MESOAMERICAN FLAT CURVED STICKS: INNOVATIVE “TOLTEC” SHORT SWORD, FENDING STICK, OR OTHER PURPOSE? Phil R. Geib Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 816 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 Abstract Flat and curved sticks with longitudinal facial grooves were dredged from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza in the early 1900s. Theyare similar to specimens recovered from the North American Southwest, where a suggested function was for defense against atlatl darts. By accepting this interpretation, Mesoamerican archaeologists identified such artifacts as fending sticks. Hassig (1992:112–114, 126–127, 2001:810–811) disputes this role, arguing that the sticks were specialized short swords for close fighting. This sword interpretation is not supported by my analysis of the Chichen Itza artifacts or the mural evidence at that site. Defense against atlatl darts is possible but unlikely to have occurred in warfare and, in any case, Maya/Toltec warriors carried shields to protect themselves against darts and other weapons. Fending darts in ritual fights such as an atlatl duel is a plausible scenario, perhaps to prove warrior mettle or as a gladiatorial blood sport. Another possible use is for subduing captives after military victory: a throwing stick to disable humans for later sacrifice. INTRODUCTION One of the many unknowns that archaeologists grapple with is deter- mining the function of recovered artifacts. Sometimes there are radi- cally different interpretations that have important implications for understanding broader patterns of prehistory. This is perhaps espe- cially true for items outside the norm or that are otherwise enigmatic. A good example of this from Mesoamerica is provided by flat, curved sticks (FCS) with shallow longitudinal grooves on both faces, artifacts that are often referred to as fending sticks or as arma curva. These wooden artifacts are rare in Mesoamerica because of pres- ervation problems. The only extant published examples are frag- mentary ones that Edward Thompson dredged from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza (Figure 1) at the start of the 1900s (Coggins and Ladd 1992; Coggins and Shane 1984). Additional FCS fragments were recovered in the 1960s from the Sacred Cenote by the expeditions of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, but no detailed information is yet published on these finds (Coggins and Ladd 1992:259). The artifacts are com- monly depicted in the art of this site and at Tula (Figure 2). The sticks are characterized as one of the principal accouterments of “Toltec” warriors (Coggins 1984a:49). Individuals in warrior garb often hold a grooved FCS in their left hand along with atlatl darts. Their right hand holds an atlatl that is usually fringed by feathers. The nature of the curved artifacts depicted in art might have been open to debate except for the Sacred Cenote specimens, which the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography has curated since their recovery. The character of these artifacts is not in doubt, but their function is. One proposal is that the sticks were used for defense against atlatl darts by deflecting the projectiles, hence the fending label (e.g., Charlot 1931:252). Hassig (1992: 112–114, 126–127, 2001:810–811) disputes this account, arguing instead that the curved sticks were short swords. Cervera Obregón (2007:52–53) thinks they were simply rabbit sticks. These disparate roles have implications for our reconstructions of what happened in the past and the explanations given. An understanding of the func- tion of FCS impacts our interpretation of weaponry and warfare in Mesoamerica. If these sticks were not short swords, then they were not the key military advantage of the “Toltecs,” as Hassig has claimed, and we must look to other factors for an explanation of the rise of centers like Tula and Chichen Itza. While this paper does not fully resolve the functional debate, it demonstrates that the sword interpretation is unsupportable and delivers information that should be factored into future deliberations about the role of these artifacts. Having a possibility in mind can sometimes allow perception of heretofore-unappreciated patterns that can resolve ambiguity. After providing some background, I describe the specimens recovered from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza. These specimens are critical to determining function. As I document below, the sticks do not qualify as swords, or even as war clubs, in any meaningful sense. I then proceed to consider the alternative fending role, first by examining the ethnographic arti- facts that gave rise to the defensive interpretation in the first place—the parrying clubs of the Solomon Islands. This is an inap- propriate analogue for reasons discussed below. Next, I introduce an alternative ethnographic analogue for defense against atlatl darts that discloses a plausible context within which dart deflection might have occurred: a duel between two opponents. I then briefly charac- terize an experiment using FCS for atlatl dart defense that shows that atlatl darts thrown from close range can be knocked aside with FCS (see also Garnett 2015). This activity also generated a use-wear sig- nature that was used for interpreting use damage on prehistoric FCS. Unfortunately, the Chichen Itza artifacts cannot be analyzed for functional traces but numerous specimens from the Southwest 45 E-mail correspondence to: pgeib@unm.edu Ancient Mesoamerica, 29 (2018), 45–62 Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 doi:10.1017/S095653611700013X https://doi.org/10.1017/S095653611700013X Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 44.197.201.121, on 29 Sep 2021 at 00:04:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.