Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T21:06:37.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lithics in the Maya Region: Exploring Gendered Trends in Research in the Last Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Rachel A. Horowitz Open the ORCID record for Rachel A. Horowitz [Opens in a new window]  and
Marieka Brouwer Burg Open the ORCID record for Marieka Brouwer Burg [Opens in a new window]
Rachel A. Horowitz*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Marieka Brouwer Burg
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
*
Corresponding author: Marieka Brouwer Burg; Email: Marieka.brouwer-burg@uvm.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Even though lithics in the Maya region have traditionally been relegated to appendices and tool-type lists, much has been done to move beyond this descriptive approach in the last decade. In this article we highlight general themes of lithic studies in the Maya region since 2011, including economic production and exchange, the role of lithics in ritual practice, and the use of previously understudied raw materials and lithic forms, such as ground stone. Employing a temporal scope that encompasses the Maya and their preceramic predecessors, we explore gendered patterns of research within lithic studies from a feminist perspective and discuss the impacts that gender disparities have on academic thought.

Resumen

Resumen

La lítica en la región Maya han estado regalado a los apéndices y listos de utensilios. Sin embargo, en la última década, muchos estudios han trabajados a superar este enfoque. Unas sumaciones examen los avances en los estudios líticas en la región Maya desde 2011, incluyendo los temas de producción e intercambio económicas, actividades rituales y el papel de lítica en ritual, y el uso de formas y materiales menos estudiados (e.g., piedra molida). Usando un lapso temporal que incluye los Mayas y sus antecesores del periodo precerámica, examinamos los patrones de investigación de género dentro de los estudios líthicos y seguimos la investigación feminista sobre los impactos que tienen las disparidades de género en el pensamiento académico.

Keywords

lithicsMayaground stonegenderlíticaMayapiedra molidagénero
Type
Article
Information
Latin American Antiquity , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

Lithics in the Maya region have long been less important than other material classes in generating theoretical and methodological insights (Clark Reference Clark and Hirth2003:45). Except for obsidian and preceramic research, lithic analysis is not typically a motivator of hypothesis-driven archaeological fieldwork; instead, lithics represent collateral artifacts collected during the pursuit of broader questions. To understand the potentialities for growth in lithic studies, we highlight new work (since 2011) concerning Maya lithics (Figure 1), grouping these studies into themes ranging from production and exchange to the use of understudied raw materials and lithic forms, such as ground stone. We show that lithic studies remain dominated by male researchers (Table 1), even though diversity in research teams (and not just in terms of gender) leads to more innovative scientific work (Nielsen et al. Reference Nielsen, Alegria, Borjeson, Etzkowitz, Falk-Krzesinski, Joshi, Leahey, Smith-Doerr, Wolley and Schiebinger2017). To begin exploring the impacts of this gender imbalance, we look to feminist and intersectional scholarship.

Figure 1. Maya region with obsidian sources indicated (map by Marieka Brouwer Burg).

Table 1. Gender of First Authors for Each Theme.

a Larger number means greater gender disparity in first authorship representation.

There have been three Maya Lithic Conferences to date. A compilation of the papers of the Third Maya Lithic Conference (held in 2007) was published by Hruby and colleagues (Reference Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011; see also Carpio and Andrieu Reference Carpio, Andrieu, Arroyo, Paiz and Mejía2012). In that volume, Braswell (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) outlines a history of the subdiscipline from appendix and cartographic to behavioral and technological phases. We use these phases to illustrate the disparate progress of the field by topic, provide a gauge on scholarly development, and indicate areas requiring further research. We note that 17 contributors to the 2011 volume were male (85%) and three were female (15%). The percentage of chapters first-authored by women from the third conference is even lower than in the compilations from the first two conferences: the first Maya Lithic Conference report (Hester and Hammond Reference Hester and Hammond1976) included three (21.4%) contributions first-authored by women, whereas there were five (23.8%) in the second conference report (Hester and Shafer Reference Hester and Shafer1991). These three volumes illustrate the general lack of authorship by women on these topics through time.

Comparably, Gamble (Reference Gamble2020) notes that of the 17 submissions on lithics received by American Antiquity from April 2018 to 2020, 11.8% had women first authors. Looking at published pieces from Latin American Antiquity during a similar period (June 2018–2020), 37.5% had women first authors. Given that archaeology now grants as many PhDs to women as to men (Tushingham et al. Reference Tushingham, Fulkerson and Hill2017), the gender gaps in lithic studies are particularly stark. As we summarize key themes in the last decade of lithics research, we highlight where gender disparities are starkest. This study is a starting point for addressing these disparities, which is vital for equity and the future of intersectional research (see Crenshaw Reference Crenshaw1989).

We organize our overview into five themes: (1) Paleoindian/Archaic; (2) lithic extraction, production, exchange, and use; (3) ritual; (4) weaponry and warfare; and (5) ground stone and uncommon lithic materials. We conclude by discussing the state of gender disparities and identifying avenues of inquiry for future research. Like other studies of gender in publishing, we tabulated the gender of first authors based on first name and our personal knowledge of those individuals (Table 1; Supplemental Table 1). In situations where the lithic analyst was not the first author (e.g., Sharpe and Aoyama Reference Sharpe and Aoyama2022), we identified the gender of the lithicist. If multiple lithicists were coauthors, we used the gender of the more senior author. We only considered publications about lithics, rather than those cited as representative of theoretical trends (e.g., McAnany and Wells Reference McAnany and Christian Wells2008, for ritual economies). Although we recognize that this method imposes binary gender norms, we felt it was effective for illustrating gender disparities. We include only articles, book chapters, theses, and conference proceedings published between 2011 and March 2023; conference sessions and in-press work are not included.

Theme 1: Paleoindian and Archaic

The study of preceramic stone tools is placed within Braswell's (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011:2) cartographic phase, related to difficulties in finding ephemeral Paleoindian and Archaic (ca. 11,500–900 cal BCE) occupations, an overall meager assemblage size, and a lack of datable material (Lohse Reference Lohse2020:60). However, recent scholarship, almost all of which has been led by male researchers, has yielded new insights. For example, Lowe points found in association with human burials and organics dating to around 10,000–7000 cal BCE from southern Belize suggest that the use of these tools (previously assigned Late Archaic, about 3400–900 cal BCE) extended farther back in time into the Paleoindian or early Archaic (Prufer et al. Reference Prufer, Alsgaard, Robinson, Meredith, Culleton, Dennehy and Magee2019; cf. Lohse Reference Lohse2020). Other important work is documenting new point types (Ya'axche’ from southern Belize; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Awe, Prufer and Helmke2016) and tracing shared behavioral and technological characteristics with traditions elsewhere in the Americas (e.g., the Esperanza Phase from El Gigante Cave; Iceland and Hirth Reference Iceland, Hirth, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021; Scheffler et al. Reference Scheffler, Hirth and Hasemann2012; cf. Lohse Reference Lohse2020).

In Yucatan, human remains, ochre, and speleothem digging tools found in submerged caves suggest Paleoindian ochre mining (about 11,500–11,300 cal BCE; MacDonald et al. Reference MacDonald, Chatters, Reinhardt, Devos, Meacham, Rissolo and Rock2020). In northern Belize, stone tools from aceramic deposits along the New River and Freshwater Creek yielded data suggesting that horticultural experimentation was a component of subsistence (Rosenswig et al. Reference Rosenswig, Pearsall, Masson, Culleton and Kennett2014). Use-wear analyses of lithics from this area and from Crooked Tree Lagoon show that many tools were used in forest-clearance activities (Brouwer Burg Reference Brouwer Burg, Harrison-Buck and Burg2022; Stemp and Harrison-Buck Reference Stemp and Harrison-Buck2019; Stemp and Rosenswig Reference Stemp and Rosenswig2022; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Awe, Joyce Marcus and Sullivan2021).

Although the Guatemalan highlands and Pacific coast are lacking in Paleoindian/Archaic deposits (Lohse et al. Reference Lohse, Yelacic, Frederick, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021), plentiful remains have been documented in the Soconusco (Clark and Hodgson Reference Clark, Hodgson, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021; Lesure et al. Reference Lesure, Sinensky, Wake, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021; Voorhies and Kennett Reference Voorhies, Kennett, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021) and Chiapas, such as Santa Marta Rockshelter, Los Grifos, and La Encañada Cave (Acosta Ochoa et al. Reference Acosta Ochoa, Pérez Martínez, Ulloa Montemayor, Suárez and Ardelean2019). In Honduras, El Gigante cave has well-defined early Archaic deposits (Scheffler et al. Reference Scheffler, Hirth and Hasemann2012). Recent analysis of Esperanza Phase (around 9150–7550 cal BCE) projectile points and radiocarbon dates indicates that these points represent a transition between the Paleoindian and Archaic periods (Iceland and Hirth Reference Iceland, Hirth, Lohse, Borejsza and Joyce2021:259). Future research on the Preceramic period must look beyond subsistence and settlement questions to gain broader understandings of behavioral processes. Further, while prominent female scholars work on this period, few are lithicists (Table 1).

Theme 2: Extraction, Production, Exchange, and Use

Studies of production, extraction, and exchange fit within Braswell's (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) technology stage. The proportion of lithicists working on these themes is 62% male and 38% female (Table 1).

Extraction

Lithic raw material extraction is relatively understudied in the Maya region (see Horowitz et al. Reference Horowitz, Clarke and Seligson2021), although such studies (often focused on limestone or obsidian) are important for understanding resource management. For example, Clarke (Reference Clarke2020) argues that limestone extraction and production were overseen by nearby residents (see also Gillot Reference Gillot2018).

Extraction of chert resources reveals similar patterns, with some regional variation. In northern Belize, Barrett (Reference Barrett, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) identified elite management of chert resources. In western Belize, studies find decentralized access, with local producers managing chert extraction (Horowitz Reference Horowitz2018, Reference Horowitz2021, Reference Horowitz2022); in the Peten, the presence of chert in pockets within the limestone bedrock makes it unlikely that resource extraction was managed (Hansen Reference Hansen, Traxler and Sharer2016:355; Kwoka Reference Kwoka2014). Similar patterns are visible in obsidian extraction as the geographic extent of sources makes them difficult to manage (e.g., Alvarado Hernandez Reference Alvarado Hernández, Arroyo, Méndez Salinas and Ajú Álvarez2016).

Production

Workshops, including household workshops, were locations of specialized production and households the locations of generalized reduction. Studies within households often discuss differences between formal and informal tools (Ausel Reference Ausel2012; Marino et al. Reference Marino, Martindale Johnson, Meissner and Walker2016), reflecting variation in production activities, with informal tools produced by householders (Carreño Reference Carreño, René, Arroyo and Salinas2013; Horowitz et al. Reference Horowitz2022; Mendelsohn Reference Mendelsohn, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2019) and formal tools produced by specialists (Hearth Reference Hearth and Robin2012; Johnson Reference Johnson2014; McCormick Reference McCormick, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2019; Shafer Reference Shafer2023; VandenBosch et al. Reference VandenBosch, LeCount, Yaeger, LeCount and Yaeger2010). Workshops are identifiable by the scale and type of objects produced (e.g., bifaces, blades) indicating production for exchange not consumption (Johnson Reference Johnson2014, Reference Johnson2016; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Carpenter, Chase and Chase2015). Many lithic producers were multicrafters (Johnson Reference Johnson2014), highlighting the diversity of crafting practice. Masson and colleagues (Reference Masson, Hare, Lope, Excamillo Ojeda, Paris, Kohut, Russell and Alvarado2016) provide a framework to differentiate producer and consumer households, which will be of use in future studies, particularly because consumers acquired lithics in marketplaces (Cap Reference Cap2019, Reference Cap2021, Reference Cap, Feinman and Riebe2022; Roche Recinos Reference Roche Recinos2021) and from itinerant merchants (Andrieu Reference Andrieu2013).

Comparisons of lithic production and use across sites (Chiarulli Reference Chiarulli and Walker2016; Gunn et al. Reference Gunn, Folan and Carrasco2020; Horowitz et al. Reference Horowitz, Canuto, Andrieu, Masson, Freidel and Demarest2020; Hruby Reference Hruby, Garrison and Houston2018; Paling Reference Paling2016; Paris Reference Paris2012) provide insights into the types of activities performed. Intrasite variation illustrates differences in socioeconomic status, whereas intersite variation enables investigation of the relationships among sites (Meissner Reference Meissner2017, Reference Meissner2020). For instance, Meissner's (Reference Meissner2020) study of Postclassic projectile point variation elucidates relationships among political groups.

Most lowland obsidian production is later-stage, as obsidian is nonlocal (Aoyama Reference Aoyama2017a; Braswell Reference Braswell2013; Braswell and Glascock Reference Braswell, Glascock, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011; Elizalde-Rodarte et al. Reference Elizalde-Rodarte, Tenorio and Jiménez-Reyes2016; Glover et al. Reference Glover, Hruby, Rissolo, Ball, Glascock and Steven Shackley2018; Johnson Reference Johnson2016; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Johnson, Kobylt and Laux2020; Meierhoff et al. Reference Meierhoff, Golitko, Morris and Robin2012; Seidita et al. Reference Seidita, Chase and Chase2018). There are a few exceptions, such as at Cotzumaluapa where producers reduced macrocores and unifacial blanks to tools (McCormick Reference McCormick, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2019). Although Cotzumaluapa is close to the highlands, its lowland location is unusual as few large-scale lowland obsidian production areas exist.

Exchange

Research on exchange in the Maya region (see Masson et al. Reference Masson, Freidel and Demarest2020) illustrates that goods moved through multiple distribution networks. Because of the ease of geochemically sourcing obsidian, examinations of lithic exchange focus on long-distance obsidian trade (Aoyama Reference Aoyama2017a, Reference Aoyama2017b, Reference Aoyama, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2017c; Braswell Reference Braswell2013; Braswell and Daniels Reference Braswell, Daniels, Arroyo, Salinas and Rojas2014; Elizalde-Rodarte Reference Elizalde-Rodarte, Tenorio and Jiménez-Reyes2016; Glover et al. Reference Glover, Hruby, Rissolo, Ball, Glascock and Steven Shackley2018; Golitko and Feinman Reference Golitko and Feinman2015; Golitko et al. Reference Golitko, Meierhoff, Feinman and Williams2014; Hruby et al. Reference Hruby2020; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Johnson, Kobylt and Laux2020; Meierhoff et al. Reference Meierhoff, Golitko, Morris and Robin2012; Moholy-Nagy Reference Moholy-Nagy, Feinman and Riebe2022; Moholy-Nagy et al. Reference Moholy-Nagy, Meierhoff, Golitko and Kestle2013; Paris and Lopez Bravo Reference Paris and Lopez Bravo2021; Rivero-Torres et al. Reference Rivero-Torres, Jiménez-Reyes and Tenorio2017; Seidita et al. Reference Seidita, Chase and Chase2018; Shults and LeCount Reference Shults and LeCount2013; Silva de la Mora Reference Silva de la Mora2018; Stark et al. Reference Stark, Boxt, Gasco, González Lauck, Hedgepeth Balkin, Joyce and King2016; Woodfill and Andrieu Reference Woodfill and Andrieu2012). Chert is more difficult to source geochemically, and its varied appearance complicates visual sourcing. Although chert is assumed to be locally exchanged, we cannot say this with any certainty.

Trade routes were affected by political shifts during the Classic period (Woodfill and Andrieu Reference Woodfill and Andrieu2012) and in the contact and colonial periods (Oland Reference Oland2013). Non-elite resource management also occurred (Horowitz Reference Horowitz2023; Meierhoff et al. Reference Meierhoff, Golitko, Morris and Robin2012); thus, lithics were exchanged through varying economic networks.

Marketplace and distributional studies of lithics show that markets were locations of lithic exchange. Investigations of marketplaces in western Belize (Cap Reference Cap2019, Reference Cap2021) and the Piedras Negras region (Roche Recinos Reference Roche Recinos2021; Roche Recinos and Matsumoto Reference Roche Recinos, Matsumoto, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2018) and of households (Johnson Reference Johnson2016; Marino et al. Reference Marino, Fargher, Meissner, Martindale Johnson, Blanton and Heredia Espinoza2020) demonstrate that chert bifaces and obsidian prismatic blades were distributed in marketplaces.

Functional Analyses

Most functional analyses in the Maya region are use-wear studies conducted by just a few analysts (Aoyama Reference Aoyama2017a; Aoyama, Inomata, Triadan, et al. Reference Aoyama, Takeshi Inomata and Palomo2017; Aoyama et al. Reference Aoyama, Arroyo, Rodríguez, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2018; Stemp Reference Stemp2016a, Reference Stemp2016b; Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown, and Awe Reference Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown and Awe2018; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Braswell, Helmke and Awe2019). These discussions emphasize ritual activities like bloodletting (Stemp Reference Stemp2016a; Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown, and Awe Reference Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown and Awe2018; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Wrobel, Awe and Payeur2013, Reference Stemp, Wrobel, Haley and Awe2015, Reference Stemp, Braswell, Helmke and Awe2017, and Reference Stemp, Braswell, Helmke and Awe2019) and quotidian activities (Aoyama et al. Reference Aoyama, Arroyo, Rodríguez, Arroyo, Salinas and Álvarez2018; Stemp Reference Stemp2016b; Stemp, Stoll, et al. Reference Stemp, Stoll, Helmke and Awe2018; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Helmke and Awe2010), such as food processing (McKillop and Aoyama Reference McKillop and Aoyama2018) and crafting (Sharpe and Aoyama Reference Sharpe and Aoyama2022). Use-wear analysis is time consuming, and the dearth of such analysis in the Maya region can probably be explained by these time constraints. Other functional studies examine residues to identify weapons (Meissner and Rice Reference Meissner and Rice2015) and food processing (Rosenswig et al. Reference Rosenswig, Pearsall, Masson, Culleton and Kennett2014). Such analyses have potential for further application despite tropical climate limitations.

Summary

Increasingly, lithic studies are providing insight into important questions about Maya sociopolitical and economic interactions, including the role of markets in lithic exchange and their significance for political organization. Future research should build on current studies to expand our understanding of lithics in economic and sociopolitical networks. Authorship gender within the theme of extraction, production, exchange, and use is more equitable due in part to several junior scholars, which may be a leading indicator of future trends in the discipline (Table 1).

Theme 3: Ritual

Ritual economy (McAnany and Wells Reference McAnany and Christian Wells2008) and ritual production (Flad and Hruby Reference Flad and Hruby2007) perspectives have shaped research on lithics and ritual that uses ethnographic, epigraphic, and ethnohistorical data (Bassie-Sweet Reference Bassie-Sweet, Morton and Peuramaki-Brown2019; Doyle Reference Doyle, Mazariegos, Doyle and Pilsbury2022) to discuss the symbolic importance of stone. Such studies fall within Braswell's (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) technological stage. The gender imbalance here is stark: 74% male and 26% female (Table 1).

Intricately designed and difficult to produce, eccentrics are the most well-known lithics in the Maya region.Footnote 1 Studies focus on their ritual significance and production techniques (Agurcia et al. Reference Agurcia Fasquelle, Sheets and Taube2016; Clark and Woods Reference Clark, Woods and Shott2014; Kwoka et al. Reference Kwoka, Colleen Hanratty and Guderjan2019; Sullivan Reference Sullivan2017).

Scholars have examined lithics in ritual deposits including caches and burials (Andrieu Reference Andrieu, Masson, Freidel and Demarest2020; Aoyama, Inomata, Triadan, et al. Reference Aoyama, Inomata, Triadan, Pinzón, Palomo, MacLellan and Sharpe2017; Carpio and Chavarría Reference Carpio, Chavarría, Arroyo, Salinas and Rojas2014; Flores López Reference Flores López, Arroyo, Méndez Salinas and Ajú Álvarez2019; Horowitz et al. Reference Horowitz, Canuto, Andrieu, Masson, Freidel and Demarest2020; Hruby and Rich Reference Hruby, Rich, Navarro-Farr and Rich2014; Johnson and Johnson Reference Johnson and Johnson2021; Ruiz Aguilar Reference Ruiz Aguilar, Arroyo, Paiz, Linares and Arroyave2011; Zralka et al. Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Matute, Pilarski, Hermes and Velásquez2016, Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Hermes, Velásquez, Matute and Pilarski2017), exploring both their symbolic meaning (e.g., watery underworld symbolism; Johnson and Johnson Reference Johnson and Johnson2021) and their relationship to production activities. For example, the lack of biface production debris in the Maya region compared to finished product quantities may be the result of debitage deposition in tombs and caches (Andrieu Reference Andrieu, Masson, Freidel and Demarest2020). Other lithics were recycled into ritual objects, such as obsidian cores that were repurposed into eccentrics (Lytle et al. Reference Lytle, Kathryn Brown, Horowitz and Freidwald.2019).

Recent technological studies of items from ritual contexts (Stemp and Awe Reference Stemp, Awe, Levine and Carballo2014; Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown, and Awe Reference Stemp, Peuramaki-Brown and Awe2018; Stemp et al. Reference Stemp, Wrobel, Haley and Awe2015, Reference Stemp, Braswell, Helmke and Awe2017) suggest that they were quotidian tools deposited in ritual settings. Given the use of debitage in caches and burials, classifying lithics as “ritual” versus “quotidian” requires further consideration. We suggest that the preponderance of male researchers publishing on ritual activities relates to the prevalence of lithic artifacts, such as eccentrics and obsidian blades, as well as to the implicit assumption that men were the primary lithic producers in the past.

Theme 4: Warfare and Weaponry

Warfare can be seen archaeologically through the convergence of multiple lines of direct (e.g., weapons and other specialized equipment, skeletal trauma) and indirect evidence (e.g., defensive architecture, refuge use; Kim et al. Reference Kim, Hernandez, Bracken and Seligson2023:5; Scherer et al. Reference Scherer, Golden, Houston, Matsumoto, Alcover Firpi, Schroder and Recinos2022). We highlight the gendered perceptions that underscore approaches to weaponry and note that 71% of the articles addressing this theme had male first authors (Table 1). The tendency to equate bifacial points with warfare and hunting, traditionally viewed as male-dominated activities, negates the possibility that such tools were used for gathering, processing, and other activities associated with female spheres of activity, to say nothing of the gender of the toolmakers.

Weapons research has focused on identifying makers, users, and technological changes over time (Kim et al. Reference Kim, Hernandez, Bracken and Seligson2023). Concentrations of weapons in elite residences suggest that elites were important producers and users of these tools (Aoyama and Graham Reference Aoyama and Graham2015). Others argue that commoners were involved in combat, despite the paucity of archaeological or iconographic evidence (Scherer et al. Reference Scherer, Golden, Houston, Matsumoto, Alcover Firpi, Schroder and Recinos2022; Stanton Reference Stanton, Morton and Peuramaki-Brown2019:216). Technologically, data suggest that spears and lance points predominated until the bow and arrow arrived in the Late/Terminal Classic period (Aoyama and Graham Reference Aoyama and Graham2015), when increased weapons production is equated with increased warfare (Alcover Firpi and Golden Reference Alcover Firpi, Golden, Hutson and Ardren2020; Aoyama and Graham Reference Aoyama and Graham2015; Scherer et al. Reference Scherer, Golden, Houston, Matsumoto, Alcover Firpi, Schroder and Recinos2022). Roche Recinos and colleagues (Reference Roche Recinos, Firpi and Rodas.2022) question the idea that only flaked stone artifacts were weapons, presenting evidence of more than 300 spherical slingstones cached near defensive structures. These ground stone artifacts suggest socioeconomic variation in the makers and users of weapons including untrained individuals, because these artifacts required little technical skill to produce or use (Alcover Firpi Reference Alcover Firpi2020; Roche Recinos et al. Reference Roche Recinos, Firpi and Rodas.2022:310).

Other researchers have examined the functional divide between tools and weapons. Rice (Reference Rice2022) provides an analysis of Postclassic obsidian blade segments, suggesting that their standard sizes indicate they were hafted in macanas, which resemble the Aztec macuahuitl. Hruby's (Reference Hruby2020) analysis of atlatl iconography shows that these tools were used most often in hunting and fishing, except in situations associated with Teotihuacan where they were used in warfare. Meissner and Rice (Reference Meissner and Rice2015) discuss the function of the bow and arrow, which was used widely for hunting and warfare in the Postclassic and contact periods, whereas Aoyama (Reference Aoyama, Okoshi, Chase, Nondédéo and Charlotte Arnauld2021) uses microwear and impact damage to distinguish bifaces used as projectiles from those with other functions. These studies diversify the types of objects classified as weapons and ask critical questions about the applicability of the term “weapon.” Most studies of weaponry within the Maya region fit into Braswell's (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) behavioral stage, although recent analyses (Hruby Reference Hruby2020; Rice Reference Rice2022; Roche Recinos et al. Reference Roche Recinos, Firpi and Rodas.2022) push into the technological stage. Future work can investigate the involvement of individuals of different sociopolitical status in warfare through discussions of the range of materials used as weaponry and their use contexts.

Theme 5: Ground Stone and Uncommon Lithic Materials

In addition to chert and obsidian, the ancestral Maya used various other stones. The range of variation in problematization and interpretation span every one of Braswell's (Reference Braswell, Hruby, Braswell and Mazariegos2011) categories, making it difficult to describe. There is near-parity in the gender of researchers: 53% male and 47% female first authors (Table 1).

Although research is scarce, chalcedony was sometimes knapped by the ancient Maya (Marino et al. Reference Marino, Martindale Johnson, Meissner and Walker2016). General utility bifaces are examples of tools made of silicified limestone in the Mopan Valley even when chert outcrops were present (Horowitz et al. Reference Horowitz, McCall, Horowitz and McCall2019). In northern Belize, siliceous materials were used for tool production across social sectors (Marino et al. Reference Marino, Fargher, Meissner, Martindale Johnson, Blanton and Heredia Espinoza2020; Meissner Reference Meissner2014). Additionally, slate was sometimes fashioned into backings for mirrors comprising polished hematite or pyrite (Healy and Blainey Reference Healy and Blainey2011).

Ubiquitous during the Maya period, ground stone implements (including the mano and metate set) have received less theoretical and analytical attention than flaked stone lithics, perhaps because of the relegation of these artifacts to domestic, female-oriented activities. Recent studies have probed more deeply into their production and use (Brouwer Burg et al. Reference Brouwer Burg, Tibbits and Harrison-Buck2021; Duffy Reference Duffy and Walker2016; Searcy Reference Searcy2011). LeCount and colleagues (Reference LeCount, Blitz and Tidwell2022) examined the intensity of ground stone tool use across elite and commoner households and found that the latter peaked during the Late Classic, related to increased tax demands.

Scholars have developed methods for geochemically sourcing coarse grained, heterogenous rocks like granite using X-ray fluorescence (Brouwer Burg et al. Reference Brouwer Burg, Tibbits and Harrison-Buck2021; Tibbits et al. Reference Tibbits, Peuramaki-Brown, Burg, Tibbits and Harrison-Buck2022); this research reveals that ground stone tools were transported over long distances and has prompted new questions about exchange mechanisms. Geochemically based analysis of jadeite has also been fruitful (e.g., LA-ICP-MS, stable isotope analysis, elemental geochemistry; Kovacevich et al. Reference Kovacevich, Neff, Bishop, Speakman and Neff2005), providing further data on trade and exchange.

Other research initiatives have investigated the economic and social dimensions of artifacts made by or for grinding, including jade (Andrieu et al. Reference Andrieu, Rodas and Lujan2014; Aoyama, Inomata, Pinzón, and Palomo Reference Aoyama, Takeshi Inomata and Palomo2017; Kovacevich and Callaghan Reference Kovacevich and Callaghan2018; Rochette Reference Rochette2014), implements classified more generally as “grinding tools,” and artifacts referred to as “donut stones” (Eberl and Doonan Reference Eberl and Doonan2022; Tomasic Reference Tomasic2012). Scholars focusing on jade items have theorized about “gradations of value” (Andrieu et al. Reference Andrieu, Rodas and Lujan2014) and jade's social and symbolic role(s) (Kovacevich Reference Kovacevich, Hirth and Pillsbury2013, Reference Kovacevich2014).

More research should focus on nonflaked objects and uncommon raw materials. Although this theme is marked by near-parity in researcher gender, we believe it is the product of misconceptions about the relationship between gender and the division of labor in the past.

Discussion

Gender in the Present versus Past

Lithic studies have long been dominated by male researchers, a trend that continues today (Gamble Reference Gamble2020). This pattern is an extension of trends in the field of archaeology, in which scholars pursue research along gendered divisions reminiscent of domestic–public realms (Fulkerson and Tushingham Reference Fulkerson and Tushingham2019; Hanscam and Witcher Reference Hanscam and Witcher2022; Heath-Stout Reference Heath-Stout2020; Tushingham et al. Reference Tushingham, Fulkerson and Hill2017). We recognize that other factors influence scholarly research, including intersectional identities, institutional inequalities, and other structural barriers, but a full analysis of such factors is beyond the scope of this article (see Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021; Hutson et al. Reference Hutson, James Johnson, Dorian Record, Snow and Stocking2023).

We argue that, even when gendered themes are not the focus of study, implicit assumptions and presentist biases affect the types of materials we study, the questions we ask, and the theoretical frameworks we use (Hunt Reference Hunt2002). Or, following Finlay (Reference Finlay and Bolger2013:157), “The arguments posited against the view of women as stoneworkers reveal . . . more about contemporary Western gender ideologies and contemporary archaeological practice than . . . prehistoric realities.” The problem with assuming gender neutrality—even in research focused on supposedly agendered topics like economics and politics—is that such an approach ignores aspects of the lived experience of individuals of all genders and results in the application of Eurocentric gender norms to the archaeological record (e.g., Battle-Baptiste Reference Battle-Baptiste2011; Finlay Reference Finlay and Bolger2013; Gero Reference Gero, Gero and Conkey1991). For example, Gero (Reference Gero, Gero and Conkey1991) relates shifts in Formative period Peruvian women's use of lithics to the changing cultural significance of nonlocal materials. Using culturally relative ideas of gender, Gero (Reference Gero, Gero and Conkey1991) provides information about past lifeways and demonstrates how the lack of gender representation affects scholarship. In the Maya area, few lithic or crafting studies focus on gender (cf. Aoyama Reference Aoyama2009; Ardren et al. Reference Ardren, Olvera, Kam Manahan, Kelly and Ardren2016; Inomata and Triadan Reference Inomata and Triadan2000). However, Kovacevich (Reference Kovacevich, Kelly and Ardren2016) proposes that labor-intensive crafting involved individuals of various ages and genders. Importantly, Maya conceptions of gender include a variety of gender identities (Brumfiel Reference Brumfiel and Bolger2016).

Gender inequities have a generational impact. Women are less likely to obtain positions at PhD-granting universities, reducing the diversity of individuals trained in lithic analysis. As this pipeline issue has been discussed elsewhere (Speakman et al. Reference Speakman, Hadden, Colvin, Cramb, Jones, Jones and Kling2018), we only mention its systemic nature.

Looking at gender breakdowns by the themes outlined earlier is revealing: the sections on Paleoindian/Archaic periods, ritual, and warfare/weaponry have the lowest number of female researchers, whereas the ground stone and uncommon lithic materials section has the highest (Table 1; Supplemental Table 1). We tie these trends to underlying assumptions about gendered tasks: flaked-stone production has long been assumed to be “men's work” (Finlay Reference Finlay and Bolger2013; Gero Reference Gero, Gero and Conkey1991), whereas ground stone objects are myopically tied to food preparation and “women's work.” This is reiterated in the gender imbalances of researchers publishing on warfare, another activity assumed to be male-oriented, and on the Paleoindian/Archaic periods, which stem from the “man the hunter” model. Similarly, ritual activities are also often assumed to be performed and produced by men. These data illustrate that essentialized views of past gender roles influence the gender of those who study them today (Finlay Reference Finlay and Bolger2013; Weedman Arthur Reference Weedman Arthur2010).

Beyond the gendered study of different materials, we see some elements of hope. The citation patterns we identify are not dissimilar from other disciplinary gendered citation patterns (Hanscam and Witcher Reference Hanscam and Witcher2022; Health-Stout Reference Heath-Stout2020; Tushingham and Fulkerson Reference Tushingham, Fulkerson, Eskenazi and Herzog2020). Furthermore, we underscore the shifting complexity of researcher gender in the section on production and exchange.

Maya Lithic Research in Context

Several areas of comparison exist for lithic studies beyond the Maya world. Most of the literature discussed focuses on sedentary societies, so there are comparable explorations on the impact of sedentism on lithics, formal and informal tools, and the tool types produced (see Horowitz and McCall Reference Horowitz, McCall, Horowitz and McCall2019). For example, blade production is comparable with Canaanean blade technology in the circum-Mediterranean world (e.g., Rosen et al. Reference Rosen, Shugar, Vardi and Shott2014).

In regional comparisons, although there is extensive work on hunter-gatherer-fisher lithics from South America, there are fewer studies of lithics in sedentary societies. Pratt and Guengerich (Reference Pratt and Guengerich2023) illustrate that in the last decade of Latin American Antiquity articles on Peru, only six included quantitative lithic analyses. Therefore, few comparisons can be made, although the number of use-wear studies has increased (Pratt and Guengerich Reference Pratt and Guengerich2023).

In Mesoamerica, the most apt comparisons to the Maya region are from Central Mexico (Hirth Reference Hirth2002; Hirth and Andrews Reference Hirth and Andrews2023). Because of the availability of obsidian, research is focused on core-blade technology and the ritual significance of lithics (Levine and Carballo Reference Levine and Carballo2014). The proximity of sources affects resource management, a topic of interest in both regions (Carballo Reference Carballo, Hirth and Pillsbury2013).

Conclusion

Several themes emerge from this overview. Foremost is the continued gender imbalance, which is structured so that fewer women are encouraged to study lithics. We need more female and nonbinary lithicists at degree-granting universities who can serve as role models. Achieving this aim is easier said than done, because systemic issues that disenfranchise non-male students (to say nothing about historically underrepresented populations) persist in academia. We can start by making small changes in the way we talk about lithics to students and reflect on how our positionality affects our research. Although the focus of this article is on gender, we recognize intersectional factors that influence the decisions of underrepresented minorities entering archaeology (Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021; Hutson et al. Reference Hutson, James Johnson, Dorian Record, Snow and Stocking2023).

Throughout this article, we indicate how future lithic analyses could fill in gaps of scholarship and push the boundaries of understanding. To conclude, we call for self-reflection regarding how gender imbalances affect our research and how we may work together moving forward.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank W. James Stemp and the six anonymous reviewers for their comments on initial versions of the manuscript.

Funding Statement

Funding for open access was provided by the University of Vermont's College of Arts and Sciences.

Data Availability Statement

No original data were used.

Competing Interests

The authors declare none.

Supplemental Material

For supplemental material accompanying this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2023.64.

Supplemental Table 1: Gender of first author and/or lithicist by theme.

Footnotes

1. “Eccentric” describes shaped lithic objects deposited in ritual contexts. We acknowledge issues with the term but follow Agurcia and colleagues (Reference Agurcia Fasquelle, Sheets and Taube2016:71) in its use.

References

References Cited

Acosta Ochoa, Guillermo, Pérez Martínez, Patricia, and Ulloa Montemayor, Ximena. 2019. The Clovis-Like and Fishtail Occupations of Southern Mexico and Central America: A Reappraisal. In People and Culture in Ice Age Americas: New Dimensions in Paleoamerican Archaeology, edited by Suárez, Rafael and Ardelean, Ciprian F., pp. 93–107. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Agurcia Fasquelle, Ricardo, Sheets, Payson, and Taube, Karl A.. 2016. Protecting Sacred Space: Rosalila's Eccentric Chert Cache at Copan and Eccentrics among the Classic Maya. Precolumbian Mesoweb Press, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Alcover Firpi, Omar. 2020. Conflict, Defense, and Cooperation at Macabilero, Peten, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
Alcover Firpi, Omar, and Golden, Charles. 2020. The Politics of Conflict: War before and beyond the State in Maya Society. In The Maya World, edited by Hutson, Scott R. and Ardren, Traci, pp. 477–495. Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarado Hernández, Julio César. 2016. Chalchuapa y el control del yacimiento de obsidiana de Ixtepeque durante el Preclásico Tardío. In XXIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Méndez Salinas, Luis, and Ajú Álvarez, Gloria, pp. 545–550. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Andrieu, Chloé. 2013. Late Classic Maya Lithic Production and Exchange at Rio Bec and Calakmul, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 38:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrieu, Chloé. 2020. A Stone Duty? Flake Ritual Deposits and the Missing Workshops of the Maya Lowlands. In The Real Business of Ancient Maya Economies: From Farmers’ Fields to Rulers’ Realms, edited by Masson, Marilyn A., Freidel, David A., and Demarest, Arthur A., pp. 418–433. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrieu, Chloé, Rodas, Edna, and Lujan, Luis. 2014. The Values of Classic Maya Jade: A Reanalysis of Cancuen's Jade Workshop. Ancient Mesoamerica 25:141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo. 2009. Elite Craft Producers, Artists, and Warriors at Aguateca: Lithic Analysis. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo. 2017a. Preclassic and Classic Maya Interregional and Long-Distance Exchange: A Diachronic Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Ceibal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 28(2):213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo. 2017b. Ancient Maya Economy: Lithic Production and Exchange around Ceibal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 28:279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo. 2017c. El intercambio de obsidiana durante los periodos Preclásico y Clásico en Ceibal, Guatemala. In XXX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 949–958. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo. 2021. Warriors and the Transformation of Classic Maya Kingship: A Diachronic Analysis of Lithic Weapons in Copán, Honduras, and in Aguateca and Ceibal, Guatemala. In Maya Kingship: Rupture and Transformation from Classic to Postclassic Times, edited by Okoshi, Tsubasa, Chase, Arlen F., Nondédéo, Philippe, and Charlotte Arnauld, M., pp. 64–85. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo, Arroyo, Bárbara, and Rodríguez, Henry. 2018. El analysis de microhuellas de uso sobre artefactos liticos de obsidiana de Kaminaljuyu de los Periodos Preclasico tardio y Clasico Temprano. In XXXI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 1107–1118. Instiuto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo, and Graham, Elizabeth. 2015. Ancient Maya Warfare: Exploring the Significance of Lithic Variation in Maya Weaponry. Lithics 36:5–17.Google Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo, Inomata, Takeshi, Triadan, Daniela, Pinzón, Flory, Palomo, Juan Manuel, MacLellan, Jessica, and Sharpe, Ashley. 2017. Early Maya Ritual Practices and Craft Production: Late Middle Preclassic Ritual Deposits Containing Obsidian Artifacts at Ceibal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 42:408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoyama, Kazuo, Takeshi Inomata, Flory Pinzón, and Palomo, Juan Manuel. 2017. Polished Greenstone Celt Caches from Ceibal: The Development of Maya Public Rituals. Antiquity 91:701–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardren, Traci, Olvera, Alejandra Alonso, and Kam Manahan, T.. 2016. The Artisans of Terminal Classic Xuenkal, Yuacatan, Mexico: Gender and Craft during a Time of Economic Change. In Gendered Labor in Specialized Economies: Archaeological Perspectives on Female and Male Work, edited by Kelly, Sophia E. and Ardren, Traci, pp. 91–116. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausel, Erica L. 2012. Lithic Analysis of Chau Hiix, Belize: Raw Material Consumption and Artifact Types. Lithic Technology 37:141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jason W. 2011. Ancient Maya Exploitation of Non-Renewable Resources in the Eastern Maya Lowlands. In The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and beyond in Lithic Studies, edited by Hruby, Zachary X., Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Mazariegos, Oswaldo Chinchilla, pp. 57–68. Equinox, Sheffield, England.Google Scholar
Bassie-Sweet, Karen. 2019. Classic Maya Gods of Flint and Obsidian. In Seeking Conflict in Mesoamerica: Operational, Cognitive, and Experimental Approaches, edited by Morton, Shawn G. and Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan M., pp. 47–76. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2011. Black Feminist Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, New York.Google Scholar
Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2011. The Technology of Ancient Maya Civilization. In The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and beyond in Lithic Studies, edited by Hruby, Zachary X., Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Mazariegos, Oswaldo Chinchilla, pp. 1–14. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2013. Ancient Obsidian Procurement and Production in the Peten Campechano: Uxul and Calakmul during the Early Classic to Terminal Classic Periods. Indiana 30:149–171.Google Scholar
Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Daniels, James T. Jr. 2014. Abastecimiento, producción y distribución de obsidiana en el sureste de las Tierras Bajas Mayas. In XXVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Rojas, A., pp. 325–334. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Braswell, Geoffrey, and Glascock, Michael. 2011. Procurement and Production of Obsidian Artifacts at Calakmul. In The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and beyond in Lithic Studies, edited by Hruby, Zachary X., Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Mazariegos, Oswaldo Chinchilla, pp. 119–129. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Brouwer Burg, Marieka. 2022. Hunter Gatherers in the Wetlands: Further Investigations at the Preceramic Occupation of Crawford Bank, Crooked Tree Island. In Investigations of the Belize River East Archaeology Project: A Report of the 2019–2020 Field Seasons, edited by Harrison-Buck, Eleanor and Burg, Marieka Brouwer, pp. 49–73. Occasional Paper 10. University of New Hampshire, Durham.Google Scholar
Brouwer Burg, Marieka, Tibbits, Tawny L. B., and Harrison-Buck, Eleanor. 2021. Advances in Geochemical Sourcing of Granite Ground Stone: Ancient Maya Artifacts from the Middle Belize Valley. Advances in Archaeological Practice 9(4):338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 2016. The Archaeology of Gender in Mesoamerica: Moving beyond Gender Complementarity. In A Companion to Gender Prehistory, edited by Bolger, Diane, pp. 564–584. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Cap, Bernadette. 2019. A Classic Maya Marketplace at Xunantunich, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 16:111–122.Google Scholar
Cap, Bernadette. 2021. Classic Maya Marketplace Politics in the Mopan River Valley, Belize. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 32:168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cap, Bernadette. 2022. Classic Maya Obsidian Blades: Sourced from Afar and Produced in the Local Marketplace. In Obsidian across the Americas: Compositional Studies Conducted in the Elemental Analysis Facility at the Field Museum of Natural History, edited by Feinman, Gary M. and Riebe, Danielle J., pp. 87–97. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Carballo, David M. 2013. The Social Organization of Craft Production and Interregional Exchange at Teotihuacan. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Hirth, Kenneth G. and Pillsbury, Joanne, pp. 113–140. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Carpio, Edgar, and Andrieu, Chloé. 2012. Un cuarto de siglo de investigación lítica en las Tierras Bajas Mayas. En XXV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2011, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Paiz, Luis, and Mejía, Hector, pp. 439–448. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia y Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Carpio, Edgar, and Chavarría, Mónica. 2014. Un depósito inusual de artefactos de obsidiana, en la plaza al sureste de la plataforma del Montículo CIV-4 de Kaminaljuyu. In XXVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2013, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Rojas, A., pp. 313–323. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Carreño, S., René, Hugo. 2013. Ideas, tecnología y simbolismo: Lado social en la producción artesanal de la lítica en los sitios arqueológicos Yaxha-Nakum-Naranjo. In XXVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2012, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara and Salinas, Luis Méndez, pp. 655–671. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Chiarulli, Beverly A. 2016. Stone Tools and Trade on the Southern End of Chetumal Bay. In Perspectives on the Ancient Maya of Chetumal Bay, edited by Walker, Debra S., pp. 233–250. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John E. 2003. A Review of Twentieth-Century Mesoamerican Obsidian Studies. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by Hirth, Kenneth G., pp. 15–54. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Clark, John E., and Hodgson, John G.. 2021. Wetland Villages in Soconusco, 6000–2000 BCE: A New Interpretation of Archaic Shell Mounds. In Preceramic Mesoamerica, edited by Lohse, Jon C., Borejsza, Aleksander, and Joyce, Arthur A., pp. 420–447. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John E., and Woods, James C.. 2014. Squeezing Life from Stones: The Human Side of Replication Experiments. In Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis, edited by Shott, Michael J., pp. 197–212. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Clarke, Mary E. 2020. Producing Stone and State: The Intersection of Domestic and Institutional Economies in Classic Maya Society. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1):139–167.Google Scholar
Doyle, James A. 2022. Rain, Lightning. In Lives of the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art, edited by Mazariegos, Oswaldo Chinchilla, Doyle, James A., and Pilsbury, Joanne, pp. 109–136. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Duffy, Lisa G. 2016. Economic Implications of Mano and Metate Use at Cerro Maya, Belize. In Perspectives on the Ancient Maya of Chetumal Bay, edited by Walker, Debra S., pp. 264–278. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberl, Markus, and Doonan, William F.. 2022. Realizing Potentiality: Donut Stones in Ancient Maya Society. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 65:101394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizalde-Rodarte, Sandra V., Tenorio, Dolores, and Jiménez-Reyes, Melania. 2016. Three Mayan Archaeological Sites of the Eastern Coast of the Yucatan Peninsula: Source Identification of Obsidian Artifacts by NAA. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 8:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, Nyree. 2013. Gender and Lithic Studies in Prehistoric Archaeology. In A Companion to Gender Prehistory, edited by Bolger, Diane, pp. 142–160. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Flad, Rowan K., and Hruby, Zachary X.. 2007. “Specialized” Production in Archaeological Contexts: Rethinking Specialization, the Social Value of Products, and the Practice of Production. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 17:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flewellen, Ayana Omilade, Dunnavant, Justin P., Odewale, Alicia, Jones, Alexandra, Wolde-Michael, Tsione, Crossland, Zoe, and Franklin, Maria. 2021. The Future of Archaeology Is Antiracist: Archaeology in the Time of Black Lives Matter. American Antiquity 86(2):224–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores López, Victor Hugo. 2019. La Ofrenda en piedra: Artefactos de litica en contexto ritual de Tak'alik ab'aj. In XXXII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueoloicas en Guatemala 2018, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Méndez Salinas, Luis, and Ajú Álvarez, Gloria, pp. 163–174. Instituto de Antropoogia e Historia, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, Tiffany J., and Tushingham, Shannon. 2019. Who Dominates the Discourses of the Past? Gender, Occupational Affiliation, and Multivocality in North American Archaeology Publishing. American Antiquity 84:379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Lynn H. 2020. Editor's Corner. American Antiquity 85:199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, Joan M. 1991. Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, edited by Gero, Joan M. and Conkey, Margaret W., pp. 163–193. Blackwell, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gillot, Celine. 2018. L'Art de Bâtir à Río Bec, Campeche, Mexique. PhD dissertation, Département d'Anthropologie, University of Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Glover, Jeffrey B., Hruby, Zachary X., Rissolo, Dominique, Ball, Joseph W., Glascock, Michael D., and Steven Shackley, M.. 2018. Interregional Interaction in Terminal Classic Yucatan: Recent Obsidian and Ceramic Data from Vista Alegre, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 29:495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golitko, Mark, and Feinman, Gary M.. 2015. Procurement and Distribution of Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Obsidian 900 BC–AD 1520: A Social Network Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:206–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golitko, Mark, Meierhoff, James, Feinman, Gary M., and Williams, Patrick Ryan. 2014. Complexities of Collapse: The Evidence of Maya Obsidian as Revealed by Social Network Graphical Analysis. Antiquity 86:507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, Joel D., Folan, William J., and Carrasco, Maria del Rosario Dominguez. 2020. The Stones of Calakmul/Las Piedras de Calakmul. Universidad Autonoma de Campeche Centro de Investigaciones Históricas y Sociales, Campeche, Mexico.Google Scholar
Hanscam, Emily, and Witcher, Robert. 2022. Women in Antiquity: An Analysis of Gender and Publishing in a Global Archaeology Journal. Journal of Field Archaeology 48:87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Richard D. 2016. Cultural and Environmental Components of the First Maya States: A Perspective from the Central and Southern Maya Lowlands. In The Origins of Maya States, edited by Traxler, Loa P. and Sharer, Robert J., pp. 329–416. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Paul F., and Blainey, Marc G.. 2011. Ancient Maya Mosaic Mirrors: Function, Symbolism, and Meaning. Ancient Mesoamerica 22:229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearth, Nicholas F. 2012. Organization of Chert Tool Economy during Late and Terminal Classic Periods at Chan: Preliminary Thoughts Based upon Debitage Analyses. In Chan: An Ancient Maya Farming Community, edited by Robin, Cynthia, pp. 192–206. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Heath-Stout, Laura E. 2020. Who Writes about Archaeology? An Intersectional Study of Authorship in Archaeological Journals. American Antiquity 85:407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hester, Thomas R., and Hammond, Norman. 1976. Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium. Center for Archaeological Research, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
Hester, Thomas R., and Shafer, Harry J.. 1991. Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference. Monographs in World Archaeology 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Hirth, Kenneth P. 2002. Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hirth, Kenneth P., and Andrews, Bradford. 2023. Pathways to Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican Core-Blade Technology. Cotsen Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A. 2018. Uneven Lithic Landscapes: Raw Material Procurement and Economic Organization among the Late/Terminal Classic Maya in Western Belize. Journal of Archaeological Sciences: Reports 19:949–947.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A. 2021. Reducing Risk: Maya Lithic Production and Economic Diversification at Callar Creek Quarry Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 33:330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A. 2022. Valuing the Ubiquitous: Resource Availability and Landscape Value among the Classic Period Maya of Western Belize. Economic Anthropology 9:322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A. 2023. Reevaluating Obsidian Exchange and Production in the Postclassic Kiche Maya World. Latin American Antiquity 34:723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., Canuto, Marcello A., and Andrieu, Chloé. 2020. Chert Resource Availability, Production, and Economic Logic: Case Studies from the Northwestern Peten, Guatemala, and Western Belize. In The Real Business of Ancient Maya Economies: From Farmers’ Fields to Rulers' Realms, edited by Masson, Marilyn A., Freidel, David A., and Demarest, Arthur A., pp. 117–131. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A. Cap, Bernadette, Yaeger, Jason, Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan, and Eli, Mark C.. 2019. Material Preferences for Stone Tools: The Use of Limestone Bifaces in the Mopan Valley, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 30:198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., Clarke, Mary E., and Seligson, Kenneth E.. 2021. Querying Quarries: Stone Extraction Practices and Socioeconomic Organization in Three Sub-Regions of the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 46:551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., and McCall, Grant S.. 2019. Lithics in Sedentary Societies: Themes, Methods, and Directions. In Global Perspectives on Lithic Technologies in Complex Societies, edited by Horowitz, Rachel A. and McCall, Grant S., pp. 3–35. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., Menéndez, Damaris, and Marken, Damien B.. 2022. Producción artesanal variada en la zona rural de El Perú-Waka’. In XXXIV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2021, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 585–598. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Hruby, Zachary X. 2018. Lithic Technologies and Economies at El Zotz. In An Inconsistent Landscape: The Maya Kingdom of El Zotz, Guatemala, edited by Garrison, Thomas G. and Houston, Stephen, pp. 228–254. University Press of Colorado, Louisville.Google Scholar
Hruby, Zachary X. 2020. Evidence for a Classic Maya Spearthrower. Mexicon 42:59–66.Google Scholar
Hruby, Zachary X., Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Mazariegos, Oswaldo Chinchilla (editors). 2011. The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and beyond in Lithic Studies. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Hruby, Zachary, Halperin, Christina, Bourgeois, Ginette, Gariepy, Murielle, and Powell, Lindsay. 2020. Obsidiana en la transicion entre el clasico tardio y el clasico terminal: Nuevos datos de Ucanal, Peten, Guatemala. In XXXIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala 2019, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 975–982. Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Hruby, Zachary, and Rich, Michelle. 2014. Flint for the Dead: Ritual Deposits of Production Debitage from El Peru-Waka'. In Archaeology at El Peru-Waka': Ancient Maya Performance of Ritual, Memory, and Power, edited by Navarro-Farr, Olivia C. and Rich, Michelle, pp. 167–183. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hunt, Lynn. 2002. Against Presentism. Perspectives on History (blog), May 1. https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/may-2002/against-presentism, accessed February 16, 2024.Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott R., James Johnson, Sophia Price, Dorian Record, Marcus Rodriguez, Snow, Taylor, and Stocking, Tera. 2023. Gender, Institutional Inequality, and Institutional Diversity in Archaeology Articles in Major Journals and Sapiens. American Antiquity 88(3):326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iceland, Harry B., and Hirth, Kenneth G.. 2021. The Paleoindian to Archaic Transition in Central America: Esperanza Phase Projectile Points Recovered at the El Gigante Rockshelter Site, Honduras. In Preceramic Mesoamerica, edited by Lohse, Jon C., Borejsza, Aleksander, and Joyce, Arthur A., pp. 259–277. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inomata, Takeshi and Triadan, Daniela. 2000. Craft Production by Classic Maya Elites in Domestic Settings: Data from Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Mayab 13:57–66.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lucas R. M. 2014. Standardized Lithic Technology and Crafting at the “Gateway Group” from Caracol, Belize: Implications for Maya Household Archaeology. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 11:81–94.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lucas R. M. 2016. Toward an Itinerary of Stone: Investigating the Movement, Crafting, and Use of Obsidian from Caracol, Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lucas R. M. Carpenter, Maureen, Chase, Arlen F., and Chase, Diane Z.. 2015. Articulating with the Broader Economy: Chert Pressure Blade Technology in a Caracol Residential Group. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 12:65–76.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lisa M., and Johnson, Lucas R. M.. 2021. Sealing with Stone: Assessing an Assemblage of Lithic Debitage from a Funerary Context at the Lowland Maya City of Caracol, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 32:39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Lucas R. M., Johnson, Lisa M., Kobylt, Jordan, and Laux, Cheyenne. 2020. Handheld ED-XRF Analysis of Obsidian from the Classic Maya City of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. IAOS Bulletin 64:11–20.Google Scholar
Kim, Nam C., Hernandez, Christopher, Bracken, Justin, and Seligson, Kenneth. 2023. Cultural Dimensions of Warfare in the Maya World. Ancient Mesoamerica 34(1):266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacevich, Brigitte. 2013. Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands: A Jade Case Study. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Hirth, Kenneth G. and Pillsbury, Joanne, pp 255–282. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kovacevich, Brigitte. 2014. The Inalienability of Jades in Mesoamerica. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 23(1):95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacevich, Brigitte. 2016. Gender, Craft Production, and the State: Problems with “Workshops.” In Gendered Labor in Specialized Economies: Archaeological Perspectives on Female and Male Work, edited by Kelly, Sophia E. and Ardren, Traci, pp. 301–338. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacevich, Brigitte, and Callaghan, Michael G.. 2018. Fifty Shades of Green: Interpreting Maya Jade Production, Circulation, Consumption, and Value. Ancient Mesoamerica 30(3):457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacevich, Brigitte, Neff, Hector, and Bishop, Ronald L.. 2005. Laser Ablation-ICP-MS Chemical Characterization of Jade from a Jade Workshop at Cancuen, Guatemala. In Laser Ablation ICP-MS in Archaeological Research, edited by Speakman, Robert J. and Neff, Hector, pp. 39–56. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kwoka, Joshua J. 2014. Ideological Presentism and the Study of Ancient Technology: Preclassic Maya Lithic Production at San Bartolo, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Kwoka, Joshua J., Colleen Hanratty, H., and Guderjan, Thomas H.. 2019. From Crafting to Caching: Technological and Iconographic Analysis of Blue Creek Cache 37. Journal of Field Archaeology 44:352–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCount, Lisa J., Blitz, John H., and Tidwell, Jonathan W.. 2022. Ancient Maya Embedded Economies and Changing Ground Stone Densities in Households at Actuncan, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 33(3):641–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesure, Richard G., Sinensky, R. J., and Wake, Thomas A.. 2021. The End of the Archaic in the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica: A Tipping Point in the Local Trajectory toward Agricultural Village Life. In Preceramic Mesoamerica, edited by Lohse, Jon C., Borejsza, Aleksander, and Joyce, Arthur A., pp. 481–504. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Marc N., and Carballo, David M. (editors). 2014. Obsidian Reflections: Symbolic Dimensions of Obsidian in Mesoamerica. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Jon C. 2020. Early Holocene Cultural Diversity in Central America: Comment on Prufer et al. (2019) “Linking Late Paleoindian Stone Tool Technologies and Populations in North, Central and South America.” Lithic Technology 45:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Jon C., Yelacic, David M., and Frederick, Charles D.. 2021. Sitio Chivacabe, an Early Paleoindian Site in Western Highland Guatemala. In Preceramic Mesoamerica, edited by Lohse, Jon C., Borejsza, Aleksander, and Joyce, Arthur A., pp. 235–258. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lytle, Whitney, Kathryn Brown, M., Horowitz, Rachel A., and Freidwald., Caroline 2019. Late Classic Burials and Eccentric Caches from Structure D-6 at Xunantunich. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 16:123–132.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Brandi L., Chatters, James C., Reinhardt, Eduard G., Devos, Fred, Meacham, Sam, Rissolo, Dominique, Rock, Barry, et al. 2020. Paleoindian Ochre Mines in the Submerged Caves of the Yucatán Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Science Advances 6:eaba1219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, Marc D., Fargher, Lane F., Meissner, Nathan J., Martindale Johnson, Lucas R., Blanton, Richard E., and Heredia Espinoza, Verenice Y.. 2020. Exchange Systems in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica: Comparing Open and Restricted Markets at Tlaxcallan, Mexico, and Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 31:780–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, Marc, Martindale Johnson, Lucas R., and Meissner, Nathan J.. 2016. Postclassic Tool Production at Santa Rita Corozal: Implications for Domestic Craft Production and Regional Exchange of Flaked Stone. In Perspectives on the Ancient Maya of Chetumal Bay, edited by Walker, Debra S., pp. 251–263. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, Marilyn A., Freidel, David A., and Demarest, Arthur A. (editors). 2020. The Real Business of Ancient Maya Economies: From Farmers’ Fields to Rulers’ Realms. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, Marilyn, Hare, Timothy S., Lope, Carlos Peraza, Excamillo Ojeda, Barbara C., Paris, Elizabeth H., Kohut, Betsy, Russell, Bradley W., and Alvarado, Wilberth Cruz. 2016. Household Craft Production in the Prehispanic Urban Setting of Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Research 24:229–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnany, Patricia A., and Christian Wells, E. (editors). 2008. Dimensions of Ritual Economy. Research in Economic Anthropology 27. Emerald Press, Bingley, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
McCormick, David R. 2019. La obsidiana de Cotzumalhuapa: Resultados del análisis tecnológico visual y geoquímico. In XXXII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2018, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 227–236. Museo Nacional de Arqueología e Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
McKillop, Heather., and Aoyama, Kazuo. 2018. Salt and Marine Products in the Classic Maya Economy from Use-Wear Study of Stone Tools. PNAS 115:10948–10952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meierhoff, James, Golitko, Mark, and Morris, James D.. 2012. Obsidian Acquisition, Trade, and Regional Interaction at Chan. In Chan: An Ancient Maya Farming Community, edited by Robin, Cynthia, pp. 271–288. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Meissner, Nathan J. 2014. Technological Systems of Small Point Weaponry of the Postclassic Lowland Maya (A.D. 1250–1697). PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Meissner, Nathan J. 2017. A Social Network Analysis of the Postclassic Lowland Maya Obsidian Projectile Industry. Ancient Mesoamerica 28:137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, Nathan J. 2020. The Porous Boundary: Comparing Late Postclassic–Early Colonial Maya Projectile Technologies across Peten and Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 31:526–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, Nathan J., and Rice, Prudence M.. 2015. Postclassic Petén Maya Bow-and-Arrow Use as Revealed by Immunological Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 64:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, Rebecca. 2019. Vida Cotidiana en Izaba durante el Periodo Clásico: Hallazgos del proyecto de arqueología doméstica de Izaba. In XXXII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2018, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez, and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 227–236. Museo Nacional de Arqueología e Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula. 2022. Instrument Source Attributions of Obsidian Artifacts from Tikal, Guatemala. In Obsidian across the Americas: Compositional Studies Conducted in the Elemental Analysis Facility at the Field Museum of Natural History, edited by Feinman, Gary M. and Riebe, Danielle J., pp. 76–86. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, Meierhoff, James, Golitko, Mark, and Kestle, Caleb. 2013. An Analysis of pXRF Obsidian Source Attributions from Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 24:72–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, Alegria, Sharla, Borjeson, Love, Etzkowitz, Henry, Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J., Joshi, Aparna, Leahey, Erin, Smith-Doerr, Laurel, Wolley, Anita Williams, and Schiebinger, Londa. 2017. Gender Diversity Leads to Better Science. PNAS 114:1740–1742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oland, Maxine 2013. The Fifteenth–Seventeenth Century Lithic Economy at Progresso Lagoon, Belize. Lithic Technology 38:81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paling, Jason S. R. 2016. Leaving No Stone Unturned: Investigating Preclassic Lithic Production, Consumption, and Exchange at San Estevan, Belize and K'o and Hamontún, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Albany, New York.Google Scholar
Paris, Elizabeth H. 2012. Cohesion and Diversity in Formative Period Maya Lithic Tools and Techniques: A View from San Estevan, Belize. Lithic Technology 37:111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris, Elizabeth H., and Lopez Bravo, Roberto. 2021. Obsidian Exchange Networks in the Jovel Valley, Chiapas, Mexico: A Compositional Analysis Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 35:102773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, Lauren V., and Guengerich, Anna. 2023. Lithic Analysis of Andean Sedentary Societies: A Case Study from the Chachapoyas Region, Peru, and Potential Applications. Latin American Antiquity 34:174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prufer, Keith M., Alsgaard, Asia V., Robinson, Mark, Meredith, Clayton R., Culleton, Brendan J., Dennehy, Timothy, Magee, Shelby, et al. 2019. Linking Late Paleoindian Stone Tool Technologies and Populations in North, Central and South America. PLoS ONE 14:e0219812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, Prudence. 2022. Macanas in the Postclassic Maya Lowlands? A Preliminary Look. Lithic Technology 47:314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero-Torres, S. E., Jiménez-Reyes, Melania, and Tenorio, Dolores. 2017. Obsidian Artifacts from the Southeastern Structure of the Lagartero Acropolis, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 15:219–225.Google Scholar
Roche Recinos, Alejandra. 2021. Regional Production and Exchange of Stone Tools in the Maya Polity of Piedras Negras, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
Roche Recinos, Alejandra, Firpi, Omar Alcover, and Rodas., Ricardo 2022. Evidence for Slingstones and Related Projectile Stone Use by the Ancient Maya of the Usmacinta River Valley Region. Ancient Mesoamerica 33:309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche Recinos, Alejandra, and Matsumoto, Mallory. 2018. Economías líticas en el sitio de Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Producción e intercambio en un complejo arquitectónico elite. In XXXI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicos en Guatemala, edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Salinas, Luis Méndez and Álvarez, Gloria Ajú, pp. 1135–1143. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Rochette, Eric T. 2014. Out of Control? Rethinking Assumptions about Wealth Goods Production and the Classic Maya. Ancient Mesoamerica 25:165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Steven A., Shugar, Aaron, and Vardi, Jacob. 2014. Function and Value in Sickle Segment Analysis: Odellian Perspectives. In Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis, edited by Shott, Michael J., pp. 116–130. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Rosenswig, Robert M., Pearsall, Deborah M., Masson, Marilyn A., Culleton, Brendan J., and Kennett, Douglas J.. 2014. Archaic Period Settlement and Subsistence in the Maya Lowlands: New Starch Grain and Lithic Data from Freshwater Creek, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Aguilar, María Elena. 2011. In Instrumentos líticos procedentes de los depósitos problemáticos PNT-019 y PNT-031 del Grupo 6C-XVI, Tikal edited by Arroyo, Bárbara, Paiz, Luiz, Linares, A., and Arroyave, A., pp. 1022–1042. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Timothy E., Hirth, Kenneth G., and Hasemann, George. 2012. The El Gigante Rockshelter: Preliminary Observations on an Early to Late Holocene Occupation in Southern Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 23:597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Andrew K., Golden, Charles, Houston, Stephen, Matsumoto, Mallory E., Alcover Firpi, Omar A., Schroder, Whittaker, Recinos, Alejandra Roche, et al. 2022. Chronology and Evidence for War in the Ancient Maya Kingdom of Piedras Negras. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 66:101408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searcy, Michael T. 2011. The Life-Giving Stone: Ethnoarchaeology of Maya Metates. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Seidita, Max, Chase, Diane Z., and Chase, Arlen F.. 2018. Chetumal's Dragonglass: Postclassic Obsidian Production and Exchange at Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 15:169–180.Google Scholar
Shafer, Harry J. 2023. Legacy of the Ancient Maya Tranchet Flake: Or How Two Texas Archaeologists Ended up in the Maya World. Journal of Texas Archaeology and History 7:1–24.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Ashley E., and Aoyama, Kazuo. 2022. Lithic and Faunal Evidence for Craft Production among the Middle Preclassic Maya at Ceibal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 34:407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shults, Sara C., and LeCount, Lisa J.. 2013. Obsidian Form and Distribution at Actuncan, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10:115–125.Google Scholar
Silva de la Mora, Flavio G. 2018. Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in the Northwestern Maya Lowlands during the Maya Classic, a Regional Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18:577–586.Google Scholar
Speakman, Robert J., Hadden, Carla S., Colvin, Matthew H., Cramb, Justin, Jones, K.C., Jones, Travis W., Kling, Corbin L., et al. 2018. Choosing a Path to the Ancient World in a Modern Market: The Reality of Faculty Jobs in Archaeology. American Antiquity 83(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Travis W. 2019. Organized Violence in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Seeking Conflict in Mesoamerica: Operational, Cognitive, and Experiential Approaches, edited by Morton, Shawn G. and Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan M., pp. 207–219. University Press of Colorado, Louisville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, Barbara L., Boxt, Matthew A., Gasco, Janine, González Lauck, Rebecca B., Hedgepeth Balkin, Jessica D., Joyce, Arthur A., King, Stacie M., et al. 2016. Economic Growth in Mesoamerica: Obsidian Consumption in the Coastal Lowlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41:263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James. 2016a. Twist and Shout: Experiments in Ancient Maya Blood-Letting by Piercing with Obsidian Blades and Splinters. Journal of Archaeological Sciences Reports 9:134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James. 2016b. Coastal Maya Obsidian Tool Use and Socio-Economy in the Late Postclassic–Early Spanish Colonial Period at San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 41:162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, and Awe, Jaime J.. 2014. Ritual Use of Obsidian from Maya Caves in Belize: A Functional and Symbolic Analysis. In Obsidian Reflections: Symbolic Dimensions of Obsidian in Mesoamerica, edited by Levine, Marc N. and Carballo, David M., pp. 223–254. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Awe, Jaime J., Joyce Marcus, Christophe Helmke, and Sullivan, Lauren A.. 2021. The Preceramic and Early Ceramic Periods in Belize and the Central Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 32:416–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Awe, Jaime J., Prufer, Keith M., and Helmke, Christophe G. B.. 2016. Design and Function of Lowe and Sawmill Points from the Preceramic Period of Belize. Latin American Antiquity 27:279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Braswell, Geoffrey E., Helmke, Christophe G. B., and Awe, Jaime J.. 2017. An Ancient Maya Ritual Cache at Pook's Hill, Belize: Technological and Functional Analyses of the Obsidian Blades. Journal of Archaeological Sciences Reports 18:889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Braswell, Geoffrey E., Helmke, Christophe G. B., and Awe, Jaime J.. 2019. Technological, Use-Wear, and Residue Analyses of Obsidian Blades from Classic Maya Burials at Pook's Hill, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 26:101859.Google Scholar
Stemp, W. James, and Harrison-Buck, Eleanor. 2019. Pre-Maya Lithic Technology in the Wetlands of Belize: The Chipped Stone from Crawford Bank. Lithic Technology 44:183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Helmke, Christophe, and Awe, Jaime J.. 2010. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities: Use-Wear Analysis of the Chipped Chert Assemblage from Pook's Hill, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 35:217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan, and Awe, Jaime J.. 2018. Ritual Economy and ancient Maya Bloodletting: Obsidian Blades from Actun Uayazba Kab (Handprint Cave), Belize. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53:304-324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, and Rosenswig, Robert M.. 2022. Archaic Period Lithic Technology, Sedentism, and Subsistence in Northern Belize: What Can Debitage at Caye Coco and Fred Smith Tell Us? Latin American Antiquity 33:520–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Stoll, Charles G., Helmke, Christophe G. B., and Awe, Jaime J.. 2018. Down the T'uhl Hole: Technological, Metric, and Functional Analyses of Chipped Stone from an Ancient Maya Chultun. Lithic Technology 43:51-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Wrobel, Gabriel D., Awe, Jaime J., and Payeur, Kelly. 2013. Stir It up, Little Darlin’: The Chipped Stone from Mixed Deposits from Caves Branch Rockshelter, Belize. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 37:123–167.Google Scholar
Stemp, W. James, Wrobel, Gabriel D., Haley, Jessica, and Awe, Jaime J.. 2015. Ancient Maya Stone Tools and Ritual Use of Deep Valley Rockshelter, Belize. Journal of Cave and Karstic Studies 77:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kelsey J. 2017. Caching It In: Local Patterns in Ancient Maya Ritual Caches of Eccentric Lithics within the Belize Valley. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Tibbits, Tawny L., Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan M., Burg, Marieka Brouwer, Tibbits, Matthew A., and Harrison-Buck, Eleanor. 2022. Using X-Ray Fluorescence to Examine Ancient Maya Granite Ground Stone in Belize. Geoarchaeology 38(2):156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasic, John J. 2012. Donut Stones as Thigh-Supported Spindle Whorls: Evidence of Ancient Maya Household Yarn and Cordage Production. Latin American Antiquity 23:215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushingham, Shannon, and Fulkerson, Tiffany. 2020. Who Writes the Past? The Evolving Gender and Professional Landscape of Great Basin Archaeology (1954–2018). In With Grit and Determination: A Century of Change for Women in Great Basin and American Archaeology, edited by Eskenazi, Suzanne and Herzog, Nicole M., pp. 166–225. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Tushingham, Shannon, Fulkerson, Tiffany, and Hill, Kathryn. 2017. The Peer Review Gap: A Longitudinal Case Study of Gendered Publishing and Occupational Patterns in a Female-Rich Discipline, Western North America (1974–2016). PLoS ONE 12(11):e0188403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VandenBosch, Jon C., LeCount, Lisa J., and Yaeger, Jason. 2010. Integration and Interdependence: The Domestic Chipped Stone Economy of the Xunantunich Polity. In Classic Maya Provincial Polities: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by LeCount, Lisa J. and Yaeger, Jason, pp. 272–294. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Voorhies, Barbara, and Kennett, Douglas J.. 2021. Preceramic Lifeways on the Mesoamerican South Pacific Coast. In Preceramic Mesoamerica, edited by Lohse, Jon C., Borejsza, Aleksander, and Joyce, Arthur A., pp. 397–419. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman Arthur, Kathryn. 2010. Feminine Knowledge and Skill Reconsidered: Women and Flaked Stone Tools. American Anthropologist 112:228–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodfill, Brent, and Andrieu, Chloé. 2012. Tikal's Early Classic Domination of the Great Western Trade Route: Ceramic, Lithic, and Iconographic Evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 23:189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zralka, Jaroslaw, Koszkul, Wiesław, Hermes, Bernard, Velásquez, Juan Luis, Matute, Varinia, and Pilarski, Bogumił. 2017. From E-Group to Funerary Pyramid: Mortuary Cults and Ancestor Veneration in the Maya Centre of Nakum, Petén, Guatemala. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27:451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zralka, Jaroslaw, Koszkul, Wiesław, Matute, Varinia, Pilarski, Bogumił, Hermes, Bernard, and Velásquez, Juan Luis. 2016. Burials, Offerings, Flints, and the Cult of Ancestors: The Case of Nakum Structure X, Peten, Guatemala. Contributions in New World Archaeology 10:207–250.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Maya region with obsidian sources indicated (map by Marieka Brouwer Burg).

Figure 1

Table 1. Gender of First Authors for Each Theme.

Supplementary material: File

Horowitz and Brouwer Burg supplementary material

Horowitz and Brouwer Burg supplementary material
Download Horowitz and Brouwer Burg supplementary material(File)
File 19.8 KB