Supplementary Information for

Salt and salted fish in the Classic Maya economy from use-wear study of stone tools

Heather McKillop and Kazuo Aoyama

Corresponding author: Heather McKillop

Email: hmckill@lsu.edu

This PDF file includes:

Supplementary text
Figs. S1 to S2
Tables S1
References for SI reference citations

1
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1803639115
Supplementary Information
The results of 267 replicative experiments conducted with a range of worked

materials (including silica-rich grass, wood, meat, hide, leather, bone, antler, shell, soil,

and stone) permitted the identification of use-wear patterns with high-power microscopy.

Aoyama independently controlled three variables: (1) direction of use, (2) worked

material, and (3) number of strokes. Motions parallel to the working edge were sawing,

cutting, and grooving, whereas transverse actions included scraping, whittling, and

chopping, based on contact angle differences (1: Fig. 2.4). Boring was done with a semi-

rotary, two-way action using an experimental tool held perpendicularly to the worked

surface.

Both the type of action and the number of strokes, as well as the contact material,

can influence polish (2, 3). Following the Tohoku University Microwear Research Team

in Japan (3), Aoyama identified 11 basic polish types on chert artifacts that are

principally (but not absolutely) the result of the material worked. The polish types include

Types F1 and F2, which often appear at early stages and culminate in more diagnostic

polish Types A, B, C, D, or E, which, after 500 strokes, became distinguishable in 267

replicative experiments 1: 38). Because different polish types are frequently observable

on the same edge, a complex of different polish types is described by a combination of a

principal and a secondary type, such as BF1, D2C, and E1F2.

Type A polish results from cutting of silica-rich grass, such as Gramineae. The

characteristics of Type A polish include: (a) a very smooth, rounded and reflective

surface, (b) a fluid appearance, and (c) filled-in striations. Type B polish is produced by

work on wood (Figure S1). The edge of the polish surface is rounded like that of Type A.

However, the area of Type B polish surface is never as large as that of Type A. Type C

2
polish appears with sawing and cutting bone, shell, and antler. The polish surface is rough,

with numerous tiny pits and striations. Type D1 develops with the working of soaked bone,

shell, and antler. The polish surface is smooth and flat, but its area is limited to near the edge

of the artifact. Type D2 polish results from working of dry bone, shell, and antler. Although

similar to Type D1, the polish surface appears more concave or convex in section than that

of D1 owing to the presence of clear striations. Type El polish does not extend very far from

the working edge, and the edge of the polish surface is slightly rounded. It is produced by

the processing of meat and fresh hide (Figure S 2). Type E2 polish results from the

processing of dry hide and leather. The edge of polish surface is rounded and rough, with

numerous tiny pits. Both Types F1 and F2 have poorly developed. Type F1 polish is

“greasy” in appearance, whereas Type F2 is extremely dull. The two types appear with

limited processing of various materials. Type X polish is dull with a matted texture and is

produced by digging in the soil. Type Y polish is produced by the working of stone. It forms

as a bright smoothing of high spots. The striations are short and shallow.

The correlation between polish type on chert and worked material is not absolute:

The type of action, the number of strokes, and the contact material can influence the

presence and nature of polish on a stone tool (1, 4-5). Previous experimental research (1:

38) identified 11 basic polish types on chert artifacts that are principally the result of the

material worked. The polish types include Types F1 and F2, which often appear at early

stages and culminate in more diagnostic polish types A, B, C, D, or E (1: 38). Because

different polish types are frequently observable on the same edge, a complex of different

polish types is described by a combination of a principal type and a secondary type, such

as E1E2, E1F2, and F1F2. This framework, which was used to identify ancient activities

3
for 7,737 stone artifacts from Aguateca, Ceibal, El Zotz, and San Jeronimo, Guatemala

(6-8, 9-12) as well as Copan and other sites in Honduras (1,13), forms the basis for the

current study (Table S1).

For the Paynes Creek artifacts, scraping hides and whittling wood have similar

striations that are perpendicular to the edges, but different polish. Cutting wood and fish

or meat have similar striations that are parallel to the edges, but different polish. Wood

working is indicated by a small, round polish surface on the edge of the stone tools (Fig.

S1). Processing fish, meat, and hides show two types of polish on the stone tools (Fig.

S2). In the first type, the polish does not extend far from the working edge, and the edge

of the polish surface is slightly rounded. In the second type, the edge of polish surface is

rounded and rough, with numerous tiny pits (Table S1).

4
Fig. S1. Microphotograph showing polish type B produced by wood carving.

5
Fig. S2. Microphotograph of polish types E1 and E2 result from processing fish, animal
meat and hide.

6
7
8
References

1. Aoyama K (1999) Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization:
Chipped Stone Evidence from the Copán Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras
(U Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology 12, Pittsburgh).
2. Vaughan P (1985) Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools (University of Arizona
Press, Tucson).
3. Serizawa C, Kajiwara H, Akoshima K, Kenkyu J-S, Kanosei S (1982) [Experimental
Study of Microwear Traces and its Potentiality]. Kokogaku to Shizenkagaku 14: 67-87
(Japanese with English summary, Tokyo).
4. Aoyama K (1989) Estudio experimental de las huellas de uso sobre material lítico de
obsidiana y sílex. Mesoamérica 17: 185-214.
5. Aldenderfer M, Kimball L, Sievert L (1989) Microwear analysis in the Maya lowlands:
The use of functional data in a complex-society setting. J. Field Archaeol. 16: 47-60.
6. Aoyama K (2017) Ancient Maya economy: Lithic production and exchange around
Ceibal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 28: 279-303.
7. Aoyama K (2007) Elite artists and craft producers in Classic Maya society: Lithic
evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Lat. Am. Antiq. 18: 3-26.
8. Aoyama K (2009) Elite Craft Producers, Artists, and Warriors at Aguateca: Lithic
Analysis. (The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City).
9. Aoyama K (2004) El intercambio, producción y función de los artefactos de obsidiana
del Período Formativo Temprano en la costa del Pacífico de Guatemala: Un estudio
diacrónico y análisis de las microhuellas de uso sobre la lítica de obsidiana del complejo
San Jerónimo, Escuintla, Guatemala. U Tz’ib 3 (7):14-34 (Asociación Tikal, Guatemala).
10. Aoyama K (2015) Microwear analysis of the obsidian macroblade. Temple of the
Night Sun: A Royal Tomb at El Diablo, Guatemala, eds Houston S, Newman S, Román
E, Garrison T (Precolumbia Mesoweb Press, San Francisco), pp. 240-242.
11. Aoyama K, Inomata T, Pinzón F, Palomo J-M (2017) Polished greenstone celt caches
from Ceibal: The development of Maya public rituals. Antiquity 91: 701-717.
12. Aoyama K et al. (2017) Early Maya ritual practices and craft production: Late Middle
Preclassic ritual deposits containing obsidian artifacts at Ceibal, Guatemala. J. Field
Archaeol. 42: 408-422.
13. Aoyama K (1995) Microwear analysis in the Southeast Maya lowlands: Two case
studies at Copán, Honduras. Lat. Am. Antiq. 6: 129-144.