Identifying stoneworking assemblages

The successful identification of stoneworking assemblages is rare in the Maya region, as they are difficult to discern without the sorts of contextual evidence that does not preserve well archaeologically (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press). Several studies do, however, provide insights into the types of tools, which are discussed below, linked with stone and greenstone working (Kidder et al. Reference Kidder, Jennings and Shook1946; Mirambell Reference Mirambell1968; Digby Reference Digby1972).

Most stoneworking assemblages have been identified in unique depositional contexts, for example, at the site of Aguateca, Guatemala, which was rapidly abandoned, leaving objects in the locations in which they were last used (Inomata & Triadan Reference Inomata and Triadan2000; Inomata et al. Reference Inomata, Triadan, Ponciano, Pinto, Terry and Eberl2002). Assemblages at Aguateca indicate that polished greenstone axes formed part of toolkits for carving stelae (Inomata Reference Inomata2001; Inomata et al. Reference Inomata, Triadan, Ponciano, Pinto, Terry and Eberl2002; Aoyama Reference Aoyama2007). The differently sized axes were related to specific carving or incising tasks (Inomata Reference Inomata2001; Inomata et al. Reference Inomata, Triadan, Ponciano, Pinto, Terry and Eberl2002; Aoyama Reference Aoyama2007). Aoyama (Reference Aoyama2007) used use-wear analyses to illustrate that greenstone axes were used to work stone for masonry blocks or carving stone monuments (see also Haviland Reference Haviland1974; Houston Reference Houston2000; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press) but traceological studies, which examine the microscopic wear on objects to determine the function of those objects, demonstrate that greenstone was also used to polish greenstone ornaments (Melgar & Andrieu Reference Melgar, Andrieu, Arroyo, Méndez and Ajú2016; Meléndez Reference Meléndez2019; Melgar Reference Melgar2023). Greenstone items found in stoneworking assemblages could therefore have been used as polishers for greenstone ornaments.

Polishers, including polished limestone objects, ‘banana-shaped’ polishers, and polished bifaces are also associated with stoneworking assemblages (Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973; Rovner & Lewenstein Reference Rovner and Lewenstein1997). Polished bifaces were worked/rounded on one side but retain traces of bifacial working on the other (see Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973). When assemblages of such polishers are found, they are interpreted as residences of masons or areas of masonry work (Parker et al. Reference Parker, Bey and Gallareta Negrón2019; see also Clarke Reference Clarke2020; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press). Other objects associated with polishing include manos, a particular form of groundstone tool, and pumice, the volcanic rock (Clarke Reference Clarke2020; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press).

Overall, stoneworking assemblages contain a mix of greenstone axes, polishers (including limestone pieces, polished bifaces and ‘banana’ polishers) and whetstones, which are used for sharpening tools. Yet the identification of all of these objects together in a single context is unusual (Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973; Rovner & Lewenstein Reference Rovner and Lewenstein1997), and the identification of stoneworking assemblages is often dependent on contextual information rather than a complete toolkit (Clarke Reference Clarke2020).

Greenstone working assemblages are most often identified by the presence of debitage from the production process and associated toolkits that include hammerstones of various sizes, string saw anchors, chert blades and drills, abraders or polishers, and materials used as abrasives, including broken greenstone and quartz (Kidder et al. Reference Kidder, Jennings and Shook1946; Kovacevich Reference Kovacevich2006, Reference Kovacevich, Hruby, Braswell and Chinchilla Mazariegos2011; del Águila Flores Reference del Águila Flores2009; Rochette Reference Rochette2009, Reference Rochette2014; Andrieu et al. Reference Andrieu, Rodas and Luin2014). One such assemblage was identified at Cancuen, in the southern Maya lowlands (AD 760–800), with tools including chert, greenstone and quartzite hammerstones, and chert drills (Kovacevich Reference Kovacevich2006: 181, Reference Kovacevich, Hruby, Braswell and Chinchilla Mazariegos2011; Andrieu & Forné Reference Andrieu, Forne, Arroyo, Linares and Paiz2010: 947; Andrieu et al. Reference Andrieu, Rodas and Luin2014). Similarly, excavations in the Motagua region in the northern Maya highlands—close to the only known sources of jadeite in Mesoamerica—have uncovered tool assemblages and debitage linked to bead and preform production including greenstone cobbles, flakes and hammerstones and chert drills (Rochette Reference Rochette2009, Reference Rochette2014).

El Perú-Waka’

Located at the south-west of the Petén Karst Plateau, in modern-day Guatemala, the Maya city of Waka’ was occupied from the Late Preclassic to the Terminal Classic periods (400 BC–AD 1000, Freidel & Escobedo Reference Freidel, Escobedo, Navarro-Farr and Rich2014; Navarro-Farr & Rich Reference Navarro-Farr and Rich2014; Eppich et al. Reference Eppich, Marken, Menéndez, Marken and Arnauld2023; Figure 1). Excavations within the city core and in the surrounding region indicate that Waka’ figured prominently in Classic period Maya political dynamics (Guenter Reference Guenter, Navarro-Farr and Rich2014; Martin & Velásquez Reference Martin and Velásquez2016; Martin Reference Martin2020). The activities of Waka's elites mirror those of other major Maya centres, including the erection of carved stone monuments (Stuart Reference Stuart1996; O'Neil Reference O'Neil2009; Houston Reference Houston2014, Reference Houston2021).

Waka’ was one of the most densely populated settlements in the Maya region (Marken Reference Marken, Marken and Fitzsimmons2015; Canuto et al. Reference Canuto2018; Marken et al. Reference Marken, Pérez, Navarro-Farr, Eppich, Arroyo, Salinas and Ajú Álvarez2019; Marken & Ricker Reference Marken, Ricker, Eppich, Marken and Freidel2024). Multiple types of economic activities were practised across the city and its hinterlands, in which individuals of all statuses participated. Eppich and Freidel (Reference Eppich, Freidel and King2015; see also Eppich Reference Eppich, Masson, Friedel and Demarest2020) suggest marketplace exchange of utilitarian goods but that prestige goods likely circulated through different mechanisms.

Here, we focus on materials from the Payes group within the Ical neighbourhood, the north-western residential sector of the city's urban core (Figure 2; Marken & Cooper Reference Marken, Cooper, Pérez, Pérez and Friedel2018). The Ical neighbourhood consists of 133 structures dominated by an acropolis (Marken et al. Reference Marken, Menéndez, Cuyán, Pérez, Plunkett, Van Oss, Canté, Pérez Robles, Navarro-Farr and Marken2023). Located near the centre of the neighbourhood, adjacent to the acropolis, is the Payes group, which consists of 30 structures around seven patios. Excavations consisted of test units across the neighbourhood (Menéndez & Cuyan Reference Menéndez, Cuyán, Pérez and Pérez2016; Marken et al. Reference Marken, Menéndez, Cuyán, Pérez, Plunkett, Van Oss, Canté, Pérez Robles, Navarro-Farr and Marken2023), slot trenches on the edges of particular land-use features (a reservoir and a causeway) and horizontal excavation of two residences (Marken & Cooper Reference Marken, Cooper, Pérez, Pérez and Friedel2018). All excavations were conducted using natural and cultural stratigraphic layers and sediment was screened through a one-quarter inch (6.35mm) mesh. The objects and architecture revealed, and their proximity to a large residential complex (the acropolis), point to the presence of high-status individuals within the neighbourhood. Structures K10-11 and K10-12B, where the stoneworking assemblage was identified, are both located in the northernmost part of the Payes group, due east of the acropolis on the north-east edge of the Ical tank (a large water storage reservoir), flanking the tank's outlet (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Map of Waka’ overlaid on the lidar image for the site (figure by D. Marken, with permission of Proyecto Arqueológico Waka’).

Figure 3. Payes group (figure by D. Marken, with permission of Proyecto Arqueológico Waka’).

Evidence for carving and polishing at Waka’

An assemblage of stone modifiers was recovered during removal of collapsed masonry from structure K10-11 (Marken & Cooper Reference Marken, Cooper, Pérez, Pérez and Friedel2018). This cluster of artefacts was identified as embedded within and on top of the masonry of the southern portion of the structure's east wall. Other materials from structure K10-11 and the adjacent structure K10-12B, described further below, indicate stone and greenstone working.

Structure K10-11 was a small, vaulted, stone-built residential structure consisting of two rooms with east facing doorways. Room 1 contained a masonry bench with a single step along the northern side (Figure 4). Prior to the roof collapse, the body of a middle-aged woman (Burial 76) had been placed on the bench (Patterson Reference Patterson, Pérez, Pérez and Friedel2018) and the structure was likely abandoned shortly thereafter, as some of the bones were knocked to the floor during the collapse. Several artefacts, including a small bead modifier, two manos, two large shell bivalves, a projectile point and two partial ceramic vessels, were recovered from the floor of room 1 (Marken & Cooper Reference Marken, Cooper, Pérez, Pérez and Friedel2018; Figures 4 & 5).

Figure 4. North profile (A) and plan (B) of structures K10-11 and K10-12B (drawings by R. Ozaeta (A & B) and D. Marken (B), with permission of Proyecto Arqueológico Waka’).

Figure 5. Photograph of the stone working assemblage in situ in room 1 of structure K10-11 (photograph by D. Marken).

The assemblage of stone modifiers (Figure 6) consists of two polished stones with greenstone flecks, three greenstone axes, two polished limestone pieces, two greenstone pieces polished on one side only and one polished chert biface. All were recovered from the same area, along with a general utility biface, a common tool type from the Maya lowlands that was also associated with stoneworking.

Figure 6. Stone working assemblage. Top row) two polished limestone pieces, materials with greenstone flecks, and cut greenstone; bottom row) three greenstone axes and polished biface (photograph by R. Horowitz).

The assemblage includes objects typically used for the working of stone and greenstone (see Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973; Rovner & Lewenstein Reference Rovner and Lewenstein1997; Inomata & Triadan Reference Inomata and Triadan2000; Aoyama Reference Aoyama2007; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press). In particular, the three greenstone axes (Figure 6) resemble those axes from Aguateca, which represent the tools of a stelae carver, with different sizes for different stages of work. The polished chert biface and the shaped limestone pieces are comparable with objects identified by Andrews and Rovner (Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973) from a mason's toolkit from Dzibichaltun (Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973; Rovener & Lewenstein Reference Rovner and Lewenstein1997; Parker et al. Reference Parker, Bey and Gallareta Negrón2019). Those bifaces were polished on one side, with the other side illustrating their bifacial production. The shaped limestone pieces also resemble those identified by Andrews and Rovner (Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973; Rovner & Lewenstein Reference Rovner and Lewenstein1997; Parker et al. Reference Parker, Bey and Gallareta Negrón2019).

The two greenstone pieces that are polished on one side, one of the polished stones with greenstone flecks and one of the two polished limestone pieces show evidence of sawing, which probably relates to greenstone working. Based on the straightness of the marks, it is probable that planks, possibly made of wood, or stone slabs were used to rub abrasives (e.g. sand) acting as a saw. As both greenstone and limestone pieces show saw marks, we propose that they were in the process of being made into preforms for the manufacture of greenstone ornaments or limestone tools (e.g. abraders). Traceological studies identified limestone as the preferred modifier of Classic-period Maya artisans for abrading greenstone ornaments in the central Maya lowlands (Melgar & Andrieu Reference Melgar, Andrieu, Arroyo, Méndez and Ajú2016; Meléndez Reference Meléndez2019). We propose hypothetical scenarios for the polished surfaces of the two greenstone pieces: either these pieces were fragments of finished goods that were in the process of modification for reuse or were used as greenstone polishers themselves. Their glossy sections are the result of friction exerted over their surface by another agent, such as abrasives.

In addition to the stone modifier assemblage, other finds likely indicative of stoneworking were recovered from structures K10-11 and K10-12B, with most concentrated in structure K10-11. These include pumice (n = 4), greenstone (n = 2) and mano (n = 3) fragments, a stone with nine hemispherical holes on one side (likely for modifying beads), a bark beater (in 2 pieces) and a potential abrading stone. The pumice, which was imported from the volcanic area to the south of Waka’, could have been used as an abrasive, while manos were used for a variety of stoneworking activities, including polishing (Clarke Reference Clarke2020; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press).

The stone with the hemispherical holes (Figure 7) is similar to those used in bead production (Chase & Chase Reference Chase and Chase2011: 116; Kovacevich Reference Kovacevich, Hruby, Braswell and Chinchilla Mazariegos2011; Landry Reference Landry2013; Kovacevich & Callaghan Reference Kovacevich and Callaghan2018). This stone modifier is broken; the fragment contains nine depressions ranging from 10–12mm in diameter, though more may originally have been present. It differs slightly in form from other known stone modifiers and the flat interior surface of the depressions suggests that it was used to work relatively small, flat objects. The presence of this stone modifier alongside the partially sawn greenstone pieces indicates that multicrafting activities (Shimada Reference Shimada and Shimada2007; Hirth Reference Hirth2009) were undertaken within these structures, as they relate to greenstone production.

Figure 7. Stone modifier from Structure K10-11. The hemispherical holes were possibly used for modifying beads (photograph by R. Horowitz).

In addition to the stoneworking assemblage, other lithic materials recovered during the excavations include a mix of formal and informal chert tools and debitage (Table 1). Bifaces were the most common flaked stone tool and include general utility bifaces (n = 10), projectile points (n = 5), unidentifiable fragments (n = 10) and a polished biface similar to that described above (Figure 8; Andrews & Rovner Reference Andrews, Rovner, Harrison and Wauchope1973). Both the general utility bifaces and the polished biface are typically associated with stoneworking activities (see Clarke Reference Clarke2020; Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Horowitz and Palingin press).

Figure 8. ‘Banana-shaped’, polished chert biface showing polished (left) and unpolished (right) sides (photographs by R. Horowitz).

While the remaining chert materials are not directly related to either stelae carving or greenstone working, chert tools were used in both tasks. Traceological studies indicate that chert was the preferred raw material for perforating greenstone ornaments (Melgar & Andrieu Reference Melgar, Andrieu, Arroyo, Méndez and Ajú2016; Meléndez Reference Meléndez2019; Melgar et al. Reference Melgar, Solís, Monterrosa, Puy and Meléndez2021) and, at Teotihuacan, Mexico, was used for polishing both monuments and greenstone ornaments (Cabrera et al. Reference Cabrera, Guzmán, Melgar and Sánchez2018; Melgar & Solís Reference Melgar, Solís and Manzanilla2018).