Beyond Stone: Organic Alternatives for Atlatl Dart Points Among the Classic Maya

Spencer Foster, B.A.

A Thesis

Anthropology

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Dr. Brett A. Houk Chair of Committee

Dr. Tamra Walter

Dr. Christopher Witmore

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

August, 2020

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would not have been able to complete this thesis without the help and support of so many amazing individuals. I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude towards my graduate mentor and committee chair, Dr. Brett Houk, who was quick to share advice and assistance whenever I needed it. My committee members, Dr. Tamra Walter and Dr.

Christopher Witmore provided unique and valuable input on my research and guided me into areas of study that I had never thought of previously. During my undergraduate years, Dr. Fred Valdez provided a tremendous amount of insight on the lithics of the

Maya region which would later inspire me to pursue this thesis topic. I also appreciate the support and kindness shown to me by Sharon Hankins, the lab director at the Programme for Belize Archaeological Project field lab, who allowed me access to the many artifacts of the lab. Finally, I want to thank my wife for her outstanding patience and moral support as I threw atlatl darts at a hay bale in our backyard for the better part of two years.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. BACKGROUND ...... 6 Introduction ...... 6 Overview of the Atlatl ...... 6 Form and Function ...... 6 Comparison with the Bow-and-Arrow ...... 8 Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Other Projectile Weapons ...... 9 Global History ...... 12 The Atlatl in the Maya Region ...... 13 Early Evidence of the Atlatl ...... 13 Maya Iconography ...... 15 Prevalence and Use ...... 24 Status and Gender ...... 27 Introduction of the Bow-and-Arrow ...... 28 Extant Artifacts ...... 29 Evidence for Usage of Organic Projectile Points ...... 32 Archaeological Evidence ...... 32 Examples from Classic Period Art ...... 33 Historical and Ethnographic Accounts ...... 34 Personal Interview ...... 36 Summary ...... 37 Conclusion ...... 37 III. THEORETICAL APPROACH ...... 38 Introduction ...... 38 Experimental Archaeology ...... 38 Introduction and Origins ...... 38 Experimental Archaeology vs. Reenactment ...... 44 Physical and Mental Limitations ...... 44 Advantages ...... 47 Previous Experimental Archaeology Research Related to Organic Projectile Points .. 48

iii

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Conclusion ...... 50 IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD ...... 52 Introduction ...... 52 Construction and Materials ...... 53 Thrower, Dart, and Points ...... 53 Toxins ...... 62 Range and Target ...... 63 Test Parameters and Measurements ...... 65 Conclusion ...... 67 V. EXPERIMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 68 Introduction ...... 68 Results ...... 68 Penetration ...... 68 Damage Explained ...... 69 Damage by Material ...... 69 Durability ...... 73 Discussion ...... 78 Bone and Hardwood ...... 78 Bamboo ...... 80 Chert ...... 80 Conclusions ...... 81 Archaeological, Artistic, Historic, or Iconographic Evidence ...... 82 Hunting ...... 82 Warfare ...... 83 Toxins ...... 84 Summary ...... 84 VI. CONCLUSIONS ...... 85 Review ...... 85 Additional Questions and Research ...... 87 Armor ...... 87 Aquatic Prey ...... 87 Toxins ...... 87 Final Thoughts ...... 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 89

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

ABSTRACT

The atlatl is a common element in Maya Classic period art and iconography. In addition to its utilitarian functions as a weapon, the atlatl represents martial strength and divine authority. However, despite its strong presence in Maya symbolism, atlatl dart points are underrepresented in the archaeological record of the Maya. I propose that one hypothesis for this underrepresentation is that the Classic Maya were utilizing points that were made of materials that did not preserve in the record. Possible materials for these organic projectile points include bone, bamboo, and hardwood. This thesis examines archaeological, historical, artistic, and ethnographic sources to find evidence of organic projectile use both within and outside of Mesoamerica.

Using experimental archaeology, I created a controlled experiment to test the viability of each of these three organic materials. I built my own atlatl and darts, with the darts tipped with projectile points out of chert, bone, bamboo, and hardwood, tested them against ballistics gelatin, and compared the results. By doing so, I was able to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each material. The data collected from the experiment combined with the background research, allowed me to determine that the use of organic projectile points by the Maya is plausible.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Chronology of the Maya Region…...…………………………………………………1 4.1 Measurements of Points and Foreshafts……………..………………………………66 5.1 Penetration Depth……………………………………………………………………69 5.2 Damage Width……………………………………………………………………….73

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Map of Maya Region with Major Sites……………………….……………………….4 1.2 Detail from Bonampak Stela 3……………….………………………………………..5 2.1 Illustration of Dart…………...………………….…………………………………….7 2.2 Throwing Demonstration……………………………………………………………...8 2.3 Detail from Stela D at Tres Zapotes….……………………………………………...14 2.4 Teotihuacan Ceramics……………………………………………………………….16 2.5 Marcador “Spearthrower Owl” Glyph……………………….………………………18 2.6 Detail from Stela 31 at Tikal………………………….……………………………...19 2.7 Detail from Upper Registers D and E, Lower Temple of the Jaguar, Chichen Itza....21 2.8 Jade Plaque from Chichen Itza………………………………………………………21 2.9 Gold Disk from Chichen Itza….………………………………………………….….22 2.10 Late Ceramic depicting Maya Lord with Atlatl………………….…………………23 2.11 Late Classic Ceramic Image of Hunters with Atlatls.………………………………24 2.12 Map of Northern Belize with Chert-Bearing Zones…..……………………………26 2.13 Artifacts from Burial at Pacbitun…………………………………………………...27 2.14 Shell Atlatl Spur from Caracol………………………...…………………………...30 2.15 Wood Thrower from Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza………………………….……31 2.16 Wood Foreshafts from Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza……………………………..32 2.17 Tarairiu Wood Darts in the Dutch National Museum………………………………35 3.1 Detail from Moche Ceramic depicting Hunters with Atlatls…...……………………47 3.2 Author Throwing Atlatl………………………………………….…………………..51 4.1 Detail of the left figure from Stela 31, Tikal…………………………………...……55 4.2 The Author’s Atlatl………………………………….………………………..……...55 4.3 Late Classic Ceramic Image Depicting a Battle Scene………………………………56 4.4 Poplar Dowel………………………………………………………………..……….58 4.5 Late Classic Ceramic Image Depicting War Precession………………….………….59 4.6 Turkey Feather Fletching…………………………………………………………….59 4.7 PVC Foreshaft Connector……………………………………………………………60

vii

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

4.8 Lithic, Bamboo, Bone, and Hardwood Points………...……………………………..62 4.9 Wood Backstop for Target………………..………………………………………….65 4.10 Ballistics Gelatin Target………………………………………………...………….65 4.11 Assortment of Modern Projectile Points……………………………………………67 5.1 Chert Point Damage………………………………………………………………….70 5.2 Polycarbonate Point Damage………………………………………………………...70 5.3 Bamboo Point Damage……………………………………...……………………….71 5.4 Steel Broadhead Point Damage……………………………………...………………71 5.5 Hardwood Point Damage………….…………………………………………………72 5.6 Target Point Damage………………………………………………………………...72 5.7 Steel Small Game Point Damage…………………………………………………….73 5.8 Broken Chert Point…………………………………………………...……………...74 5.9 Broken Bamboo Point………….……………………………………………………75 5.10 Hardwood Point Durability……………………………………….………………..76 5.11 Bone Point Stuck in Plank………………………………………………………….77

viii

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

During the Classic period (Table 1.1), the atlatl, also known as a spear or dart thrower, was the predominant projectile weapon of the lowland Maya, and was used as both a utilitarian tool and a symbol of power (Figure 1.1). Starting in the Early Classic period, Maya iconography is filled with images of the atlatl as a symbol of military might, and by the Late Classic period the atlatl is featured prominently in deer hunting scenes on Maya pottery (Slater 2011:378-379). It remained in use well into the Colonial period with the Spanish referencing atlatls in their accounts of early contact with the indigenous peoples of the Yucatan (Nuttall 1891:20). However, despite the frequent depictions in art of the atlatl as both a tool of war and hunting, archaeological excavations in the lowland Maya region recover relatively few stone dart points.

Table 1.1: The chronology of the Maya region starting with early hunter-gatherers and ending with the Spanish colonization of the region. Period Dates Significant Developments Archaic 3000-1800 BCE Hunter-gather, with some horticulture Preclassic or Formative 1800 BC - AD 250 Beginnings of ceramics, monumental art, and social stratification Early Classic AD 250-600 Teotihuacan “entrada” Late Classic AD 600-800 Height of lowland Maya Terminal Classic AD 800-925 Classic lowland Maya Collapse Postclassic AD 925-1521 Height of northern Yucatan Maya Colonial AD 1521-1821 Spanish Conquest and settlement

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

I was first tipped off to the low amount of Maya dart points while working as the

Assistant Lab Director at the Programme for Belize Archaeology Project’s field lab. I cleaned, analyzed, and catalogued thousands of artifacts, including many chipped stone bifaces, scrapers, flakes, and even laurel-leaf blades in the three weeks I worked there.

However, I noted shockingly few projectile points. When sorting through the artifacts from past field seasons, I found that projectile points were always a rare find and only a few were in storage. Upon further research I found that many projectile points found in previous research had either not been subjected to use-wear analysis or were later determined to be misidentified spear and knife blades. As I expanded my research, I realized that this trend extends to other sites throughout the Lowland Maya region

(Figure 1.1).

I began to wonder if there were possible alternatives to chipped stone that were utilized by the ancient Maya, and if so, why would the Maya utilize other materials in place of the abundant chert and obsidian deposits available throughout the region. Bone, wood, and bamboo rarely survive the processes of decay in the subtropical climate of

Central America and would not appear in the archaeological record except under exceptional preservation conditions. However, all three materials are recorded in archaeological, historical, and ethnographic accounts as being used for projectile points by other cultures and peoples in the Arctic (Boas 1888: 96-100), Asia (Griffin 2007:16), as well as North America (Redmond and Tankersley 2005: 514; Opler 1996:389), and

South America (Holmberg 1969:26-34; Prins 2010:2).

The primary objectives of my research are (1) to determine if there is archaeological, artistic, historical, or iconographic evidence that the Maya used organic

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 materials to make projectiles and (2) to determine if said organic materials could have reasonably been used as effective alternatives to chipped stone. This study addresses the following research questions:

• Are there depictions in Maya art of projectile points made from organic materials?

If so, is it possible to determine the composition of said materials?

• Have projectile points made from organic materials been recovered

archaeologically from the Maya lowlands?

• Do projectile points made from organic materials have the same killing potential

(penetration, damage to tissue, blood loss) as that inflicted by chipped stone

points?

• Are there any advantages to using bone, wood, and bamboo over chipped stone as

a point material?

My thesis research applied elements of experimental archaeology to determine if bone, wood, and/or bamboo can be used as functional replacements for stone projectile points, and if they had any advantages over chipped stone points. By replicating designs of bone, wood, and bamboo points from historic, ethnographic, and archaeological sources and testing their capabilities, I determined both the effectiveness and convenience of the organic materials as projectile points. I also tested chipped stone points to compare the results to the performances of organic points to determine any advantages or disadvantages that one may hold over the other.

The following chapter introduces what an atlatl is, how it functions, and the important role it played in multiple cultures, especially the Maya. The usage of organic

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 materials as projectile points by multiple cultures is also addressed in the second chapter.

The third chapter addresses the theoretical approach to my research, including the origins and ideology behind experimental archaeology, previous experiments regarding organic projectile points, and a theoretical evaluation of my research. In the fourth chapter, the research design and the methodology of the experiment are outlined and explained. The results of the experiments and my interpretations are discussed in the fifth chapter.

Finally, the sixth chapter summarizes my research and what it means for the understanding of the Classic period Maya.

Figure 1.1: Map of the Maya region along with major archaeological sites. Included is an inset showing the locations of Tres Zapotes and Teotihuacan in relation to the Maya region (map provided by author).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 1.2: A Maya ruler towers over a captive while brandishing a serpent atlatl (detail on left). From Bonampak Stela 3 (Slater 2011: fig. 13)

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND

Introduction

The atlatl is a simple projectile weapon that has had a profound influence on human culture for millennia. This chapter provides background information on this widespread tool, defines what an atlatl is, and provides insight on its function, history, and relationship to other early projectile weapons. The weapon’s roles in Maya culture and history are also explored and examined.

Overview of the Atlatl

Form and Function

The atlatl consists of two parts: the thrower and a projectile, which is commonly referred to as a dart (Whittaker 2010: 2-3). The thrower is a length of wood or bone that has a spur or cup on one end and a grip on the opposite (Ray 1996). Grips come in variety of shapes and designs but are divided into two common groups. The first is the finger grip, where the thrower rests between the index and middle finger. The other is the hammer grip, where the atlatl is grasped like an ax or hammer handle (Ray 1996).

Throwers can vary in size considerably; some are the length of a human arm and others are as a short as a hand (Ray 1996).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

The projectiles thrown by atlatls are commonly referred to as darts and are typically more flexible than javelins. Darts are not difficult to construct, requiring a material that is moderately straight and flexible; this flexibility assists in flight stability, not in propulsion (Whittaker and Maginiss 2006:7). Fletching is present in some darts, such as those depicted in Maya artwork (Coe and Houston 2015:203), but is absent in others, like examples used by Australian Aborigines (Gould 1970:8). To date there has not been a study published testing efficacy of fletching on darts. Like throwers, darts also vary in length but typically remain between 1.5-2.5 meters in length. Some darts are divided into two parts: the longer shaft that has the fletching and nock, and the foreshaft, which is shorter and tipped with the actual projectile point. The main shaft and foreshaft are connected by a rigid joint about 3/4th of way down from nock of the dart (Figure 2.1).

This allows for points to be switched out with relative ease if one is broken or lost.

Figure 2.1: An illustration of an atlatl dart with a foreshaft connector and fletching (image provided by the author). The mechanics of throwing an atlatl are simple, as they are merely an enhanced version of the physical mechanics of throwing. The atlatl provides increased length to the human arm, substantially increasing the leverage of the throw (Baugh 2003:31-33;

Whittaker 2010:13). Enhanced leverage translates into more energy behind the dart increasing its potential speed, distance, and penetration far beyond a hand thrown projectile (Baugh 2003:32). Like throwing a football or baseball, throwing an atlatl starts

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 with a shoulder width stance with the body turned at an approximate 45-degree angle towards the target with the dominant foot back (Figure 2.2). The dart is raised to eye level and parallel to the ground and aimed at the target. Next, the atlatlist takes a step forward, shifting his or her weight to the non-dominant leg. The torso rotates and the throwing arm flexes at the shoulder, bringing the hand and atlatl forward while keeping the dart level and on target. Then, with a flick of the wrist, the dart is loosed from the nock. The final step involves following through with the arm and body as the dart flies toward the target.

By flexing the wrist rapidly in a small distance, the distal end of the atlatl moves a much greater distance, acting as a lever to impart energy to the dart (Whittaker 2017).

Figure 2.2: A step-by-step series of photographs of an atlatlist exhibiting the proper form and technique for throwing a dart (Whittaker 2017). Comparison with the Bow-and-Arrow

The atlatl differs significantly from the bow-and-arrow not just in use, construction, and size, but also in physics. Cushing (1895) assumed flex was a major

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 factor of atlatl function and that the bow “evolved” from the atlatl, however, later research by Whittaker and Maginiss (2006: 7) has found that the two weapons have completely different mechanisms of operation. Leverage is the driving force behind an atlatl dart, while an arrow is launched by stored elasticity. An atlatl operates more similarly to the hand-thrown spear, or javelin, in that both are propelled forward with arm-powered leverage, with the difference being that atlatls augment this leverage through increased length. A bow stores energy in elastic limbs held in place by a durable and strong bowstring. While many, such as Fenenga (1953), define dart points as larger than those from arrows, experiments by Browne (1940) show that large dart points can be used with arrows. Experiments by Couch et al. (1999) found that point weight had no effect on the distance a dart traveled when thrown. This makes differentiation between dart and arrow points difficult.

Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Other Projectile Weapons

The atlatl has significant advantages over the hand-thrown spear (which from here forward will be referred to as a javelin for simplicity and clarity). Foremost is the increase in distance and velocity. The longest recorded distance for a dart thrown using

“primitive” materials is 177 meters, almost 80 percent farther than the record for a modern javelin toss at 98 meters (Whittaker 2010:27). It is uncertain if this extreme reach is beneficial for hunting, as accuracy at such distances is nearly impossible, especially when the target is moving. Ethnographic sources repeatedly show that when using either bow or atlatl, hunter-gatherers and modern recreational hunters alike prefer to harvest game within 10-30 meters (Hutchings and Bruchert 1997:892). However, in the context of warfare, where a multitude of atlatlists are throwing a barrage of darts at a large

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 opposing force, the issue of accuracy may dissolve. While the massive increase of distance is an indirect testament of the superior velocity of the atlatl, accurately measuring velocity is difficult due to the vast amount of human variation inherit of atlatl experiments. Unlike a bow and arrow, which can be repeatedly fired with mechanical precision (Waguespack et al. 2009:787), atlatl throwing is heavily influenced by human nuances and idiosyncrasies (Whittaker 2010:23). However, some researchers such as

Butler (1975:106), have used data collected from repeated throws to calculate that the velocity of the atlatl is roughly 1.7 times greater than that of the arm alone.

Atlatls also have the advantage of size and thrust when compared to javelins.

Thrust equates to lethality of the dart, determining its penetrating power as it cuts through flesh and armor. Howard (1974:104) calculates that ancient hunters obtained about 60 percent greater thrust using atlatl darts as opposed to a hand-thrown spear. The reason why this increase in thrust is proportionately lower than the increase in distance is likely related to the large discrepancy in weight between darts and javelins. A modern sporting javelin which is specially made for long distance throwing weighs 600-800 grams

(Maryniak 2009:18), while my heaviest hunting darts weigh between 172 and 180 grams.

The lighter weight of the atlatl dart versus the hand-thrown spear comes with the benefit of reduced fatigue when holding the weapon aloft and repeatedly throwing the weapon.

The dart can be easily balanced in the hand, giving the atlatlist ample time to steady the point and aim. This combined with the increased length of time for the throw to occur, allows for last-second corrections, even in mid-throw.

Atlatls are at times written off as inferior and outdated weapons when compared to the bow and arrow, but, depending on the context, an atlatl can have major advantages.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Firstly, construction is very simple and can be accomplished in a very short amount of time. A thrower can be quickly assembled using only a cutting edge and a relatively short piece of wood. I built my first atlatl in high school using only a cherry limb and a pocketknife. Darts are made from any long, flexible material including saplings, branches, bamboo, and reeds. Bows however require specialized materials, invested time, and a certain level of expertise. Constructing a bow requires a suitably strong, yet flexible, material for the limbs, and high tensile strength fibers for both backing and the bowstring. The high amount of stress that bows are subjected to makes them very dangerous if improperly built. A sloppy tiller can result in a shattered limb sending jagged splinters flying. A weak bowstring can snap and suddenly become a very dangerous whip.

Despite its advantages, the atlatl also has shortcomings. Atlatl darts are long and cumbersome, making it difficult to carry more than two or three in the atlatlist’s free hand. Arrows are much smaller and shorter, allowing for several to be easily carried in a quiver. Dart length also makes moving through heavy cover awkward and slow, as both the loaded and spare darts are prone to snagging on branches, vines, and other obstacles.

Atlatl throwing also has the disadvantage of requiring a significant amount of unencumbered motion to properly throw. Not only does this make operation in tight quarters difficult, but also creates a tremendous amount of movement that could alert wary prey. In my personal experiences in hunting with both an atlatl and a bow, I have found that when smaller, swifter animals are the targeted quarry, the bow and arrow have the advantage.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Global History

The term “atlatl” is itself a Nahuatl word adopted relatively recently as the universal designation for spear throwing weapons (Whittaker 2010: 5). It is the oldest known composite projectile weapon in the archaeological record with examples dating back to western Europe during the Upper Pleistocene, around 17,500 BC (Cattelain

1997:214). Since atlatls are normally built from perishable materials it is possible that their existence goes back even further, and that evidence simply does not survive the test of time. Dart points can be difficult to identify as their large size makes them mistakable for knives or spear points (Aoyama 2005:297; Fenenga 1953:319). The evidence that is available points to atlatl usage on every inhabited continent except for Africa (Shea

2006:824). The heavy penetrating power of the darts would have been highly effective for hunting the abundant megafauna of the Pleistocene. It is possible that with the demise of the Eurasian megafauna that the atlatl gradually faded away and was replaced by the bow and arrow.

In other parts of the globe, however, the atlatl persisted. In the Americas, the atlatl was used by indigenous groups for many thousands of years leading up to European contact (Nuttall 1891:1-2; Stemp et al. 2016:294). In both the Arctic and Australia, the atlatl remained as the dominant projectile weapon well into the Colonial era. In 1836,

Charles Darwin wrote about a group of Aborigines that demonstrated their prowess with the atlatl by throwing darts at his hat (Whittaker 2010: 3). Groups of Australian

Aborigines utilized a modified version of the atlatl as both a weapon and a multi-tool as recently as the mid-20th century (Gould 1970:3). The 19th century ethnographer, Otis

Mason (1885) reported the Inuit of the Arctic using “throwing sticks” or “throwing

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 boards” to hurl bone tipped harpoons at marine mammals with surprising accuracy. The weapon’s popularity among the Inuit is attributed to the ability to operate the weapon in one hand while paddling a kayak, as well as the difficulty of using a bow when hands are greasy from blubber (Whittaker 2010:3-4).

In the Americas, the atlatl was used throughout the Pre-Columbian and early

Colonial eras (Whittaker 2010:9). Unlike Europe and Asia, the Holocene megafauna extinction did not bring about the complete disappearance of the atlatl in the Americas, nor did the appearance of the bow and arrow. In Mesoamerica, atlatl use stretched from the Paleoindian era all the way to European contact (Nuttall 1891:9; Stemp et al.

2016:294). The Spanish describe the ancient peoples of Mexico as using both atlatls and bows in combat. The atlatl is described as an especially effective weapon capable of piercing Spanish armor and causing lethal wounds (Nuttall 1891:9). These accounts also indicate that Aztec and other indigenous peoples used the atlatl for fishing and hunting in addition to war (Tezozomoc 1878:377).

The Atlatl in the Maya Region

Early Evidence of the Atlatl

Evidence for atlatl usage in Central America goes as far back as the Archaic period. Analysis by Stemp et al. (2016:294) has identified the Sawmill points of the

Archaic period as possible atlatl dart points. These points fall within the correct size and shape of ethnographic examples of dart points and show impact-wear consistent with projectile points (Stemp et al. 2016:291). These findings indicate that the atlatl was likely

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 utilized by the early human inhabitants of the Yucatan Peninsula. Despite this Archaic evidence, I could find few examples of artifacts identified as dart points from the archaeological record of the Preclassic period. Olmec greenstone representations of atlatls along with a possible depiction of a thrower on a Stela D (Figure 2.3) from the

Tres Zapotes site support the idea that the weapon was at least present as a tool among

Mesoamerican civilizations leading up to the Classic period (Hassig 1992:184), however it is not until the onset of the Classic period that we see widespread adoption of the weapon as a culturally significant symbol (Slater 2011: 375).

Figure 2.3: Detail from Stela D at Tres Zapotes (Preclassic Period). The figure on the far right appears to be holding an atlatl thrower and dart (Slater 2011: fig. 6)

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Maya Iconography

The Classic period of the lowland Maya is commonly defined by its large urban centers, monumental stelae inscribed with dates, and complex social hierarchies (Coe and

Houston 2015:98-99). However, it is also marked by the widespread appearance of atlatls in iconography, art, and writing (Slater 2011: 375). To understand the atlatl’s place in

Maya culture, it is important to first understand the role the atlatl played in the culture of

Teotihuacan, a central Mexican civilization thousands of miles away from the Maya. The city of Teotihuacan itself was a roughly 20 sq. km urbanized metropolis located in the

Valley of Mexico, although its sphere of influence stretched far beyond the Mexican highlands (Coe 2000:104-106). Three massive pyramids still dominate the skyline of a city that once housed 125,000-200,000 citizens (Coe 2000:114). At the height of its power from AD 150-650, Teotihuacan was a center of commerce, culture, and power in

Mesoamerica (Coe 2000:103). The powerful urban civilization spread its cultural elements, including pottery, architecture, and religion, across most of central and southern Mexico, and even into the Yucatan (Coe 2000:104).

One of these cultural elements was the atlatl. Along with shields, owls, and

“goggles,” the weapon was an important element of the costume of the Teotihuacano rain god, which was in turn implemented into the military heraldry of Teotihuacan (Slater

2011:375). Teotihuacano warriors are often depicted wearing the distinctive elements of this god, including an atlatl and a fistful of darts (Figure 2.4). Slater (2011:375) suggests

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 that by mimicking this distinct costume of the deity, military rulers gave themselves legitimacy as high-status individuals.

Figure 2.4: Details from two figurines and a vase from Teotihuacan illustrating the typical warrior motif of an owl, shield, goggles, and atlatl. An atlatl can be seen in the warrior figurine’s right hand. (Schele 2000a) Sudden popularity of the atlatl among the Maya is likely the result of the strong

Teotihuacan influence that spread throughout Mesoamerica during the Early Classic period. Evidence of this cultural exchange is seen in a shift in architecture, monumental art, pottery, and iconography among the Maya. Talud-tablero architecture, typical of

Teotihuacan, can been seen on Classic period buildings at Tikal and Copan (Sharer

2003:159). Early Classic chipped stone points found at Tikal are made from obsidian that is identified as coming from the Pachuca locale in highland Mexico (Ponce de Leon

2003:183). The remains of a male buried at Copan were accompanied by shell “goggles” and atlatl darts, items associated with symbols of the Teotihuacano rain god (Sharer

2003:153). All this evidence points to an interaction between the Maya and Teotihuacan in the Early Classic period.

In Stuart’s (2000) interpretations of glyphs from the Maya sites of Marcador,

Tikal, Waka’, and Uaxactun, there was a possible invasion of the Maya region by

Teotihucano forces in the Early Classic. Based on information gleaned from monumental

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 art, an individual named Atlatl-Cauac, or “Spearthrower Owl,” began his rule of an unknown land (possibly the site of Naachtun) in AD 374 (Martin and Grube 2008:31).

This individual is represented by the Mayan glyph of an owl accompanied by a hand gripping an atlatl (Figure 2.5). It is the first time these two symbols, commonly associated with Teotihuacan military and rulership, are used together in the Maya region

(Martin and Grube 2008:31). This name and the symbols associated with it imply

Spearthrower Owl had a strong association with Teotihuacan, possibly as a vassal ruler or military commander (Martin and Grube 2008:30). In AD 378, Spearthrower Owl sent an individual named Sihyaj K'ahk' on a journey to the Maya region that Martin and Grube

(2008:29) call the entrada. Sihyaj K'ahk' first arrived at Waka’, and, eight days later, entered Tikal. On the same day Sihyaj K'ahk' arrived at the city, the hereditary ruler of

Tikal, Chak Tok Ichʼaak, died, most likely at the hands of this foreign invader (Martin and Grube 2008:29). About a year later, Spearthrower Owl’s son, Yax Nuun Ayiin I, took over the rule of Tikal and brought with him Teotihucano imagery and influence to Tikal’s monumental art (see Figure 2.6).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.5: Drawing of Tikal “Marcador” inscription dated to AD 378, with the “Spearthrower Owl” glyph on the bottom of the left column (Stuart 2000: Fig. 15.12c).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.6: Detail from Stela 31 at Tikal, dated to AD 445. Yax Nuun Ayiin I (left and right) is depicted wearing two different variations of Teotihuacano warrior garb, including atlatls (Stuart 2000: Fig. 15.2). With the sudden influx of Teotihuacano imagery came the ascension of the atlatl from utilitarian tool to a symbol of power among the Maya (Slater 2011: 378). Maya rulers and warriors of the Classic are commonly depicted wielding atlatls and darts, likely to appropriate the military might associated with Teotihuacan (Slater 2011:378). As the

Classic period progressed, the usage of some elements of the Teotihuacano warrior motif waned along with the Central Mexican culture’s influence. However, depictions of atlatl not only remained, but increased, in Maya art (Slater 2011:379). The Postclassic site of

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Chichen Itza provides a wide array of artistic depictions of atlatls, including on temples

(Figure 2.7), jade plaques (Figure 2.8), and gold disks (Figure 2.9).

There are even representations of the weapon in non-military applications such as hunting (Figures 2.9 and 2.10). While data on what kinds of animals the Maya hunted is available from several sources (Emery and Brown 2011; Kray et al. 2017), information on hunting techniques is limited. Deer, peccary, large rodents, turkey, and turtles all played a major role in Maya diet. However, when focusing on Maya depictions of atlatl hunting scenes, I could only find examples atlatls being used in association with deer (see

Figures 2.9 and 2.10). Deer are used in Maya mythology and symbolism (see Figure 2.9), and it is likely that they are more commonly depicted than other species due to their symbolic status. Blowguns are the only other hunting weapon that is present in Classic

Maya artwork and writing. The blowgun plays a crucial role in Maya mythology and is used by the legendary Hero Twins of the Popol Vuh myth to shoot a supernatural bird

(Ventura 2003:258). However, the blowgun of the Maya uses clay balls, not sharp darts, and is more suited for hunting arboreal birds and small lizards (Ventura 2003:257). As stated previously, the atlatl has the disadvantage of requiring a significant amount of movement to operate, making it a less than ideal choice for quick prey such as rabbits, lizards, and most birds. The blowgun is an ideal weapon for these wary prey items as it requires no visible movement to fire. Turkeys and curassows (a black, turkey-sized bird) have thick, protective feathers giving the atlatl the edge for larger avian prey.

The most lasting effect the atlatl may have had in Maya iconography is its association with the manikin scepter (Sharer and Traxler 2006:326). The atlatl, which had been associated with Teotihuacan’s rain god, possibly merged with the symbolism of the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Maya god of lightning, K’awiil, who in Classic artwork, wields a scepter that is very reminiscent of an atlatl thrower (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 739). Manikin, or K’awiil, scepters are common among Maya rulers all throughout the Classic period and symbolize a divine right to rule (Sharer and Traxler 2006:326).

Figure 2.7: Drawing of details from Upper Registers D and E, Interior Wall, Lower Temple of the Jaguar of Chichen Itza showing warriors carrying atlatls and darts, dating to the Postclassic period (Schele 2000b).

Figure 2.8: A drawing of a jade plaque from the Main Cenote at Chichen Itza. Depicted is a warrior wielding an atlatl and two darts (Slater 2011: Fig.12a).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.9: Drawing of a gold disk from Chichen Itza. This image provides a very realistic and detailed depiction of an atlatl in use. It provides a scale for dart length as well as a clear example of feather fletching (Coe and Houston 2015: Figure 125).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.10: A Late Classic ceramic plate (K9260) depicting a Maya ruler dressed in the garb of the god of deer hunting, Wuk Sip. Part of this garb includes an atlatl and darts (Kerr 1998a).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.11: A rollout image from a Late Classic ceramic vessel (K5857) depicting a Maya hunting party pursuing a deer with atlatls. Note the split-finger grip of the atlatls as well as the distinct finger loops. The dart points are black and leaf-shaped, possibly obsidian lancet points or fire hardened wood/bamboo (Kerr 1998b). Prevalence and Use

The atlatl was more than just symbol of military and divine power, but also an efficient tactical tool. Hassig (1992:48) believes that the atlatl was a crucial weapon in long-distance strikes against opponents, giving the Maya an advantage when confronted with fortifications. Aoyama’s (2005:300) research at Aguateca and Copan seems to lend support to this theory with large numbers of projectiles being found in association with increased warfare in the Late Classic period. Both Hassig (1992:47) and Aoyama

(2005:297) agree that the atlatl was likely utilized by the elite and held as an “upper class” weapon. This is supported by the presence of carved shell atlatl finger loops in a

Late to Terminal Classic elite burial at the site of Pacbitun, Belize (Skaggs et al. 2019:3).

However, despite the atlatl’s symbolic status, lance/javelin points are far more common that dart points in the archaeological record, implying a favoritism towards thrusting and throwing spears (Aoyama 2005:300; 2017:14).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Despite their presence in other parts of the Maya region, few dart points have been found in the chert-bearing regions of Belize (Figure 2.12). Excavations at Colha, a major lithic production site in northern Belize, have yielded a few possible projectile points from the Classic period. Erwin Roemer (1991:58) interprets 247 stemmed blades from a 1990 excavation at a Colha lithic workshop as projectile points or knives.

However, there is no record that any of these stemmed blades were ever analyzed for impact damage, so their classification is not confirmed. Despite the lack of confirmed dart points at Colha, the presence of a carved shell atlatl spur at Caracol (A. Chase and D.

Chase 2011:11) and the finger loops at Pacbitun (Skaggs et al. 2019:3) indicate that the weapon was present to at least some degree in nearby regions.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.12: Map of northern Belize, including major sites and chert-bearing zones (Shafer and Hester 1991:Fig.1)

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.13: Artifacts from the CT3-2 burial at Pacbitun, Belize. The atlatl finger loops (right center) show the durability of conch shell (Skaggs et al. 2019:Fig. 7). Status and Gender

It should be noted that the atlatl is almost exclusively associated with males in

Maya art and iconography. In all depictions in which the atlatl is being held, it is wielded by masculine rulers (see Figure 1.2), warriors (see Figure 2.7), and hunters (see Figure

2.11). I could find no example of a feminine figure being associated with an atlatl in

Maya art. In addition, I could not find any examples of female burials that held atlatl related artifacts, such as points, throwers, finger loops, or spurs. This may indicate that the Maya restricted the use of the atlatl to men. However, the premise for this hypothesis does contain an unavoidable bias. Every depiction of atlatl and every thrower artifact known has been in association with the elite classes of Maya society. Even in the depictions of the atlatl as a hunting tool, the hunters are marked as elites by their elaborate ceremonial attire (see Figures 2.10 and 2.11). It is possible that gender

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 restrictions on atlatl use only existed among the ruling classes of Maya society. It could be argued that atlatl use was restricted to elite classes, however Spanish accounts seem to indicate that atlatl use was commonplace in Mesoamerica (Tezozomoc 1878:377).

Introduction of the Bow-and-Arrow

The exact date of the arrival of the bow-and-arrow technology into the Maya region is debated (Aoyama 2005:300; Hassig 1992:162). Small, side-notched points commonly associated with arrows are typically assigned to the Postclassic period, however, Aoyama (2005:300) identifies several obsidian and chert points from a Late

Classic elite household at Aguateca as arrowheads. Production of both arrow and dart points increased in the Copan region during the Terminal Classic period, implying a rise in warfare and the usage of both weapons (Aoyama 2017:10). However, the lower numbers of arrow points compared to dart and spear points indicates the bow-and-arrow was not as important in warfare as the heavier weapons (Aoyama 2017:14). The bow- and-arrow also likely lacked the same symbolic importance as the atlatl, as it does not appear in any Classic Maya iconography or artwork (Aoyama 2005:294).

Regardless of when the bow-and-arrow arrived in Maya lowlands, it reached its height of popularity in the Postclassic. Small, side-notched projectile points became a common part of Postclassic lithic assemblages (Meissner and Rice 2015:1). The weapon was used in the new forms of warfare that the Maya adopted in the Postclassic period as evidenced by a projectile point, identified as an arrowhead, found lodged in human scapula at Mayapan (Serafin et al. 2014:146). While the bow-and-arrow had become the more popular, it did not entirely replace the atlatl among the Maya. Spanish accounts

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 from the 16th century describe the Maya utilizing the atlatl in their warfare (Tezozomoc

1878:377)

Extant Artifacts

As previously stated, the climate of the Maya region is not ideal for the preservation of biodegradable materials. Atlatl throwers and darts were most often built from plant and animal matter, making extant atlatls from the Maya region very rare.

However, shell and stone attachments have been known to outlast the throwers to which they were attached. “U”-shaped finger loops are found throughout Mesoamerica, and are made from durable materials such as greenstone, soapstone, and shell (Ekholm 1962:181-

182). The conch shell loops from the Pacbitun elite burial (Figure 2.13) are very well- preserved and show how the Maya utilized a similar design of atlatl to the rest of

Mesoamerica. However, these ornate loops can be easily mistaken for jewelry and vice versa, so it is difficult to pinpoint how many of these were excavated and properly recorded. Similarly, atlatl spurs can be difficult to identify given the highly ornate nature of some specimens such as the conch shell spur from Caracol (Figure 2.14).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.14: A shell atlatl spur from Caracol, Belize (A. Chase and D. Chase 2011: fig.6). Complete wood throwers and dart shafts are exceptionally rare, and all examples I could find come from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza (Coggins and Shane 1984: 86-

87, 229-230). The low oxygen environment in this natural sinkhole combined with minimal disturbance prevented wooden artifacts from completely decomposing. One particularly well-preserved artifact is a nearly intact wooden thrower that is 53.5 cm long

(Figure 2.15). The thrower is carved from one piece of unspecified wood and is only missing its finger loops. There are also two distal ends of serpentine-shaped throwers that are ornately carved and pigmented (Coggins and Shane 1984:229-230). Two dart foreshafts (Figure 2.16) were also recovered from the Sacred Cenote. They have fire- hardened proximal ends that are shaped to fit into hollow cane shafts (Coggins and Shane

1984: 87). A proximal end of a wooden atlatl thrower with bone finger loops from Tikal is the only example I could find of a Maya wooden thrower, partial or intact, outside of

Chichen Itza (Harrison 2003:105).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.15: Wood atlatl thrower from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza. Note the split finger grip. Length: 53.5 cm Width: 3.7 cm (Coggins and Shane 1984: Fig. 20).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 2.16: Wood dart foreshafts from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza. The proximal ends have been tapered to fit into a hollow cane shaft. Lengths: 40.5 cm (left) and 45 cm (right) (Coggins and Shane 1984: Fig. 21).

Evidence for Usage of Organic Projectile Points

Archaeological Evidence

While I could find no direct archaeological evidence for the usage of organic materials for projectile points in Mesoamerica, there are several examples from North

America. These organic points are, by and large, much less represented in the archaeological record than lithic projectiles. Organic points found in the Americas are 32

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 exclusively made of bone, ivory, and antler, likely due to the materials being more resistant to decomposition than other suitable organic materials like wood or bamboo.

While wood points are mentioned in ethnographic and historical accounts in the New

World, described below, I could not find an example of a preserved pre-Columbian artifact.

A prominent example of a bone projectile point comes from the Sheriden Cave site in Ohio. This site and its artifacts are associated with the Folsom lithic culture of the

Early Paleoindian period. The 134 mm projectile point was carved from the long bone of a large mammal and sharpened to long, slender point (Redmond and Tankersley 2005:

514, 516). Impact wear analysis as well as its proximity to the remains of several extinct megafauna indicate that it was used for hunting (Redmond and Tankersley 2005: 516).

There are several more similar bone and ivory points from Paleoindian sites across North

America including the Pacific Northwest, the Great Plains, and Florida (O’Brien et al.

2016: 224). This widespread nature of bone projectile points indicates that they were effective tools for dispatching game.

Examples from Classic Period Art

While atlatls and darts are commonly featured in Maya artwork, it is very difficult to determine the point composition based on these depictions alone. Maya artwork is often stylistic rather than realistic. Points are commonly represented by simple triangular shapes (see Figures 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8), or occasionally, leaf shapes (see Figures 2.9, and

2.10). These simplistic shapes do not have defining traits that would provide a reliable identification of their material composition. The points in Figure 2.11, share a similar

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 shape and color with bamboo points used by Amerindians in the Amazon. However, one could argue that they also look like laurel-leaf obsidian points.

However, analysis of the designs, colors, and linework of the depicted atlatl darts may offer a few clues to their composition. In all depictions of Classic Maya artwork that depict points, the points are depicted as separate and distinct from the rest of the dart. In

Figure 2.10, for example, there is a distinct demarcation between the light-colored dart shafts from the dark laurel-leaf shaped points. In Figure 2.10, lashing can be clearly seen as a point of attachment for the projectile points to the shaft. These distinctions in form imply that the artist wished to represent that the points were not simply carved onto the ends of the wood/cane/bamboo shafts but were instead made separately and attached.

This hypothesis, however, does not eliminate the possibility of wood or bamboo points.

As will be mentioned in the following section, various groups have used bamboo and wood projectile points that, while made of the same material as the shaft, are built independent of the shaft and attached later.

Historical and Ethnographic Accounts

Historical and ethnographic sources provide far more examples of bone, wood, and bamboo being used for projectile points. Examples of recent usage include the Agta archers of the Philippines who regularly make points from bamboo and palm wood

(Griffin 2007:16). The Siriono peoples of Bolivia almost exclusively used bamboo in place of lithics for both projectiles and cutting blades (Holmberg 1969:26-34). The

Apache of the American Southwest commonly utilized fire-hardened wood points for

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 both hunting and warfare (Opler 1996:389). Franz Boas (1888:96-100) records the

Central Eskimo using bone points alongside those made from stone and metal.

Wood dart points are described in 17th century Dutch accounts of the Tarairiu warriors of the Amazon regions of northeastern Brazil (Prins 2010:2). These skilled warriors and hunters were recruited as guerillas by the Dutch to fight their Portuguese rivals (Prins 2010:3). Their lethally accurate aim with atlatls made them valued allies to the colonials. Paintings by the artist Albert Eckhout show decorative hardwood throwers and long darts with barbed wooden tips (Prins 2010:2). One of these throwers and several wood-tipped darts survive in the Danish National Museum (Figure 2.17).

Figure 2.17: Two Tarairiu wood darts in the Dutch National Museum (Prins 2010:5)

From Spanish colonial accounts we get a clear description of atlatls used in

Mesoamerican warfare. One unknown conquistador wrote that the indigenous Mexicans used “spears thrown by cross-bow(sic) made of another piece of wood” (Nuttall 1891:5).

This “cross-bow” is almost undoubtedly an atlatl, a weapon that was likely unfamiliar to

Europeans. The “spears” (likely darts) were tipped with obsidian or with very sharp, very strong fish bones” (Nuttall 1891:5). A firsthand account is given in Spanish by the 16th century friar and chronicler, Diego Duran. I speak and read Spanish, and I provided the translation for his descriptions. Duran (1867:121) describes the “varra arrojadicas”, or throwing stick/spear, as “very dangerous weapon” with “barbs like a harpoon.” Another

Spanish historian, Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc (1878:377), describes theses “varras arrojadicas” as “tostadas”, or charred, and being used for both war and hunting ducks.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Ethnographic studies of the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, offer examples of organic projectile points are used in conjunction with stone points. Lacandon hunters used a wide variety of arrow types; each made for a specific purpose. Lithic points were for both combat and hunting larger game such as deer and peccary (Boremanse 1998:84).

Wooden points of various designs were used for hunting birds, monkeys, and fish

(Nations 1989:454, 456). This differentiation of point types for specific modes of hunting and combat might have been practiced by earlier Maya populations.

Personal Interview

Another source I utilized was an interview I conducted with Instructor Danilo

Antonio Campos de Silva, an indigenous hunter from the Amazon region of southeastern

Brazil. I encountered this individual online in 2019 when he shared an image of his bow and arrows on a Facebook page dedicated to primitive hunting techniques. His projectile points were made from fire-hardened bamboo and I reached out to him to ask more about them. He was courteous and happy to answer many of my questions. He is a member of the Krenak, or Borum, indigenous group and practices traditional hunting. He described the bamboo points as being very sharp and effective for both hunting and war. He specifically named the species of bamboo he used as “taquaruçu”, saying it had some trait that causes hemorrhaging (this was all translated from Portuguese to English so some details may be lost). I researched this word and found it associated with a local bamboo called Guadua angustifolia, a species native to South America with a close relative,

Guadua longifolia, native to Central America (Schröder 2010). While Campos de Silva used these points for archery and not atlatls, he believed they could be used with darts.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Summary

After reviewing the vast amount of information from archaeological, ethnographic, and firsthand sources, there is substantial evidence that organic materials were and still are used for projectile points. Bone, wood, and bamboo were all utilized by one or more groups as weapons for harvesting game and for warfare. Evidence of bone atlatl points used in warfare has been established in Central Mexico by conquistador accounts, and it is reasonable assumption that this practice was shared by the Maya. They would have had access to similar materials including bamboo that is closely related to species used for hunting.

Conclusion

In this chapter I have laid out a background for understanding what an atlatl is, how it functions, and what role it played in Maya culture. I also examined the historical, archaeological, and ethnographic evidence of organic projectile point usage. I reference this information throughout my thesis as I describe my theoretical approach, my physical preparation, and the process of building and practicing with my own atlatl.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL APPROACH

Introduction

This chapter presents the theoretical elements of my thesis. In it, I explore the origins, theory, applications, and limitations of experimental archaeology itself. I address how the nature of experimental archaeology defined how I conducted my experiments and interpreted my results. Finally, I examine previous experiments that tested the efficacy of biodegradable projectile points. I examine the results of these experiments and determine how they apply to my research.

Experimental Archaeology

Introduction and Origins

The foundation of my research is in experimental archaeology, a methodology that has roots in processual, or “New,” archaeological theory which arose in the late

1950s (Trigger 1989:294). A large part of processual theory is based on the belief that past cultural systems can be understood through the remains they left behind (Tringham

1978:170). Another part of processual archaeology is the application of scientific practices used in other disciplines to archaeology. By applying the scientific method, one could observe and collect empirical data that can be used to better understand past cultures (Tringham 1978:170). Ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology are two closely linked methodologies that branch off this thinking. Processual archaeology aims 38

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 to go beyond simply collecting and cataloging past remains. It involves the creation of hypotheses and the collection of empirical data to examine said hypotheses (Outram

2008:1).

In 1959, Joseph Caldwell noted a significant change in how archaeologists were viewing and defining cultures (Trigger 1989:294). Caldwell saw an increase in interest among the archaeological community in elements of cultural process such as ecology and settlement patterns. Accordingly, these “new” archaeologists no longer viewed cultures as defined by the sum of their artifact types, but instead analyzed them as functionally integrated systems (Trigger 1989:294). The importance of recognizing and studying processual change in cultural systems became popular among younger American archaeologists of the 1950s and by the 1960s the movement had taken root in American archaeological thinking (Trigger 1989:295).

One of the most prominent of these early processual archaeologists was Lewis

Binford, who aggressively promoted the tenants of new archaeology thinking (Trigger

1989:295). One of the theories that emerged was middle-range theory. Binford

(1962:224) argued that archaeologists cannot rely on the archaeological record or inferred past to test their hypotheses. Instead, archaeologists need to engage in middle-range research (Trigger 1989:362). This research involves actualistic studies designed to account for the relations between the dynamic properties of the past that are sought after and the static materials that are accessible in the present. Binford saw the key to understanding archaeological data as being our ability to establish correlations between material culture, which can be collected and observed, and behavior, which cannot be

(Trigger 1989:362).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology are two methods utilized by

Binford and other processual archaeologists to link the dynamic to the static.

Ethnoarchaeology finds correlations between contemporary and ancient cultures to understand the behavior of the past (Trigger 1989:363-364). One example of this is in

Binford’s attempts to show the Mousterian assemblage, a group of stone tools, was adapted to the environment of Ice Age Europe. To test this, Binford (1979:256-257) spent time with the indigenous peoples of Alaska, a contemporary population that inhabited a similar environment to Ice Age Europe to observe how it shaped the material culture of hunter-gathers. From his research, Binford (1979) determined the uses of various stone tools from the Mousterian assemblage.

Ethnoarchaeology is not without criticism; some modern anthropologists and archaeologists decry the ideas as outdated and fundamentally flawed. One of the loudest critics of the subdiscipline, Oliver P. Gosselain (2016:218-219), points out that ethnoarchaeology operates off an overly simplistic evolutionary ideology that divides cultures into two categories: modern Western societies that are ignored and the premodern exotic societies, which are deemed suitable for research. Another major flaw with ethnoarchaeology, Gosselain (2016:223-224) argues, is that the practice leads to overly generalized models that ignore historical contingency and cultural specificities.

This reduces ethnoarchaeological research to a practice in searching for similarities (or dissimilarities) in the material record of the past instead of forming unique

“ethnographies” from it. Alfredo González-Ruibal (2016:690-691) takes a more moderate stance, believing ethnoarchaeology serves a purpose in understanding contemporary societies by improving archaeological methods and theories. However, when desiring to

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 understand the connections between a material culture and an ancient society, González-

Ruibal (2016:691) believes that ethnoarchaeology is not necessary.

Experimental archaeology operates from similar principles as ethnoarchaeology.

Instead of observing modern cultures, experimental archaeology has the researcher recreate and interact with elements of the material culture of an ancient culture to test hypotheses. This allows for the creation of empirical data that can be reviewed, analyzed, and replicated (Tringham 1978:170). Unlike ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology does not rely on ethnographic fieldwork, although it can benefit from ethnographic data.

Ascher (1961:793) provides a very apt definition of experimental archaeology as “a category of experiments (which) entails operations in which matter is shaped, or matter is shaped and used, in a manner simulative of the past.”

Outram (2008:3) summarizes the five main classes of archaeological experimentation as follows:

1. Constructs: these test a hypothetical structure design based upon archaeological evidence by seeing if it can function as a viable structure.

2. Processes and function experiments: investigations into how things were accomplished in the past, including tool identity and function.

3. Simulation: seeks to imitate formation processes of the archaeological record and post- depositional taphonomy.

4. Eventuality trial: combines all the first three categories. These experiments are larger in scale and investigate complex systems and variations in the archaeological record caused by irregular eventualities.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

5. Technological innovation: where archaeological techniques themselves are tested in realistic scenarios.

Early examples of the utilization of experimental archaeology with New

Archaeology are the collaborations between flintknapper Don Crabtree and archaeologist

Francois Bordes in the late 1960 and early 1970s (Whittaker 2014:59). Before these two men began working together, knapping was largely viewed as a peculiar hobby.

However, by combining Crabtree’s practical knowledge on knapping with Bordes’ expertise on prehistory, the two men constructed several experiments to better understand the mechanics of how ancient cultures built stone tools (Whittaker 2014:59). These experiments would go on to popularize the use of flintknapping in archaeological research and help lay the groundwork for future lithic experiments (Whittaker 2014:60).

A larger-scale experiment that started in the 1950s and still operates today is the

Lejre Experimental Centre in Denmark. This long-running experiment started with the construction of an Iron-Age style dwelling lead by ethnologist Han-Ole Hansen

(Rasmussen and Grønnow 2003:136). The goal was to build the home, have it dwelt in by people replicating Iron Age life, burn it to the ground, and examine the remains. By doing this he hoped to glean more information on how to interpret the data collected at actual ruins of Iron Age dwellings. From there the experiment grew into a much larger exploration into the lives of ancient Europeans including architecture, agriculture, and day-to-day life (Rasmussen and Grønnow 2003:142). The experiment still operates at present.

Experimental archaeology has limitations in its ability to illuminate past behavior.

One of the most glaring limitations is that experimental archaeology, like much scientific

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 research, is part of the process of discovery rather than the source of definitive answer

(Carrell 1992:6). It can provide possible answers without excluding other possibilities.

Experimental archaeology helps create new hypotheses and questions that can be further researched, but imitative experiments can never fully account for all the factors that are inherit of human behavior. There will always remain at least a small amount uncertainty as to how and why past humans behaved a certain way. Experimental archaeology needs to be paired with other archaeological and anthropological methods to form more complete conclusions (Carrell 1992:7).

My experiments fall under the categories of technological innovation and processes and function. My purpose was to identify the possible use of organic projectile points as effective killing devices. While I understand my limitations in fully answering my hypothesis, I can make certain steps towards mitigating these limitations. I heavily researched past work on atlatls including other experimental archaeological projects, ethnographic and historical accounts, and interviewed a living hunter-gatherer. I also practiced my atlatl throwing for over a year before conducting my trials and even participated in a successful atlatl hunt. These experiences allowed me to learn not only about the mechanics of the atlatl but gave a glimpse into the lives of the ancient peoples who used it. Finally, I made sure to create research questions that have answers that can be reasonably extrapolated from the data provided by my research design. I do not focus on finding definitive answers with my research questions but rather seek to determine the probability and plausibility of organic points among the Classic Maya.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Experimental Archaeology vs. Reenactment

One of the major problems of experimental archaeology is that it is often confused with re-enactment. Reenactments attempt to recreate a specific or hypothetical event that occurred in the past through tools, activities and dress. However, these events are not focused on answering specific hypotheses. Rather, reenactments are more focused on creating an artificial world, as imagined by those participating in them (Outram

2008:2). Attempting to reenact the past introduces a variety of factors that are largely unnecessary for experimentation. It can be very difficult to determine exactly what aspects of the replication are necessary to produce accurate results. Early on in my research, I had to determine how I was going to make my tests based off the limited information and sources I had. I also had to determine how accurate the tests were going to be, in terms of the time period and the location. It is critical to determine what aspects of the replication are necessary to produce accurate results, as an overlooked factor could potentially skew the results of the experimentation. Devoting time, effort, and resources to unnecessary aspects can be distracting and wasteful.

Physical and Mental Limitations

One of the great obstacles an experimental archaeologist faces is the physical and mental gap that exists between minds and bodies of the of the past and those of the present. In his book Gesture and Speech, Leroi-Gourhan (1993:239) talks about humans’ unique ability to create and use tools as an externalized extension of their own physical bodies: a blade is an externalized tooth, a hammer is an externalized fist, and an abacus is

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 an externalized brain. In this way, an atlatl is an extended arm and elbow used to propel objects farther and faster than the human body alone could accomplish. Bjørnar Olsen

(2010) expounds on this idea further by discussing how a human is defined by the tools of their trade. To illustrate this point, he uses the example how a fisherman that is defined by his or her use of sonar, a boat, and gear to effectively catch fish.

The atlatl was designed and used by people who had a dire need to become efficient marksmen. Like Olsen’s hypothetical fisherman, those who used the atlatl would have been defined by their tools. They built a relationship with the atlatl as both a hunting tool and a weapon of war in a world that was very much different than the current present. Modern recreational atlatlists must put in many hours of throwing practice just to hit a stationary target at 20 m. The need to effectively operate the atlatl in the high-stakes and stressful environment of war would have created a different priority on practice. This would have likely made the physical and mental state of the ancient Maya atlatlists much different from the recreational atlatlists of today.

Armed with this idea that the tool defines the human, one can begin to see the problem with trying to perfectly replicate the past. The reality or “world” that a Maya hunter lived in has been, and continues to be, replaced by the process of time. I will use my own body and mind as examples of how different modern reality is from the past. The various cultural, technological, biological, and environmental elements of my life have molded me physically and mentally into an individual that is adapted to live in this present. Countless generations and tens of thousands of years separate me from any ancestor that wielded an atlatl. Highly complex machines such as computer keyboards,

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 vehicles, and cellular phones are comfortable extensions of my body rather than throwers, darts, and projectile points.

Medical care and diet (both shaped by thousands of years of human innovation), along with my ancestry, have worked together to make me significantly taller and heavier than the average Maya (see page 51). The speed and stamina that a Maya hunter likely obtained from a lifetime of chasing game and engaging in battle is absent from my physical body. My fingers are callused as a result of the blistering and cracking from hours of practice. When I begin to feel the strain of use, I must postpone throwing. This is because I cannot risk an injury that would affect tasks that have more importance to me, such as driving, typing, and household chores. After almost two years of practice and two hunting trips in south Texas, my only major accomplishment with the atlatl is the harvest of a feral sheep. This success only occurred after two days of stalks, drives, near-misses, and a copious number of cactus spines. Even with modern comforts such as plastic water bottles, sunscreen, and an ATV to help haul the animal, it was a physically and mentally exhausting affair.

Another obstacle is that modern perceptions of hunting are significantly different than those of the past. I was raised and educated by American hunters that believed in and practiced “fair-chase” hunting. This ideology has its roots in the early 20th century following the widespread availability of cartridge firearms. Hunting became significantly easier with the use of modern firearms, and in response prominent sportsmen like

Theodore Roosevelt advocated for a code of conduct aimed at keeping the odds in the animals’ favor (McCorquodale 1997: 569). Limitations on hunting methods, seasons,

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 species, and harvest sizes were established to help maximize wildlife numbers, and by extension, opportunities for the average American citizen to enjoy recreational hunting.

Notably, it cannot be assumed that the ancient indigenous people of the Americas followed modern hunting standards; in fact, evidence shows that some groups had very different practices. Research conducted by Emery and Brown (2011) on modern and archaeological Maya middens suggest that hunting practices among the Maya have changed over time and may not have always been “sustainable” when compared to modern American conservation models. Favored game species were hunted even when populations were dwindling (Emery and Brown 2011:110). Hunting scenes depicted on

Moche pottery in Peru show atlatl-wielding hunters using dogs to drive deer into fences or nets (Figure 3.1). Today, such practices are considered unethical and, in many states, illegal. However, in the past, ideas like “fair-chase” would have been different, and possibly completely absent.

Figure 3.1: Detail from a Moche ceramic (0177) depicting a hunting scene. Note how the two hunters utilize both a dog and fences to corral their prey (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 1979).

Advantages

Despite the physical and mental limitations of experimental archaeology, the methodology still has much archaeologically potential. While perfectly mimicking the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 past is impossible, we can still glean information from the data collected via archaeological experiments. With experimental archaeology, hypotheses are backed by empirical data that can be analyzed, replicated, and disproven (Tringham 1978:174). This allows for hypotheses to be built off other’s work and new trials conducted to test them.

Whittaker and Kamp’s (2006) experiences with the World Atlatl Association are an excellent example of how an imperfect experiment still offers empirical data for better understanding past systems. The Association was primarily founded as a club for the enjoyment and education of anyone, professional archaeologists and laymen alike, interested in all things related to atlatls. From this birthed competitive throwing competitions and a scoring system to go along with it (Whittaker and Kamp 2006:214).

Using the data collected by competition registration, the scoring system, and observing the participants, Whittaker and Kamp (2006:217, 218) were able to notice patterns and possible correlations between accuracy, age, gender, and experience level. They were also able to determine the limitations of the atlatl in terms of accuracy and establish a

“learning curve” for how long to took to master an atlatl versus mastering a bow

(Whittaker and Kamp 2006:217).

Previous Experimental Archaeology Research Related to Organic Projectile Points Several prior experiments were done on the efficacy of organic projectile points compared to lithic points. One of the most prominent studies was conducted in collaboration with the American TV series “Mythbusters” in 2007. While the show itself was intended for entertainment, the researchers that participated conducted the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 experiment with professionalism and later published their findings. Waguespack et al.

(2009:793) focused on testing the penetrating power of wood-tipped arrows and comparing them to stone-tipped ones. Using a mechanically firing compound bow, the researchers were able to repeatedly fire their arrows at a consistent speed and power at their ballistics gelatin targets (Waguespack et al. 2009:794). A caribou hide was draped over the targets to replicate clothing and/or animal hide (Waguespack et al. 2009:795).

Waguespack et al. (2009:793) found that chipped stone penetrated significantly deeper, a mean depth of 235 mm, compared to wood-tipped arrows, which had a mean depth of

213 mm. However, the researchers (Waguespack et al. 2009:797-798) also acknowledge that 213 mm is sufficiently deep enough to kill prey under 40 kg and that wood points’ ease of production makes them viable hunting tools. I took away from this experiment that wood is a viable weapon for arrows points, and likely a suitable option for darts. I also used their idea of using ballistics gelatin for a target media.

A much earlier, but unique, experiment on wood point effectiveness was in June

1979, when a group of archaeologists had the rare opportunity to test Clovis technology on a deceased Asian elephant. Learning that the animal had passed away en route to the

Denver Zoo, Bruce Rippeteau, a Colorado State University archaeologist, secured the carcass for experimentation (Butler 1980:353). As the Asian elephant is the closest living relative to a mammoth, it provided an opportunity to learn more about how ancient

Americans hunted Pleistocene megafauna. As a part of the experiment, wood-tipped atlatl darts were thrown at the carcass and their penetration depth measured (Butler 1980:354).

The darts only penetrated 3cm, 5cm, and 7cm, not nearly deep enough for a killing blow to a large pachyderm (Butler 1980:354). However, this experiment has a crucial flaw

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 stemming from the short notice of the experiment (an elephant decays rapidly in summer heat). The darts were quickly made from pine dowels, a very light and soft wood not well suited for making strong points (Butler 1980:354). Stone points were unable to be made and tested within the time parameters of the experiment. Despite its shortcomings, this experiment does demonstrate that wood dart points can be swiftly made with relatively little skill, and even hastily made points of inferior materials can penetrate the incredibly thick hide of the largest living land animal. On a smaller, thinner-skinned prey, such as a deer, penetration would likely be far better.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of experimental archaeology, the approach can still be beneficial to understanding the past. The first step is to differentiate experimental archaeology from reenactment. Reenactment focuses on recreating a version of the past as imagined by modern minds. It focuses on creating a past scenario in a modern setting, which is an exercise in futility. Experimental archaeology should be just that, experimental. It should be approached by the experimental method with the variables isolated and tested one at a time.

While I will never know the mindset and physical capabilities of Maya hunters with absolute certainty, I can gain limited insight into what life was like for them. By building a thrower and darts, I became familiar with the mechanics and physics of the tool (Figure 3.2). From my own struggles and failures in learning how to use an atlatl, I learned how dedicated an individual must be to achieve proficiency in the skill. All of

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 this was used to benefit my research. While I cannot expect exact accuracy, I can learn how to approximate the conditions of the ancient Maya. It forces me to choose what factors are necessary, and to eliminate those that are not. By this method, I can make a more streamlined experiment with fewer variables to consider when reviewing my results.

Figure 3.2: The author throwing his own atlatl and darts.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

Introduction

My research design and methods are intended to answer the following questions:

• Are organic projectile points present in Maya artwork? Can projectile

composition be determined in Maya artwork?

• Have any projectile points made from organic materials survived to be in the

archaeological record of the Maya?

• Are organic projectile points more lethal than chipped stone points?

• What advantages, if any, do bone, wood, and/or bamboo have over chipped stone

as a point material?

My research design called for several experiments involving chert, bone, hardwood, and bamboo points to determine if there is a significant difference in performance and/or ease of production. This involved the replication of an atlatl as well as darts tipped with projectiles of various materials. I intensively researched the weapons and methods of the Maya, other cultures, and modern atlatlists in preparation for this build. Projectile points were built by hand to test their ease of construction and later tested on a target that simulated muscle tissue to determine performance. Hours of construction failures and successes, as well as a year of throwing practice, went into this project.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Construction and Materials

Thrower, Dart, and Points

Atlatl designs and composition vary considerably across time and space. Some modern hobbyists use styles that combine elements from different designs and even modern elements such as carbon fiber, aluminum, and high-density plastic. Conversely, others only use “period-accurate” designs, materials, and even building techniques. When building my thrower, I had to consider if the materials used would affect my experiment's results. Since this experiment is limited to the testing of the projectile points, and not the experience of building an atlatl, the use of modern tools to build the thrower would not affect the results. The same principle applies to the materials making up the thrower: living in Texas, access to materials the Maya would have had is limited. North American equivalents to the Central American materials would end up having the exact same functionality. Therefore, in place of mahogany, ziricote, or another subtropical hardwood,

I selected American red oak to make up the body. I replaced the soapstone or shell finger loops with a comparable and more accessible material: bovine femur bone. While one may contest that this takes away from the “immersive” experience of building an atlatl, it is irrelevant to the production of accurate test results.

The designing of the thrower itself presented unique problems. I wanted to keep the atlatl style like those that the Maya used. Unfortunately, many atlatls depicted in

Maya art are stylized with decorative feathers and exaggerated features which make determining details difficult (Figure 4.1). However, there were a few consistent elements

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 that are clearly represented in both Maya art and in artifacts. Finger loops are prominently featured in many depictions of atlatls in Classic Maya artwork, likely in response to the Teotihuacan influence in the early Classic (see Figure 4.1). Hard finger loops are one of the few parts of the thrower that survive in the archaeological record due to the durable materials, such as shell or soapstone, from which they were made (Ekholm

1962:183). Split-finger seems to be the favored method of grip throughout several depictions of atlatls in use (see Figures 2.8, 2.10, and 4.1). After examining several depictions of throwers in Maya art, I decided to build a split-finger style thrower with hard finger loops (Figure 4.2).

The issue of thrower materials proved to be difficult. As previously stated, very few extant throwers survive in the archaeological record. When researching the few wood examples that have been found, I found no references to the types of wood used. This is unfortunate, as wood type likely played a role in atlatl construction. Based on my previous experiences with building atlatls out of different types of woods, I founded heavier hardwoods provided a more comfortable throwing and “heft”. The extant atlatl from Chichen Itza (see Figure 2.15), has a shape that focuses the weight near the spur, with the body tapering near the handle. I built my own atlatl in a similar design using oak, a dense, straight-grained hardwood, for the body (see Figure 4.2). The Chichen Itza atlatl was noted to have a coating of copal resin which helped preserve the wood

(Coggins and Shane 1984:45). Copal is an aromatic resin that was commonly used as incense in Maya ceremonies, so it is unknown if the coating was ritual, utilitarian, or both. To help guard my own atlatl from rot and damage, I permeated it in several coats of beeswax.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.1: Detail of the left figure from Stela 31, Tikal. The warrior holds an atlatl in his right hand, note the two finger loops (Montgomery 2000).

Figure 4.2: The atlatl that I built, practiced with, and used in all testing. Note the “U” shaped hard finger-loops.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.3: This ceramic rollout image (K2036) depicts a battle scene which includes a warrior wielding an atlatl standing over a fallen warrior. The atlatl dart shafts appear to be made from bamboo or cane. The one visible dart point is a simple black triangle (Kerr 1998c). Thrower length varies significantly across different cultures and body types.

However, based on modern hobbyist experience, a cubit is generally a good starting point for determining the spur-to-grip length (Ray 1996). A cubit is defined as the distance from the outer elbow to the tip of the middle finger. For me, this meant my thrower would have a total length of 65 cm. This is substantially longer than the actual Chichen

Itza artifact, which is only 53.5 cm (Coggins and Shane 1984:87). This discrepancy can possibly be explained by the possibility that Maya atlatlists were significantly shorter than me. Due to the lack of evidence for female atlatl usage, I decided to focus my research on the stature of Maya men. Of a sample of 21 adult males excavated from Tikal the average height is 157 cm (Haviland 1967: 321); significantly shorter than my 180 cm height. I first made a smaller, more “period-accurate” thrower; however, I struggled properly aiming and balancing the darts. By sizing up to a larger thrower, I noticed significant improvement in both areas.

Selection of dart materials also required a suspension of authenticity. Originally, I intended to use Guadua longifolia, a bamboo species native to the Yucatan that was likely used by the ancient Maya. While no intact darts have ever been recovered from the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Maya region, several painted ceramics depict dart shafts that are banded or segmented like the bamboo (Figures 2.9 and 4.3). However, after purchasing a large collection of bamboo from a garden center, I discovered that it has a high degree of variability among poles. Even pieces that were of similar length and diameter had completely different flexibility, which is a major factor in the performance of the darts. This variability was due to the spacing of the segments in the poles as well as the age and seasoning of the bamboo. This made it difficult to assemble shafts that had the same length, diameter, weight, and flexibility. I ultimately decided on using a convenient modern replacement.

The Maya would not have had access to machined poplar dowels (Figure 4.4), but these dowels have a consistent grain, straightness, flexibility, and weight. This allows for the manufacturing of darts that fly consistently and accurately with almost no variation between instances. This helped set up a more controlled experiment with the only variations being in the points.

Dart design is based on a combination of artwork review and experimentation.

Due to the lack of any extant darts, Maya artwork is the only source available for what their darts looked like. Many of the depicted darts are very short in comparison to the darts I have used in the past. The longest depicted examples I could find (see Figures 4.4 and 2.7) are roughly the same length as the figures carrying them. My darts are between

182 cm and 274 cm. Any attempt at throwing darts shorter than 182 cm results in extreme difficulty in aiming and controlling flight. In fact, I personally find it easier to maintain accuracy with darts that are in the upper limits of length. Possibly, the darts depicted in

Maya artwork appear short due to artistic reasons, such as fitting in the frame with the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 human. Whatever the reason, I decided on longer darts as I was more comfortable with them.

Fletching is not always present on darts depicted in Maya art, but there are several clear examples of its use (see Figures 2.8 and 4.5). One particularly detailed example is from a gold disc recovered from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza depicting a warrior about to throw a dart with a large feather attached near the nock (Coe and Houston

2015:203). I mimicked this style by taking a large turkey feather and lashing it by the quill to the dart shaft (Figure 4.6). I felt this fletching helped my accuracy, although future research will need to be done to determine if there was an actual improvement and to what extent it affects accuracy. I also chose to build my darts with PVC foreshaft connectors (Figure 4.7) so I could switch out points easily for measurement and experiments. While there are no examples of foreshafts or connectors in Maya art, two examples of wood foreshafts recovered from Chichen Itza indicate that the technology was known to some extent among the Maya (Coggins, and Shane 1984: 88). I used poplar dowels as foreshafts for the bone, bamboo, and lithic points and I carved the hardwood points directly onto red oak dowels (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.4: My poplar dowel dart with attached hardwood foreshaft.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.5: Image of a Late Classic ceramic vessel (K5763) showing a war precession with six warriors marching. Three of the warriors carry atlatls and darts, which are tipped with black triangular points. This image is unique as the figures represented have proportionate features allowing for a good comparison of dart length to the height of the warriors. It also provides a clear depiction of fletching (Kerr 1998d).

Figure 4.6: The turkey feather fletching used on my darts.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.7: The PVC connectors used on my darts.

As noted in Chapter 2, finding examples of organic points in Maya artwork proved to be a difficult task, as much of Maya artwork is stylized and simplified. Atlatl dart points are often depicted as simple triangles or points, lacking the details that would hint at the material, such as color or texture (see Figures 2.6, 2.7, 4.2, and 4.5). One possible example of bamboo points is represented in a deer hunting scene on a polychrome ceramic vessel (see Figure 2.9). The dark points depicted on the ceramic are long and slender, like the bamboo points used by Instructor de Silva. Bamboo is present in the scene as dart shafts, so it is possible that the dark points are fire hardened.

However, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty, as these points could also be representations of slender obsidian points like those found at Copan and Caracol

(Aoyama 2005:296; A. Chase and D. Chase 2011:10). I could also find no examples of organic points surviving in the archaeological record. However, this was far from surprising, as wood, worked bone, and other organic artifacts are relatively rare in the

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Maya region. Due to the lack of examples from Maya artwork or extant artifacts, I used examples from other regions and sources as references for building my organic points.

Point construction varied in difficulty depending on the material used. I made the bamboo points by splitting a bamboo pole and then carving one half into a leaf-shaped blade. The wood points are simple, with conical points carved on the ends of red oak dowels and hardened with an open flame.

While I made the bamboo and wood points quickly and easily with locally available materials, the bone and lithic points are more complex. While I did have access to sheep, feral pig, and whitetail deer bone, I found the material very difficult to work with due to its extremely hard nature. Bone proved to be incredibly difficult to cut, shape, and sharpen the points when exclusively using handheld stone tools. Even when using modern steel tools, I had difficulty. Due to the small size of the animals I was working with the points were likewise small, only measuring 4 cm in length. Perhaps, since I was using bones that were boiled, cleaned, and dried the material was significantly harder than if I had used fresh, “green” bone. However, the simplicity of my points is not of a major concern to me as the Sheriden Cave bone point, despite having neither serrations nor cutting edges, is believed to have been used to bring down Pleistocene megafauna

(Redmond and Tankersley 2005: 514, 516).

The lithic points are outside of my expertise to create. I have some experience with flintknapping, but I can only make large bifaces. I contacted Curtis Smith, a flintknapper who previously worked with Colha chert from Belize and knew which other locales would be comparable in strength and texture. Using Edwards Plateau chert, Mr.

Smith knapped three dart points to be used in my research.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.8: (From left to right) lithic, bamboo, bone, and wood projectile points used in testing. Toxins

The use of toxins to increase the lethality of points is a possible factor to consider when determining killing potential. The Yanomami hunter-gathers of the Amazon use

Guadua bamboo for both carrying curare poison and as arrow points for delivering the poison (Milliken et al. 1999:29). My interpretation of de Silva’s description of bamboo points having poisonous qualities is that he was possibly describing the use of Guadua bamboo with curare poison. The Yanomami hunters deliberately weaken the bases of their points so that they will break off in the animal and continue to deliver poison

(Boubli et al. 2020:208-209). These points are intended for only one use and are made to be quickly interchanged like an atlatl’s foreshafts (Milliken et al. 1999:29). The

Yanomami also use poisoned bone and hardwood points alongside bamboo for hunting curassows, tapirs, and monkeys (Boubli et al. 2020:208-209).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Evidence of poison projectile points among the Maya is not as well documented as the Amazonian regions. The most detailed source I could find on the topic was from

Ralph H. Cheney’s The Ancient and Modern Use of Plant Arrow Poisons (1931:554), in which he describes a Central American poison called camotillo, that was used to tip arrows of Maya warriors. Even Cheney (1931:554) is sparse on details on how these poisons are made, describing them as a “secret” known only to the Maya used for stealthy assassinations. Death by camotillo is described as slow and silent, with the victim only showing minor symptoms of illness before succumbing to the poisoning (Cheney

1931:554). All of Cheney’s sources are second or thirdhand accounts, or speculation. I found no other references to camotillo used with projectiles outside of the rumors recorded by Cheney. Due to this lack of evidence, I decided to forgo testing for poison retention in this research. However, I will address the factor of poison in my final discussion.

Range and Target

Finding and designing an appropriate range and target were essential to testing the potential of the organic dart points. I needed to create a controlled set of conditions that would allow for an accurate simulation of soft tissue damage. However, I also needed to account for additional factors such as hitting bone and/or missed throws. Above all, I needed to conduct these potentially dangerous experiments in a safe environment.

Initially I proposed running my experiments in an indoor archery range but was unable to find a local range that would allow atlatl throwing. As a result, I built a shooting range in my backyard. For safety, I oriented my range with a 2 m high wood

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 fence as a backstop. Beyond the fence is an alleyway which I checked for pedestrians before and during throwing. I measured the range and marked it in 5 m intervals using bricks as markers at 5, 10, and 15 m. As a secondary precaution, I built a second backstop to place in front of the fence. This was a simple 152 cm x 122 cm freestanding wood frame with two layers of plastic netting stretched across it (Figure 4.9). The netting would slow the flight of the darts, preventing them from hitting the fence at full force. This greatly reduced the risk of breaking or dulling the points.

The target itself is far more complicated than I had anticipated. The Maya primarily hunted small, thin-skinned prey items such as the Yucatan subspecies of whitetail deer, Brockett deer, paca (large rodents), wild turkey, and peccary (Kray et al.

2017:61-62). Therefore, thick skin was not a factor I needed to consider. Furthermore, I could find limited information on Classic period armor, with no specifics on thickness, construction, or frequency of use. In my thesis prospectus, I had planned on using a deer, sheep, or pig carcass to test the penetrating power of each point. However, I encountered several obstacles with this idea. A major issue was availability: it is difficult to acquire a whole, untrimmed, and unskinned deer or sheep carcass. Skin-on pig carcasses are more readily available from local butchers, however the logistics of storing a large animal carcass before and after testing proved too demanding. Another issue with a carcass is that it would not be reusable if additional tests were needed after the initial experiments.

When researching experiments that involve tissue damage, I found that a substance called ballistics gelatin which is a reliable equivalent to human and animal tissue (Waguespack et al. 2009:792). Ballistics gelatin comprises one part 250 bloom gelatin to nine parts water by weight. The mixture is heated to 40° C, poured into a mold,

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 and chilled to form a solid target (Figure 4.9). This target can be preserved in the refrigerator until testing. It can also be broken down, melted, and reformed into a new target. For these reasons, I selected ballistics gelatin as my target media and made an 18 kg cube of ballistics gelatin to use as target. To prop up the target off the ground, I used a simple hay bale (Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.9 (left): the wood backstop frame with plastic netting to tangle up darts. Figure 4.10 (right): the ballistic gelatin target

Test Parameters and Measurements

I used one 188 cm long, 1.27 cm diameter dart for all throws, with the foreshafts being switched out for each material tested (Figure 4.8). Before every throwing session, I made several “dummy” throws using target points on a hay bale and measured their penetration. This helped establish my throwing as consistent and accurate before the actual testing began. I threw a dart tipped with each material, lithic, bone, hardwood, and bamboo, three times at 10 m and measured, recorded, and compared the depth of penetration and tissue damage after every throw. I also compared points before and after the throws for any signs of damage and/or blunting. After the tests on the gelatin were

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 completed the points were tested on the straw bale to simulate the wear-and-tear of missed throws. Notes were taken on any additional damage sustained.

After testing, modern manufactured arrow points were tested on the gelatin. This included a smooth steel broadhead, a serrated polycarbonate broadhead, a steel small game point, and a practice “field” point (Figure 4.11). The damage caused by the points were analyzed, recorded, and compared to the damage caused by the lithic, bone, hardwood, and bamboo points. The comparison created a modern baseline for lethality, as I have effectively used these points in the past for both harvesting game and target practice.

Table 4.1: Measurements of all points and foreshafts used in experiments.

Material Foreshaft Point Width Point Length Point Length (cm) (cm) (cm) Thickness (mm) Lithic 35.50 3.50 9.00 7.00 Bone 35.50 2.00 4.00 4.00 Bamboo 35.50 1.75 17.00 4.00 Hardwood 38.00 1.27 NA 12.70

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 4.11: An assortment of modern points. (Left to right) Field point, small game point, smooth steel broadhead, serrated polycarbonate broadhead.

Conclusion

The final design and methodology of my experiment evolved significantly as I planned and practiced. I learned about better techniques and designs for my atlatl, darts, points, and target as I became more familiar with the materials. This all lead to a better set of experiments with more accurate results.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER V

EXPERIMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

In this chapter I present the results of the experiments outlined in the previous chapter. The results are organized by material type with the penetration depth, damage, and durability described for each of the four materials. These results are then analyzed and discussed in terms of their efficacy and practicality as tools of warfare and hunting.

Results

Penetration

All the projectile points successfully penetrated the ballistic gelatin with relative ease. The results were consistent by type with only a few centimeters of difference between throws (Table 5.1). Bamboo was the best performing in penetration with a mean depth of 20.58 cm, with hardwood being a close second at a mean of 19.75 cm. The lithic point had the poorest performance in penetration with its mean, 12.83cm, being 2.67 cm shallower than the second lowest material’s (bone) mean of 15.15 cm.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Table 5.1: Penetration depth of each throw arranged (top to bottom) from least mean depth to greatest mean depth. Material Throw 1 Throw 2 Throw 3 Depth Mean Depth Depth (cm) Depth (cm) (cm) (cm) Lithic 12.00 13.50 13.00 12.83 Bone 14.00 16.50 16.00 15.50 Hardwood 20.25 17.50 21.50 19.75 Bamboo 21.25 21.00 19.50 20.58

Damage Explained

When assessing the damage inflicted by each point, I made notes about of the cleanness of the cut, the width of the wound canal, and additional damage caused when removing the point (Table 5.2). By cleanness, I mean the nature of the lacerations on the ballistics gelatin and whether they were ragged or smooth. Damage caused by the removal of the point was also noted to account for additional damage sustained by a dart being pulled from a wounded animal as it crashes through cover. This determines what kind of wound the animal would sustain and how quickly it would bleed out. Wider, ragged wound canals typically translate to more blood loss and therefore quicker deaths.

As a hunter, I prefer my prey to pass quickly not just because of moral reasons, but also convenience. A slow exsanguination leaves a poor blood trail and could potentially allow the animal to retreat to heavy cover, making tracking and retrieval difficult, if not impossible.

Damage by Material

The lithic points, while having the shortest mean penetration depths, had the widest (3.5 cm) and most damage-heavy wound canals. Ragged lacerations were noted on

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 the entry wound and upon removal, the wound was made even more ragged as the serrated blades of the lithic caught on edges of the canal. Long narrow grooves can be seen along the wound canal (Figure 5.1) caused by the pointed serrations of the point.

Testing with the serrated polycarbonate broadhead yielded similar ragged edges and striations (Figure 5.2). The lithic points were also the hardest to remove, being firmly anchored into the gelatin. This is likely due to the shoulders of the point catching on the gelatin.

Figure 5.1 (left): Damage caused by the chert lithic point; note the long striations caused by the serrated edge. Figure 5.2 (right): Damage caused by the serrated polycarbonate broadhead; note the striations that are like those caused by the lithic point. The edges of the bamboo point were surprisingly sharp and produced clean lacerations (Figure 5.3) on both the entry (1.75 cm) and the removal (2 cm). These clean lacerations were like cuts I made using steel broadheads (Figure 5.4). Unlike the steel broadheads, the grooved shape of the bamboo allowed the wound canal to remain open even when the point was still in the gelatin (Figure 5.3).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 5.3 (left): Damage caused by the bamboo point; note the smooth but wide lacerations with an open groove along the blade. Figure 5.4 (right): Damage caused by the smooth steel broadhead; note how it shares the wide lacerations of the bamboo point but lacks the open groove. The hardwood point while having the second highest penetration means, had minimal lacerations and very narrow (1.27 cm) wound canals (Figure 5.5). The canal sealed itself tightly when the point was removed, with only a very thin outline of an entry point showing. The hardwood point operated less like a cutting broadhead and more like the steel field points (Figure 5.6)

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 5.5 (left): Damage caused by the hardwood point; note the clean, narrow entry. Figure 5.6 (right): Damage caused by the steel field point; note the clean, narrow entry like the hardwood point. The bone point had a wide entry point (2 cm) but had minimal additional lacerations (due to the position of the hits and cloudiness of the gel a clear photograph was not possible). The lacerations that were made were smooth, and as a result, sealed when the point was removed. While more damaging than the hardwood, the bone produced a wound canal that was significantly narrower and less damaged than those of the lithics and bamboo. I would equate it to the damage sustained by the steel small game point (Figure 5.7).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 5.7: Damage caused by steel small game point; the lack of major lacerations is similar to the performance of the bone point (not pictured).

Table 5.2: Width of wound canals before and after extraction of the projectile points. Material Entry Canal Width (cm) Exit Canal Width (cm) Lithic 3.50 4.00 Bamboo 1.75 2.00 Hardwood 1.27 1.27 Bone 2.00 2.00

Durability

After each throw, I assessed the points for damaged caused to the point itself. This helped me determine how durable the blade is and how often it would need to be replaced. Even an accurate throw can result in the point hitting hard bone or passing through and striking a hard surface. After three throws each, all four materials showed no visible signs of damage or dulling when used on the soft ballistic gelatin. While ballistic 73

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 gelatin is an excellent media for simulating muscle, fat, sinew, and thin skin, it does not provide the same resistance as bone or heavy vegetation. To simulate durability with vegetation, I threw against the straw bale. While originally unintentional, my missed throws that hit wood fence boards provided excellent tests for bone strikes.

The lithic point is incredibly brittle and broke easily on the straw bale after just one throw (Figure 5.8). I lodged the point so firmly into the bale that it separated from the foreshaft and I had to extract it using a set of long forceps. The point snapped approximately midway down and I was unable to use it for future experiments. However, the cutting edge is still extremely sharp, and I was able to use it to slice through a piece of ballistics gelatin with minimal effort. I used a secondary point of the same size for all future tests.

Figure 5.8: The lithic point was easily broken beyond use with just missed throw into the straw bale

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

The bamboo points are extremely brittle and began to split after only two throws.

On the third throw the bamboo snapped off at the point of connection to the foreshaft. I found that the recovered edge was dulled significantly. I quickly made another bamboo point and threw again, this time missing the bale and hitting the plastic plate on which the ballistic gelatin rested. The point shattered on impact (Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9: The bamboo point shattered upon impact with the thin plastic plate under the ballistic gelatin (although it punched a hole through the plastic). I found that the hardwood point is incredibly durable and withstood repeated throws against the straw bale. I noted some very minor dulling on the point, but the point continued perform effectively. Puncture depth was not affected by this minor dulling. I missed a throw and sent the point into the fence and serious damage occurred (Figure

5.10). This hit had significantly dulled the point and rendered it ineffective. However, I performed a quick field re-sharpening and brought it back to functionality.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 5.10: The hardwood point was extremely durable, taking a direct hit to the edge of a pine board while sustaining no breaking or cracking. Bone is undoubtedly the most durable of the four materials tested. Repeated testing on the hay bale yielded no visible point damage nor dulling of the edges. The point eventually began to loosen from its connection to the foreshaft, but I quickly glued it back in place. A missed throw lodged the point so tightly into a wood fence post

(Figure 5.11) that I had to remove it with pliers. Despite this extreme punishment, the point experienced minimal damage and I easily re-sharpened and reattached it. I noted no difference in performance with the re-sharpened point.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Figure 5.11: The bone point not only withstood this direct hit to a fence picket but suffered only minimal dulling.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Discussion

Bone and Hardwood

Due to their similarities in performance, I combined bone and hardwood together in my assessment. Bone and hardwood are undoubtedly the strongest of the four materials, standing up to repeated abuse while sustaining only minimal damage. Bone and hardwood also dealt tremendous damage to hard materials such as wood. One missed throw resulted in a hardwood point striking a wooden post and leaving a deep, splintered hole (see Figure 5.10). The point blunted but did not crack or break. A similar example occurred with the bone point and a fence post (see Figure 5.11). I quickly reformed and sharpened both points in these examples using a knife and/or grinding stone. I was more comfortable putting these points at risk of hitting the ground or a hard object because of their durability and ease of repair.

Bone and hardwood lack much tissue damage potential; they are more suited for deep penetration and bone-shattering rather than creating large, ragged lacerations. These traits would make them ideal for throwing at smaller, faster prey such as rabbits, agouti, and large birds. Large wound canals are unnecessary for killing smaller animals. The durability of the points would be useful for the inevitable misses and pass-throughs that occur when hunting small targets. The Spanish records of fire hardened spears being used by the indigenous people of Mesoamerica for hunting ducks (Tezozomoc 1878:377) would lend support to this idea. In addition, a broken hardwood point is easily and quickly reparable or replaceable, meaning less overall effort is invested in prey that have a smaller yield of meat. When practicing hunting rabbits with my atlatl, I use hardwood

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 points for this exact reason. I practice for hours without worrying about needing to stop to build new points.

The extreme durability combined with deep penetration are also be ideal for hard- scaled aquatic prey such as fish, turtles, and possibly crocodiles. Unlike terrestrial hunting, aquatic hunting requires the darts to remain intact and anchored inside the animal so that it can be easily tracked through the water and retrieved. A similar technique is used in hunting large birds like turkeys, barbed darts stay lodged in the bird, obstructing its movements, and preventing it from flying off. Barbs are easily carved into bone and hardwood so that the dart acts more like a harpoon and less like an arrow. This would be in harmony with the bone-tipped darts with “barbs like a harpoon” described by

Duran (1867:121). It would also align with the Inuit practice of using bone points while hunting marine mammals (Boaz 1888: 96-100), which, while lacking scales, have a thick protective layer of blubber and hide.

Barbed bone and wood points could also be beneficial in warfare. Maya warfare put emphasis on the capture of sacrificial offerings and less on decimating enemy forces

(Chacon 2008:384-385). A barbed point lodged deep into a body would bleed less than an open wound and would likely slow the victim's escape. To remove a barbed point on the battlefield, the injured were forced to either pull out the dart or push it through, either option increases the risk causing more damage. This hypothesis is supported by the

Spanish description of barbed darts that “cannot be removed without making a large wound - unless it can be taken out at the opposite side” (Duran 1867:121).

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Bamboo

Bamboo points proved to be a shockingly effective cutting and penetrating weapons. The edges of the split poles were as sharp as a steel blade (although not as durable) and easily cut through tissue. The grooved profile of the points makes for an effective channel for blood to pour out the wound. Even when splintered the bamboo fragments are extremely sharp and would likely continue damaging internal tissue and organs. Based on my experiments and testimony from de Silva, I would feel comfortable using bamboo points on thin-skinned medium sized game such as deer and peccary.

Bamboo is even more brittle than chert, however, the nature of the material made reuse easier than chert. The longitudinal grain of bamboo causes it to more likely break near the tip, so the point could be easily reshaped and used again. Bamboo’s sheer abundance and ease production also negated the fragility of the points. A 2 m length of bamboo can yield dozens of points. Using only a chert knife or sharp flake a point can be swiftly constructed in less than 3 minutes. An ancient hunter, deep in the jungle and far from a chert source, would have likely found bamboo to be an extremely plentiful and useful substitute for a broken lithic point. Based on the likely depictions of bamboo in

Maya pottery (see Figures 2.9 and 4.2), the material was almost certainly used for dart shafts. My experiments demonstrate that they could have easily been used for points as well.

Chert

The results from the experiments with chert points indicate that they are effective killing weapons. While not penetrating as deep as the other points, even the shallowest

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 recorded depth (12 cm) is enough to reach vital organs on both humans and medium sized game. It is in entry and exit wound damage that the lithic has the advantage over all other materials tested. If the results of ballistic gelatin were replicated on the vital organs of living organism, rapid exsanguination would follow quickly. Even less-lethal hits will likely severely cripple the target with massive tissue damage.

Despite the lethality of the lithic points, they were extremely fragile, especially when compared to bone and hardwood. Striking a hard surface on a missed shot shattered the point. The point can even snap off if lodged in a bone. However, this is also beneficial, as fragments of a point lodged in the body can continue to cause damage, widening the wound and speeding along death. Based on Aoyama’s (2005:301-302) wear-analysis of chert points in the Copan Valley, the Maya certainly utilized the chert projectile points in warfare to at least some degree. While the nature of those points, whether they be from spears, darts, or arrows, can be disputed, what is clear is that the material was effective as a projectile point for the Maya.

Conclusions

Here I will address the questions I presented at the beginning of my thesis. My primary goals were 1) to determine if any archaeological, artistic, historic, or iconographic evidence supported that the Classic period Maya constructed and used projectile points made from organic materials, and 2) determine if organic projectile points would make for viable and effective weapons.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Archaeological, Artistic, Historic, or Iconographic Evidence

I was unable to directly link any artistic, iconographic, or archaeological evidence to organic projectile points, however I was able to determine that other groups throughout the New World, including the neotropics, utilized bone, wood, and bamboo points. From historical sources, I found evidence of bone and wood projectile points utilized throughout Mesoamerica during the beginning of the Colonial period. While it is not possible at this time to say with complete certainty that organic points were used in the

Classic period; the evidence does indicate that it is plausible.

Hunting

All the materials used in the experiments showed varying degrees of efficacy and practicality as killing tools. While all exhibited the capacity to be lethal, some would be better suited for different tasks than others. This would be fitting given the wide array of prey targeted by the Classic Maya. While lithic and bamboo tools have the advantage in big-game hunting with their superior tissue damage, this is unnecessary and even disadvantageous for smaller prey, due to both the fragile nature of the animals and the high likelihood of misses while throwing at smaller targets.

The brittle lithic and bamboo points are also unsuited for aquatic prey as they could potentially break off inside the animal. Bamboo, while fragile, is an abundant and lethal material that can be used in almost any of the same hunting applications as stone.

Bone and hardwood demonstrated excellent penetration and durability, making them good candidates for small and aquatic game. Dart points of different designs and materials served as a useful toolkit for Maya life, much like the Lacandon Maya, and

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 even bowhunters, utilize different designs of broadheads depending on their targeted prey.

Warfare

When asking which dart point materials are best suited for warfare, there are two possible interpretations. Lithics and bamboo, with their lacerating potential and gapping wounds, were undoubtedly useful for killing opponents. However, swift death on the battlefield may not have always been the objective of the Maya. For much of

Mesoamerica, including the Maya, warfare was based around the capture of prisoners for sacrifice (Chacon 2008:384-385). Weapons that maimed, rather than killed, may have been favored in combat. If that is the case, then I propose that hardwood and bone points were better suited for the task of acquiring live captives. Both leave smaller wound canals and would therefore have slower rates of exsanguination, preventing the injured from bleeding out before capture. As mentioned by Duran (1867:121), barbs on hardwood and bone points also make the points incredibly difficult to remove and hinder the escape of struck opponents.

The increased warfare of the Late and Terminal Classic periods brought with it an increase in stone point production (Aoyama 2005:300; Barrett and Scherer 2005:104). It is possible that this change in warfare brought a change in battlefield practices, with less focus on capturing prisoners and more on killing opponents. In such circumstances more lethal chert weapons were optimal.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Toxins

Another possible benefit of organic points is the ability to carry toxins. The grooved shape of bamboo points makes them ideal for holding a payload of poison.

When tipped with poison, bamboo’s fragility increases the lethality of the point. Even if the wound is superficial, the broken pieces of the poisoned bamboo ensure that the toxins enter the bloodstream. Like the Yamomami’s arrow points these points are intended for only one use (Milliken et al. 1999:29). The porous nature of bone and wood also allow for poison to more easily remain on the tips. Barbs carved into bone and hardwood would keep the poisoned points lodged in the body, allowing for continuous exposure to the poison. Poisoned points are beneficial in both the context of hunting and warfare, although their ultimate lethality makes them unfit for collecting captives for sacrifice.

Summary

Ultimately, I encountered a lack of direct evidence for the use of organic points in the Classic period. However, I did find that the practice of utilizing organic materials is not unknown in the New World. Furthermore, my experiments demonstrate that bone, wood, and bamboo have potential both in the forest and on the battlefield. In my final chapter, I give my final thoughts and conclusions as to what I learned from my research. I also address possible ideas for future research and experiments.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

Review

The atlatl was a critical element of the culture of the Classic Maya. Starting with the Teotihuacan entrada of the Early Classic, the atlatl became not only a tool of war and hunting, but a symbol of military might and divine power (Martin and Grube 2008:31;

Slater 2011: 375). The atlatl became such a potent symbol of power that it is possible that the manikin scepter of the god K’awiil is a symbolic representation of the weapon (Sharer and Traxler 2006:326,739).

The low numbers of lithic dart points in the archaeological record seemingly contradict the strong presence of the atlatl in Maya art and iconography. Hassig (1992:97) argues that the atlatl was not suited for warfare in the forests of the Maya region. He believes that the atlatl was used mostly as a symbolic totem of power, reminiscent of the power wielded by Teotihuacan (Hassig 1992:73). However, contrary to this hypothesis,

Maya pottery depicts the atlatl not only in battlefield scenarios (see Figure 2.10) but also in hunting scenes (see Figure 2.11). The Spanish reports from the Colonial period describe in terrifying detail the application of the atlatl in Maya warfare (Duran

1867:121).

The hypothesis that the Maya used organic materials as projectile points helps reconcile the abundance of atlatls in Maya iconography and the scarcity of atlatl dart points in the archaeological record. The ephemeral nature of organic materials combined

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 with the disposable nature of projectile points, make preservation in the archaeological record rare. The use of bone, wood, and bamboo as projectile points is supported in archaeological, historical, and ethnographic accounts from both the Old World (Griffin

2007:16; Redmond and Tankersley 2005: 514) and New World (Boas 1888: 96-100;

Holmberg 1969:26-34; Opler 1996:389; Prins 2010:2). In addition, Colonial accounts describe the usage of wood and bone points in Mesoamerica, showing that lithic points were not exclusively used in the region (Nuttall 1891:5,10; Tezozomoc 1878:377). It is a reasonable assumption that the Maya of the Classic period, constructed bone and wood dart points in a similar fashion to their Colonial period counterparts.

Through experimental archaeology, I was able to compare the lethality, durability, and practicality of organic and lithic points. By testing and comparing organic and lithic projectile points on a soft tissue analog, I was able to collect quantifiable data. By analyzing this data, I discovered that each material has its own advantages and disadvantages, depending on the circumstances in which it was used. While easily broken, chert points deliver ragged lacerations that result in grievous injuries. Hardwood and bone, while lacking the sharp, serrated edges of chert, are durable and have excellent penetration. The bamboo points proved to be highly brittle and easily broken. However, bamboo’s abundant and easily modified nature, along with sharp cutting edges, make it appealing to modern hunter-gatherers in neotropics. All three organic points have potential for being effective devices for delivering natural poisons for both warfare and hunting.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Additional Questions and Research

Armor

During the experiments and analysis of my data, I encountered additional questions that warrant further testing. I want to dedicate more efforts towards understanding Maya armor and its efficacy against atlatl darts, hand-thrown javelins, and arrows. This could grant insight into changing weapon use and warfare during the

Terminal Classic and Postclassic periods. This would also provide an opportunity to test if the Spanish claims of the armor-penetrating power of the atlatl are accurate, and what point material is best suited for countering armor.

Aquatic Prey

Another area of research that I want to explore is the performance of organic and lithic points on scales, thick hide, and bone. My testing focused on thin-skinned medium sized prey items of the Lowland Maya: deer, turkey, paca, and peccary. However, armored and heavily scaled fish and turtles were also common prey items. Additional testing will need to be done to add support my conclusions that bone and hardwood are more effective against these natural defenses. This would also be an excellent opportunity to research the hunting and fishing practices of the coastal Maya.

Toxins

The topic of poisoned points among the Maya a poorly documented, due to both the ephemeral nature of poisons and sparse ethnographic and historical accounts.

However, if more research can be done on possible toxins utilized by the Maya, tests can

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020 be formulated to learn more on their function. Potency, speed of death, rate of denaturation, and more factors can be studied.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, I believe that the Maya utilized organic projectile points alongside those made from chipped stone. Much like modern bowhunters, who use different types of arrowheads for different game and circumstances, the Maya likely had a variety of points made for specific tasks. The large lithic dart points described by Aoyama

(2015:10) would be unnecessary for killing small paca or ocellated turkeys, or spearing fish in a river. However, if the intention is to kill an opponent on the battlefield, they are highly effective as weapons of war. The Classic Maya were effective warriors and hunters, and likely modified their projectiles to match their warfare and prey. They, like many other cultures, utilized the materials available to them in diverse and creative ways.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aoyama, Kazuo 2017 Ancient Maya Economy: Lithic Production and Exchange Around Ceibal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 28(1):279–303.

2005 Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear, Dart, and Arrow Points of Aguateca and Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(2):291–304.

Ascher, Robert 1961 Experimental Archaeology. American Anthropologist 63:793–816.

Barrett, Jason W., and Andrew K. Scherer 2005 Stones, Bones, and Crowed Plazas: Evidence for Terminal Classic Maya Warfare at Colha, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(1):101–118.

Baugh, Richard A. 1998 Atlatl Dynamics. Lithic Technology 23(1):31–41.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217–225.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255–273.

Boas, F. 1967 The Central Eskimo. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Boremanse, Didier 1998 Hach Winik: the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Southern Mexico. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY.

Boubli, Jean P., Bernardo Urbani, Hortensia Caballero-Arias, Glenn H. Shepard, and Manuel Lizarralde 2020 Primates in the Lives of the Yanomami People of Brazil and Venezuela. Neotropical Ethnoprimatology Ethnobiology:199–224.

Browne, Jim 1940 Projectile Points. American Antiquity 5(3):209–213.

Butler, William B. 1975 The Atlatl: The Physics of Function and Performance. Plains Anthropologist 20(68):105–110.

1980 Penetrating Elephant Hide with Wood Atlatl Darts. Plains Anthropologist 25(90):353–356.

Carrell, Toni L. 1992 Replication and Experimental Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 26(4):4–13.

Cattelain, Pierre 1997 Hunting During the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, Spearthrower, or Both? In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 213–240. Plenum Press, New York.

Chacon, Richard J. 2008 The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians. Springer, Berlin.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase. 2011 Status and Power: Caracol, Teotihuacan, and the Early Classic Maya world. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology. 8:3–18. 90

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Cheney, Ralph H. 1931 Geographic and Taxonomic Distribution of American Plant Arrow Poisons. American Journal of Botany 18(2):136–145.

Coe, Michael D. 2000 Mexico: from the Olmecs to the Aztecs, ed. 7. Thames and Hudson, London.

Coe, Michael D., and Stephen D. Houston 2015 The Maya, ed. 9. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Coggins, Clemency Chase, and Orrin C. Shane 1984 Cenote of Sacrifice Maya Treasures from the Sacred Well at Chichen Itza. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Couch, Jeffrey S., Tracy A. Stropes, and Adella B. Schroth 1999 The Effect of Projectile Point Size on Atlatl Dart Efficiency. Lithic Technology 24(1):27–37.

Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1895 The Arrow. American Anthropologist 8(4):307–349.

Duran, Diego 1867 Historia de las Indias de Nueva-España y Islas de Tierra Firme: Tome 1. Electronic Document, http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/historia-de-las-indias-de- nueva-espana-y-islas-de-tierra-firme-tomo-i--0/html/, accessed April 28, 2020.

Tezozomoc, D. Herando Alvarado 1878 Cronica Mexicana. Electronic Document, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t2c827g89&view=1up&seq=9, accessed April 29, 2020.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Ekholm, Gordon F 1962 U-Shaped "Ornaments" Identified as Finger-Loops from Atlatls. American Antiquity 28(2):181–185.

Emery, Kitty F., and Linda A. Brown 2011 Maya Hunting Sustainability: Perspectives from Past and Present. In The Ethics of Anthropology and Amerindian Research, pp.79–116. Springer, New York.

Fenenga, Franklin 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9(3):309–323.

González-Ruibal, Alfredo 2016 Ethnoarchaeology or Simply Archaeology?. World Archaeology 48(5):687–692.

Gosselain, Olivier P. 2016 To Hell with Ethnoarchaeology!. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2):215–228.

Gould, Richard A. 1970 Spears and Spear Throwers of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Griffin, Marcus B. 2007 Critical Heritage and Biodiversity Conservation in the Northern Philippines: A Case Study. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 35(½): 5–23.

Harrison, Peter D. 2003 The Atlatl from Operation 96D, Structure 5D-51, Group 5D-11, Tikal. Appendix J In The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material, by Hattula Moholy-Nagy, pp. 105–125. Tikal Report No. 27, Part B. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Hassig, Ross 1992 War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Haviland, William A. 1967 Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Ancient Maya Demography and Social Organization. American Antiquity 32(3):316–325.

Holmberg, A.R. 1969 Nomads of the Long Bow: the Siriono of Eastern Bolivia. Waveland Press, Long Grove.

Howard, Calvin D. 1974 The Atlatl: Function and Performance. American Antiquity 39(1):102–104.

Hutchings, W. Karl and Lorenz W. Bruchert 1997 Spearthrower Performance: Ethnographic and Experimental Research. Antiquity 71(274):890–897.

Montgomery, John 2000 John Montgomery Drawings Database, number: 00853. Electronic Document, http://research.famsi.org/montgomery_selects.php?image_number=334, accessed June 17, 2019.

Kerr, Justin 1998a Kerr Vase Database, Kerr Number: 2036. Electronic Document, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya_hires.php?vase=2036, accessed June 16, 2019.

1998b Kerr Vase Database, Kerr Number: 5763. Electronic Document, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya_hires.php?vase=5763, accessed June 16, 2019.

1998c Kerr Vase Database, Kerr Number: 5857. Electronic Document, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya_hires.php?vase=5857, accessed June 16, 2019.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

1998d Kerr Vase Database, Kerr Number: 9260. Electronic Document, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya_hires.php?vase=9260, accessed June 16, 2019.

Kray, Christine, Minette Church, and Jason Yaeger 2017 Designs on/of the Land: Competing Visions, Displacement, and Landscape Memory in British Colonial Honduras. In Legacies of Space and Intangible Heritage: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Politics of Cultural Continuity in the Americas, edited by Fernando Armstrong-Fumero and Julio Hoil Gutierrez, pp. 53–77. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993 Gesture and Speech. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Schele, Linda 2000a The Linda Schele Drawings Collection, Schele Number: 5019. Electronic Document, http://research.famsi.org/schele_selects.php?image_number=651, accessed January 11, 2020. 2000b The Linda Schele Drawings Collection, Schele Number: 7311. Electronic Document, http://research.famsi.org/schele_selects.php?image_number=938, accessed January 11, 2020.

Maryniak, Jerzy, Edyta Ładyżyńska-Kozdraś, and Edyta Golińska 2009 Mathematical Modeling and Numerical Simulations of Javelin Throw. Human Movement 10(1):16–20.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.

Mason, Otis T. 1885 Throwing-sticks in the National Museum. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

McClelland, Donna 1979 Moche Archive, Fineline drawing number: 0177. https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/ids:457658150$1i, accessed January 30, 2020.

McCorquodale, S. M. 1997 Cultural Contexts of Recreational Hunting and Native Subsistence and Ceremonial Hunting: their Significance for Wildlife Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973 - 2006), 25(2):568–573.

Meissner, Nathan J., and Prudence M. Rice 2015 Postclassic Petén Maya Bow-and-Arrow Use as Revealed by Immunological Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 64:67–76.

Milliken, William, Bruce Albert, and Gale Goodwin. Gomez 1999 Yanomami: A Forest People. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Nations, J. D. 1989 The Lacandon Maya Bow and Arrow: an Ethnoarchaeological Example of Postclassic Lowland Maya Weapon Manufacture. In La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica, edited by M. Gaxiola and J. E. Clark, pp. 449-457. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.

Nuttall, Zelia 1891 The Atlatl or Spear-Thrower of the Ancient Mexicans. Archaeological and Ethnographic Papers of the Peabody Museum. Harvard University, 1(3):171–198.

O’Brien, Michael J., R. Lee Lyman, Briggs Buchanan, and Mark Collard 2016 A Review of Late Pleistocene North American Bone and Ivory Tools. In Osseous Projectile Weaponry, edited by Michelle C. Langley, pp. 221–235. Springer, New York.

Olsen, Bjørnar 2013 In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Opler, M. E. 1996 An Apache Life Way: The Economic, Social, & Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Outram, Alan K 2008 Introduction to Experimental Archaeology. World Archaeology 40(1):1–6.

Ponce de Leon, Maria Josefa Iglesias 2003 Problematical Deposits and the Problems of Interaction: The Material Culture of Tikal during the Early Classic Period. The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 167–198. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Prins, Harald E.L. 2010 The Atlatl as Combat Weapon in 17th-Century Amazonia: Tapuya Indian Warriors in Dutch Colonial Brazil. The Atlatl 23(2):1–3.

Rasmussen, Marianne, and Bjarne Grønnow. 2003 The Historical—Archaeological Experimental Centre at Lejre, Denmark: 30 years of Experimenting with the Past. In The Constructed Past: Experimental Archaeology, Education and the Public, edited by P. Planel and P. G. Stone, pp. 136–144. Routledge, New York.

Ray, Jim 1996 A Brief Coverage of Atlatl Styles, Construction, and Usage. Electronic Document, http://waa.basketmakeratlatl.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/JimRayShootingStar.pdf, accessed February 19, 2020.

Redmond, Brian G., and Kenneth B. Tankersley 2005 Evidence of Early Paleoindian Bone Modification and Use at the Sheriden Cave Site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70(3):503–526.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Roemer, Erwin 1991 A Late Classic Workshop at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 55–66. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Schröder, Stéphane 2010 Guadua. Electronic document, https://www.guaduabamboo.com/genera/guadua, accessed March 9, 2020.

Serafin, Stanley, Carlos Peraza Lope, and Eunice Uc González 2014 Bioarchaeological Investigation of Ancient Maya Violence and Warfare in Inland Northwest Yucatan, Mexico. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154(1): 140– 151.

Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1991 Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. World Archaeology 23(1): 79–97.

Sharer, Robert J. 2003 Founding Events and Teotihuacan Connections at Copan, Honduras. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 143–165. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Shea, J. John 2006 The Origins of Lithic Projectile Point Technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6):823–846.

Skaggs, Sheldon, Robert H. Tykot, and Terry G. Powis 2019 Isotopic Analysis of Newly Discovered Fragments of an Ulúa Valley Marble Vase at the Ancient Maya Site of Pacbitun, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 26: 101896.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Slater, Donald A. 2011 Power Materialized: The Dart-Thrower as a Pan-Mesoamerican Status Marker. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(2):371–388.

Stuart, David 2000 The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp. 465–513, University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Stemp, W. James, Jaime J. Awe, Keith M. Prufer, and Christophe G.B. Helmke 2016 Design and Function of Lowe and Sawmill Points from the Preceramic Period of Belize. Latin American Antiquity 27(3):279–299.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tringham, R. 1978. Experimentation, Ethnoarchaeology, and the Leapfrogs in Archaeological Methodology. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by R. A. Gould, pp. 169– 99. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ventura, Carol 2003 The Jakaltek Maya Blowgun in Mythological and Historical Context. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(02):257–268.

Waguespack, Nicole M., Todd A. Surovell, Allen Denoyer, Alice Dallow, Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman, and Dan Tapster 2009 Making a Point: Wood- versus Stone-tipped Projectiles. Antiquity 83(321):786–800.

Texas Tech University, Spencer Foster, August 2020

Whittaker, John C., and Kathryn A. Kamp 2006 Primitive Weapons and Modern Sport: Atlatl Capabilities, Learning, Gender, and Age. Plains Anthropologist 51(198):213–221.

Whittaker, John, and Andrew Maginniss 2006 Atlatl Flex: Irrelevant. The Atlatl 19(2):1–3.

Whittaker, John C. 2002 Atlatl Elbow: Anatomy and Archaeology. The Atlatl 16(1):16–18.

2010 Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology. In Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology Through Production and Use, edited by J. R. Ferguson, pp. 195–224. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

2014 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2017 How to Throw. Electronic document, https://worldatlatl.org/about-atlatls/how-to- throw/, accessed March 26, 2020.