Ancient Mesoamerica, 20 (2009), 149162 Copyright # 2009 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A. doi:10.

1017/S0956536109000121

OBSIDIAN BIFACE PRODUCTION AT TEOTIHUACAN: REEXAMINING A COYOTLATELCO PHASE WORKSHOP FROM HACIENDA METEPEC

Zachary Nelson
ENTRIX Inc., 807 East South Temple, Suite 350, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, USA

Abstract
This paper provides a reanalysis of a specialized biface workshop at Coyotlatelco-phase (a.d. 650 800) Teotihuacan excavated by Evelyn Rattray in 1979. Although Teotihuacan had already declined as a major center prior to this phase, the resident population was still being serviced by a variety of craftsmen, including knappers. The remains of an obsidian workshop at Hacienda Metepec give insight into workshop production within Epiclassic-period Teotihuacan. A single workshop produced between 4,700 and 8,700 projectile points similar in shape to San Marcos points. The homogeneous workmanship indicates a single knapper, perhaps over several years of effort.

Teotihuacan, located in the Basin of Mexico, has long been regarded as a city with important craft production sites. At its height, Classic period Teotihuacan (approximately a.d. 300 600) was the most populous city in Mesoamerica. Craftsmen fabricated the comforts of life inside its walls; now archaeologists are plumbing the citys remains for clues about its industries. Archaeologists discovered large surface deposits of obsidian material often associated with large public buildings. These sizable deposits formed the basis of many theories about the economic reach of the city within Mesoamerica (Andrews 1999; Clark 1986, 2003a:2730; Cowgill 1997; Millon 1981; Pasztory 1997; Santley 1984; Spence 1967, 1977, 1981) and are still being investigated (Carballo 2005). Furthermore, subsequent excavations have demonstrated production of other materials within the city, such as ceramics (Sheehy 1992), gurines (Sullivan 2004), and lapidary objects (Widmer 1991). Excavation in the outskirts of the city have also revealed areas of craft production (Cabrera Cortes 2004; Turner 1987). This paper will determine the workshop status, output, and organization of a specialized biface workshop from Coyotlatelco phase Teotihuacan, which coincides with the Epiclassic period (roughly a.d. 650 800). Although Teotihuacans earlier Classic period economic structure has been the focus of multiple projects (Drennan et al. 1990; Spence 1987), much less is known about its Epiclassic-period economy or inhabitants (Diehl 1989; Moragas Segura 2005). Even though the Coyotlatelco phenomenon is interesting in its own right (Solar Valverde 2006), a full discussion of its issues are beyond this paper. Sufce to say that the Coyotlatelco phase at Teotihuacan was a period of comparatively low population and partial abandonment, with unoccupied buildings providing convenient locations for material storage and refuse disposal. Yet, strong continuity in craft production persisted

within the city. The Otumba obsidian mines continued to provide raw material for large atlatl darts produced within the Hacienda Metepec barrio (Nelson 2000:42). This reanalysis of the Hacienda Metepec obsidian workshop debitage provides new information on the nature of obsidian production in Epiclassic-period Teotihuacan. THE HACIENDA METEPEC WORKSHOP EXCAVATION The obsidian workshop at Hacienda Metepec was excavated by Evelyn Rattray in 1979. The Hacienda Metepec barrio is on the far eastern side of Teotihuacans East Avenue (Figure 1) (see also Millon et al. 1973:Map 82 section 9:N1E7). Excavations realized within this barrio uncovered a large deposit of obsidian debris in a workshop setting (Rattray 1979, 1980, 1981). This location was initially selected for excavation because of the abundance of Coyotlatelco ceramic material on the surface. During the course of excavation, a large subsurface deposit of obsidian debris was recovered within and around the remains of a Metepec-phase apartment compound that was reused as a Coyotlatelco residence with a workshop and associated dump (Rattray 1989:243) (Figure 2). The apartment compound was a standard Teotihuacan residence (Pasztory 1997:48) in style, consisting of a sunken patio with stairs leading to a columned small room (the portico), then a second larger room (north room) behind the rst. It had been abandoned for perhaps 50 years prior to its reuse by Coyotlatelco peoples (Rattray 1989:243). The portico area measures 5.5 m by 7 m (Rattray 1979:5) while the patio measures 10.5 m by 12.5 m (Rattray 1987:454). The initial excavation centered on the portico area. However, on encountering obsidian deposits mixed with household refuse in clearly secondary context on the steps, the patio area was included in the excavation, yielding large obsidian deposits in situ nearly devoid of other cultural material (Rattray 1989:243). An area of approximately 170 m2 was excavated, and 149

E-mail correspondence to: zn@byu.edu

150

Nelson

Figure 1. Schematic plan of Teotihuacan (after Millon et al. 1973; Pasztory 1997:35) modied to show Coyotlatelco-phase ceramic dis tribution (after Ian Robertsons gure in Gomez Chavez and Cabrera Castro 2006:238).

archaeologists recovered 275 kg of obsidian debris, with obsidian akes 50 cm deep in places. For ease of discussion, the excavation is divided into ve units based upon architecture and obsidian concentrations: north room, portico, steps, patio, and outside areas (Table 1). Although this paper focuses on the Coyotlatelco-phase workshop, material corresponding to other ceramic phases was also recovered. The stratigraphy of the excavation consists of Aztec material on the surface (plow zone), followed by Coyotlatelco material lying on top of a possible mud oor. Then there is Metepec material over a plaster oor and continuing down two subsequent oors. Next is late Xolalpan material, then early Xolalpan material, and nally late Tlamimilolpa artifacts above sterile soil (Figure 3) (see Rattray 1980). DATA SET AND PROCEDURES Excavated soil was initially sieved through a 4.76-mm screen in the eld and the artifacts were picked out by hand. In addition, Rattray took ve to 10 liters of soil samples for microdebitage analysis from selected features (Rattray 1987). After her analysis (Rattray 1980), the microdebitage and macrodebitage were bagged and packed up. This next section details the procedures followed during this reanalysis, not Rattrays original analysis of the workshop (1980). All of the lithic material recovered from the Hacienda Metepec excavations were examined for this reanalysis. Shelby Saberon was responsible for most of the initial sorting, sieving, and counting operations under the general supervision of John Clark. This work is documented in his 1997 undergraduate honors thesis. The obsidian artifacts (micro- and macrodebitage) passed through nine nested screens that separated it by size for later analysis (Figure 4) (Saberon 1997). Screens 1 5 (sieve openings of 7.5, 5.0, 3.75, 2.5, and 1.9 cm)

trapped the bifaces and large percussion debris, while screens 6 and 7 (sieve openings of 1.25 and 0.63 cm) collected the smaller percussion material and larger pressure aking debris, and screens 8 and 9 (sieve openings of 0.28 and 0.20 cm) caught mainly pressure akes and some percussion debitage. The material that passed through the smallest screen was also collected and analyzed (see Saberon 1997 for more details). After the material was screened, the obsidian in each screen was separated according to its visual and technological characteristics (e.g., biface fragment versus akes) and bagged. Once the biface fragments were removed, the akes were divided by size and attributes. Complete counts were made for several lots of all the akes and their technological characteristics. Next the large debitage (.1.9 cm) was individually weighed, measured, and examined. Biface fragments were classied along a proposed manufacturing sequence. The scars left by knapping errors and the type of break were recorded (e.g., straight or transverse) for each biface fragment. Flakes were also classied by their surface characteristics into categories, such as primary percussion (only one ake scar on ventral surface), secondary (two akes scars on ventral surface), tertiary (more than two ake scars on ventral surface), and bifacial thinning akes. Cortex bearing akes were also tallied. Smaller debitage did not receive a thorough analysis. Most lots were examined for notching akes, but other akes were not tallied by type except in a few instances for comparative purposes. The reconstructed manufacturing sequence for the workshop consists of the following activities (Figure 4) (see Nelson 2000 for a more detailed version). Large obsidian percussion akes were struck from cores at the Otumba quarry. These akes (i.e., tool blanks) were brought to Hacienda Metepec, where they were worked into bifaces by percussion. Percussion biface 1s are modied blanks with few percussion scars. Percussion

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan

151

Figure 2. Plan map of Hacienda Metepec excavations.

Table 1. Artifacts found in direct association with workshop deposit Patio (W1S1W1S3) Biface fragments Workshop debrisa (kg) Prismatic blade fragments Prismatic cores Bone tools Scrapers Saw Mano Hammerstones Gary large point Drills Percussion cores
a

North Room (W1N2) 85 11.50 10 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

Portico Room (W1N1) 33 11.85 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Steps (W1S1 E1S1) 404 91.36 65 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 0 2

Outside Areas (W2N1, E1N2) 162 43.34 65 2 0 8 0 0 0 1 1 2

501 90.81 54 4 2 7 1 0 2 0 1 2

Includes the weight of preforms and akes.

152

Nelson

Figure 3. Stratigraphy at Hacienda Metepec, W1N2 East prole (after Rattray 1980:Figure 5c).

biface 2s are modied percussion biface 1s with rough, unsymmetrical faces. Percussion biface 3s are bifacial knives with even edges and symmetrical faces. The length of a percussion biface 3 biface was generally 1.67 times its width and averages 0.7 cm in thickness. Upon nishing the percussion work, the bifaces were reworked with pressure aking to smooth out any irregularities ( pressure bifaces) and often corner-notched. The resulting corner-notched atlatl dart points ideally measured 4.63 cm by 2.86 cm, and resembled a San Marcos point in the Texas typology, which are nicknamed Ramec dart points to distinguish them from the cultural afliation of San Marcos points (Figure 5) (see Hester 1986; Nelson 2000). Ramec is a compound word formed from RAttray and Hacienda MEtepeC. Thus, two possible nal product types were the focus of this workshop effort, a projectile point preform/bifacial knife (pressure biface) or a Ramec dart point. Fortunately for archaeologists, this sequence of events did not always result in a nished projectile point. Mistakes occurred, and it is through the knapping errors that the manufacturing process was reconstructed. Unfortunately for the knapper,1 he broke 1,241 percussion bifaces and 234 pressure bifaces, allowing his actions to be reconstructed in detail. In addition, akes were removed at each stage in the manufacturing process. Flakes are debris removed from the bifaces. Their shape and form indicate whether the knapper was using percussion or pressure for their removal. Unlike other kinds of production by-products, such as ceramic wasters, obsidian akes are both readily identiable and hard to destroy, thus providing an excellent window into
1

production. Individual akes can be assigned by size and type to particular stages in the manufacturing process. In particular, notching akes serve as indicators to the number of nished products as they occur last in the manufacturing process. Thus, special efforts were made to identify and count the notching akes found in each screen.

WORKSHOP STATUS Rattray thought that she found an obsidian workshop, and this section will evaluate whether her deposit represents a workshop (with adjacent dump) or just a workshop dump. The focus of this effort hinges upon the identication of the type of deposit that Rattray excavated, that is, workshops should have different attributes than dumps. Workshops are not refuse deposits (Behm 1983; Clark 1989, 1990, 1991; Healan 1992; Hester and Shafer 1992; Mallory 1986; Moholy-Nagy 1990, 1992; Shafer and Hester 1986). They are delimitated spaces where workers regularly perform [a] specialized activity or activities, to make products, which are also specialized, destined for sale or exchange. The products produced exceed the workers own needs (Clark 1989:213; authors translation). Unfortunately, it is far easier to identify the workshop refuse than the workshop itself. John Clark (1989) published a list of attributes for correctly identifying workshops. Table 2 summarizes these attributes and whether they pertain to Hacienda Metepec. Based on these criteria, Hacienda Metepec represents a workshop with an associated dump (Nelson 2000). Production loci may be determined by microdebitage. Healan (1995) and Moholy-Nagy (1990) have placed particular emphasis on microdebitage (i.e., akes ,2 mm) as indicators of production loci.

Most specialized knappers are male (see Clark 2003b:232, footnote 1).

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan

153

Figure 4. This complex gure shows the screen sizes compared with artifact size on the right with the production cycle for a Ramec point also on the right. All objects are to the same scale. A blank (1) is reduced via percussion into a percussion biface 1 (2). Flakes removed during this process include bulbar akes (1a), primary blank akes (1d), secondary blank akes (1b), and tertiary blank akes (1c). A percussion biface 1 is reduced via percussion into percussion biface 2 (3). The debitage includes bifacial thinning akes (2a). Percussion biface 2 is reduced via percussion into a percussion biface 3 (4) with small percussion akes (3a) as debitage. Percussion biface 3 is reworked with pressure aking into a pressure biface (5). Pressure akes are not pictured. Pressure bifaces are an end product. A pressure biface may be notched into a Ramec point (6). Notching akes (5a) are then produced.

Their (separate) arguments posit that periodic cleaning of the production area would remove all but the smallest debitage. Even though microdebitage can also be found in dumps, they feel that it has the most potential for identifying places of production.

Unfortunately, Hacienda Metepec was excavated in 1979, before this realization occurred. Yet, Rattrays soil samples included microdebitage, and those samples were taken from areas that she thought were important in dening workshop loci. Microdebitage at Hacienda

154

Nelson

Figure 5. Top: Ramec projectile points from Hacienda Metepec. Bottom: Ramec projectile points from nearby areas within Teotihuacan.

Metepec was recovered from 29 squares2 and sorted by weight. There is a clear break in the amount of debitage found in three different squares:3 W1N2 (north room), W1S1 (steps), and W1S2 (patio).

2 But only 20 samples could be graphed with precision. In this, and all distributional graphs, a small proportion of the obsidian recovered could not be graphed because of incomplete context. However, this does not change the relative distribution. 3 These samples include Rattrays soil samples plus any microdebitage that adhered to other artifacts during the original eld screening. The samples are valid for these purposes because the samples represent multiple areas of the excavation. The largest samples are ve times as large as the mean of the samples (25.6). There is a quantitative difference in three samples from the rest of the samples.

The distribution of microdebitage at Hacienda Metepec (Figure 6) by weight shows three loci of high concentration with each locus possessing greater than 140 g of obsidian. The next greatest concentration, 70 g, lies next to the high concentration in the patio. Because these three areas have twice the microdebitage by weight than other places in the excavation, they are likely production loci. These three areas are spatially segregated from each other, namely, one in the possible living quarters in the north room, one on the steps,4 and another in the patio. Additionally, the distribution of all obsidian debitage (micro- and macrodebitage)
4 While the steps did contain most of the cultural material, Rattrays excavation journal indicates that this area (B2/B3) was largely void of cultural material.

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan

Table 2. Workshop characteristics Workshop Characteristics 1. Large quantity of debitage. 2. Debitage includes errors and broken products. 3. Instruments of production present. 4. Broken pieces are high quality. 5. All production stages present. 6. Specialized production in limited items. 7. Debitage contains many tiny pieces. 8. Debitage is mainly unused. 9. High number of cores in relation to debitage. 10. Ratio of complete products to incomplete is low. 11. Percentage of domestic garbage is low compared with debitage. 12. Spatial relationship between debitage and products. 13. It may be possible to ret a core. 14. Presence of artifacts showing manufacturing error correction. 15. Workshop has housing facilities for debris and commodities. 16. Characteristics of workshop dependent on distance from commodity sources. Present Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

155 aking and decreases with the nal product (Nelson 2000:4243). The manufacturing sequence, as outlined previously, was designed to turn unmodied blanks into high-quality knives and dart points by a gradual process of removing mass and irregularities. Hence, the akes and obsidian bifaces recovered in this context do not have visual evidence of use or wear. A few bifaces, less than 3%, may have been used as expedient tools, but the vast majority of akes and bifaces show no use wear. The production loci and associated dump constitute the biface workshop at Hacienda Metepec. Three areas of unusually high microdebitage concentrations have been identied as production loci. They are surrounded by heavy deposits of obsidian manufacturing debris believed to be in situ. The remarkable characteristic of this workshop is not its size but its location and productspecialized bifaces. Hacienda Metepec lies on the outskirts of Teotihuacan, far from the center of the city and its Classic-period political core. Additionally, bifaces are relatively uncommon in artifact assemblages in the area, as the major stone tools were prismatic blades. These considerations will be addressed after the output of this workshop has been calculated. PRODUCTION ESTIMATES AND SCALE OF PRODUCTION Production estimates are useful in determining the number of workers at a workshop and the market for the workshop products (Costin 1991; Costin and Hagstrom 1995). However, production estimates are difcult to generate because the product is destined for outside consumption and the debitage remaining in the production area represents the last manufacturing episode of the workshop. It is possible that the workshop area was cleaned periodically of production debris. Thus, any production estimates are, by their nature, minimal estimates based on the assumption that the workshop had never been cleaned and that the full extent of the deposit was excavated. Three methods are used to estimate the number of nished products from this workshop: diagnostic artifacts, weight-reduction, and replication experiments. Diagnostic artifacts can be useful indicators of production when they occur at a particular point in the manufacturing process, such as the primary tranchet akes in the production of tranchet bifaces at Colha (Shafer and Hester 1991:86 87). The ratio of diagnostic artifacts to nished products provides a ready indicator of the quantity of nished products. Unfortunately, there is no clear diagnostic artifact for the manufacture of Ramec points. The most diagnostic artifacts are notching akes, which are struck off the pressure biface at the end of the manufacturing sequence. Though many lots were casually examined for notching akes, six units in particular were chosen for detailed analysis based upon weight and size gradient as likely to contain high numbers of notching akes. The counted number of notching akes is 865, from these six different contexts. Estimating from the relative proportion of notching akes in these samples by weight, the total number of notching akes within the total excavated area would be 7,378 to 11,937 akes if every single bag were analyzed for notching akes and assuming that all notching occurred in the workshop (Nelson 2000:106 107). Replication experiments suggest that each Ramec point required a minimum of three notching akes per corner to shape the biface haft. This is a conservative estimate that if applied to ake estimates for the entire deposit yields a production estimate of 1,230 to 1,990 total Ramec points. This production estimate is too low, because the mass of the deposit is too large for only

shows high concentrations near, but not over, these production loci (Figure 7); however, lighter concentrations of microdebitage (070 g) are under areas of high obsidian concentrations, suggesting that abnormally high concentrations of microdebitage indicate primary deposition while lower concentrations indicate secondary deposition (see Healan 1995). The pattern shown by the distribution of hammerstones and bone pressure tools (Figures 6 and 7) likewise provide indirect support for the production loci. The plot of their individual locations place these discarded tools around the presumed production loci and within the concentrations of obsidian debris. An explanation for these loci could be weather-related. On nice days, it is possible that the knapper worked outside in the patio or on the steps. When the weather was inclement, knapping occurred inside. Macrodebitage (akes and production failures .2 mm) comprise the bulk of the obsidian recovered from Hacienda Metepec (99.7%).5 Macrodebitage recovered includes broken bifaces, akes, and a few other tools. The deposit is quite extensive for a biface-producing workshop in a city better known for prismatic blades, albeit at an earlier time period. Production errors in the form of broken bifaces, overshot akes, and other error-correcting akes are present in the debitage. All the available evidence indicates that the production of bifacial knives and corner-notched atlatl dart points were the focus of this workshop. Finished products were exported out of the workshop, leaving behind debitage and broken bifaces. A few broken bifaces could be retted after hours of looking for matches. These provide information on the nal workshop products. The pressure aking pattern on the dart points was regular and even. The points themselves were well-thinned, with good balance and form. The standard variation in biface thickness decreases from blanks to percussion biface 2 stage then increases slightly during pressure
Rattray reported that she recovered 30,000 sherds of ceramics from this deposit (1989:243), which is 7.4% of the quantity of excavated akes (estimated at 403,486; see also Charlton et al. 1991:103). Although ceramics and gurines were discovered, the majority of the artifacts recovered at Hacienda Metepec consisted of obsidian akes.
5

156

Nelson

Figure 6. Microdebitage distribution: (1) W1N2: C2/4, D4, E4; (2) W1S1: A2/3, B2/3; (3) W1S2: C4.

1,990 darts being produced. For this reason, Ramec points must not have been the sole production target. Pressure bifaces and Ramec points were both end products. Another way of estimating production output involves calculating the weight lost between each stage in the manufacturing process. Knapping is a reductive process, so the difference in average weight between bifaces of different stages gives an indication of the weight removed in the course of production. For these calculations, it is necessary to use information from complete (retted) bifaces (see Table 3). The dimensions in this table were reconstructed by measuring bifaces that had a complete dimension (such as a complete length from base to tip) or were retted and hence complete. Weights were recorded from complete or retted bifaces. The difference in weight from blanks to the Ramec points equals the weight of the akes removed during production. The weight of the obsidian debitage recovered (minus the weight of the blanks and biface fragments) divided by the average weight reduction per stage gives an estimate of the number of bifaces produced:
Workshop production Total obsidian ake weight / Change in weight.

The average weight difference between blanks and Ramec points is 47.88 g. This much weight was converted into percussion and pressure akes. The weight of the entire obsidian deposit recovered (275,270.41) minus the weight of the blanks and bifaces (22,282.5) equals 252,987.91 g (Nelson 2000). Then, 252,987.91 g divided by 47.88 g/point equals the possible number of points produced: 5,284. This is the best single estimate for the workshop because it uses the entire mass of the recovered material in the calculation. The weight difference between percussion biface 1s and nished Ramec points is 27.37 g. Instead of dividing the entire deposit by this sum, it makes more sense to use the weight from screens 69 (sieve opening 1.250.20 cm), because the material from screens 2 5 was mainly blank fragments and large akes created from the reduction of blanks into percussion biface 1s. Screens 69 recovered percussion and pressure akes. This gives a reduced amount (230,014.6 g) and suggests that 8,405 bifaces were produced (230,014.6 g divided by 27.37 g/point). Again, using a similar method, the difference between percussion biface 2s and Ramec points is 12.08 g. The akes removed from percussion biface 2s would fall into screens 79 with sieve

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan

157

Figure 7. Total obsidian distribution in grams. Note that the microdebitage loci (patterned X) are not in areas of dense obsidian material.

openings of 0.63 0.20 cm (105,815.7 g). Accordingly, it appears that 8,760 Ramec points were produced (105,815.7/12.08). Finally, the difference in weight between percussion biface 3s and Ramec points is 3.41 g. The akes removed should correspond to screens 8 and 9 (0.28 and 0.20 cm) based upon the size of the ake scars on the bifaces. The weight of screens 8 and 9 is 16,251.7 g. This gives an estimated production of 4,773 projectile points. This estimate is low, perhaps because this sized material would have fallen through the screens initially used in the eld. The estimates based on weight change give a production range indicating that between 4,773 and 8,760 pressure bifaces and Ramec points were manufactured. This range exceeds the notching ake minimal number estimate and provides a better representation of possible production quantities, based upon the amount of debitage recovered from the excavations. Another way of estimating production is by replication experiments. Rattray published an estimate of this workshops production based upon replication experiments done by Jeffrey Kalin: 6,000 9,000 as the range with an 87.5% success rate (Rattray 1987:460). This estimate is based upon the number of replication failures and

the amount of debitage that is produced when replicating this dart point (Rattray 1987:460). Specialized production is difcult to measure because the nished products are removed from workshops. This forces the investigator to estimate the probable production based upon the debitage that remains. Estimating from notching akes gives the probable production range of 1,2301,990 points. The weight-change estimate increased the range to 4,773 8,760 points. Kalins experimental data (6,0009,000 points) mimics the weight-change range, thereby providing additional support. Thus the probable range in Ramec-point production lies between 4,773 and 8,760 points. Because there were 596 irreparable bifaces6 discovered in the deposit, this indicates that 4,1778,404 Ramec points are missing from the deposit. These missing points represent the nished, exported products of Hacienda Metepec.
6 It is possible that some of the percussion bifaces could have been salvaged depending on where the break occurred, so this lower estimate avoids double-counting bifaces by assuming that breaks near the tip could have resulted in a nished, but slightly shorter point (see note 7).

158
Table 3. Dimensions of all bifaces versus complete and retted bifaces Total/Range Rets Blanks Percussion biface 1s Percussion biface 2s Percussion biface 3s Pressure Bifaces Ramec points Number 276 3 410 12 414 6 417 14 163 0b 71 5 Length (cm) 8.211.6 9.95 5.58.6 7.5 6.68.0 7.00 4.37.95 5.02 4.58.0 4.82b 4.59.0 4.63 Width (cm) 4.17.0 4.95 3.05.3 4.26 3.03.8 3.45 2.83.6 3.01 2.93.8 2.94b 1.83.7 2.86 Thickness (cm) 1.2 3.0 1.8 0.80 1.80 1.12 0.74 0.98 0.85 0.55 0.75 0.72 0.6 0.88 0.68b 0.44 0.77 0.64 Weight (g) 18.8 83.9 55.00 22.3 53.0 34.49 13.7 25.0 19.2 7.2 20.0 10.53 2.4 22.0 8.82b 2.1 21.8 7.12

Nelson

Difference in Weighta 47.88 g 27.37 g 12.08 g 3.41 g 1.7 g

a This is the difference in weight of each biface type compared with Ramec points. bNo pressure bifaces had complete dimensions, so these values are averaged between percussion biface 3s and Ramec points.

A nal production issue refers to irreparable errors and error rates. How procient was the knapper? Irreparable errors are bifaces that broke in such a way that the knapper could not use any of the biface pieces to fashion a shorter but still functional biface or dart.7 There were 596 irreparable bifaces found within the deposit. The production range, 4,7738,760 points, gives an error rate of 12.5% for the lower estimate (596/4,773) and 6.8% on the higher estimate (596/8,760). Coincidentally, Rattray notes that during Kalins replication experiments, they had an error rate of 12.5% (1987:459).

ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION The number of workers within a workshop and the time spent in working inuence the output of the workshop (Donham 1981). As the number of workers increases, the social organization within the workshop may also become more complex (Kenoyer et al. 1991). People may need to supervise the production, or production may be facilitated by assembly-line task specialization (Carrier 1992: 548). Theories on task management and labor specialization abound, differentiated by the potential number of laborers within a given establishment and their relationship to management (Carrier 1992). Ancient workshop organization can only be approximated, due to the difculty of reconstructing social behavior from material refuse. Likewise, archaeologists can only provide estimates based on the debris excavated, which may not include all the debris from the workshop. The method used here to estimate the number of knappers in the workshop is to work backward from the output, assuming that low product output would be comparable to low worker input. Ramec dart production required a specialized knowledge of knapping and commensurate skill and each stage of the manufacturing process could be performed by a single individual. The time involved in the creation of a single Ramec projectile point aids in roughly estimating the duration of the workshop. The workshop has been dated to a single ceramic phase that represents several decades. If the workshop lasted 50 years with the high estimated output of roughly 8,760 points, then a single worker could easily make 180 points a year (8,760/50) if he made one every
7 Examples of irreparable errors are midsection fragments or base fragments greater than one-half the average length of the biface stage to which they correspond (see Nelson 2000:109111).

other day. However, if the workshop produced 8,760 projectile points within a single year, then a case could be made for a more complex type of organization (see Costin 1991:31 for a similar example). But how much time did the production of a Ramec point require? In the process of verifying the manufacturing sequence, John Clark replicated a Ramec style point in 45 minutes. Although this is not a denitive measure of prehistoric or modern activity, it serves as a cautious measure of the time involved. If the worker was more adept at his craft than Clark, then he could make a projectile point in 30 minutes. At this rate, the workshop would have been in operation for a maximum of 4,500 hours, ceteris paribus, not including any time estimates on tasks that took place outside of the workshop such as quarrying the raw material and transport time. Given these rather subjective time estimates, the organization of production changes according to the duration of the workshop (Table 4). For long duration periods (i.e., more than ve years), the darts produced would not have required more than the occasional labor of a single person. Thus, a long duration workshop could feasibly involve only a single individual. However, if the duration is less than ve years, or even a single year, then the amount of production would have exceeded the reasonable activity of a single person (Shafer and Hester 1986:162) and probably required a more complex organization within the workshop. In an attempt to estimate the number of knappers, the excavation was divided into architectural sectors: north room,
Table 4. Workshop duration, output, and organization Daily Productiona 1.2 2.4 4.8 24 Hours of Daily Laborb 0.6 1.2 2.4 12.0 Number of Workers 1 1 1 .2 Probable Organization Part-time specialist Part-time specialist Part-time specialist Full-time specialists

Duration 20 years 10 years 5 years 1 year

a Daily production 8,760 points / duration / 365 days. bHours of daily labor daily production 0.5 hours/point.

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan

Table 5. Quantity of biface breaks and error types Steps Type of Biface Break Straight Transverse Lipped Jagged Biface Part Bases Tips Midsection Special Attributes Overshot Bulb Hinge 186 206 69 45 217 219 25 28 51 14 Patio 177 206 45 47 204 200 41 39 43 8 Outside 70 85 18 21 74 89 18 11 17 9 North Room 28 26 5 5 22 28 8 5 4 1 Portico Room 53 70 14 14 72 50 13 17 12 3 NR 81 96 19 19 94 78 21 22 16 4

159

PN 205 232 50 52 226 228 49 44 47 9

N R north room portico room; P N patio north room.

Table 6. Chi-square tests Type of Break Str, Tran, Lip, Jag Location All N, O, P, R N, R, O N, R S, P, O S, P S, P, N S, P, O, N R x
2

Biface Part Bases, Tips, Mids p-value 0.727 0.991 0.923 0.696 0.450 0.227 0.412 0.609 x
2

Special Attributes Over, Bulb, Hinge p-value 0.063 0.297 0.140 0.143 0.121 0.088 0.073 0.097 x
2

df 12 9 6 3 6 3 6 9

df 8 6 4 2 4 2 4 6

df 8 6 4 Insufcient data 4 2 4 6

p-value 0.140 0.208 0.253 0.098 0.130 0.310 0.057

8.718 2.054 1.968 1.440 5.768 4.344 6.104 7.273

14.812 7.271 6.919 3.890 7.293 4.861 8.554 10.743

12.264 8.437 5.356 7.838 4.075 4.782 12.233

Jag jagged; Lip lipped; Mids midsection; N north room; O outside area; Over overshot; P patio; R portico room; S steps; Str straight; Tran transverse.

portico room, steps, patio, and outside. Also combinations of sectorsnorth room portico room, and patio north room to test ideas about breakage. Next these areas were compared with each other via a series of Chi-square tests with combinations of the following attributes (see Nelson 2000 for additional descriptions of types): type of breaks quantity (straight, transverse, lipped, and jagged), biface fragment quantity (bases, tips and midsections), and special attribute quantity (overshots, bulbs of percussion, and biface surface hinge fractures) (Table 5). These attributes all measure skill (or its lack), that is, the ability of the knappers to successfully remove akes without destroying the biface. Each break is a knapping error resulting from the force and direction of a blow through the biface. Finally, special attributes indirectly measure (1) knapping preferences and (2) aking ability in unusual cases, such as overshooting the biface edge when removing akes or if the blanks bulb of percussion was removed, and (3) the presence of large hinge scars on either face of the biface. The Chi-square test measures the difference between populations. A low p value (,0.05) indicates that the populations are different, that is, there may have been more than one person knapping, assuming that different levels of competence equals different

knappers. The large p values (see Table 6) suggest that the populations are nearly homogenousthat is, one person could have created all the debitage found in each area. This suggests that a single knapper was at work. USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCT Atlatl darts have limited useeither hunting or warfareand presumably there would be little game left in the neighborhood, or even the valley, to support an atlatl industry. A low population estimate for Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacan suggests that around 20,000 people lived in the remnants of the city, scattered in small communities, such as Hacienda Metepec (Rattray 1979). If the usage of Coyotlatelco projectile points is similar to estimated Classic period peasant families use (Sanders and Santley 1983: 252), then 20,000 people would use approximately 55,000 projectile points per year.8 Higher population gures increase this
8 We calculated the usage as follows: 20,000 people / 4 people per family 5,000 families 11 projectile points 55,000. Although conjectural on many levels, this does provide a base estimate of projectile point manufacture and use.

160 estimate. Thus the complete output of this obsidian workshop would have been insufcient to maintain the city for a single year. Further, there is no reason to assume that this is the only bifacial workshop operating at that time. Michael W. Spence (personal communication 2008; Spence 1967:509 510) notes that surface debitage in the region indicates that multiple possible workshops/dumps are awaiting excavation. Trade or warfare within the Teotihuacan region could cause thousands of darts to be consumed in a relatively short period of time. However, the social aspects of Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacan are beyond the scope of this paper. This phase apparently lacked an architectural tradition, large public construction efforts, monumental art, and even a denable art style. We cannot even detect an elite, although it surely existed. Apparently the ideology and power that held together the Teotihuacan world for so many centuries ceased to exist and was not replaced (Diehl 1989:16). Yet, social processes were still continuing during this period. Either attached specialists under elite control were manufacturing weapons for the state or independent specialists were creating knives for a more general distribution (such as trade). Either interpretation indicates unrest in the Teotihuacan area. These darts and bifaces were produced for specic purposes. In any event, the distribution of these projectile points is not yet known. They occur within other areas of the Hacienda Metepec barrio and within Teotihuacan itself (Rattray 1980), and they also arrived at Xochicalco (Kenneth Hirth, personal communication

Nelson 2002), but further research is necessary to dene their spatial distribution. CONCLUSIONS This paper sought to determine the workshop status and to estimate the output and organization of an obsidian projectile point production locale within Coyotlatelco-phase Teotihuacan. Hacienda Metepec was the site of an Epiclassic-period biface workshop with its associated debris. This workshop had three spatially distinct areas of production, separated one from another by varying quantities of obsidian debitage. Production focused on bifacial knives and corner-notched atlatl dart points rather than the more common prismatic blades. Atlatl dart production is surprising considering that prismatic blades, rather than large darts capable of killing deer or men, would have been used more within semi-urban domestic settings. The output of the workshop lies between 4,773 and 8,760 points with 596 irreparable bifaces. It is believed that a single knapper was responsible for creating all the darts and bifaces. The workshop probably lasted only a few years because the obsidian deposits are fairly clean with little admixture of domestic trash (except on the stairs), and the error rate is low (6.8% 12.5%), suggesting continuous work rather than intermittent practice. The distribution of the projectile points is currently unknown, but the output of the workshop would have been insufcient to service the population of Teotihuacan at that time.

RESUMEN
Aunque Teotihuacan ha sido un centro de comercio importante en Mesoamerica, son poco los talleres excavados en ello. Se presenta aqu los resultados de un re-analisis de una taller ltico del fase Coyotlatelco (approx. d.C. 650 800) que fue excavado por Evelyn Rattray en 1979. El pro posito aqu no es discutir sobre las caractersticas del perodo epiclasico, sino enforcar en un taller y sus restos para dar una explicacion amplia de ello. Las excavaciones realizadas en el barrio Hacienda Metepec revelaron una gran cantidad de deshechos lticas hasta 50 cm de profundidad en algunos lugares. En total, Rattray excavo 170 m2 de un apartamento residencial de Teotihuacan y se recupero 275 kg de obsidiana. La obsidiana fue cernida en el campo por un cernidor de 4.76 mm y algunas muestras de suelo tambien fueron recuperadas. Casi veinte anos despues, todo esta obsidiana fue re-analizado. Shelby Saberon con John Clark segregaron la ltica por tamano y tipo. La obsidiana fue cernida otra vez por nueve cernidores de tamano variable. Los cernidores mas grandes (Cernidores 1 5) recuperaron artefactos . 1.9 cm como fragmentos de cuchillos bifaciales. Cernidores 6 7 tenan los artefactos medianos de 0.63 1.9 cm. Cernidores 8 9 contenan los artefactos pequenos de 0.20 0.63 cm. La materia que paso por ellos tambien fue coleccionada. Despues de pasar por cernidores, los arte factos fueron contado, medido, y examinada por tamano y atributos visuales. Los rasgos de las lascas fueron notados como atributos de tecnologa. Los artefactos bifaciales recibieron mas atencion en analizar sus atributos. Lo que fue evidente es que haba una secuencia de manufactura en hacer los artefactos bifaciales. Primero, lascas grandes (tool blanks) de obsidiana de la fuente de Otumba fueron extrado de all hasta Hacienda Metepec. En el taller fueron reducidos por percusion. Percusion Biface 1 es un cuchillo bifacial rustico con poco evidencia de huellas en su supercie. Percusion Biface 2 es una forma avanzada de Percusion Biface 1, aun con caras no-simetrica. Percusion Biface 3 es una forma simetrica de Percusion Biface 2 con medidas 1.67 longitud/ancho y un por medio de 0.7 cm de grosor. En este momento, se termino de hacer percusion y empezo a trabajar por presion. Pressure Biface es un Percusion Biface 3 que han sido trabajado por presion para sacar lugares irregulares de sus caras y lo. Si un Pressure Biface tiene una muesca en los lados, se parecio com tipo San Marcos. Aqu este tipo de punto proyectil fue denominado como tipo Ramec para distinguirlo de la asociacion cultural del tipo San Marcos. Al hacer los puntos proyectiles Ramec, muchos fueron quebrados durante la secuencia de manufactura. En total, 1241 preformas de percusion fueron encontrados y 234 de presion. Ademas de miles de lascas que venan de todas las etapas de la secuencia de manufactura. El taller de Hacienda Metepec incluye areas identicadas como lugares de produccion. Estas areas son demarcadas por alta concentraciones de lascas nas ,2 mm (microdebitage). En base de cantidad de lascas nas, tres areas fueron notadas: Cuarto norte, escalera, y en el patio. El producto del taller puede ser estimado. En algunos talleres hay artefactos especcos que pueden ser contados para estimar produccion como en Colha. Pero no hay en Hacienda Metepec. Entonces produccion fue estimada por comprobar los pesos de producto terminados con los preformas para saber cuanto peso fue sacado por etapa. Al comprobar la diferencia en preformas quebrados pero completas, se noto que 47.88 g fueron sacado de los tool blanks para hacer un punto Ramec. Entonces cada 47.88 g de lascas de obsidiana es equivalente a un punto proyectil. Se estima que 5284 puntos proyectiles fueron manufacturados en el taller, o un rango de 4773 hasta 8760. Tambien, estima que el obrero tena un rango de quebrar de 6.812.5% basado en el tipo de errores que hizo. Aunque sera imposible saber cuantas personas trabajaron en el taller, una distribucion Chi square no encontro diferencias entre lugares en el taller. Quiere decir que toda la obsidiana pudo ser trabajada por solo una persona. Si solo una persona trabajaba all, entonces la organizacion del taller debe ser simple y quizas el taller no duro por mucho tiempo. De todas formas, el taller excavado por Rattray nos ayuda entender un poco un perodo algo desconocido. Los puntos proyectiles hechos en el taller de Hacienda Metepec y en talleres aun no-excavados tomaron un parte pequeno en la historia de Teotihuacan y sus alrededores.

Obsidian Biface Production at Teotihuacan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful to Evelyn Rattray for the opportunity to study the material she excavated. Also, the New World Archaeological Foundation and its director, John Clark, were very generous with their facilities and support in this work. Shelby Saberon and John Clark did much of the initial

161

processing and subsequent analysis of the material. Ken Hirth and John Clark aided this paper with their comments. Diligent reviewing by Tom Charlton, Michael W. Spence, and an anonymous reviewer advanced this article greatly.

REFERENCES
Andrews, Bradford W. 1999 Craftsman Skill and Specialization: Investigating the Craft Production of Prehispanic Obsidian Blades at Xochicalco and Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Behm, Jeffrey A. 1983 Flake Concentrations: Distinguishing Between FlintWorking Activity Areas and Secondary Deposits. Lithic Technology 12:916. Cabrera Cortes, M. Oralia 2004 Craft Production and Socio-Economic Marginality: Living on the Periphery of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/03090/index. html, accessed February 15, 2007. Carballo, David 2005 State Political Authority and Obsidian Craft Production at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Carrier, James G. 1992 Emerging Alienation in Production: A Maussian History. Man (N.S.) 27:539558. Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton 1991 Aztec Craft Production and Specialization: Archaeological Evidence from the City-State of Otumba, Mexico. World Archaeology 23:98 114. Clark, John E. 1986 From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of Teotihuacans Obsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology: A Research Annual Supplement 2/1986: Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 23 74. JAI Press Inc., London. 1989 Hacia una denicion de talleres. In La obsidiana en Mesoamerica, edited by Margarita Gaxiola Gonzalez and John E. Clark, pp. 213 217. Colleccion Cientca No. 176. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico. 1990 Fifteen Fallacies in Lithic Workshop Interpretation: An Experimental and Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Etnoarcheologa primer coloquio Bosch-Gimpera, edited by Yoko Sugiura Yamamoto and Mari Carmen Serra Puche, pp. 497 512. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico. 1991 Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by Edward Staski and Livingston D. Sutro, pp. 63 88. Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University, Tempe. 2003a A Review of Twentieth-Century Mesoamerican Obsidian Studies. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 15 54. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2003b Craftsmanship and Craft Specialization. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 220 233. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Costin, Cathy L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Dening, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1 56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum 1995 Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619639. Cowgill, George L. 1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:129 161. Diehl, Richard 1989 A Shadow of Its Former Self: Teotihuacan during the Coyotlatelco Period. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700 900, edited by Richard A. Diehl and Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 9 18. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Donham, Donald L. 1981 Beyond the Domestic Mode of Production. Man (N.S.) 16: 515541. Drennan, Robert D., Philip T. Fitzgibbons, and Heinz Dehn 1990 Imports and Exports in Classic Mesoamerican Political Economy: The Tehuacan Valley and the Teotihuacan Obsidian Industry. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:177 199. Gomez Chavez, Sergio, and Ruben Cabrera Castro 2006 Contextos de la ocupacion Coyotlatelco en Teotihuacan. In El fenomeno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Mexico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, edited by Laura Solar Valverde, pp. 231 256. Memoria del Primer Seminario-Taller sobre Problematicas Regionales. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico. Healan, Dan M. 1992 A Comment on Moholy-Nagys The Misidentication of Lithic Workshops. Latin American Antiquity 3:240242. 1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach. American Antiquity 60: 689699. Hester, Thomas R. 1986 On the Misuse of Projectile Point Typology in Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 51:412 414. Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer 1992 Lithic Workshops Revisited: Comments on Moholy-Nagy. Latin American Antiquity 3:243248. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Massimo Vidale, and Kuldeep Kumar Bhan 1991 Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of Craft Specialization and Organization of Production as Reected in the Archaeological Record. World Archaeology 23:4463. Mallory, John K. 1986 Workshops and Specialized Production in the Production of Maya Chert Tools: A Response to Shafer and Hester. American Antiquity 51:152158. Millon, Rene 1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, edited by Victoria R. Bricker and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198 243. University of Texas Press, Austin. Millon, Rene, Bruce Drewitt, and George Cowgill 1973 The Teotihuacan Map. In Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, edited by Rene Millon, University of Texas Press, Austin. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 1990 The Misidentication of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops. Latin American Antiquity 1:268279 1992 Lithic Deposits as Waste Management: Reply to Healan and to Hester and Shafer. Latin American Antiquity 3:249 251. ` Moragas Segura, Natalia 2005 Sobreviviendo al colapso: teotihuacanos y coyotlatelcos en Teotihuacan. Revista Espanola de Antropologa Americana 35: 33 50. Nelson, Zachary 2000 Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop at Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 700 800. Unpublished Masters

162
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Pasztory, Esther 1997 Teotihuacan, an Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Rattray, Evelyn Childs 1979 Obsidian Production at Teotihuacan in the Coyotlatelco Phase. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. 1980 Las investigaciones en la Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan, Estado de Mexico. Report presented to Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico. 1981 La industria de la obsidiana durante el perodo Coyotlatelco. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 27:213223. 1987 La produccion y la distribucion de obsidiana en el perodo Coyotlatelco en Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sntesis, nuevos problemas, edited by Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn Childs Rattray, pp. 451463. Serie Antropologica 72. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico. 1989 Un taller de bifaciales de obsidiana del perodo Coyotlatelco en la Hacienda Metepec, en Teotihuacan. In La obsidiana en Mesoamerica, edited by Margarita Gaxiola Gonzalez and John E. Clark, pp. 243 252. Coleccion Cientca 176. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico. Saberon, Shelby 1997 An Obsidian Workshop Deposit at Hacienda Metepec, Teotihuacan. Unpublished Undergraduate Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Sanders, William T., and Robert S. Santley 1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt and Richard M. Leventhal, pp. 243 291. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Santley, Robert. S. 1984 Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratication, and the Evolution of Complex Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 43 86. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Nelson
Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1986 Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize: A Reply to Mallory. American Antiquity 51:158166. 1991 Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. World Archaeology 23:79 97. Sheehy, James J. 1992 Ceramic Production in Ancient Teotihuacan, Mexico: A Case Study of Tlajinga 33. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Solar Valverde, Laura (editor) 2006 El fenomeno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Mexico: tiempo, espacio y signicado. Memoria del Primer Seminario-Taller sobre Problematicas Regionales. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico. Spence, Michael W. 1967 The Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 32: 507 514. 1977 Teotihuacan y el intercambio de obsidiana en Mesoamerica. In Los Procesos de Cambio, XV Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa, 2:293 300. Guanajuato, Mexico. 1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 87:519535. 1987 The Scale and Structure of Obsidian Production in Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sntesis, nuevos problemas, edited by Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn Childs Rattray, pp. 429450. Serie Antropologca 72. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico. Sullivan, Kristin 2004 Making and Manipulating Ritual in the City of the Gods: Figurine Production and Use at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/ 03021/index.html, accessed September 25, 2006. Turner, Margaret H. 1987 The Lapidary Industry of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Rochester, New York. Widmer, Randolph J. 1991 Lapidary Craft Specialization at Teotihuacan: Implications for Community Structure at 33:S3W1 and Economic Organization in the City. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:131 141.