep History of the Sibun River Valley Research

Reports in Belizean Archaeology 1295ndash310MacNeish Richard S 1981 Second Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archae-


ological Reconnaissance R S Peabody Foundation forArchaeology Andover

1982 Third Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeo-logical Reconnaissance R S Peabody Foundation forArchaeology Andover

1983 Mesoamerica In Early Man in the New World editedby Richard Shutler Jr pp 125ndash135 Sage Beverly Hills

MacNeish Richard S and Antoinette Nelken-Terner 1983a The Preceramic of Mesoamerica Journal of Field

Archaeology 1071ndash84 1983b Final Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archae-


MacNeish Richard S Antoinette Nelken-Turner and IrmgardW Johnson

1967 The Prehistory of the Tehuacaacuten Valley Volume IIThe Nonceramic Artifacts University of Texas PressAustin

MacNeish Richard S Jeffery K Wilkerson and AntoinetteNelken-Terner

1980 First Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeo-logical Reconnaissance R S Peabody Foundation forArchaeology Andover

Mason Otis T 1902 Aboriginal American Harpoons A Study in Ethnic

Distribution and Invention Smithsonian Institution UnitedStates National Museum Washington DC

Michie James L 1973 A Functional Interpretation of the Dalton Projectile

Point in South Carolina South Carolina Antiquities 524ndash36

Morse Dan F 1971 The Hawkins Cache A Significant Dalton Find in

Northeast Arkansas The Arkansas Archeologist 129ndash20 Newman Kim and Mark W Moore 2013 Ballistically Anomalous Stone Projectile Points in

Australia Journal of Archaeological Science 402614ndash2620

OrsquoBrien Michael J and W Raymond Wood 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri University of Missouri

Press ColumbiaOdell George H and Frank Cowan 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal

Targets Journal of Field Archaeology 13195ndash212Pearson Georges A and Pete Bostrom 1998 A New Fluted Stemmed Point from Belize and Its

Implications for a Circum-Caribbean Paleoindian CultureArea Current Research in the Pleistocene 1555ndash57

Perttula Timothy K 2009 Typological Labeling of Early Holocene Projectile

Points Proceedings of the National Academy of ScienceUSA 10673

Pettigrew Devin B John C Whittaker Justin Garnett andPatrick Hashman

2015 How Atlatl Darts Behave Beveled Points and theRelevance of Controlled Experiments American Antiquity80590ndash601

Pohl Mary D Kevin O Pope John G Jones John S JacobDolores R Piperno Susan D deFrance David L LentzJohn A Gifford Marie E Danforth and J KathrynJosserand

1996 Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands Latin AmericanAntiquity 7355ndash372

Ranere Anthony J Dolores R Piperno Irene Hoist RuthDickau and Joseacute Iriarte

2009 The Cultural and Chronological Context of Early

Holocene Maize and Squash Domestication in the CentralBalsas River Valley Mexico Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science USA 1065014ndash5018

Rasic Jeffrey T and Natalia S Slobodina 2008 Weapon Systems and Assemblage Variability during

the Northern Archaic Period in Northern Alaska ArcticAnthropology 4571ndash88

Rosenswig Robert M 2004 The Late Archaic Occupation of Northern Belize

New Archaeological Excavation Data Research Reportsin Belizean Archaeology 1 267ndash277

2006a Sedentism and Food Production in Early ComplexSocieties of the Soconusco Mexico World Archaeology38329ndash354

2006b Northern Belize and the Soconusco A Comparisonof the Late Archaic to Formative Transition ResearchReports in Belizean Archaeology 359ndash71

2015 A Mosaic of Adaptation The Archaeological Recordfor Mesoamericarsquos Archaic Period Journal of Archaeo-logical Research 23115ndash162

Rosenswig Robert M and Marilyn A Masson 2001 Seven New Preceramic Sites Documented in Northern

Belize Mexicon 23138ndash140 Rosenswig Robert M Deborah M Pearsall Marilyn A

Masson Brendan J Culleton and Douglas J Kennett 2014 Archaic Period Settlement and Subsistence in the

Maya Lowlands New Starch Grain and Lithic Data fromFreshwater Creek Belize Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 41308ndash321

Scheffler Timothy E 2008 El Gigante Rock Shelter Honduras Unpublished

Ph D dissertation Department of Anthropology Penn-sylvania State University College Station

Scheffler Timothy E Kenneth G Hirth and George Hasemann 2012 The El Gigante Rockshelter Preliminary Observations

on an Early to Late Holocene Occupation in SouthernHonduras Latin American Antiquity 23597ndash610

Shea John J 2006 The Origins of Lithic Projectile Technology Evidence

from Africa the Levant and Europe Journal of Archae-ological Science 33823ndash846

Shott Michael J 1993 Spears Darts and Arrows Late Woodland Hunting

Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley American Antiquity58425ndash443

1997 Stones and Shafts Redux The Metric Discriminationof Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points American An-tiquity 6286ndash101

Sisk Matthew L and John J Shea 2011 The African Origin of Complex Projectile Technology

An Analysis using Tip Cross-sectional Area and PerimeterInternational Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20111ndash8

Sollberger John B 1971 A Technological Study of Beveled Knives Plains

Anthropologist 16209ndash218Stemp W James 2012 Changes in Stone Tool Technology from the Late

Archaic to the First Maya Communities in Western BelizePaper presented at the 6th Annual Maya at the PlayaConference Palm Coast Florida

Stemp W James and Jaime J Awe 2013 Possible Variation in the Late Archaic Period Bifaces

in Belize New Finds from the Cayo District of WesternBelize Lithic Technology 3817ndash31

Stemp W James Jaime J Awe and Christophe G B Helmke 2016 A Possible PaleoindianEarly Archaic Point from


Ladyville Belize Central America PaleoAmerica 270ndash73

Sullivan David 1980 The Repeating Lance Central States Archaeological

Journal 2779ndash81Thomas David H 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts How the Stones Got

the Shaft American Antiquity 43461ndash472Timm Robert M Luis Albuja V and Barbra L Clauson 1989 Siona Hunting Techniques for the Larger Aquatic

Vertebrates in Amazonian Ecuador Studies in NeotropicalFauna and Environment 241ndash7

Titmus Gene L and James C Woods 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture

Pattern Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology837ndash49

Turner Ellen S Thomas R Hester and Richard McReynolds 2011 Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians 3rd ed Taylor New

YorkValdez Jr Fred and Grant Aylesworth 2005 A Fluted Paleoindian Point and Other Chipped Stone

Tools from August Pine Ridge Belize Mono y Conejo335ndash39

White Andrew A 2013 Functional and Stylistic Variability in Paleoindian

and Early Archaic Projectile Points from MidcontinentalNorth America North American Archaeologist 3471ndash108

Whittaker John C 2010 Weapon Trials The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting

Technology In Designing Experimental Research in Ar-chaeology Examining Technology through Productionand Use edited by Jeffrey R Ferguson pp 195ndash224University Press of Colorado Boulder

Willoughby Charles C 1902 Prehistoric Hafted Flint Knives The American Nat-

uralist 361ndash6Winter Marcus 2007 Recent Archaeological Investigations of Preclassic

Occupations in the Southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec InArchaeology Art and Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican

Prehistory Papers in Honor of Gareth W Lowe editedby Lynneth S Lowe and Mary E Pye pp 193ndash208 NewWorld Archaeological Foundation Papers 68 BrighamYoung University Provo

Wrobel Gabriel D 2008 Report on the Caves Branch Rockshelter Excavations

2006 and 2007 Field Seasons In The Belize Valley Ar-chaeological Reconnaissance Project A Report of the2007 Field Season edited by C G B Helmke and J JAwe pp 1ndash19 Institute of Archaeology National Instituteof Culture and History Belmopan

Wrobel Gabriel James Tyler and Jessica Hardy 2007 Rockshelter Excavations in the Caves Branch River

Valley Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4187ndash196

Yacubic Matthew P 2006 The Chipped Stone Tool Industries of Blackman

Eddy Belize Masterrsquos thesis Department of AnthropologyBrigham Young University Provo

Yerkes Richard W and Linda M Gaertner 1997 Microwear Analysis of Dalton Artifacts In Sloan A

Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas edited byDan F Morse pp 53ndash57 Smithsonian Institution PressWashington DC

Zeitlin Robert N 1984 A Summary Report on Three Seasons of Field In-

vestigations into the Archaic Period Prehistory of LowlandBelize American Anthropologist 86358ndash369

Zeitlin Robert N and Judith Francis Zeitlin 2000 The Paleoindian and Archaic cultures of Mesoamerica

In The Cambridge History of Native Peoples of the Amer-icas Volume II Mesoamerica edited by Richard E WAdams and Murdo J Macleod pp 45ndash121 CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge

Submitted August 28 2015 Revised December 22 2015Accepted June 15 2016


There has been renewed interest in the Pre-ceramic period of Belize since the signifi-cant work of archaeologists in the 1980s

and 1990s (Hester et al 1980a 1980b 1981 1996Iceland 1997 Kelly 1993 Pearson and Bostrom1998 Pohl et al 1996 Zeitlin 1984 Zeitlin andZeitlin 2000 see MacNeish 1981 1982 1983MacNeish and Nelken-Terner 1983a 1983b Mac-

Neish et al 1980) This is primarily due to thefact that the quantity of evidence for a Paleoindianand Archaic period presence in Belize has in-creased in recent years based on the recovery ofPleistocene faunal remains and lithics from a num-ber of locations throughout the country (egAylesworth et al 2011 Helmke and Ishihara 2001Lohse and Collins 2004 Lucero et al 2011

DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF LOWE AND SAWMILL POINTS FROMTHE PRECERAMIC PERIOD OF BELIZE

W James Stemp Jaime J Awe Keith M Prufer and Christophe GB Helmke

To date 81 stemmed and barbed preceramic (Archaic) points (8000ndash900 BC) have been identified in Belize Fifty-four areLowe points 21 are Sawmill points Four more are provisionally classified as Allspice and two as Yarsquoaxchersquo points Thesestemmed bifaces are frequently beveled on alternate-opposite edges and demonstrate variable degrees of resharpening andreworking which affects blade shape and tool size Numerous functions have been attributed to these artifacts specificallythey have been called spear points dart points harpoons and knives Metric data from these bifaces limited macrowearand microwear analyses and design features such as barbs and alternate-opposite edge beveling have been used tointerpret likely tool functions Results suggest that Lowe points were affixed to throwingthrusting spears and also servedas knives whereas the Sawmill points were used as spear-thrower dart points and as knives New dating informationsuggests that alternate-opposite edge beveling and consequently beveled bifaces may be much older than 2500ndash1900 BCwhich is the date currently assigned to these specimens

Hasta la fecha 81 puntas pre-ceraacutemicas (Arcaico) (8000ndash900 aC) pedunculadas y con aletas han sido descubiertas a lo largode Belice Cincuentaicuatro han sido identificadas como puntas de tipo Lowe 21 como puntas Sawmill y seis han sidoclasificadas de manera provisional de las cuales cuatro son Allspice y dos Yarsquoaxchersquo Estos bifaces pedunculados estaacuten fre-cuentemente biselados sobre los bordes alternos-opuestos y muestran grados variables de retoques y reavivamiento lo cualafecta tanto la forma de la laacutemina como el tamantildeo del instrumento Se han atribuido numerosas funciones a estos artefactosespeciacuteficamente como puntas de lanza puntas de dardo arpones y cuchillos Los datos meacutetricos de estos bifaces el anaacutelisislimitado de las macro y microhuellas de uso y las caracteriacutesticas del disentildeo tales como las aletas y el biselado alterno-opuestose han utilizado para interpretar las posibles funciones de estas herramientas Los resultados sugieren que las puntas de Lowefueron enmangadas en lanzas arrojadizas y tambieacuten sirvieron como cuchillos mientras que las puntas Sawmill fueron utilizadascomo puntas de dardo en propulsores asiacute como tambieacuten como cuchillos La nueva informacioacuten acerca de la cronologiacutea sugiereque el biselado del borde alterno-opuesto y consecuentemente los bifaces biselados podriacutean ser mucho maacutes antiguos que 2500ndash1900 aC fecha actualmente asignada a estos especiacutemenes

W James Stemp Department of Sociology Anthropology and Criminology Keene State College Keene NH 03435-3400 USA (jstempkeeneedu)Jaime J Awe Department of Anthropology Northern Arizona University Flagstaff AZ 86011-5200 USA(jaimeawenauedu)Keith M Prufer Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131 USA(kmpunmedu)Christophe GB Helmke Institute of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies University of Copenhagen Karen BlixensVej 4 DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark (cgbhhumkudk)

Latin American Antiquity 27(3) 2016 pp 279ndash299Copyright copy 2016 by the Society for American Archaeology

DOI 1071831045-6635273279

279



















Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)






























































































































































































































































































Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)





















































































































































































































































































Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)















































































































































































































































































Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)













































































































































































































































































Table

1 L

ength

(L) W

idth (

W) T

hickn

ess (T

) Ne

ck (o

r Haft

) Widt

h (NW

) an

d Tip

Cros

s-Sec

tiona

l Area

(TCS

A) fo

r Low

e Sa

wmill

Alls

pice

and Y

arsquoaxc

hersquo P

oints

from

Beliz

e and

Haft

ed D

art Po

ints f

romAr

chae

ologic

al an

d Ethn

ograp

hic C

ollec

tions

in Sh

ott (1

997)

and T

homa

s (19

78)

Stand

ard D

eviat

ion (S

D) an

d Coe

fficie

nt of

Varia

tion (

CV) w

ere ca

lculat

ed fo

r the

dime

nsion

s So

me m

etric

data

from

signif

i-ca

ntly d

amag

ed bi

faces

are no

t inclu

ded i

n the

numb

ers (N

) used

for c

alcula

tions

in so

me ca

tegori

es

M

ean

Mea

n

M

ean L

M

ean W

M

ean T

NW

Ran

ge

T

CSA

R

ange

[mm

]

Rang

e L

CV

[mm]

Rang

e W

CV

[mm

] R

ange

T

CV

[m

m]

N

W

CV

[

mm2 ]

T

CSA

CV

Data

(N)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(N)

[mm]

SD

[

]

(N

)

[mm

]

SD

[]

(

N)

[m

m]

SD

[]

(

N)

[

mm2 ]

S

D

[]

Lowe

837

5

93-13

9

186

222

553

4

36-78

0

67

1

21

98

60-12

1

13

1

33

29

1

212-

394

3

8

131

2

577

130

8-33

28 4

82

187

Point

sa

(33)

(35

)

(20

)

(42)

(

16)

Sa

wmill

68

2

494

-91

135

198

396

33-59

7

73

1

84

77

53-10

4

20

2

60

14

9

9-

25

4

9

329

1

579

90

9-31

04

914

57

9Po

intsb

(1

4)

(

15)

(6)

(1

8)

(5)

Al

lspice

8

57

63

-107

2

45

28

6

37

8

3

3-44

68

180

1

07

1

07

_

_

332

32-36

8

41

1

23

222

5

_

_

_Po

ints

(4)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(

1)

Yarsquoax

chersquo

657

6

29-68

5

40

61

528

4

78-57

8

71

1

34

109

109

_

_

2

99

261

-336

5

3

85

3352

_

_

_Po

ints

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(

1)

Shott

1997

533

2

18-85

3

145

272

231

14-3

2

44

1

90

50

29-7

2

8

160

1

56

83

-219

3

4

218

59

20-93

c

17c

288

87 Ta

ble 1

(30)

(30

)

(30

)

(30)

(

30)c

Thom

as 19

78

462

34-65

4

105

227

229

1

54-29

6

48

2

10

49

31-7

2

14

2

86

13

7

103-

169

2

5

182

56

2

4-94c

20c

357

466

Table

3

(10

)

(10

)

(10

)

(

10)

(10

)c

a C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e sma

ll poin

t from

the S

ibun

(McA

nany

et al

200

4 29

6 Fig

1) o

r the

two B

AAR

35 br

oken

prefo

rms (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

5g-h)

b C

atego

ry do

es no

t inclu

de th

e unfi

nishe

d and

rewo

rked C

PRS L

adyv

ille 1

BAAR

191 a

nd B

AAR

35 po

ints (

Kelly

1993

219

Fig

e-f)

c She

a (20

06 8

25 T

able

1)


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Documents

ku · Tehuacan Valley and found significant flaws with the original analysis and subsequent typology. In the Valley of Oaxaca, Flannery (1986) re - constructed Early Archaic life