This document discusses previous experiments attempting to replicate the ancient Mesoamerican technique for manufacturing prismatic obsidian blades based on descriptions from early Spanish chroniclers. It finds that Don Crabtree's technique, while successful, does not fully align with the ethnohistoric accounts. It reevaluates the primary Spanish sources and identifies discrepancies between Crabtree's method and details regarding the tool used, how it was used, the worker's position, how the core was secured, and blade production rate. The author presents a hypothesis to resolve inconsistencies and experiments to develop an alternative technique that is more consistent with the original Spanish descriptions.

1. Society for American Archaeology
Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: An Alternative Technique
Author(s): John E. Clark
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 355-376
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279907
Accessed: 29/06/2009 13:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org

2. REPORTSREPORTS
Smith, Carol A.
1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-
pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. Annual
Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.
1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regional
analysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.
Smith, Michael E.
1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central place
analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125.
Torquemada, Juan de
1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua,Mexico, D.F.
Vaillant, George C.
1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.
MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES:
AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUE
John E. Clark
Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique of
prismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known of
these ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluated
and compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de-
scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success-
fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.
The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in-
trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friars
described the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un-
workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtree
made a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutch
and a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopied
or mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accord
with his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his alleged
misuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric material
has been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure-
blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accord
with the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de-
scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources.
Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanish
chroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of the
discrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.
Smith, Carol A.
1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-
pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. Annual
Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.
1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regional
analysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.
Smith, Michael E.
1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central place
analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125.
Torquemada, Juan de
1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua,Mexico, D.F.
Vaillant, George C.
1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.
MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES:
AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUE
John E. Clark
Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique of
prismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known of
these ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluated
and compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de-
scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success-
fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.
The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in-
trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friars
described the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un-
workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtree
made a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutch
and a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopied
or mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accord
with his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his alleged
misuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric material
has been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure-
blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accord
with the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de-
scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources.
Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanish
chroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of the
discrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.
John E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de las
Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
John E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de las
Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology
0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1
Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology
0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1
355355

3. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
The hypothesis which guided this research was that the ethnohistoric descriptions of blade-
making are essentially correct and should be interpreted literally. Experiments were performed
to determine whether prismatic blades could be produced in the manner described. Techniques
which differ radically from those described in the Spanish accounts were not considered. Finally,
it was assumed that the accounts of the blademaking process, although correct, may be in-
complete in subtle or minor details.
ETHNOHISTORICDATA
At present, five major historical sources are known which describe various aspects of blade
manufacture. These are the accounts of: (1) Francisco Hernandez (1959) (quoted in Ellis [1940],
Feldman [1971], Fletcher [1970], Hester [1978], Marcou [1921], and Tylor [1861]); (2) Friar Torbio
de Benavente or Motolinia (1973) (translations in Foster [1950], Hester [1978], Hester et al.
[1971], Kidder et al. [1946]); (3) Mendieta-Las Casas-Torquemada (Friar Ger6nimo de Mendieta
[1945]; Friar Bartolome de Las Casas [1974]; Fray Juan de Torquemada [1975] ). Translations of
Torquemada are found in Cabrol and Coutier (1932), Crabtree (1968), Fletcher (1970), Hester
(1978), Hester et al. (1971), Holmes (1919), Kidder et al. (1946), Linne (1934), Marcou (1921), Tylor
(1861), and Wilson (1899). The almost verbatim similarity between these three accounts reflects
plagiarism of a common source. All three accounts borrowed from a now-lost manuscript by Friar
Andres de Olmos (Feldman 1969; Wilkerson 1974). (4) Friar Bernardino de Sahagun (1961, 1975,
cited in Fletcher [1970] and Hester [1978]); and (5) George E. Sellers (1886). Sellers's account dif-
fers significantly from the others and is concerned with a different cultural area, but it does pro-
vide insight into the possible Aztec technique.
In addition to the narrative descriptions of blademaking, two authors mention pictorial repre-
sentations of the process (Coutier 1952:264; Feldman 1973:90). In The Chronicles of Michoacan
(Craine and Reindorp 1970) there is a representation of a "knifemaker" (Navajero) at work
(Feldman 1973:90). Significant aspects of this drawing are discussed below. Coutier (1952) il-
lustrates five figures from the Mappe de Quintanzin (sic) who are working stone. The third figure
purportedly represents an Indian making prismatic blades.
This figure representsa seated Indian,his bodyand head leaningwell forward,his legs crossed at the
ankles;the end of his left footslightlyraisedindicatesthathe is holdingsomethingunderhis foot.Heholds
inhis handsa baton,his armspress againsthis chest, theupperendof hisbatondoesnotpass the shoulder
onwhichit presses as well. Onecan see, also, a piece of woodequalin thicknessto the Indian'scalf which
is fixed on the batonat the heightof the hands,andwhose base ends in fourprongswith 'bec pro6minent'
shape. Oneof these pointsrests near the end of the left foot.Thesubject'sgeneralexpressionalso shows
veryclearlytheeffortrequiredbypressurestoneworking.FacingtheIndianappearworkedcores,a small
vase, andbesideit, arrangedina pile,someknappedblades.BehindthisIndian,bladesarescatteredonthe
ground[Coutier1952:264;literal translationby Olivierde Montmollin,personalcommunication1979].
The wealth of detail found in this drawing is, unfortunately, erroneous. The drawing in question is
not from the Mappe de Quinatzin but the Mapa Toltzin (Aubin 1885). In the original drawing seven
artisans are pictured, among them the one singled out and poorly copied by L. Coutier. "In this
document it describes the mat-maker (petatero) and one can clearly see that what he has in his
hands are vegetable fibers" (Joaquin Galarza, personal communication 1979). Coutier's claim,
then, should be rejected. At the present time, only one drawing is known of artisans making
pressure blades.
Numerous modern authors have attempted to describe possible methods of prismatic blade
manufacture (Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940; Fletcher 1970; Joly 1883; Soll-
berger and Patterson 1976; Stoll 1886), but only Crabtree discusses them thoroughly and recon-
structs one which yields true replicas. Therefore, fruitful discussion of previous experimentation
necessarily focuses upon the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between Crabtree's
method and the Spanish accounts will be discussed. These are: (1) the tool used; (2) the manner of
356 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

4. REPORTS
tool use; (3) the position of the worker; (4) the method of securing the core; and (5) the rate of
blade manufacture.
The Tool
Tylor was the first to discuss the production of prismatic blades (1861). In his Anahuac he
presents both a translation of Friar Juan de Torquemada's account, as well as information from
Francisco Hernandez. According to Tylor (1861:332), Hernandez compares the wooden instru-
ment central to the manufacturing process to a crossbow (see Fletcher for a differing opinion
[1970:213]), suggesting that it was "T"-shaped. Tylor proposes that the top of this "T"-shaped tool
was placed against the chest and then pressure-applied, in the manner later described by Crab-
tree (1968). Subsequent writers and researchers followed Tylor's lead and assumed that a
pressure tool in the form of a chest crutch was used. Greater credibility was given this assump-
tion with the publication of Sellers's "Observationson Stone-Chipping" in which he illustrates
two chest crutches and describes their use (1886:874-875, Figures 1, 2). However, recent experi-
ments have demonstrated that it is not possible to use a chest crutch while in the seated position
described by the Spanish friars (see below). Consequently, the accuracy of the ethnohistoric
descriptions was questioned. Crabtree's discussion on this point (1968) prompted Fletcher to pre-
sent more thorough ethnohistoric data, including a drawing from Sahagun of the tool used
(1970:210, Figure 1), reproduced in Figure lb. The accounts given in Mendieta-Las Casas-
Torquemada (hereafter "MLT") and Hernandez possibly describe such a tool.
Torquemada describes the pressure tool as a stick as "thick as a lance" and "3 cubits long"
(135 cm based on the royal cubit of 45 cm; Marcou [19211). He continues:
At the head of this shaft theyglue on and firmlytie a sectionof woodof a palmtree (as thickas theupper
armanda littlemoremoreandthis has its face flat andcut |or notched) so thatit will weighmoreIKidderet al.
1946:1351.
This piece of wood attached to the shaft could be the "projecting hook" (garfio saliente) mentioned
by Hernandez (1959:406) (translated in Feldman [1971:214]). Hernandez (Fletcher translation
[1970:212]) says the tool "looks a lot like the stock of an harquebus" (cierta raiz eminente que se
parece mucho a la coxas de arcabuz; Marcou [1921:23]). Fletcher adds that the harquebus refers
to a musket rather than to a crossbow (see also Marcou [1921:23]). The sixteenth-century har-
quebus had a straight stock which was held against the chest when fired (Fletcher 1970:213).
Fletcher presents this as evidence for a tool that was similarly used against the chest. Interesting-
ly, examples of both crossbows and harquebuses of this time period hadhad hooklike attachments at
the stock end (Figure 2). Therefore, the analogy to the stock of an harquebus, or even the er-
roneous comparison to a crossbow, would refer to a hooklike tool rather than a "T"-shaped tool.
Examples of the probable tool(s) are shown in Figure 1. Both a and b of Figure 1 are taken from
Sahagun. Figure la was copied as accurately as possible from Plate 778, Book 11, of the Floren-
tine Codex (Sahagun 1963). Figure lb is an enlarged copy of the tool illustrated by Fletcher (1970:
Figure 1C).The Fletcher drawing is somewhat stylized, at the cost of changing significant details.
The attached piece of wood is described "as thick as the upper arm or a little more" but the shaft
is as "thick as a lance." These proportions are indicated in Figures la and lc. In Figure lb the at-
tached piece shown is actually smaller than the lance and therefore does not accord well with the
descriptions. The morphology of the hook end of the tool is also significantly different in Figures
la and lb. Figure ic is more stylized and of slightly different proportions than the one illustrated
by Sahagiin. However, both are functionally very similar in overall dimensions and general pro-
portions. In summary, ethnohistoric evidence now points convincingly to the use of a tool with a
hook rather than a chest crutch. Thus, the major unquestioned assumption underlying previous
experimental work was incorrect.
The tool used by Crabtree had a copper bit inserted in the working end (1968:452). Sellers men-
357

5. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tions that bone, buckhorn, or walrus tusk could also have been used (1886:874, 875). In contrast,
none of the Spanish accounts explicitly mention the use of a bit. Most describe a wooden attach-
ment which is probably the projecting hook. The "face" of this piece is "smoothed and trimmed"
or "flat and notched" (Kidder et al. 1946:135; Feldman 1971:213).
Sahagun, in the Dibble and Anderson translation of the Florentine Codex, mentions that "The
obsidian seller is one who, [with] a staff with a crosspiece, forces off blades" (1961:85). A casual
reading of this passage could be construed as evidence for a "T"-shaped tool such as used by
Crabtree; however, this is the textual description of the tool pictured in Figure la. This
"crosspiece" must be the attached hook. The Aztec terms for this are "itzcolotli" and "ezcolotli"
which mean "obsidian armature" and "blood armature," respectively.
a. b.
I
I
I
! "
C.
Figure 1. Conquest period representations of tools used to manufacture prismatic blades: a. tool il-
lustrated by Sahagun (1963:Plate 778); b. Fletcher drawing of tool a (1970;Figure ic); c. tool pictured in the
Relaci6n de Michoacan (Tudela y Nuiiez 1977:Lamina XXIX).
I
i
358 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

6. REPORTS 359
a.
/ //
fl
//
/
b. ;0
Figure 2. Implements with prominent hook attachments which were compared to the Aztec pressure
flaking tool: a. Arcabucero firing an arcabus with a hook at the stock end (Diccionario Enciclopedico Univer-
sal 1972:322); b. Spanish crossbow with hook at the stock end (Craine and Reindorp 1970:Plate 17).

7. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Colotlimeans "framework,""armature,"or "cone-shapedcap" like a dunce cap. It apparentlyrefers
to an instrumentused in flakingobsidian,possiblya jig .... Ezcolotli,literally,"bloodarmature"is to me
obscurein meaning.So far I haven'tbeen able to findanotheretymologyin which the rootez meansany-
thingotherthan "blood"[translationsand notes by ThelmaD. Sullivan,personalcommunication].
In a footnote to this term, ezcolotli, Thelma D. Sullivan asks whether or not a sharp-pointed instru-
ment, such as employed in bloodletting, was used in blade manufacture (personal communication
1980). These terms, then, are possible allusions to a bit, or at least to the special shape of the at-
tached piece of wood used as the "projecting hook." Such a piece would be generally shaped like
a dunce cap and possibly terminate in a very sharp point (colotli also means "horn"; Simeon
1977). Perhaps the term ezcolotli "blood armature" can be interpreted as the bit of, or similar in
shape to, a bloodletting instrument. A common bloodletting implement pictured in the Mexican
codices is a bone awl. Possibly, then, Aztec artisans used sharp-pointed bone bits in their pressure
flaking tools. These glosses may, however, merely refer to the special pointed shape of the hook
attachment as shown for the tools in Figure 1.
Replication experiments have shown that blades can be detached with a wooden-tipped chest
crutch (Crabtree 1968:449; Sheets and Muto 1972:632) or a wooden punch (Cabrol and Coutier
1932:582; Barnes 1947:625; Sheets 1977:143). The results of these experiments suggest that other
wooden-tipped tools, such as the one described for the Aztecs, would also produce satisfactory
results.
It is noteworthy that Kidder claims to have found a tool fitting the MLTdescription in a Basket-
maker II cave (Kidder et al. 1946:135). The tool in question
consists of an antler or very hard bone point mounted on a wooden shaft .... The length ... is 3 3/4 inches
[9.5 cm], of which 6/16 of an inch [.8 cm]projectsbeyondthe end of the shaft;the width appears to be
uniformly1/4of an inch [.6 cm].Theprojectingportiontapers to 1/8of an inch [.3 cm]at the extremeend.
The shaft is a piece of an old atlatl spear shaft 35 inches long [87.5 cm].The bone pointis boundto the
smallerendof thisbyseizingsof skinoverwrappedwithsinew.Thelargerendis workedtoa roundedpoint
[Guernseyand Kidder1921:96].
Although the authors assert that this tool was definitely a "stone flaker," it varies significantly
from the verbal and drawn representations left by the Spaniards (see Figure 3). The shaft is
shorter and thinner, and the wooden attachment does not fit the description of being as "thick as
the fleshy part of the arm" (Kidder et al. 1946:135). Further, the stone flaker also has a bit,
whereas bits are not mentioned in the Spanish accounts. Considering all of these differences, it is
doubtful that the tool reported by Guernsey and Kidder is the same one described in the ethno-
historic accounts.
/
/
/
Figure 3. Basketmaker pressure-flaker from the American Southwest. (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:
Figure 15).
360 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

8. REPORTS
Tool Use
Neither Crabtree nor Coutier were able to produce blades with a chest crutch tool in the man-
ner described by the early chroniclers (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:580; Crabtree 1968). In order to
remove prismatic blades, Crabtree had to secure the obsidian core in a vise, stand over it, and,
with a chest crutch, press off blades with a "downward and outward" force (1968:453). This ac-
cords well with one technique recorded by Sellers (1886:874) but differs significantly from the
Spanish ethnohistoric accounts.
Hernandez (1959:406) states that the artisans "pulled" (arrancar) blades off the core (Feldman
1971:214). This implies a motion toward the chest rather than away from it as described by Crab-
tree (see Sheets [1977:144]). According to MLT, "they press against [towards] the chest" (Flet-
cher 1970:210) (aprietan hacia el pecho [Mendieta 1945:57]). However, Motolinia says that they
gave a "push" (empujon)with the tool (1973:45). This is evidence for use of the tool in the manner
described by Crabtree, but Motolinia may have used "push" in the same sense that MLT use
"press," to "press towards the chest."
Sahag?unrecords the actual native term for blade removal. This has been translated as "forcing
off" blades (Sahagun 1961:85) or as "pressing off" blades (Thelma D. Sullivan, personal commu-
nication). The actual term, tlapaneua, means "to lift off the surface." "Dibble and Anderson
etymologize this (apparently) from tlapani 'to break', 'to shatter', and eua, 'to lift up', 'to raise'.
Another possibility is pani, 'on the surface' which is pan in composition and eua. In any case the
meaning is clear: 'to flake' 'to lift off.' " A related phrase, niqueua in iztle (Sahagun 1963:227),
means "I lift off obsidian [flakes and blades]." (Translations and notes courtesy of Thelma D.
Sullivan.) The Aztec term, then, literally means to raise or lift off a blade from the surface of the
obsidian core. As will become clear in the following discussion, this implies a certain method of
securing and working the core and a working motion towards the chest as recorded in MLT.
Feldman (1973:90) notes that a picture of a blademaker at work is shown in The Chronicles of
Michoacan (Craine and Reindorp 1970; Tudela and Nunez 1977). The drawing in question is
shown in Figure 4. A small group of knifemakers (Navajeros) is unquestionably represented. The
central figure is holding the tool pictured in Figure ic and has a core between his feet. The
critical question is whether or not this artisan is actually working. When this drawing is viewed in
context, it is doubtful that he is. In the two plates which show the government officials, 23 small
groups of artisans are pictured. The common feature of all these pictures is that each group is
shown with the unique tools and/or products of its trade. In the case of the navajeros shown in
Figure 4, these apparently were the tool, the core between the feet, and the unique sitting posi-
tion. With one possible exception, none of these artisans is pictured in a working pose. This is
probably true of the knifemakers as well. If the navajeros in this drawing are actually producing
blades, we could infer that the end of the shaft and not the hook attachment was the working tip,
that the tool was pushed away from the chest, and that the core was held upright between the
feet. This is contrary to much of the evidence given in the written descriptions. Therefore, rather
than overinterpret an ambiguous and stylized drawing, it is the author's view that the navajeros
are not shown working. Certain distinguishing features of the craft are pictured only: namely, the
tool, method of securing the core, and the products. The two rectangles to the left of the central
figure are undoubtedly these products. They probably do not represent cores since they differ
from the core represented in the same drawing and others illustrated in Sahagun (1963:Plates
763, 778, 786; see also Fletcher [1970:Figure 1]). It is more likely that they are "snapped" or sec-
tioned prismatic blades (see Sahagun [1963; Plate 779] for other examples of blade fragments).
Working Position
The major point made by Coutier and Crabtree is that one cannot sit on the ground, hold the
core with the feet, and press off blades with a 5-foot chest crutch (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:580;
Crabtree 1968:446). This problem is resolved when a different tool is substituted. All of the
Spanish accounts state or imply that the worker sat on the ground while detaching blades from a
361

9. AMERICANANTIQUITY
1_4 45
Figure 4. Navajeros-"Knifemakers" or those who produce "prismatic blades" (Navajas). Taken from
the Relaci6n de Michoacan, Lamina XXIX (Tudela y Nuiiez 1977).
core. This is also shown in Figure 4. Crabtree's interpretation of Torquemada's account to justify
a standing position (Crabtree 1968:448) has been corrected by Fletcher (1970:210-211). Sellers
also mentions that, for at least one technique, the artisan sat on the ground with the core between
his feet (1886:874). Hernandez is even more specific; he describes the working position as "en-
cogidas las piernas" (Marcou 1921:23). This could mean either "squatting or sitting on the ground
with the legs flexed and the knees spread" (Fletcher 1970:210-211). Feldman translates a
parallel passage as "arching laterally the legs" (1971:214).
362 [Vol.47, No.2,1982]

10. REPORTS
Holding the Core
The major problem which must be solved in order to produce prismatic blades is that of stabi-
lizing the core. Crabtree (1968:448) stresses this point:
Myexperimentshave definitelyproven,forme,thatit is impractical,if notimpossible,to sit onthe ground,
holdthe core with the nakedfeet, andremoveprismaticbladesby the pressuremethod.Theoutwardforce
necessaryto removea bladeis so greatthatnodegreeofmusculardevelopmentwouldsuffice toimmobilize
the core sufficientlyto accomplishremoval.
Movement of the core during blade removal can ruin both the blade and the core. Crabtree's suc-
cessful replication results from using a vise to immobilize the core. A similar vise used by North
American Indians is described by Sellers (1886:874). However, the Spanish accounts unanimously
agree that the core was held with the naked feet. Hernandez (1959:406) states "sujetando la
piedra con los dedos gordos de los pies y arqueando lateralmente las piernas arrancan los
artesanos laminas gruesecillas" "grasping the stone with the three big toes and arching laterally
the legs, the artisans pull off small thick [narrow?] flakes" (translation in Feldman 1971:214). The
artisan pictured in Figure 4 is also holding the core between the unprotected big toes of the feet.
Motolinia describes the artisan as holding the core "between the feet" (Feldman 1971:214). Tor-
quemada (Thompson translation) records th hey place their bare feet together, and with them
they press against [apretar] the stone as though with pincers or the vise of a carpenter's bench"
(Kidder et al. 1946:135; emphasis supplied). This is the passage that Crabtree suggests may have
been miscopied; he proposed that "or" could have been "and" (1968:448). He was later shown to
be in error (Fletcher 1970:211). The reference to pincers and a carpenter's vise is an analogy on-
ly. The Spaniards, who apparently were familiar with such devices and would have mentioned
their use, state that the core was held with the naked feet. Sellers describes a similar technique.
However, he further adds that each core was "commonly held by being sufficiently embedded in
hard earth to prevent its slipping" (1886:874). With "the stone in a slight indentation . . . pre-
viously prepared, to give the proper angle and to prevent slipping" (1886:874), the craftsmen
were able to remove blades. The Aztecs, and other Mesoamerican artisans, could easily have
made use of a "slight indentation" to stabilize the core (Barnes 1947:103); as discussed below,
this may be depicted in Plate 763, Book 10, of the Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1961). In this light,
Torquemada's description, "They press against the stone as though with pincers or a vise" (Kid-
der et al. 1946:135; emphasis supplied), is more appropriate. They could have pressed the core in-
to a small depression in hard earth. The core would thus be held between the feet and, at the same
time, be pressed firmly into the ground. This is also implied by Sahagun's phrase "estribando con
los pies" (1975:572), "pressing with the feet" (translation supplied). The verb estribar means to
firmly rest the weight of one thing on another (Diccionario de la Lengua Espanfiola1970). There-
fore, the feet were placed on the core, pressing it downward into the ground.
Rate of Manufacture
The Spanish accounts describe a more rapid rate of blade manufacture than may be possible
with the Crabtree chest crutch-and-vise technique. With the Crabtree method, the core must be
constantly adjusted during blade removal to expose a new working face and the vise reset. The
frequency of these adjustments increases as the core becomes more attenuated. This process
would undoubtedly be faster with an assistant, but the Spanish accounts specifically state that
"an Indian, one of these craftsmen" manufacture the blades (see Torquemada in Kidder et al.
1946:135; emphasis supplied). They also mention that "in a very short time these craftsmen
detach from the stone in the said manner more than twenty knives" (Torquemada in Kidder et al.
1946:135). The length of time encompassed by "a very short time" is open to question; however,
Clavigero placed this figure at more than 100 blades per hour (MacCurdy 1900:421). "Hacian
estas navajas con tal presteza, que en una hora sacaban un artifice [sic] mas de ciento"
363

11. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
(Clavigero 1964:258). "They made these knives with such quickness that in one hour a craftsman
removed more than a hundred" (translation supplied). The accuracy of this statement may be
questioned. Clavigero was an eighteenth-century Jesuit priest who relied heavily upon the works
of Juan de Torquemada and Francisco Hernandez to write his Historia Antigua de Mexico (Ronan
1973). In all probability his statement is an exaggeration (or extrapolation) of Torquemada's 20
blades "in a very short time." However, there is the possibility that he derived this information
from an unknown document or native Nahua informants with whom he labored several years.
Such a production rate as recorded by Clavigero would certainly be possible were time not
wasted readjusting the core in a vise.
Because of the time required to change the position of the core in a vise, I have found it more
convenient to remove as many blades as possible from the immobile core before repositioning it.
This creates a flat facet on the core face which is subsequently repeated on other sides of the
core. The resultant core is square or rectangular in transverse cross section, whereas most
prehistoric examples are round. However, if the core did not have to be secured in a vise, the
blades could be removed in a continuous spiral all around the core as has been postulated in
several reports (Holmes 1900:414; Kidder et al. 1946:137). This can be achieved using a vise but
requires even more changes in the position of the core and would probably not be executed "in a
very short time" (see Torquemada in Fletcher 1970:210), or "with such quickness" (Clavigero
1964:258).
Interestingly, Crabtree uses this same argument for the use of the vise. He reasons that much
time would be wasted in repositioning the core between the feet after each blade removal
(1968:448). Although it is true that the core must be repositioned, the time required is negligible
and, with practice, could probably be done solely with the feet. This takes only a fraction of the
time needed to readjust a core in a vise.
This argument of relative production time may be spurious due to my lack of extensive ex-
perience with the Crabtree technique. Actual blade removal requires only a fraction of a second
(Crabtree 1968:472). With a core of the proper shape Crabtree can remove as many as 20 blades
before changing core position. This could be done in 2 minutes or less (Crabtree, personal commu-
nication August 1979). At this production rate it would be possible to produce more than 100
blades in an hour. However, relative manufacturing rates of each technique should be subjected
to controlled experimentation to determine how they compare to Clavigero's statements.
Summary
In the foregoing discussion it was shown that the Crabtree technique differs significantly from
the descriptions given by the early Spanish friars. Crabtree states:
if we are to take the translatedversion of the Friar'sobservationsverbatim,we have the picture of an
Indiansittingflat on the ground,legs straightout in frontof him,holdinga very sharp core between his
nakedfeet, and pressing off blades with a crutchthat measures well over five feet. This simplywill not
work [1968:450].
Excepting the tool used, Crabtree is correct in this literal assessment of the Spanish accounts.
Both this technique and the working position became the hypothesis to be tested experimentally.
The tool used in the experiments was the hooked implement described by Hernaindez and il-
lustrated by Sahagun. Apparently, the tip of the hook was placed on the edge of the core, and
blades were subsequently removed by pulling the shaft portion of the tool towards the chest. This
method was tested with positive results.
EXPERIMENTS
Several experiments were carried out to test the various aspects of blade manufacture outlined
above. Those problems that previous research had found particularly difficult were emphasized
(i.e., removing blades while sitting on the ground and holding the core in the naked feet).
364 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

12. 365REPORTS
50 cms
a. b. c. d.
Figure 5. Tools used in blade production experiments. Designed after those shown in Figure 1.
I
I

13. AMERICANANTIQUITY
Several assumptions were made at the start of this research. First, the tool illustrated by
Sahagun was presumed to be a pressure flaker and also to be accurate in its stated proportions (see
Figure la, b). Second, it was further assumed that the working portion of this tool was the hook
mentioned by Hernandez (1959). An alternative use of the tool was suggested by Fletcher (1970:
212), but the technique seemed to be less plausible than the one postulated for this study.
Given the above considerations, several experiments were conducted to resolve the major
discrepancies between the Crabtree technique and the ethnohistoric accounts. These are: (1) the
form of the tool; (2) the method of securing the core; (3) the working position; and (4) the material
used as a working bit for the tool.
The Tool
The first experiments tested the functional adequacy of the tool itself. A tool was constructed
following the proportions given in the Sahagfin drawing and measurements in the MLT descrip-
tion. Because of the author's size, a cubit was calculated at 50 cm instead of 45 cm. The resultant
tool was 150 cm long, with an attached piece 33 cm long. This was attached 22 cm from the end of
the shaft, placing the working bit 55 cm from the proximal end of the tool (see Figure 5a; this is
labeled the proximal end since it is closest to the worker when the tool is being used). A copper bit
was also inserted into the "hook" portion of the tool.
In the first experiment a core was secured upside down in a vise. The copper-tipped tool was
used in a simulated seated position; it was necessary to stand and put one foot on the vise to
stabilize it and to use the other foot as a fulcrum for the tool. This experiment demonstrated that
blades could be removed with the lever tool in question. I then turned to the remaining problems:
how to secure the core with the feet, the working position, and the material used as the working
bit for the tool.
Holding the Core
Subsequent experiments focused on the problem of securing the core. The core used in these
experiments is shown in Figure 6. Several attempts to hold this core with the unaided feet failed.
Crabtree's contention that "The outward force necessary to remove a blade is so great that no
degree of muscular development would suffice to immobilize the core sufficiently to accomplish
removal" (1968:448), appears to be correct. After this failure alternative methods, which still
made use of the feet, were sought to immobilize the core. Following a suggestion from Crabtree
(personal communication December 1978), a post was planted in the ground which would give
support to the distal end of the core during blade removal. It was indeed possible to stabilize the
core in this manner, and replicas of Mesoamerican prismatic blades were successfully produced;
some of these are shown in Figure 6. However, in this experiment it was necessary to tilt the core
platform approximately 60? from the plane surface of the ground. A small hole was necessary for
the proximal end of the pressure tool so that the proper angle, approximately 102?, could be at-
tained between the core's platform surface and the tip of the pressure flaker. In actuality, the
core contacted only the bottom 3-5 cm of the post and also the surface of the ground. It became
apparent that the post might not be necessary. Another experiment was conducted in which a
small depression was shaped in "hard earth" to hold the core. It met with equal success, although
the core position was slightly different-the long axis of the core being more parallel with the sur-
face of the ground. This new position also solved the problem of the hole needed for the proximal
end of the pressure tool.
As noted above, Plate 763, Book 10 of the Florentine Codex (Sahagfin 1961) pictures a core
resting on the ground in what may be a slight depression-artistically represented by cross hatch-
ing (represented by shading in the facsimile edition). This could be a portrayal of the position of a
core during blade removal. The plate is a rebus of quetzaoliztli,"emerald," and, as such, shows
recognizable pictures of feathers with jade, representing the precious green quetzal feathers,
and an obsidian core, itzli. An obsidian core resting on its side within a slight depression may have
366 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

14. I
--
:7:w
ll-
- 1---W
5 cms
1 N-~I~
Figure 6. Experimental core and prismatic blades removed from the core.
~~~~~~~~~~I

15. AMERICANANTIQUITY
Figure 7. Schematic representation of forces involved in prismatic blade manufacture: a. force of feet
pushing the core into a slight hollow in the ground; b. outward force pushing tip of pressure against the core
platform; c. force perpendicular to force b and toward the worker which fractures off a blade.
been a common sight (since blades were produced at the marketplace), and, as such, a logical
choice to portray the iztli of the rebus.
In the experiments mentioned above, the core was held between and with the naked feet.
Pressure from the feet pushed the core against the post or depression in the ground as shown in
Figure 7a rather than pressing it between the feet. At first, the core was held with the big toes of
the feet, as described by Hernandez. Although it was possible to immobilize the core in this man-
ner, I found it much easier, more comfortable, and more effective to secure the core with the
heels.
One of Crabtree's objections to holding the core with the naked feet was that the sharp ridges
would cut them (1968:449). Fletcher dismisses this argument by mentioning the "horny" state of
feet that have never known shoes and rarely sandals (1970:212). Crabtree later negates his own
objection by showing that the obtuse angles in question are best suited for planing rather than
cutting (1973, 1977).
The author's experience was that a well-prepared core was "slippery" rather than dangerous.
After making an unsuccessful attempt to cut the skin of the feet with the obtuse-angled ridges on a
core, I discovered that these ridges do allow for a grip on the core in the same way as a vise.
When pressure is exerted, the flesh on the bottom of the feet conforms to the contours of the
ridges and flutes and prevents core movement. This is similar to what happens with the use of a
vise; it is necessary to embed these ridges in the wood of a vise in order to hold the core when
pressure is applied.
Crabtree's objection to the sharpness of a core's ridges has been misunderstood. He is well
aware of the cutting properties of the obtuse-angled ridges. What Crabtree intended was that the
edge of the core platform (the juncture of the platform and core face) is extremely sharp, especial-
ly if overhang is not removed (personal communication August 1979). The author's experience
confirms this observation. However, a core can be secured by placing the feet just below this
sharp edge. Consequently, it is not a significant detriment to blade manufacture by this method.
Working Position
Two holding positions can be employed in using the pressure tool, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
The first requires a slight depression for the proximal portion of the tool in order to obtain the prop-
_ I I
368 [Vol.47, No.2,1982]

16. REPORTS
Figure 8. Working position #1.
er angle with the core platform. With the core secured between the feet, the tip of the pressure
tool is placed near the upper rim of the platform that faces the worker. The worker's left hand is
near the crotch of the pressure tool (formed by the shaft and the hook). This hand stabilizes the
proximal end of the tool, while at the same time forcing the tip of the pressure tool against the
core platform; this holds the tip of the tool to the core platform. Next, the worker pulls towards his
chest with the right hand, which is situated midway on the shaft. Pushing with the left hand and
pulling with the right forces a blade off the core. These forces are diagramed in Figure 7. This
technique worked very well but was unsatisfactory because a special depression was needed for
the proximal portion of the tool and because of the spread position of the hands. The Spanish ac-
counts do not mention a depression (which is quite noticeable) and seem to imply that both hands
were used in pulling the tool toward the body; the drawing of the blademaker in Figure 4 may be
evidence for this. In order to pull with both hands, the proximal end of the tool has to be held sta-
tionary in some other manner to free the left hand. The easiest way to do this is to brace the tool
against the body. This constitutes the second technique pictured in Figure 9. The proximal portion
of the tool is placed on the worker's abdomen and both hands on the shaft's midsection. The tip of
the hook is forced into the core platform by pushing with, or flexing, the abdominal muscles. Once
this pressure is exerted, the worker pulls both arms towards his chest and a blade is removed.
This technique resolves the problem of the hands and eliminates the depression needed for the
proximal end of the pressure tool in the first technique. It also allows, or dictates, that the core be
369

17. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
ML :
Figure 9. Working position #2.
370
_ :
:;
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i E-1-00"I
[Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

18. REPORTS
flat on the ground with the platform facing the worker. As can be seen in Figure 7, the depression
needed to hold the core is very slight.
Tool Bit
The above experiments resolve many of the discrepancies between the Crabtree technique and
that recorded by the Spanish chroniclers. The only remaining problem is that of the working bit.
The Spaniards describe an attachment of palm wood. They also mention that this is to make the
part weigh more. Since dry palm wood is quite light, the weight attributed to this piece suggests
that "palm" may be an emic rather than an etic category; in other words it could possibly be of a
heavy hardwood and not an actual palm. As mentioned previously, Crabtree has removed
prismatic blades using a wooden-tipped tool. However, it was necessary to resharpen the wooden
tip after each blade removal. Also, "In order to remove a blade from a core, the platform must be
isolated so that just the platform area of the blade will contact the wooden pressure tip" (Crab-
tree 1968:449). The tip of the tool used in this process "is not sharp, but it is very blunt in order to
give it strength" (1968:449). Crabtree also suggests that some of the tropical hardwoods would
make good tool tips (1968:450). Several experiments with wooden-tipped tools followed these
observations from Crabtree. The wood used was extremely hard granadillo (Dalbergia granadillo);
a cubic meter of this wood weighs 1,142 kg (Miranda 1976(Vol. 2): 21). Experiments demonstrated
that this wood was so hard that it was slick and would not "grip" the core platform as does cop-
per. Two tool tips of different morphology were unsuccessfully tried; these are pictured in Figures
5 b and d. In another experiment a blunt bit of seasoned oak wood was successfully used. Two blades
were removed with this tool, but the process of blade removal compacted the wood, making it
slick, and the tip could not be used a third time without resharpening. The apparent rapidity with
which blades were made is evidence against this constant resharpening. It was mentioned
previously that the word tajada, used to describe the wooden attachment of the tool, also means
"notched." The oak wood tip of the pressure tool was notched to check the adequacy of such a
tool. Several blades were removed with this modified bit, but it also became slick from compac-
tion. Nonetheless, it was more effective than the blunt, rounded tip because it allowed for a better
"grip" on the core and thus more pressure could be applied. This phenomenon is also known for
antler pressure-flakers which become notched from use. In the latter case the notched tips help
prevent tool slippage. This could also be true of the Aztec tool. In addition, the Mesoamerican
practice of thoroughly abrading core platforms may have been to prevent slippage (Michael
Spence, personal communication 1979), which is a problem with a wooden bit.
In the final experiments a wooden bit of palm wood was tested without success. The tool was
the same form and size as that shown in Figure 5d. Because of the "softness" of the palm bit it
was impossible to remove even small flakes with this tool. However, different varieties of palm
should be tested. A very hard palm is known in Chiapas, Mexico-in fact, it is described as hard-
wood. Although it is very difficult to obtain, present-day Chamula Indians of the Chiapas high-
lands use this wood for billy sticks. The wood has important Precolumbian ritual importance
(Morris 1979:66). These factors make this wood a likely candidate for the palm attachment men-
tioned in the MLT description of the pressure tool.
One plausible interpretation of the Aztec gloss of the attached "crosspiece" was presented
above as evidence for the possible existence of a bone bit, or awl, such as mentioned by Sellers
(1886:874-875). This information became available long after the experiments described herein
were completed; therefore, a bone-tipped tool was not "tested." However, it is the author's view
that special bits were a functional necessity and that bone is the most likely candidate for such
tools.
Summary
The above-described technique of rismatic blade manufacture corresponds more completely
to the Spanish descriptions than the Crabtree technique. The worker uses a tool approximately
371

19. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
three cubits (135-150 cm) long, which has a smaller piece of wood attached at one end; this forms
a hook. This tool is used while the worker is in a seated position, at the same time holding the core
between his naked feet. The proximal end of the pressure tool is near the crotch of the worker or
can be placed on his abdomen. The tip of the hook, or bit, is carefully placed on the top rim of the
core platform that faces the worker. Pressure is exerted outward (parallel to the surface of the
ground), either with the left hand or abdominal muscles, forcing the bit of the tool against the core
platform at an angle of approximately 102?. Just after this outward pressure is applied, the
worker pulls the shaft of the tool toward his body and a blade is forced off the core. These forces
are schematically diagramed in Figure 7. A well-removed blade flies a few centimeters into the
air directly above the core, rotates, and falls harmlessly to the ground near the core. The Spanish
described the blades as "springing off the stone" (see Torquemada in Kidder et al. 1946:135). This is
an accurate description of blades removed by this technique. (Improperly removed blades can fly
into the face or over the shoulders of the worker, and so safety precautions to protect the face are
necessary with this technique.)
The above-described experiments failed to resolve the problem of the working bit of the tool.
This is described as "a section of wood of a palm tree (as thick as the upper arm and a little more
and this has its face flat and cut or notched) so that it will weigh more" (see Torquemada in Kid-
der et al. 1946:135). The reason for the weight of this piece is unknown. Perhaps Feldman is cor-
rect when he translates the passage from Mendieta as "thick like the fleshy part of the arm and
sometimes larger and has its front flat and notched, and this piece serves as the heaviest part"
(1971:213; emphasis supplied). No function is equated with the weight as translated here.
However, this may merely be poetic license on the part of the translator, since Mendieta clearly
states that the purpose of this piece is so that it will weigh more: "y sirve este trozo para que pese
mds aquella parte" (1945:57). The thickness may have been necessary to give strength to the tip.
Marcou suggests that
The smallerpiece attachedto the end of the lance or baton,no doubtservedto shift the center of gravity
and to bringthe weight of the lance, which the artisan had to holdin a somewhattilted fashion,ontothe
pointin contactwith the obsidianIMarcou1921:22;literal translationby Olivierde Montmollin].
This would explain the need for a heavy piece of wood but fails to explain both the Hernandez ac-
count, which refers to a hook, and the drawing from Sahagfun. Marcou also assumes that the
working portion of the tool is the end of the lance and not the attached piece. Admittedly, the
drawing in Figure 4 could be interpreted in this manner. However, the weight of the evidence
seems to contradict this. For example, blades removed in this position would not be "lifted off"
the core but rather propelled into the ground, as is the case with the Crabtree technique.
It was noted that more experimentation with the working bit of the tool needs to be done,
preferably with wood bits. Other materials should also be tested (i.e., chert, jade, bone, antler, shell).
Manufacturing errors resulting from the technique described here are similar to those detailed
for the chest crutch method (Crabtree 1968; Sheets and Muto 1972; Clark 1979); however, the
recovery procedures are somewhat different. For example, the author found it difficult to remove
hinge fractures. This was accomplished with the side-by-side technique (Sheets and Muto
1972:633) or by reversing the core (Crabtree 1968:467). It was not possible to place the working
tip of the tool directly on the hinged mass as is possible with a chest crutch tool. The limitations
and advantages of the hooked tool in relation to different core shapes and sizes and the resultant
blades remain to be determined. It is presently impossible for the author to hold very small cores
with his feet and still leave enough space between them for the tip of the pressure tool. This dif-
ficulty would be compounded using a larger, blunt wooden bit. Also, alternative uses of the tool
and working positions postulated by others (but still in keeping with the written descriptions)
should be investigated to determine their feasibility. Finally, relative production rates of each
technique need to be quantified.
372 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]

20. REPORTS
CONCLUSIONS
Replication experiments demonstrate that prismatic blades can be produced in the manner
described by the Spanish chroniclers. Most of the discrepancies between the technique described
by Crabtree and these ethnohistoric accounts have been resolved. A salient difference between
the experiments described above and those of previous researchers was the form of the tool used.
Previous to Fletcher's article (1970), it was assumed that the Spanish accounts described a chest
crutch, albeit, a very long one. The change to a lever tool with a hook attachment resulted in a
general experimental confirmation of the ethnohistoric descriptions.
The experiments detailed above are clearly preliminary; they point to other relevant problems
and do not entirely resolve the old ones. The major problem is to determine the limitations of the
Aztec technique and pressure-flaking tool. In view of the specialized nature of the blademaking
craft, intensive experience with the technique will be required before these can be fully
evaluated.
Although the technique described herein is presented as the one witnessed by the Spaniards, it
may not have been pan-Mesoamerican nor have had great temporal duration. Subtle changes
noted in prismatic blade platforms through time (Epstein 1964; MacNeish et al. 1967; Sheets
1978; Rovner 1975; Johnson 1976) may be indicative of different techniques. For example,
with the Preclassic technique each platform was individually prepared. Crabtree (1968:449) men-
tions that such preparation was necessary when he used a wooden-tipped chest crutch. Similar
platforms are also characteristic of Preclassic percussion blades. For these percussion blades,
platform size was a function of technique; carefulprefulpreparation was necessary to isolate the plat-
form sufficiently, so that a large, flat surface of the hammerstone would contact the core at only
that point (Clark 1979:243-245). The platform preparation of Preclassic prismatic blades may be
analogous and therefore indicative of a different technique. However, the problem of technique-
specific attributes has yet to be tested adequately through replication experiments. All variations
of pressure flaking as well as related techniques should be analyzed. In particular, indirect per-
cussion should be given greater consideration (as argued by Sheets [1977]), especially since it is
still used by the Lacandon Indians of the Mexican tropical lowlands to make blades (Bruce 1976;
Maler 1901; Mulleried 1939; Tozzer 1907), and in addition, Coutier has claimed to have produced
perfect replicas of prismatic blades by this technique (Cabrol and Coutier 1932:582; Coutier
1952:263). If and whent technological peculiarities of these various techniques have been
demonstrated experimentally, the archaeological record can be assessed more accurately to see
if there was moretherewas more thanone technique. In this regard, Crabtree's observation (1968:478) is very
apropos: "No amount of theorizing by merely examining a flake or blade scar will give a true pic-
ture of these techniques; only by replicating can we change theory to fact." In order to determine
the number of techniques employed in Mesoamerica and their spatial-temporal coordinates, tech-
nological studies of the minute details of both cores and blades must be combined with a similarly
rigorous experimental replication program. Only after this has been done will it be possible to
ascertain the importance of the Aztec technique and whether or not the Crabtree technique was
used in Precolumbian Mesoamerica.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful for the liberal supportof the New WorldArchaeologicalFoundation
(NWAF)which sponsoredandencouragedthis research.Numerousindividualswere also verygenerouswith
theirhelp.IamdeeplyindebtedtoDonE.Crabtreeforhisnumeroussuggestionsandhis sustainingencourage-
mentthroughoutall phases of this study.Olivierde Montmollinwillinglyguidedme throughdifficultFrench
publicationsand providedliteral translationsof keypassages. The text was renderedmoreunderstandable
throughthe thoughtfuleditingof CathyStarr and the typingof Frances T. Mendez.DouglasD. Bryantand
RalphHiltoftheNWAFprovidedphotographicserviceswhichgreatlyimprovedtheillustrations,especiallyin
makingenlargedtracingsof importantdrawings.Igreatlyappreciatethe special effortofJoaquinGalarza,of
the Museede i'Homme,andThelmaD. Sullivanof Centrode InvestigacionesFilologicasdela UniversidadNa-
cional Autonomade Mexico for their ethnohistoricresearch. JoaquinGalarzaresearched the difficultprob-
lem of the purportedillustrationsfromthe MappeQuinatzin.ThelmaD. Sullivanprovidedmeticuloustransla-
373

21. AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tions and notes of key passages and words from the Florentine Codex. My thanks also go to Thomas A. Lee, Jr.,
Thomas R. Hester, Fred W. Nelson, and Oscar Rodriguez who made available materials concerning prismatic
blade manufacture, accessi ble to me.
REFERENCES CITED
Aubin, Joseph M. A.
1885 M6moires sur la peinture didactique etl'6criture figurative des anciens Mexicains. Mission Scien-
tique au Mexique et dans l'Amerique Centrale. Paris.
Barnes, Alfred S.
1947 The production of long blades in Neolithic times. American Anthropologist 49:625-630.
Bruce, Roberto D.
1976 Textos y dibujos Lacandones de Naja (edici6n trilingue). Colecci6n cientifica lingiiistica #45.
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia-Secretaria de Educaci6n Pfiblica, Mexico.
Cabrol, Alexis, and L. Coutier
1932 Contribution a l'etude de la taille de l'obsidienne au M6xique. Bulletin, SocietePrehistorique
Franqaise 29:12:579-582.
Clark, John E.
1979 A method for the analysis of Mesoamerican lithic industries: an application to the obsidian industry
of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham
Young University, Provo.
Clavigero, Francisco Javier
1964 Historia antigua de M6xico. Editorial Porrfia, Mexico.
Courtis, M. de
1865 Note relative a la fabrication des couteaux Asteques en obsidienne. Archives de la Comission Scien-
tifique du Mexique 1:452-453. Paris.
Coutier, L.
1952 Travail de la pierre par pression et par choc chez les anciens Mexicains et Egyptiens. Compte
Rendfi de la 13e Session. Congres Prehistorique de France 1950:261-266.
Crabtree, Don E.
1968 Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades. American Antiquity 33:446-478.
1973 The obtuse angle as a functional edge. Tebiwa 16:1.
1977 The obtuse angle as a functional edge. In Experimental archaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E.
Yellen, and William MacDonald, pp. 38-51. Columbia University Press, New York.
Craine, Eugene R., and Reginald C. Reindorp (translators and editors)
1970 The chronicles of Michoacan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola
1970 (Decimonovena edici6n). Real Academia Espaniola, Madrid.
Diccionario Enciclop6dico Universal (fifth ed.)
1972 Tomo 1. Credito Editorial Sanchez, S.A. (CREDSA).Valencia y Barcelona, Espafia.
Ellis, Henry Holmes
1940 Flint-working techniques of the American Indians: an experimental study. Ohio State Museum,
Columbus.
Epstein, Jeremiah F.
1964 Towards the systematic description of chipped stone. XXXV International Congress of Americanists,
1:155-169. Mexico.
Feldman, Lawrence H.
1969 A Franciscan ethnographic school: plagiarism among six early colonial authors. Katunob 7:2.
1971 Of the stone called iztli. American Antiquity 36:213-214.
1973 Stones for the archaeologist. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research
Facility 18:87-104. Berkeley.
Fletcher, Charles S.
1970 Escapable errors in employing ethnohistory in archaeology. American Antiquity 35:209-213.
Foster, Elizabeth Andros (translator)
1950 Motolinia's history of the Indians of New Spain. The Cortez Society, Berkeley.
Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred V. Kidder
1921 Basket-maker caves of northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology 8, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Hernfindez, Francisco
1959 Historia natural de Nueva Espana (Vol. 2). Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico, Mexico.
Hester, Thomas R. (editor)
1978 Archaeological studies of Mesoamerican obsidian. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican Art,
Archaeology and Ethnohistory, No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.
374 [Vol.47, No.2,1982]

22. REPORTS
Hester, Thomas R., Robert N. Jack, and Robert F. Heizer
1971 The obsidian of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility No. 13. Berkeley.
Holmes, William Henry
1900 The obsidian mines of Hidalgo. American Anthropologist 2:405-416. New York.
1919 Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities. Part I. Introductory. The lithic industries. Bureau
of American Ethnology Bulletin 60. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, Jay
1976 Chipped stone artifacts from the western Maya periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois
University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Joly, N.
1883 Man before metals. Kegan Paul, Trench, &Trubner, London.
Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook
1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 561. Wash-
ington, D.C.
Las Casas, Friar Bartolom6 de
1974 Los indios de Mexico y Nueva Espaha: antologia. Con notas, etc. de Edmundo O'Gorman. Editorial
Porrua, Mexico.
Linn6, Sigvald
1934 Archaeological researches at Teotihuacan. Ethnographic Museum of Sweden, n.s. vol. 1. Stockholm.
MacCurdy, George G.
1900 The obsidian razor of the Aztecs. American Anthropologist 2:417-421.
MacNeish, Richard S., Antoinette Nelken-Terner, and Irmgard Weitlaner de Johnson
1967 The prehistory of the Tehuacan valley Vol. 2: The nonceramic artifacts. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Maler, Teoberto
1901 Researches in the central portion of the Usumatisintla Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology II. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Marcou, Ph.
1921 Procede de Azteques pour la taille par 6clatement des couteaux ou rasoirs d'obsidienne. Journal
de la Societe des Americanistes de Paris 13(n.s.):17-24.
Mendieta, Fray Ger6nimo de
1945 Historia eclesidstica. Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe, Mexico.
Miranda, Faustino
1976 La vegetaci6n de Chiapas: 2a Parte. Ediciones del Gobierno del Estado, Tuxtla Guti6rrez, Chiapas,
Mexico.
Morris, Walter F., Jr.
1979 A catalog of textiles and folkart of Chiapas, Mexico: Vol. 1. Publicaciones Pokok de la Cooperativa
de Artesanas Indigenas, San Crist6bal, Chiapas, Mexico.
Motolinia, Fray Torbio
1973 Historia de los indios de la Nueva Espana. Con notas, etc. de Edmundo O'Gorman. Editorial Porrfua,
Mexico.
Mulleried, Federico K. G.
1939 Las puntas de flecha de los Lacandones. XXVII Congreso de Americanistas 1: 322-337. Mexico.
Ronan, Charles E.
1973 Francisco Javier Clavigero, 1731-1787. In The Handbook of Middle American Indians (Vol. 13.),
edited by Howard F. Cline, pp. 276-297. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Rovner, Irwin
1975 Lithic sequences from the Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Sahagun, Fr. Bernardino de
1961 Florentine Codex: general history of the things of New Spain, Book 10-the people, translated by
Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. 0. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American Research and the
Museum of New Mexico, No. 14, Part XI. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
1963 Florentine Codex: general history of the things of New Spain, Book 11-earthly things, translated
by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J.0. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American Research and the
Museum of New Mexico, No. 14, Part XII. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.
1975 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espana. Con notas, etc. de Angel Maria Garibay K. Editorial
Porrufa, Mexico.
Sellers, George Ercol
1886 Observations on stone chipping. Smithsonian Report for 1885, Part 1:871-891.
Sheets, Payson D.
1977 The analysis of chipped stone artifacts in southern Mesoamerica: an assessment. Latin American
Research Review 12:1.
375

23. AMERICAN ANTIQUITYAMERICAN ANTIQUITY
1978 Artifacts. In The prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vol. 2, Part 1, edited by Robert J. Sharer,
pp. 2-131. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Sheets, Payson D., and Guy Muto
1972 Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science 175:632-634.
Simeon, Remi
1977 Diccionario de la lengua nahuatl o mexicana. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico.
Sollberger, J. B., and L. W. Patterson
1976 Prismatic blade replication. American Antiquity 41:517-531.
Stoll, Otto
1886 An early visit to the El Chayal obsidian quarries in Guatemala. Reprinted in 1978 in Archaeological
Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, edited by Thomas Hester. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican
Art, Archaeology and Ethnohistory No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.
Torquemada, Fray Juan de
1975 Monarquia indiana (quinta edici6n). Introduccion por Miguel Le6n Portilla. Editorial Porrfia,
Mexico.
Tozzer, Alfred M.
1907 A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Archaeological Institute of America, New
York.
Tudela, Jos6, and Jos6 Corona Nufiez
1977 Relacion de Michoacan (1541). (Facsimile edition). Balsal Editores, Mexico.
Tylor, Edward B.
1861 Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern. London.
Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K.
1974 The ethnographic works of Andr6s de Olmos, precursor and contemporary of Sahagfin. In Sixteenth
century Mexico: the work of Sahagun, edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 27-77. University of New Mex-
ico Press, Albuquerque.
Wilson, Thomas
1899 Arrowpoints, spearheads and knives of Prehistoric times. Report of the U.S. National Museum for
1897. Washington, D.C.
EASEMENTSAND ARTIFACTS:
AN ARCHAEOLOGICALINVESTIGATION
OF THE INTERNALREVENUECODE
Glenn F. Tiedt
A 1980 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code introduced a new concept of the "qualified conservation
contribution" which provides income tax benefits to the donor of historic land areas and certified historic
structures. Archaeological sites can be either, and archaeologists who understand the charitable contribution
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code will recognize opportunities to protect archaeological resources
through donations of land or easements. This article describes the tax concepts in sufficient detail to enable ar-
chaeologists to help interested landowners begin to explore charitable contributions as alternatives to sales.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 traditionally has been of little interest to archaeologists.
Even to historical archaeologists it has been of much too recent vintage to merit investigation. Yet
buried in the Code are several important tools that have been used in the past by other disciplines
to preserve and protect significant resources. It is the purpose of this report to publicize those
tools and demonstrate how they can be used for the good of archaeology.
1978 Artifacts. In The prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vol. 2, Part 1, edited by Robert J. Sharer,
pp. 2-131. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Sheets, Payson D., and Guy Muto
1972 Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science 175:632-634.
Simeon, Remi
1977 Diccionario de la lengua nahuatl o mexicana. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico.
Sollberger, J. B., and L. W. Patterson
1976 Prismatic blade replication. American Antiquity 41:517-531.
Stoll, Otto
1886 An early visit to the El Chayal obsidian quarries in Guatemala. Reprinted in 1978 in Archaeological
Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, edited by Thomas Hester. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican
Art, Archaeology and Ethnohistory No. 3. Socorro, New Mexico.
Torquemada, Fray Juan de
1975 Monarquia indiana (quinta edici6n). Introduccion por Miguel Le6n Portilla. Editorial Porrfia,
Mexico.
Tozzer, Alfred M.
1907 A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Archaeological Institute of America, New
York.
Tudela, Jos6, and Jos6 Corona Nufiez
1977 Relacion de Michoacan (1541). (Facsimile edition). Balsal Editores, Mexico.
Tylor, Edward B.
1861 Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern. London.
Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K.
1974 The ethnographic works of Andr6s de Olmos, precursor and contemporary of Sahagfin. In Sixteenth
century Mexico: the work of Sahagun, edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 27-77. University of New Mex-
ico Press, Albuquerque.
Wilson, Thomas
1899 Arrowpoints, spearheads and knives of Prehistoric times. Report of the U.S. National Museum for
1897. Washington, D.C.
EASEMENTSAND ARTIFACTS:
AN ARCHAEOLOGICALINVESTIGATION
OF THE INTERNALREVENUECODE
Glenn F. Tiedt
A 1980 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code introduced a new concept of the "qualified conservation
contribution" which provides income tax benefits to the donor of historic land areas and certified historic
structures. Archaeological sites can be either, and archaeologists who understand the charitable contribution
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code will recognize opportunities to protect archaeological resources
through donations of land or easements. This article describes the tax concepts in sufficient detail to enable ar-
chaeologists to help interested landowners begin to explore charitable contributions as alternatives to sales.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 traditionally has been of little interest to archaeologists.
Even to historical archaeologists it has been of much too recent vintage to merit investigation. Yet
buried in the Code are several important tools that have been used in the past by other disciplines
to preserve and protect significant resources. It is the purpose of this report to publicize those
tools and demonstrate how they can be used for the good of archaeology.
Glenn F. Tiedt, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225Glenn F. Tiedt, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225
Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology
0002-7316/82/020376-06$1.10/1
Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology
0002-7316/82/020376-06$1.10/1
376376 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982][Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]