PRECLASSIC AND CLASSIC MAYA INTERREGIONAL AND LONG … · análisis visual de los 7,073 artefactos restantes. El intercambio interregional de núcleos poliédricos grandes de obsidiana

PRECLASSIC AND CLASSIC MAYA INTERREGIONAL ANDLONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS OF

OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS FROM CEIBAL, GUATEMALA

Kazuo Aoyama

Diachronic analysis of obsidian artifacts collected from Ceibal, Guatemala, can illuminate long-term patterns and changes inthe Preclassic and Classic Maya interregional and long-distance exchange systems. For this analysis sources of all obsidianartifacts were identified by a combination of pXRF of a sample of 5,375 obsidian artifacts and visual examination of 7,073artifacts. The interregional exchange of large polyhedral cores of obsidian from the Maya highlands and local production ofpressure blades began after the rise of political complexity at Ceibal, by the early Middle Preclassic Real 3 phase (775–700B.C.). El Chayal obsidian was heavily used during the early Middle Preclassic period, but San Martín Jilotepeque was theprincipal source of obsidian in the late Middle Preclassic, Late Preclassic, and Terminal Preclassic periods. Procurementof large polyhedral cores of obsidian from the Maya highlands increased over the same period. Obsidian was also importedin the form of nodules for the production of percussion flakes during the Preclassic period. Throughout the Classic periodobsidian was imported mainly in the form of more prepared polyhedral cores that were reduced into pressure blades at Ceibal,and El Chayal resumed its place as the principal source of obsidian. This period also saw long-distance exchange of finishedobsidian artifacts from highland Mexico. Interregional exchange of obsidian from the Maya highlands was of great economicsignificance for the inhabitants of the community and was more crucial for the development of lowland Maya civilizationthan was long-distance exchange.

El presente artículo discute los resultados del análisis diacrónico de los artefactos de obsidiana recolectados en Ceibal,Guatemala, con el fin de clarificar el patrón a largo plazo y los cambios en el sistema de intercambio interregional y a largadistancia entre los mayas del Preclásico y Clásico. Las fuentes de todos los artefactos de obsidiana fueron identificadaspor medio del análisis de fluorescencia de rayos X portátil (pXRF) de una muestra de 5,375 artefactos de obsidiana y delanálisis visual de los 7,073 artefactos restantes. El intercambio interregional de núcleos poliédricos grandes de obsidianade las tierras altas mayas y la producción local de navajas a presión se iniciaron después del desarrollo sociopolítico deCeibal durante la fase Real 3 (775–700 a.C.) del período Preclásico Medio temprano. La obsidiana de El Chayal fue usadaintensivamente durante el período Preclásico Medio temprano, mientras que San Martín Jilotepeque fue la fuente principalde obsidiana durante los períodos Preclásico Medio tardío, Preclásico Tardío y Preclásico Terminal. Desde la fase Real3 del Preclásico Medio temprano hasta el período Preclásico Terminal, la obtención de núcleos poliédricos grandes deobsidiana de las tierras altas Mayas se incrementó a través del tiempo, mientras que la obsidiana también fue importadahacia Ceibal en forma de nódulos para la producción de lascas por percusión durante el período Preclásico. En contraste,a lo largo del período Clásico la obsidiana fue importada principalmente en forma de núcleos poliédricos más preparadosque fueron transformados en navajas por presión en Ceibal. El Chayal volvió a ser la mayor fuente de obsidiana en Ceibaldurante el período Clásico. El intercambio a larga distancia de artefactos terminados de obsidiana de las tierras altas deMéxico fue de importancia social y simbólica, más que económica, durante el período Clásico. El intercambio interregionalde obsidiana de las tierras altas mayas tuvo una gran importancia económica para los habitantes de la comunidad. Este tipode intercambio fue más significativo para el desarrollo de la civilización maya en las tierras bajas comparado al intercambioa larga distancia.

Obsidian, a volcanic glass used by theancient Maya for manufacturing utili-tarian cutting implements such as blades

and flakes, occurs naturally in Mesoamerica only

Kazuo Aoyama Faculty of Humanities, Ibaraki University, Bunkyo 2-1-1, Mito, Ibaraki, 310–8512, Japan([email protected])

in the volcanic highlands. Each obsidian sourceis chemically distinct, and many sources can bedistinguished based on instrumental attributionsand optical criteria. For this reason obsidian has

Latin American Antiquity 28(2), 2017, pp. 213–231Copyright © 2017 by the Society for American Archaeology

doi:10.1017/laq.2017.2

213

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.2Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 07 Sep 2021 at 12:45:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.2

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms


https://www.cambridge.org/core

214 [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

been extremely useful for studying interregionaland even long-distance exchange, including theTehuantepec trans-isthmian exchange. With alarge database of geological source samplesand many years of studies, laboratories suchas the University of Missouri Research Reactor(MURR) have established an outstanding recordof success in obsidian provenance research (e.g.,Glascock 2002; Glascock et al. 1998). The iden-tification of the sources of artifacts has usuallybeen accomplished through neutron activationanalysis (NAA), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), andother technologies, such as inductively coupledplasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). AlthoughNAA and ICP-MS are more accurate than XRF indetecting elements in very small and thin piecesof obsidian artifacts, both technologies incurrelatively high per sample costs, are potentiallydestructive, and require the export of artifactsfor analysis (Feinman et al. 2013). Moreover,small sample sizes and inappropriate samplingmethods often impede efforts to study obsidiandistribution patterns (Drennan et al. 1990:180).Recently, Moholy-Nagy and coauthors (2013)used portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) tosource a large sample of 2,235 obsidian arti-facts from Tikal, Guatemala. Although theirtotal sample of instrumental attributions is muchlarger than any previous study conducted inthe Maya area, it represents much less than 4percent of the total number of obsidian artifactsrecorded from the site by the University ofPennsylvania and other archaeological projectsand does not constitute a representative sampleof what was brought to Tikal (Moholy-Nagy et al.2013:74). It is my contention that we shouldand can study broader issues of prehistoric Mayaeconomy, such as production, consumption, andexchange, by analyzing a large representativesample of obsidian artifacts from a diachronicperspective.

I discuss the results of diachronic analy-ses of an entire collection of 12,448 obsidianartifacts from Ceibal in order to shed lighton changing long-term patterns in the Preclas-sic and Classic Maya interregional and long-distance exchange system (Figure 1). Sourcesof all obsidian artifacts from Ceibal wereidentified by a combination of pXRF of alarge sample of 5,375 obsidian artifacts and

visual examination of the remaining 7,073 arti-facts (Figure 2; Tables 1 and 2; SupplementalTable 1).

There is a particularly conspicuous lacuna inempirical studies dealing with obsidian produc-tion and exchange during the Middle Preclassicperiod (1000–350 B.C.) in the Maya Lowlands.This was a critical period, during which manycharacteristics of social complexity became insti-tutionalized. One principal reason for this gapin our knowledge is that early remains lie underthick layers of later constructions, with the resultthat large areas of the Middle Preclassic levelsat most lowland Maya sites are inaccessibleto excavators. Since 2005, however, the mem-bers of the Ceibal-Petexbatun ArchaeologicalProject have uncovered evidence of substantialconstruction activity in the early stages of humansettlement at Ceibal. This was accomplishedthrough deep vertical and extensive horizontalexcavations and tunnels into Middle Preclassiccontexts, focusing considerable attention on theorigins and development of Maya civilization(Inomata et al. 2013, 2015). Our excavationsrecovered a total of 6,084 obsidian artifacts fromunmixed Middle Preclassic contexts. This is thelargest sample and earliest recovered to date fromthe Maya Lowlands.

Obsidian Samples

The lowland Maya city of Ceibal is the largestof all Pasión drainage sites, both in extent and inthe total construction volume of its major publicstructures (Willey 1990). Extensive stratifiedexcavations of the Ceibal-Petexbatun Archaeo-logical Project have been carried out since 2005in different parts of Ceibal, including two majorgroups of structures: Group A and Group D,as well as the nearby minor center of Caobaland other peripheral residential group locations.Obsidian artifacts were recovered throughout thecity of Ceibal in archaeological contexts rangingfrom house mounds in the periphery to elite resi-dences, burials, and dedicatory caches in the epi-center. The Ceibal-Petexbatun ArchaeologicalProject has collected significantly more obsid-ian artifacts (Table 2) than the Ceibal Projectof Harvard University (N = 1,331), primarilybecause we screened excavated soil through





Aoyama] 215ANCIENT MAYA INTERREGIONAL AND LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE

Figure 1. Map of Mesoamerica, showing the locations of Ceibal, other sites, and obsidian sources mentioned in thetext.

Figure 2. Obsidian artifacts from an unmixed Escoba 2 phase of the late Middle Preclassic midden deposit associatedwith an elite residence at Ceibal.






Table 1. XRF Source Assignments of Obsidian Artifacts by Period from Ceibal, Guatemala.

Period SMJ ECH IXP PC UC ZRG ZNP ZCL UID Total

Real Phase, Early Middle PreclassicReal 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Real 2 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45Real 3 57 132 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 193Real General 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Early Middle Preclassic total 62 183 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 249% 24.9 73.5 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Escoba Phase, Late Middle PreclassicEscoba 1 142 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185Escoba 2 1,128 92 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,226Escoba 3 636 99 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 740Escoba General 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23Late Middle Preclassic total 1,928 235 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,174% 88.7 10.8 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Cantutse Phase, Late PreclassicLate Preclassic total 225 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266% 84.6 15.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Xate Phase, Terminal PreclassicTerminal Preclassic total 148 76 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 226% 65.5 33.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 226

Junco Phase, Early ClassicEarly Classic total 1 34 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 42% 2.4 81 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 42

Tepeu Phase, Late ClassicLate Classic total 7 83 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 93% 7.5 89.2 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Bayal Phase, Terminal ClassicTerminal Classic total 2 63 6 0 1 2 0 1 0 75% 2.7 84 8 0 1.3 2.7 0 1.3 0 100

Mixed contexts 1,351 784 110 2 1 0 1 0 1 2,250Total 3,724 1,499 143 2 2 2 1 1 1 5,375% 69.3 27.9 2.7 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 100

SMJ = San Martín Jilotepeque; ECH = El Chayal; IXP = Ixtepeque; PC = Pachuca; UC = Ucareo; ZRG = Zaragoza;ZNP = Zinapécuaro; ZCL = Zacualtipán; UID = Unidentified source.

1/4-inch mesh, unlike earlier field methodologies(Willey 1978).

In this study, I focus on diachronic changes ofobsidian artifacts. For this reason, chronologicalcontrol is of particular importance. Based onstratigraphic excavations, detailed ceramicanalysis, and more than 150 radiocarbon dates,Takeshi Inomata refined the ceramic chronologyof Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2015; Figure 3). Alldiscussion of absolute chronology in this articleis framed in terms of calibrated radiocarbondates. To ensure temporal control, I eliminatedobsidian artifacts that seemed to represent mixedtime periods. Because no artifacts were recov-ered from unmixed Postclassic contexts, I do not

discuss that time period. A total of 7,182 artifactswere recovered from temporally secure contextspertaining to the Middle Preclassic throughthe Terminal Classic periods (1000 B.C.–A.D.950). These serve as the basis for the diachronicdiscussions presented below. Temporally mixedsamples were nevertheless considered only forthe study of spatial distribution patterns of rareartifacts such as exhausted polyhedral cores andMexican obsidian artifacts. Notably, the Ceibal-Petexbatun Archaeological Project has collected6,914 obsidian artifacts from unmixed Preclassiccontexts alone. The majority of Preclassicartifacts, 6,084 out of the 6,914, are from theMiddle Preclassic. Many obsidian artifacts from






Table 2. Visual and XRF Source Assignments of Obsidian Artifacts by Period from Ceibal, Guatemala.

Period SMJ ECH IXP PC UC ZRG ZNP ZCL UID Total

Real Phase, Early Middle PreclassicReal 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9Real 2 7 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58Real 3 64 152 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 220Real General 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Early Middle Preclassic total 71 215 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 290% 24.5 74.1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Escoba Phase, Late Middle PreclassicEscoba 1 253 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301Escoba 2 4,012 219 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,239Escoba 3 1,094 109 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,208Escoba General 43 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46Late Middle Preclassic total 5,402 379 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,794% 93.2 6.5 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Cantutse Phase, Late PreclassicLate Preclassic total 466 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512% 91 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Xate Phase, Terminal PreclassicTerminal Preclassic total 227 89 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 318% 71.4 28 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Junco Phase, Early ClassicEarly Classic total 5 51 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 64% 7.8 79.7 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Tepeu Phase, Late ClassicLate Classic total 6 107 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 119% 5 89.9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Bayal Phase, Terminal ClassicTerminal Classic total 2 73 6 0 1 2 0 1 0 85% 2.4 85.9 7.1 0 1.2 2.4 0 1.2 0 100

Mixed contexts 3,935 1,204 122 2 1 0 1 0 1 5,266Total 10,114 2,164 161 2 2 2 1 1 1 12,448

81.3 17.4 1.3 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 100

later periods came from construction fills andwere found mixed with earlier materials. Thus,considerably fewer obsidian artifacts datingto the Late Preclassic through Classic periodscould be assigned to a single ceramic complex.

Methodology and Results

pXRF

I identified sources of obsidian artifacts by com-bining the pXRF analysis of a large sample of5,375 obsidian artifacts and visual examinationof the remaining 7,073 artifacts. The total sampleof instrumental attributions is the largest suchdatabase published to date for any single site inthe Maya area. A selected 43.2 percent sample(N = 5,375) was analyzed using an Olympus

Innov-X Delta Premium DP-6000-CC handheldX-ray fluorescence analyzer. This flagship instru-ment combines a large-area, high-performancesilicon drift detector (SDD), powerful 4WX-ray rhodium anode tube, and 200µA current(max) plus optimized beam settings, providingfaster measurements with accuracy than pre-vious instruments. Prior to artifact analysis, Ianalyzed obsidian source samples taken fromSan Martín Jilotepeque, El Chayal, and Ixte-peque in highland Guatemala as well as Pachucain highland Mexico using pXRF analysis. Theobsidian calibration uses a set of very wellcharacterized obsidian source samples in theMURR with data from previous NAA, XRF,and ICP measurements (Glascock and Ferguson2012). The instrument was set to “geochem”






Figure 3. Ceramic chronologies of Ceibal and other regions of the Maya Lowlands (courtesy of Takeshi Inomata).

mode. All samples were counted for one minuteto measure the minor and trace elements present.The elements measured include K, Ti, Mn,Fe, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Al, and Si. The pXRFanalysis was nondestructive. After data collec-tion, element concentration data were tabulatedin parts per million employing Microsoft OfficeExcel. By using bivariate plots to compare theartifact compositional data with data for sourcesin Guatemala and Mexico and for direct compar-

ison of measured values, it was possible to deter-mine sources for all of the artifacts except one(Table 1; Figures 4 and 5). I used a set of freelyavailable statistical routines described in Gauss,originally formulated by Hector Neff and devel-oped at MURR (http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/GAUSS_Download.html), to gen-erate bivariate plots with confidence ellipses.Attributed sources discussed in the present studyare not a representative sample of what was


http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/GAUSS_Download.html





Figure 4. Bivariate plot of zirconium and rubidium comparing 90 percent confidence ellipses for obsidian sources withTerminal Preclassic obsidian artifacts from Ceibal measured by pXRF.

Figure 5. Bivariate plot of strontium and zirconium comparing 90 percent confidence ellipses for obsidian sourceswith Classic obsidian artifacts from Ceibal measured by pXRF.






brought to Ceibal. Obsidian samples were notrandomly selected for XRF analysis. Instead, allvisually distinct obsidian artifacts were sampled,as were all pieces thought to be from a sourceother than San Martín Jilotepeque, which wasthe most common obsidian in the late MiddlePreclassic, Late Preclassic, and Terminal Pre-classic samples. This informed, nonrandom sam-pling strategy intentionally skewed the pXRFresults toward high percentages of El Chayaland Ixtepeque obsidian; the point was to identifythem all. Moreover, a greater proportion of rareartifacts, such as exhausted polyhedral cores andbifacial points, were intentionally selected forXRF analysis. Visual analysis was conductedto correct the sampling bias introduced by theinformed, non-random sampling strategy of thepXRF analysis.

Visual Analysis

The accuracy of my visual analysis has beenconfirmed by a blind test of 100 obsidian artifactsfrom the La Entrada region of Honduras usingNAA developed by Michael D. Glascock at theMURR. The results of the blind test indicateda 98 percent accuracy rate (Aoyama 1999:29).More importantly, independent scholars havedemonstrated that, at least for certain collectionsof Maya obsidian artifacts that include the threemajor obsidian sources in highland Guatemala(El Chayal, San Martín Jilotepeque, andIxtepeque), visual sourcing is both reproducibleand accurate (Braswell et al. 2000). Nevertheless,visual analysis is not perfect science. Iexperienced some difficulty in determiningthe sources of certain obsidian artifacts fromCeibal. For example, the visual characteristics ofsome El Chayal obsidian with dusty inclusionsare quite similar to San Martín Jilotepeque.Therefore, I first submitted a range of opticallydistinct artifacts to the pXRF for more securedefinitive identification and thereafter used themas a comparative reference collection of knownsources for further visual analysis. The referencecollection also included geological specimensexhibiting the full range of optical variability ofthe precolumbian obsidian sources in Mexico,Guatemala, and Honduras. Future visual analysiswill be complemented by petrographic analysis,because the presence and distribution of several

compositions of microcrystals are responsiblefor the color and translucence of the obsidian(e.g., Pastrana 1987).

The combination of pXRF and visual analysisenabled source attribution of all obsidian artifactsat a high level of accuracy, precision, and reliabil-ity. Random samples have been demonstrated tosometimes underrepresent variation within het-erogeneous populations, especially when thereare limited numbers of atypical items, as is thecase for Mexican obsidian artifacts (see Braswell2011:123). Prior to the pXRF, I visually iden-tified all eight Mexican obsidian artifacts fromCeibal; pXRF was not helpful in identifying anymore. These extremely scarce artifacts are easilymissed in any random sample. Nevertheless, Iwas not able to identify the sources of twoof the eight artifacts through visual analysisalone. I was not familiar with two geologicalsources (Zacualtipán and Zinapécuaro), and arti-facts from these sources could only be assignedthrough instrumental attribution. The bottomline is that visual analysis of large, statisticallymeaningful samples or, if possible, entire col-lections, allows a well-trained lithic analyst tostudy exchange networks more comprehensivelythan does chemical source analysis of smallsamples selected by inappropriate—includingpurely random—sampling methods. DanielPierce (2015) has recently demonstrated theutility of visual sourcing, even in an area of greatvariability such as West Mexico, where no fewerthan 26 obsidian sources have been identified.

Results

Prehistoric political economies were a mix ofmany different resource mobilization strategiesthat crosscut the production, service, and distri-bution sectors (Hirth 1996). I reconstructed theprecolumbian interregional and long-distanceobsidian exchange system of Ceibal using a com-bination of pXRF, visual analysis, and techno-logical analysis (see Aoyama 1999, 2009a). Thisallowed me to identify the sources of importedraw material and finished products (Table 3; Sup-plemental Tables 2–7). The ancient inhabitantsof Ceibal imported obsidian from at least eightgeological sources: San Martín Jilotepeque (81.3percent; N = 10,114), El Chayal (17.3 percent;N = 2,164), and Ixtepeque (1.3 percent; N = 161)






Table 3. Obsidian Sources by Technological Type of Obsidian Artifacts from Ceibal, Early Middle Preclassic Period.

Real 1 Real 2 Real 3 Real General

ECH ECH SMJ ECH SMJ IXP ECH Total

Small percussion blades 0 1 0 9 2 0 0 12Crested blades 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2Initial pressure blades

Proximal segments 0 0 1 3 6 0 0 10Medial segments 0 1 1 7 2 0 0 11Distal segments 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Prismatic bladesProximal segments 0 1 1 17 7 0 0 26Medial segments 0 11 1 29 15 1 0 57Distal segments 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 9

Exhausted polyhedral cores 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2Platform rejuvenation flakes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Flakes from polyhedral cores 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Scrapers 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Denticulates 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2Drills 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Large percussion flakes

Primary flakes 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2Secondary flakes 0 2 0 6 3 0 0 11Tertiary flakes 1 1 0 3 6 0 0 11

Small percussion flakesPrimary flakes 1 5 0 7 2 0 0 15Secondary flakes 1 2 2 12 5 0 0 22Tertiary flakes 5 26 1 41 12 2 2 89

Chunks 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Flake cores 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3Total 9 51 7 152 64 4 3 290% 100 87.9 12.1 69.1 29.1 1.8 100

in highland Guatemala; Pachuca (N = 2) andZacualtipán (N = 1) in the highland Mexicanstate of Hidalgo; Zaragoza, Puebla (N = 2);and Ucareo (N = 2) and Zinapécuaro (N =1), Michoacán (Figure 1; Table 2). This studyprovides a diachronic look at shifting obsid-ian procurement patterns, including interregionalobsidian exchange from the Maya highlands tothe lowlands and long-distance or trans-isthmianobsidian exchange from the Mexican highlands(Figure 6). El Chayal was the principal sourceof obsidian during the early Middle Preclassicand Classic periods, and San Martín Jilotepequewas heavily used in the late Middle Preclas-sic, Late Preclassic, and Terminal Preclassicperiods. A small number of finished obsidianartifacts from highland Mexico were importedto Ceibal during the Classic period. In whatfollows, I present data related to the procure-ment and production of obsidian artifacts overtime.

Real Phase, Early Middle Preclassic Period

The diachronic changes in obsidian procurementand production are summarized in Figure 7,which compares the percentage of pressureblades in obsidian artifacts with the percentageof artifacts containing remnant cortex overtime in Ceibal. Very few obsidian artifactsdated to the early Middle Preclassic pre-Mamom phase have been uncovered in the MayaLowlands. A total of 290 obsidian artifactswere recovered from unmixed early MiddlePreclassic pre-Mamom Real/Xe phase (1000–700 B.C.) contexts. Pressure blades account for39.3 percent (N = 114) of the total assemblage(Table 3). Although a previous model suggestedthat highland Guatemalan obsidian exchangecommenced with major supplies from the SanMartín Jilotepeque source during the MiddlePreclassic period (e.g., Nelson 1985; Rice et al.1985), the emerging picture is more complex.






Figure 6. Frequencies of obsidian sources over time from Ceibal. SMJ = San Martín Jilotepeque; ECH = El Chayal;IXP = Ixtepeque; PC = Pachuca; UC = Ucareo; ZRG = Zaragoza; ZNP = Zinapécuaro; ZCL = Zacualtipán; EMPC= early Middle Preclassic; LMPC = late Middle Preclassic; LPC = Late Preclassic; TPC = Terminal Preclassic; EC= Early Classic; LC = Late Classic; TC = Terminal Classic.

Figure 7. Diachronic change in the percentage of pressure blades in all obsidian artifacts comparing the percentageof artifacts containing remnant cortex over time in Ceibal. EMPC = early Middle Preclassic; LMPC = late MiddlePreclassic; LPC = Late Preclassic; TPC = Terminal Preclassic; EC = Early Classic; LC = Late Classic; TC = TerminalClassic.






The present study clearly indicates that El Chayalwas the principal source for Ceibal during theearly Middle Preclassic Real phase (Table 2;Figure 6). By way of comparison, nearly allthe obsidian from the Early Preclassic throughthe Early Postclassic period came to Copán,Honduras, from Ixtepeque (Aoyama 2001:348).Thus, long-time differences in procurementpatterns (east vs. west of the Maya Lowlands)already existed in Pre-Mamom times.

The Real phase, which has three subphases,was a critical period of sociopolitical develop-ment at Ceibal. At the beginning of the Real1 phase (1000–850 B.C.), a formal ceremo-nial center with a public plaza was foundedat Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2013:467). The plazawas delimited by a square structure (StructureAjaw) to the west and a long platform (Struc-ture Xa’an) to the east, which constitutes theearliest known example of a so-called E-Groupassemblage in the Maya Lowlands. In spite ofour extensive stratified excavations, only nineobsidian artifacts were recovered from the Real 1layers (Table 3). Obsidian is quite rare in humanoccupation layers dating to this time period.All artifacts were manufactured from El Chayalobsidian. During the Real 1 phase, El Chayalobsidian was imported to Ceibal in the form ofnodules for the production of percussion flakes.This observation is based on the presence offlake cores and flakes, the high percentage ofcortex found on El Chayal obsidian artifacts(22.2 percent; N = 2), and the absence of blades.Primary flakes have a remnant cortex on morethan 50 percent of the dorsal surfaces, whilesecondary flakes show less than 50 percent.Tertiary flakes are those showing no remnantcortex. Similarly, Awe and Healy (1994) report28 obsidian flakes and note the absence of obsid-ian blades at Cahal Pech, Belize, during the firsthalf of the early Middle Preclassic period (1000–850 B.C.). Small quantities of prismatic bladesmade from Ixtepeque obsidian were importedto Copán as finished products, while Ixtepequeobsidian was imported mainly as nodules for theproduction of percussion flakes during the firsthalf of the early Middle Preclassic Gordon phase(1000–850 B.C.; Aoyama 1999:Table 2).

During the Early and Middle Preclassicperiod, the expedient flake technology also

predominated in other regions of Mesoamerica,including the Basin of Mexico (Boksenbaumet al. 1987), the Oaxaca Valley (Parry 1987), SanLorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980), the centraldepression and Pacific coast of Chiapas(Clark and Lee 1984), and the Pacific coastof Guatemala (Aoyama 2004; Jackson and Love1991). El Chayal obsidian was transported overgreater distances and in larger quantities thaneither San Martín Jilotepeque or Ixtepequeobsidian during the Early Preclassic period(e.g., Cobean et al. 1971; Golitko and Feinman2015; Pires-Ferreira 1975; Zeitlin 1982). WhileGuadalupe Victoria, Puebla, was the primarysource of obsidian for the inhabitants of SanLorenzo, El Chayal was the most commonsource of Guatemalan obsidian at San Lorenzobetween the Ojochi phase (1800–1600 B.C.) andthe Palangana phase (800–400 B.C.; Cobeanet al. 1971, 1991; Hirth et al. 2013). In the centraldepression of Chiapas, the inhabitants importedobsidian spalls for the production of percussionflakes from several sources, such as San MartínJilotepeque, El Chayal, and Tajumulco duringthe Early Preclassic period (Clark and Lee 2007).Prismatic blades of El Chayal obsidian wereimported in finished form at most sites in thePacific Chiapas and Guatemala regions duringthe Middle Preclassic period, although expedientflake production persisted after the introductionof prismatic blades (Rosenswig 2010). As inCeibal during the Real phase, El Chayal was themost common source for obsidian at the Pacificcoast center of La Blanca during the Conchasphase (1000–600 B.C.; Jackson and Love 1991).In sum, the inhabitants of Ceibal and those ofneighboring centers in the Tehuantepec Isthmianregion, which included the central depressionof Chiapas, the Pacific Chiapas and Guatemalaregions, and the southern Gulf Coast, sharedthe expedient flake technology and participatedin the El Chayal obsidian exchange networksduring the Real 1 phase.

During the Real 2 phase (850–775 B.C.),the Ceibal E-Group assemblage grew to be theearliest known plaza-pyramid complex in theMaya Lowlands (Inomata et al. 2013:468). Thereis no clear evidence of local blade productiondue to the lack of exhausted polyhedral cores orother manufacturing debris (Table 3). Obsidian






blades may have been imported in finished formto Ceibal during the Real 2 phase. Neverthe-less, many hundreds of pressure blades can bemade from a polyhedral core. Given the numberof obsidian artifacts related to core-blade pro-duction, including a small percussion blade aswell as initial and later series pressure blades,pressure blades may have been manufacturedlocally during this phase. On the basis of the lowpercentage of pressure blades (31 percent; N =18), which include initial pressure and later seriespressure blades (prismatic blades) and the highpercentage of percussion flakes (67.2 percent; N= 39) and cortex in the obsidian artifacts (20.7percent; N = 12), it can be hypothesized thatexpedient flake production persisted after theintroduction of pressure blades. Of the recoveredobsidian artifacts from the Real 2 layers (N = 58),El Chayal was the dominant source of obsidian(87.9 percent; N = 51), with minor quantitiesof obsidian from San Martín Jilotepeque (12.1percent; N = 7).

In the Real 3 phase (775–700 B.C.) thereis unambiguous evidence of local productionof pressure blades. The importation of largepolyhedral cores of El Chayal and San MartínJilotepeque obsidian to Ceibal and the localproduction of pressure blades began after the riseof political complexity at Ceibal. Therefore, wecannot say that blade specialization caused thatdevelopment. Of the 220 obsidian artifacts datedto the Real 3 phase, El Chayal (69.1 percent,N = 152) continued to be the most commonsource, followed by San Martín Jilotepeque (29.1percent, N = 64); for the first time, Ixtepequeobsidian appears in the Ceibal obsidian sample(1.8 percent, N = 4). The presence of exhaustedpolyhedral cores and artifacts related to thepercussion stage of core-blade production, suchas small percussion and crested blades, suggestthat large polyhedral cores of El Chayal obsidianwere imported to Ceibal and that pressure bladeswere manufactured locally during the Real 3phase (Table 3). From Real 3 times onward,blade makers in Ceibal created crested ridges toremove crested blades. A portion of the El Chayalobsidian was imported to Ceibal in the form ofnodules for the production of percussion flakes.This conclusion is based on the presence of flakecores, the high percentage of cortex found on El

Chayal obsidian artifacts (22.4 percent; N = 34),and a relatively low percentage of pressure blades(41.4 percent; N = 63) made from El Chayalobsidian.

Although no exhausted polyhedral cores ofSan Martín Jilotepeque obsidian were recoveredfrom Real 3 phase levels, artifacts related tothe percussion stage of core-blade productionwere collected. These include small percussionblades, a crested blade, a platform rejuvenationflake, and a flake from a polyhedral core madeof San Martín Jilotepeque obsidian. Together,these indicate the local production of pressureblades. Moreover, it is likely that a portion of theSan Martín Jilotepeque obsidian was importedto Ceibal in the form of nodules, based on therelatively high percentage of percussion flakes(43.8 percent; N = 28) and the high percentage ofcortex found on San Martín Jilotepeque obsidianartifacts (18.8 percent; N = 12).

In sum, the obsidian artifacts from Real 3phase Ceibal present the earliest known unam-biguous evidence of local production of pris-matic blades made from both sources of obsidian(El Chayal and San Martín Jilotepeque) in theMaya Lowlands. Ceibal society appears to haveattained at least the minimal level of sociopolit-ical complexity necessary for the procurementof large polyhedral cores of obsidian and thelocal production of pressure blades. In con-trast, from the inception of its importation toK’axob, Belize, during the early part of the Mid-dle Preclassic period (800–600 B.C.), obsidianarrived as finished prismatic blades (McAnany2004:308). At Tikal, Guatemala, Moholy-Nagy(2003:Tables 3.24 and 3.29) identified threeobsidian prismatic blades and two small flakesthat dated to the early Middle Preclassic Ebphase (800–600 B.C.), although there is no clearevidence of local blade production.

Late Middle Preclassic, Late Preclassic, andTerminal Preclassic Periods

Pyramid building and refurbishing continued,and the local population increased steadilyduring the late Middle Preclassic Escobaphase (700–350 B.C.) at Ceibal (Inomata et al.2015:4269; Willey 1990:239). Our extensivestratified excavations in unmixed late Middle






Preclassic deposits yielded the largest sampleof obsidian artifacts (N = 5,794) at Ceibalof any time period of human occupation.The percentage of obsidian artifacts (29.9percent) among all chipped stone artifacts (N =19,397) during the late Middle Preclassic periodincreased substantially from the early MiddlePreclassic period (2.9 percent; 290/10,047).Thus, there is a significant increase in the relativequantity of obsidian imported at this time. SanMartín Jilotepeque (93.2 percent; N = 5,402)accounted for most of the obsidian brought toCeibal, while minor quantities were procuredfrom El Chayal (6.5 percent; N = 379) andIxtepeque (0.2 percent; N = 13). One possibleinterpretation for this drastic change in obsidianexchange is provided by Geoffrey Braswell(2010:133). During the second half of the MiddlePreclassic period, a bounded network systememerged at the Preclassic center of Kaminaljuyúnear El Chayal, resulting in a concomitantdecrease in the circulation of the El Chayalobsidian in the Maya Lowlands. In contrast,due to the simpler open network system of thePreclassic eastern Kaqchikel region, where SanMartín Jilotepeque is located, obsidian from thissource could circulate throughout the Maya area.

As in the Real 3 phase, obsidian was importedin the form of large polyhedral cores thatwere modified into percussion and pressureblades during the late Middle Preclassic period.This interpretation is based on the presence ofexhausted polyhedral cores and artifacts relatedto the percussion stage of core-blade production.The latter include macroblades, small percussionblades, crested blades, and a wide variety ofcore rejuvenation flakes (Supplemental Table 2).Exhausted polyhedral cores from San MartínJilotepeque and El Chayal that were recoveredfrom late Middle Preclassic unmixed contextsindicate local production of pressure blades.Exhausted polyhedral cores from Ixtepeque fromlate Middle Preclassic secondary contexts mixedwith earlier materials also indicate local bladeproduction. The relatively high percentage ofcortex (16.9 percent; N = 978) found on theobsidian artifacts dating to the late MiddlePreclassic, a comparatively low percentage ofpressure blades (40 percent; N = 2,319), andabundant flake cores all suggest that obsidian

nodules also were brought to the site for theproduction of percussion flakes (Figure 7).

The relative frequency of obsidian to allchipped-stone artifacts is significantly greater incentral Ceibal than at the nearby minor centerof Caobal and other peripheral sites, suggestingthat the inhabitants of the epicenter of Ceibal hadgreater access to obsidian imports than did theperipheral areas (Aoyama and Munson 2012). Incontrast to the high percentage of cortex foundon obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, virtually noobsidian artifacts at Caobal have cortex for anytime in the precolumbian sequence. It is possiblethat Ceibal elites distributed finished blades, aswell as already trimmed and partially reducedpolyhedral cores, outside of the site center duringthe Preclassic and Classic periods.

During the Late Preclassic period (350–75B.C.) Ceibal became a city, reaching its firstpeak population of about 10,000 people (Willey1990:241). Due to the Maya penchant for build-ing directly on top of earlier structures, fewerobsidian artifacts from unmixed Late Preclassicdeposits were found in Ceibal compared to thelate Middle Preclassic deposits (SupplementalTable 3). San Martín Jilotepeque continued tobe the most common source for obsidian (91 per-cent; N = 466), followed by El Chayal (9 percent;N = 46). No Ixtepeque obsidian artifacts werefound from unmixed Late Preclassic contexts,and only four were recovered from secondarycontexts.

In comparison to the late Middle Preclassicperiod, pressure blades account for a greaterpercentage of all obsidian artifacts during theLate Preclassic period (62.7 percent; N = 321).Given this higher percentage as well as the lowerfrequency of cortex (9.6 percent; N = 49), itappears that obsidian was imported to Ceibalmainly as large polyhedral cores (Figure 7). Asmall portion of the obsidian was brought to thesite in the form of nodules, based on the presenceof flake cores and numerous flakes.

The relative frequency of pressure blades(63.5 percent; N = 202) during the TerminalPreclassic period (75 B.C.–A.D. 200) increasedslightly from the Late Preclassic period. Thepresence of exhausted polyhedral cores andpercussion blades, such as small percussionblades and crested blades, suggests that large






polyhedral cores were imported to Ceibal duringthe Terminal Preclassic period (SupplementalTable 4). Moreover, a flake core and the relativelyhigh percentage of cortex found on obsidianartifacts (11 percent; N = 35) imply that a portionof the obsidian was imported to Ceibal in the formof nodules in the Terminal Preclassic period.The primary source of obsidian was San MartínJilotepeque (71.4 percent; N = 227), followedby El Chayal obsidian (28 percent; N = 89).Minor quantities of obsidian were brought fromIxtepeque (0.6 percent; N = 2).

Classic Period (A.D. 200–950)

The ruler K’an Mo’ Bahlam (ca. A.D. 415)is mentioned in a retrospective text on theLate Classic Hieroglyphic Stairway of Ceibal,but Ceibal was occupied in only a veryminor way during the latter part of theEarly Classic period (A.D. 450–600; Inomata2012; Sabloff 1975). Unmixed Early Classic(A.D. 200–600) deposits in Ceibal containedonly 64 obsidian artifacts, supporting the con-clusion that population declined during thistime. As shown in Figure 6 and SupplementalTable 5, during the Early Classic period, ElChayal once more became the major sourceof obsidian artifacts in Ceibal (79.7 percent;N = 51), followed by Ixtepeque (12.5 percent;N = 8). Only a small amount of obsidianwas from San Martín Jilotepeque (7.8 percent;N = 5). In fact, San Martín Jilotepeque obsidianappears in significantly lower quantities in allcontexts dating to the Classic period than inPreclassic deposits. In contrast, greater quantitiesof Ixtepeque obsidian were imported to Ceibalthroughout the Classic period than in Preclassictimes.

Previous studies have demonstrated the pre-dominance of El Chayal obsidian in many otherparts of the Maya Lowlands during the Clas-sic period (e.g., Braswell 2011; Brown et al.2004; Healy et al. 1984; Moholy-Nagy et al.2013; Nelson 1985; Rice et al. 1985). One ofthe reasons for the dramatic increase in theexchange of El Chayal obsidian may have todo with the decline of the Kaminaljuyú polityaround A.D. 150 (Inomata et al. 2014:401). Iargue that the bounded network system of the

Preclassic Kaminaljuyú broke down, resulting ina concomitant open network system that madeit possible for obsidian from El Chayal to becirculated throughout the Maya Lowlands. Infact, from the Xate 2 phase (A.D. 50–125) tothe Xate 3 phase (A.D. 125–200) of TerminalPreclassic Ceibal, El Chayal increased fromone quarter (43/179) to nearly half (46 percent;28/61) of the sample, while the percentage ofSan Martín Jilotepeque decreased from threequarters (134/179) to half (33/61). Moreover,Braswell (2010:133) argues that very simplehierarchical settlement and extended distributionsystems persisted in the eastern Kaqchikel high-land until the beginning of the Early Classicperiod. These political changes near two majorobsidian sources in the Maya highlands duringthe Preclassic to Classic transition must havegreatly affected the circulation of the obsidianin the Maya Lowlands.

Based on the considerably lower percentageof cortex found on obsidian artifacts from EarlyClassic contexts (1.6 percent; N = 1) comparedto the Terminal Preclassic period (11 percent;N = 35), it can be concluded that obsidianwas imported primarily in the form of moreprepared polyhedral cores that were transformedinto pressure blades at Ceibal. This inferenceis also supported by the significantly greaterpercentage of pressure blades (92.2 percent; N= 59) in Early Classic than in the TerminalPreclassic deposits (63.5 percent; N = 202).This pattern, in which El Chayal obsidian wasimported in the form of more highly preparedpolyhedral cores throughout the Classic period isalso evident at the neighboring site of Aguateca(Aoyama 2009a) and many other Petén sites(e.g., Aoyama and Laporte 2009). Macrobladesand crested blades, which were related to thepercussion stage of core-blade production, arenotably absent from the Classic contexts ofCeibal, as are small percussion blades (Sup-plemental Tables 5–7). Moreover, virtually noobsidian artifacts have cortex (Figure 7). As inearlier periods, pressure blades were the mostcommon form of obsidian artifact. Microwearand contextual analyses indicate that pressureblades made of highland Guatemalan obsid-ian were mainly valued as utilitarian goods.Both elites and commoners used them for a






wide variety of craft production and domestictasks.

Mexican Obsidian Artifacts in Ceibal

A small number of finished artifacts (primar-ily prismatic blades, but also small quantitiesof bifacial points) from highland Mexico wereimported to Ceibal during the Classic period.Their restricted spatial distribution indicates thatMexican obsidian tools may have been desig-nated as elite goods. These artifacts are concen-trated in two major groups of structures in thecentral part of Ceibal, Groups A and D, whichconsist of public structures and plazas coveringan area of about 1 km2. In contrast, Mexicanobsidian is completely absent in peripheral areas.The use or display of such small quantities oflong-distance exchange goods appears to havebeen primarily of social and symbolic rather thaneconomic importance. They may have arrived atCeibal as elite gifts (e.g., Spence 1996).

A medial fragment of a bifacial point madeof green obsidian from the Pachuca, Hidalgo,source was found in an Early Classic secondarydeposit in Structure A-2, a large platform. Sofar, this is the only green obsidian bifacial pointfound at Ceibal. A proximal segment of a pris-matic blade made of Pachuca obsidian was foundin the E-Group of Group A and a fragment of abifacial point made of Zinapécuaro, Michoacán,obsidian was recovered from the massive A-24 platform. These two artifacts date to theLate Classic period. The paucity of Mexicanobsidian—even in the central groups of Ceibal—during the Early and Late Classic periods may berelated to the reduced population of this periodand the subordinate nature of the elites residingat the site during those centuries.

A total of five Mexican obsidian artifactswere recovered from Terminal Classic contexts.Four artifacts are from Group D: (1) a proximalsegment of a prismatic blade from the East Plazamade of obsidian from Zaragoza, Puebla; (2)a fragment of a bifacial point from the WestPlaza, also made of Zaragoza obsidian; (3) amedial segment of a prismatic blade made ofZacualtipán, Hidalgo, obsidian; and (4) a medialsegment of a prismatic blade made of Ucareo,Michoacán, obsidian. Another medial segment of

a prismatic blade made of Ucareo obsidian wasexcavated in the E-Group plaza of Group A. Thenotable absence of green obsidian artifacts andthe overall scarcity of Mexican obsidian artifactsat Terminal Classic Ceibal indicate that elitesmay not have participated in developing long-distance obsidian exchange networks during thetenth century (e.g., Braswell 2010:137). Thepresence of Mexican obsidian is a sensitivechronological indicator for the Early Classic,Terminal Classic, and Early Postclassic periodsin the nearby Punta de Chimino in the Petex-batun region, the southeast and central-westernPetén region (Aoyama 2006, 2009b; Aoyama andLaporte 2009), western Honduras, and especiallythe northern Maya Lowlands (Aoyama 2001;Braswell 2003).

Obsidian Exchange and the Fall of theCeibal Dynasty

Compared to the open network system centeredon Classic El Chayal, there was a very sharpdelineation of exchange covers 60 km northeastof Copan in the La Entrada region. This regionhad access to polyhedral cores of Ixtepequeobsidian. Sites in the northern extremity of theLa Entrada region, by contrast, received most oftheir obsidian from the San Luis source, 30 km tothe east in Honduras (Aoyama 1999:143). Thissharp decrease in Ixtepeque obsidian suggests abounded network system in the Classic Copánstate. After the demise of centralized authorityin Copán during the ninth century, the boundednetwork system of the Classic Copán statebroke down and the Ixtepeque obsidian exchangesphere began to expand, particularly along theCaribbean coast. For example, Ixtepeque obsid-ian was more prevalent than El Chayal at WildCane Cay, Belize, during the Postclassic period(McKillop 1996).

The notable presence of Mexican obsidianartifacts at Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, and other sites innorthern Maya Lowlands (Braswell 2010:137),as well as smaller coastal sites (McKillop1996:57), implies that their distribution becamemore widespread and decentralized during thetenth century. Although Ixtepeque was still themost commonly used obsidian source, even theinhabitants of a small village in Copán imported






finished prismatic blades from Pachuca andUcareo sources during the Early Postclassic Ejarphase (A.D. 950–1050; Aoyama 2001:356). Theinhabitants of the Terminal Classic city of Ceibaldid not. Moreover, all proximal segments ofprismatic blades made of El Chayal obsidianfrom Terminal Classic Ceibal have scratchedplatforms, but none of them have pecked-and-ground platforms, which became common afterabout AD 900 (see Braswell 2011:126). Insummary, the prevalence of El Chayal obsidianrather than Ixtepeque obsidian, and the scarcityof Mexican obsidian artifacts at Terminal ClassicCeibal, imply that the fall of the Ceibal dynastymay have occurred shortly after A.D. 889, thelast date recorded on Ceibal stone monuments.

Summary and Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest thatEl Chayal obsidian was heavily used duringthe early Middle Preclassic period and that SanMartín Jilotepeque was the principal source ofobsidian in the late Middle Preclassic, LatePreclassic, and Terminal Preclassic periods. ElChayal once again became the major source forCeibal during the Classic period. The dramaticdecrease in use of El Chayal obsidian during thelate Middle Preclassic period, at Ceibal and inmany other part of the Maya Lowlands, may haveto do with the emergence of a bounded networksystem at Kaminaljuyú during the late MiddlePreclassic. This system broke down during theTerminal Preclassic collapse, resulting in a strik-ing increase in El Chayal during the Early Classicperiod.

The interregional exchange of large polyhe-dral cores of obsidian from the Maya highlands,and the local production of pressure blades,began after the rise of political complexity atCeibal, which occurred by the early MiddlePreclassic Real 3 phase. Early leaders of Ceibalmay have sponsored the procurement of largepolyhedral cores of obsidian along with localproduction of fine blades on behalf of theircommunity as a means of consolidating andlegitimizing their own political authority. TheCeibal data present the earliest known evidencefor the local production of pressure blades made

from each source of obsidian (El Chayal and SanMartín Jilotepeque).

The procurement of large polyhedral coresof obsidian from the Maya highlands increasedfrom the Real 3 phase to the Terminal Preclassicperiod. Obsidian was also imported to Ceibalin the form of nodules for the production ofpercussion flakes during the Preclassic period.In contrast, material was imported mainly inthe form of more prepared polyhedral cores,which were transformed into pressure blades atCeibal, throughout the Classic period. Ceibalelites may have distributed finished blades andsemi-exhausted polyhedral cores of highlandGuatemalan obsidian outside of the site centerthroughout the Preclassic and Classic periods.Long-distance exchange of very small quantitiesof finished obsidian artifacts from highland Mex-ico was primarily of social and symbolic ratherthan economic importance. In conclusion, inter-regional exchange of obsidian from the Mayahighlands was of great economic significanceto the inhabitants of the community, and wasmore crucial to the development of lowland Mayacivilization than was long-distance exchangewith Mexico.

Acknowledgments. Funding for my research in Guatemala(2005–2017) has been provided by the Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology–Japan (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 21101001, No. 21101003,No. 26101001, and No. 26101003) and the Japan Societyfor the Promotion of Science (Grants-in-Aid for ScientificResearch No. 17401024, No. 21402008, and No. 26300025).Michael D. Glascock kindly provided me with the databasefor all obsidian source samples in Guatemala, Honduras, andMexico analyzed by pXRF at the University of MissouriResearch Reactor. Mark Golitko kindly offered me thedatabase for the Tikal obsidian artifacts analyzed by pXRF atthe Field Museum of Natural History. Hattula Moholy-Nagy,Hector Neff, and Geoffrey Braswell helped me with solidadvice in order for me to start to analyze Ceibal obsidianartifacts by pXRF. This paper benefited considerably fromthoughtful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. I thankother members of the Ceibal-Petexbatun ArchaeologicalProject, particularly Takeshi Inomata, Daniela Triadan, OttóRoman, Víctor Castillo, Juan Manuel Palomo, Flory Pinzón,and Estela Pinto, for their guidance and support duringthe lithic analysis. Joyce Cunningham kindly helped meto edit the manuscript. I also thank Geoffrey Braswell andSowparnika Balaswaminathan for their outstanding editorialwork. My wife, Vilma Aoyama, helped me with the Spanishabstract. Any errors remain entirely my responsibility.






Data Availability Statement. Data on the weight of obsidianartifacts by period and data on the obsidian sources bytechnological type of obsidian artifacts from the late MiddlePreclassic period to the Terminal Classic period used in thisstudy are published online in Supplemental Tables 1–7.

Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linkedto the online version of this paper, which is accessible viathe SAA member login at https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.2.These include the following tables:

Supplemental Table 1. Weight (g) of obsidian artifacts byvisual and XRF source assignments by period from Ceibal,Guatemala.

Supplemental Table 2. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Late Middle Preclassicperiod.

Supplemental Table 3. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Late Preclassic period.

Supplemental Table 4. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Terminal Preclassicperiod.

Supplemental Table 5. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Early Classic period.

Supplemental Table 6. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Late Classic period.

Supplemental Table 7. Obsidian sources by technologicaltype of obsidian artifacts from Ceibal, Terminal Classicperiod.

References Cited

Aoyama, Kazuo1999 Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft

Specialization: Chipped Stone Evidence from the CopánValley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras. Universityof Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American ArchaeologyNo. 12. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

2001 Classic Maya State, Urbanism, and Exchange:Chipped Stone Evidence of the Copán Valley and ItsHinterland. American Anthropologist 103:346–360.

2004 El intercambio, producción y función de los artefac-tos de obsidiana del período formativo temprano en lacosta del Pacífico de Guatemala: Un estudio diacrónicoy análisis de las microhuellas de uso sobre la líticade obsidiana del complejo San Jerónimo, Escuintla,Guatemala. Utz’ib 3(7):14–34.

2006 Political and Socioeconomic Implications of ClassicMaya Lithic Artifacts from the Main Plaza of Aguateca,Guatemala. Journal de la Société des Américanistes92:7–40.

2009a Elite Craft Producers, Artists, and Warriors atAguateca: Lithic Analysis. Monographs of the AguatecaArchaeological Project First Phase, Vol. 2. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.

2009b Lítica. In La política de lugares y comunidades enla antigua sociedad Maya de Petexbatun: Las investi-gaciones del proyecto arqueológico Aguateca segundafase, edited by Takeshi Inomata, Daniela Triadan, ErickM. Ponciano, and Kazuo Aoyama, pp. 276–297. Min-isterio de Cultura y Deportes, Dirección General delPatrimonio Cultural y Natural, Instituto de Antropologíae Historia, Guatemala.

Aoyama, Kazuo, and Juan Pedro Laporte2009 Análisis de lítica menor elaborada con obsidiana en

el sureste y centro-oeste de Petén, Guatemala. Utz’ib4(6):11–40.

Aoyama, Kazuo, and Jessica Munson2012 Ancient Maya Obsidian Exchange and Chipped

Stone Production at Caobal, Guatemala. Mexicon34:34–42.

Awe, Jaime, and Paul F. Healy1994 Flakes to Blades? Middle Formative Development

of Obsidian Artifacts in the Upper Belize River Valley.Latin American Antiquity 5:193–205.

Boksenbaum, Martin W., Paul Tolstoy, Garman Harbottle,Kimberlin Jerome, and Mary Neivens

1987 Obsidian Industries and Cultural Evolution in theBasin of Mexico Before 500 B.C. Journal of FieldArchaeology 14:65–75.

Braswell, Geoffrey E.2003 Obsidian Exchange Spheres of Postclassic

Mesoamerica. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World,edited by Michael Smith and Frances Berdan, pp. 131–158. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2010 The Rise and Fall of Market Exchange: A DynamicApproach to Ancient Maya Economy. In Archaeo-logical Approaches to Market Exchange in AncientSocieties, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and BarbaraL. Stark, pp. 127–140. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.

2011 Procurement and Production of Obsidian Artifactsat Calakmul. In The Technology of Maya Civilization:Political Economy and Beyond in Lithic Studies, editedby Zachary X. Hruby, Geoffrey E. Braswell, andOswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, pp. 119–129. Equinox,Sheffield, UK.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., John E. Clark, Kazuo Aoyama,Heather I. McKillop, and Michael D. Glascock

2000 Determining the Geological Provenance of ObsidianArtifacts from the Maya Region: A Test of the Efficacyof Visual Sourcing. Latin American Antiquity 11:269–282.

Brown, David O., Meredith L. Dreiss, and Richard E. Hughes2004 Preclassic Obsidian Procurement and Utilization

at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. Latin AmericanAntiquity 15:222–240.

Clark, John E., and Thomas A. Lee, Jr.1984 Formative Obsidian Exchange and the Emergence

of Public Economies in Chiapas, Mexico. In Trade andExchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by KennethG. Hirth, pp. 235–274. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

2007 The Changing Role of Obsidian Exchange in CentralChiapas. In Archaeology, Art, and Ethnogenesis inMesoamerican Prehistory: Papers in Honor of GarethW. Lowe, edited by Lynneth S. Lowe and Mary E. Pye,pp. 109–159. Papers of the New World ArchaeologicalFoundation No. 68. Provo, Utah.

Cobean, Robert H., Michael D. Coe, Edward A. Parry Jr.,Kark K. Turekian, and Dinkar P. Kharkar

1971 Obsidian Trade at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mex-ico. Science 174:666–671.

Cobean, Robert H., James R. Vogt, Michael D. Glascock, andTerrance L. Stocker

1991 High-Precision Trace-Element Characterization ofMajor Mesoamerican Obsidian Sources and FurtherAnalyses of Artifacts from San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan,Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2:69–91.







Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl1980 In the Land of the Olmec. University of Texas Press,

Austin.Drennan, Robert D., Philip T. Fitzgibbons, and Heinz Dehn

1990 Imports and Exports in Classic MesoamericanPolitical Economy: The Tehuacan Valley and the Teoti-huacan Obsidian Industry. In Research in EconomicAnthropology, Vol. 12, edited by Barry Issac, pp. 177–199. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Feinman, Gary M., Linda M. Nicholas, and Mark Golitko2013 Exchange in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico:

Late Classic Obsidian Procurement. Mexicon 35:60–68.

Glascock, Michael D.2002 Obsidian Provenance Research in the Americas.

Accounts of Chemical Research 25:611–617.Glascock, Michael D., Geoffrey E. Braswell, and Robert H.

Cobean1998 A Systematic Approach to Obsidian Source Charac-

terization. In Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Methodand Theory, edited by M. Steven Shackley, pp. 15–65.Plenum, New York.

Glascock, Michael D., and Jeffrey R. Ferguson2012 Report on the Analysis of Obsidian Source Samples

by Multiple Analytical Methods. Archaeometry Labo-ratory at the University of Missouri Research Reactor,Columbia, Missouri.

Golitko, Mark, and Gary M. Feinman2015 Procurement and Distribution of Pre-Hispanic

Mesoamerican Obsidian 900 BC–AD 1520: A SocialNetwork Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 22: 206–247.

Healy, Paul F., Heather I. McKillop, and Bernie Walsh1984 Analysis of Obsidian from Moho Cay, Belize:

New Evidence on Classic Maya Trade Routes. Science340:414–417.

Hirth, Kenneth G.1996 Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives

on Exchange and Production. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 4:203–239.

Hirth, Kenneth, Ann Cyphers, Robert Cobean, JasonDe León, and Michael Glascock

2013 Early Olmec Obsidian Trade and Economic Orga-nization at San Lorenzo. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 40:2784–2798.

Inomata, Takeshi2012 La fundación y el desarrollo político durante el

período preclásico en Ceibal. In La cuenca del Río dela Pasión: Estudios de arqueología y epigrafía Maya,edited by María Elena Vega and Lynneth S. Lowe, pp.33–56. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,Mexico, D.F.

Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, Daniela Triadan,Melissa Burham, Kazuo Aoyama, Hiroo Nasu,Jessica Munson, Flory Pinzón, and Hitoshi Yonenobu

2015 Development of Sedentary Communities in theMaya Lowlands: Co-existing Mobile Groups and Pub-lic Ceremonies at Ceibal, Guatemala. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences 112(14):4268–4273.

Inomata, Takeshi, Raúl Ortiz, Bárbara Arroyo, and EugeniaJ. Robinson

2014 Chronological Revision of Preclassic Kaminaljuyú,Guatemala: Implications for Social Processes in theSouthern Maya Area. Latin American Antiquity 25:377–408.

Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Kazuo Aoyama, Víc-tor Castillo, and Hitoshi Yonenobu

2013 Early Ceremonial Constructions at Ceibal,Guatemala, and the Origins of Lowland Maya Civiliza-tion. Science 340:467–471.

Jackson, Thomas L., and Michael W. Love1991 Blade Running: Middle Preclassic Obsidian

Exchange and the Introduction of Prismatic Blades atLa Blanca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:47–59.

McAnany, Patricia A.2004 Obsidian Blades and Source Areas. In K’axob:

Ritual, Work, and Family in an Ancient Maya Village, pp.307–315. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

McKillop, Heather1996 Ancient Maya Trading Ports and the Integration

of Long-Distance and Regional Economies: Wild CaneCay in South-Coastal Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica7:49–62.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula2003 The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and

Unworked Material. Tikal Report 27B. University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, James Meierhoff, Mark Golitko, andCaleb Kestle

2013 An Analysis of pXRF Obsidian Source Attribu-tions from Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity24:72–97.

Nelson, Fred W., Jr.1985 Summary of the Results of Analysis of Obsidian

Artifacts from the Maya Lowlands. Scanning ElectronMicroscopy 2:631–649.

Parry, William J.1987 Chipped Stone Tools in Formative Oaxaca, Mexico:

Their Procurement, Production and Use. Memoirs No.20. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

Pastrana, Alejandro1987 Análisis microscópico de la obsidiana. Revista

Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 33(1):5–26.Pierce, Daniel E.

2015 Visual and Geochemical Analyses of ObsidianSource Use at San Felipe Aztatán, Mexico. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 40:266–269.

Pires-Ferreira, Jane Wheeler1975 Formative Mesoamerican Exchange Networks with

Special Reference to the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs No.7. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

Rice, Prudence M., Helen V. Michel, Frank Asaro, andFred Stross

1985 Provenience Analysis of Obsidians from the CentralPeten Lakes Region, Guatemala. American Antiquity50:591–604.

Rosenswig, Robert M.2010 The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization:

Inter-Regional Interaction and the Olmec. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten,

Guatemala: Ceramics. Memoirs Vol. 13, No. 2.Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Spence, Michael W.1996 Commodity or Gift: Teotihuacan Obsidian in the

Maya Region. Latin American Antiquity 7:21–39.






Willey, Gordon1978 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten,

Guatemala: Artifacts. Memoirs Vol. 14, No. 1.Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

1990 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten,Guatemala: General Summary and Conclusions. Mem-oirs Vol. 17, No. 4. Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer-sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zeitlin, Robert N.1982 Toward a More Comprehensive Model of Inter-

regional Commodity Distribution: Political Variablesand Prehistoric Obsidian Procurement in Mesoamerica.American Antiquity 47:260–275.

Submitted May 19, 2016; Revised August 25, 2016;Accepted January 17, 2017





Documents

PRECLASSIC AND CLASSIC MAYA INTERREGIONAL AND LONG … · análisis visual de los 7,073 artefactos restantes. El intercambio interregional de núcleos poliédricos grandes de obsidiana