PALEOINDIAN CHRONOLOGY, , AND LITHIC RESOURCE PROCUREMENT AT NESQUEHONING CREEK

A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by Jeremy W. Koch August, 2017

Examining Committee Members:

Dr. R. Michael Stewart, Advisory Chair, Department of Anthropology Dr. Paul Farnsworth, Department of Anthropology Dr. Patricia Hansell, Department of Anthropology Dr. Anthony Ranere, Department of Anthropology Dr. Kurt Carr, External Member, The State Museum of

© Copyright 2017

by

Jeremy W. Koch

All Rights Reserved

ii ABSTRACT

Nesquehoning Creek (36CR142) is a stratified, multicomponent site situated on a late Wisconsin age terrace in , Carbon County, Pennsylvania.

Cultural occupations represented at Nesquehoning Creek include Colonial (late 17th-early

18th century); Late, Middle, and Early Woodland; Transitional, Late, Middle and Early

Archaic; and Paleoindian. The Paleoindian component is deeply buried, contextually secure, and produced a Crowfield fluted point with associated radiocarbon dates of

12,422 ± 164, 12,255 ± 177, and 11,398 ± 110 cal BP. This dissertation focuses on: 1) assessing the Paleoindian occupation history at Nesquehoning Creek, 2) analyzing the organization of Paleoindian , and 3) examining Paleoindian residential mobility patterns in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

The history of research at Nesquehoning Creek, Late -Early environmental data, and Paleoindian culture history are reviewed in order to provide background information. By examining the stratigraphy and geomorphology at the

Nesquehoning Creek site, this study was able to propose a model of landscape evolution and determine excavation areas with the greatest potential for stratified Paleoindian occupations. A lithic refitting and distribution analysis of these excavation areas was able to identify a single Crowfield Paleoindian occupation zone. The Crowfield component lithic assemblage displayed production and reduction strategies similar to

Clovis and later Paleoindian complexes. Lithic raw material types represented in the

Crowfield toolkit suggest a relatively small territorial range on the order of 50 km. An evaluation of Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility patterns in the Middle

iii Atlantic and Northeast showed continuity in the relative occupation span of sites from both periods. This suggests that although Late Paleoindian groups had smaller territorial ranges, they appear to have moved from site to site within those territories about as frequently as Early Paleoindians in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

Detailed analysis of contextually secure Paleoindian assemblages are crucial to identifying similarities and differences between archaeological complexes. This research demonstrates the importance of lithic refitting studies in the assessment of stratified, multicomponent archaeological sites. Detailed examination of the Crowfield lithic assemblage improved our understanding of Paleoindian technological organization in the

Middle Atlantic region. The evaluation of Paleoindian residential mobility patterns has complimented previous studies and presented data that may be updated and reassessed in the future.

iv

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Patty and Denny Koch.

I couldn’t have done it without your love and support.

v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr.

R. Michael Stewart, Dr. Anthony Ranere, Dr. Patricia Hansell, Dr. Paul Farnsworth

(Temple University), and Dr. Kurt Carr (State Museum of Pennsylvania) for their help in making this dissertation possible. Special thanks are owed to Dr. Stewart for inviting me to participate in excavations at Nesquehoning Creek, and entrusting me to direct investigations and field schools since 2010. It was an invitation that changed my life and

I can’t thank you enough. I am forever thankful to Dr. Ranere for always providing advice and guidance when I needed it most, and for introducing me to flintknapping years ago. Your class on began an obsession with all things stone that continues to this day. Dr. Hansell mentored me during my years as a teaching assistant and provided valuable advice for which I am forever grateful. Dr. Farnsworth kindly agreed to join my dissertation committee despite the subject being many miles and years from his area of expertise. Dr. Carr was one of the first archaeologists I had the pleasure of working with in the field many years ago. Thanks for your support throughout the years and for agreeing to serve as my external committee member.

There are many people to thank for their contributions to the work that has been accomplished at Nesquehoning Creek. I owe a debt of gratitude to Del Beck who has been an integral part of archaeological investigations at the Nesquehoning Creek site from the very beginning. Thank you for being such dedicated collegue, understanding friend, and relentless detective. Advocational archaeologists Tommy Davies, Don Kline, and Kirk Spurr all kindly voluenteered their time and energy to help with field

vi excavations. Tommy Davies, in particular, may have moved more dirt at Nesquehoning

Creek than anyone not named Del Beck. Thank you for your enthusiasm, friendship, and the many conversations we have shared over the years. Volunteers and students from the

2010, 2011, and 2012 Temple University archaeological field schools were invaluable during controlled excavations. Temple University graduate students Susan Bachor,

Jennifer Falchetta, Lou Farrell, and Jen Rankin provided valuable assistance during various phases of the project.

Funding for AMS radiocarbon dates was provided by Del Beck, Temple

University, and the National Science Foundation. Accommodations at the Mauch Lake

County Park Campground, courtesy of director Dave Horvath and staff, made field schools a very enjoyable and productive endeavor. They have our thanks and gratitude.

The Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad, the Carbon County Railroad

Commission, and Nesquehoning Sewer Treatment Plant are acknowledged for allowing us to cross their properties in gaining access to the site.

Staff of the State Museum of Pennsylvania and the Bureau for Historic

Preservation of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission including Jim

Herbstritt, Andrea Johnson, Janet Johnson, and Doug McLearen have played a critical role in the initiation and continued operation of work at the site. Equally important has been the cooperation of staff of the Lehigh Gorge State Park. Dustin Drew, former

Manager, Dave Madl, current Manager, Assistant Manager, Kevin Blair, Michael

Dinsmore (now with Greenwood Furnace State Park), David Fry, Harry Melber, and

Jennifer Naugle (now with Tobyhanna State Park) have facilitated our work on-site.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ...... iii

DEDICATION ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Organization of Dissertation ...... 3

2. THE NESQUEHONING CREEK SITE AND PALEOINDIAN CULTURE

HISTORY BACKGROUND ...... 7

2.1 Site Setting ...... 7

2.2 History of Investigations ...... 16

2.3 Paleoenvironment ...... 23

2.4 The Clovis Complex...... 31

2.5 Paleoindians in the Eastern Woodlands ...... 38

3. STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY AT NESQUEHONING

CREEK...... 50

3.1 Introduction ...... 50

3.2 Site Setting ...... 50

viii 3.3 Materials and Methods ...... 51

3.4 Results ...... 54

3.5 Conclusions ...... 84

4. PALEOINDIAN OCCUPATION AND SITE FORMATION PROCESSES

AT THE NESQUEHONING CREEK SITE ...... 87

4.1 Introduction ...... 87

4.2 Background and Predictions ...... 87

4.3 Materials and Methods ...... 96

4.4 Results ...... 99

4.5 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 129

5. PALEOINDIAN LITHIC TECHNOLOGY AT THE NESQUEHONING

CREEK SITE ...... 134

5.1 Introduction ...... 134

5.2 Summary of Paleoindian Lithic Assemblages ...... 135

5.3 Materials and Methods ...... 151

5.4 Results ...... 155

5.5 Discussion ...... 173

5.6 Conclusions ...... 182

6. PALEOINDIAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY PATTERNS IN THE

MIDDLE ATLANTIC AND NORTHEAST ...... 185

6.1 Introduction ...... 185

6.2 Background ...... 185

6.3 Materials and Methods ...... 188

ix 6.4 Results ...... 196

6.5 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 199

7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 202

REFERENCES CITED ...... 208

x LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Unit 2 and Block 3 soil profile description ……….………………………..….. 59

3.2 Soil micromorphological description of basal strata from Unit 2, SE quadrant (adapted from Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Table 2)……..……... 66

3.3 Nesquehoning Creek site generalized soil morphology, excavation strata, diagnostic artifacts, and age estimates.……...... 83

3.4 Nesquehoning Creek site stratigraphic correlations...... 84

4.1 Description of refits and conjoins…...... 101

4.2 Description of refit sets organized by the number of specimens involved and tallied by the type of linkages represented...... 107

4.3 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts...... 108

4.4 Same- and cross-stratum refit sets organized by linkage type...... 111

4.5 Lithic raw material mass by stratum/level in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7...... 119

4.6 Proportions of lithic raw material mass by stratum/level in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7...... 119

4.7 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts for excavation unit S5W6...... 128

4.8 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 but excluding S5W6………………………………...... 128

4.9 Paleoindian lithic refitting studies and refitting rates………….………...... 132

5.1 Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 artifact counts ……………..…………………... 135

5.2 Blocks 4, 5, and 6 artifact counts…...... 136

5.3 Unit 2 and Blocks 3-7 artifact counts…...... 137

5.4 Fluted point descriptive and metric data…...... 138

5.5 Flake analysis technological variables…...... 152

xi 5.6 Flake tool analysis metric variables…...... 152

5.7 Biface analysis technological variables…………………………………...... 153

5.8 Biface analysis metric variables…...... 153

5.9 Flake tool metric data……………………………………………………...... 156

5.10 Flake tool technological data…...... 158

5.11 Formal tool GIUR and metric data……………………………………...... 160

5.12 Biface technological data………………………………………………...... 164

5.13 Biface metric data…...... 164

5.14 Frequency of overface flaking on bifaces…...... 165

5.15 Frequency of end-thinning on bifaces…...... 166

5.16 totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7…...... 167

5.17 Debitage platform types for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7…...... 168

5.18 Debitage dorsal scar (DS) counts for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7………………………………………………………………...... 168

5.19 Lipped platform totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7…...... 168

5.20 Debitage cortex totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7…...... 169

5.21 Debitage totals for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6…...... 170

5.22 Debitage platform types for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6…...... 171

5.23 Debitage dorsal scar (DS) counts for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6...…………………………………………………………………...... 171

5.24 Lipped platform totals for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6…...... 171

5.25 Debitage cortex totals for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6…...... 172

5.26 Comparison of Crowfield tool assemblages (adapted from Deller and Ellis 2011:Tables 4.2, 10.2; Miller et al. 2007: Tables 27, 33, 37, 41)………………………………………………………... 181

5.27 Proportions of formal and informal from three Crowfield assemblages………………………………………………………. 182 xii 6.1 Late Paleoindian sites included in the study sample………………………..… 190

6.2 Early Paleoindian sites included in the study sample...... 192

6.3 Late Paleoindian relative occupation span data...... 197

6.4 Early Paleoindian relative occupation span data...... 198

xiii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 2.1 (A) Map of Middle Atlantic Region showing the location of the Nesquehoning Creek site (star). (B) Known chert (squares) and jasper (dots) quarries surrounding Nesquehoning Creek. (C) LIDAR Hillshade image of the site setting. Open holes from unauthorized digging, associated mounded earth, and formal excavations are visible on the triangularly-shaped landscape.…………..…….....8

2.2 Broad Mountain viewed from Block 1, facing north. The is located approximately 6 m east (right) from the toe slope……………. ..9

2.3 Plan view of the Nesquehoning Creek site……………………….……..…….... 10

2.4 Photomosaic of the Nesquehoning Creek site during the spring summer, fall, and winter (moving clockwise from the top left). Photographs taken approximately 10 m south and west of Unit 16, facing east…………………………………………………………………... 11

2.5 Photograph of the Lehigh River (left) at its confluence with Nesquehoning Creek (right) ……………………………………..…………….. 11

2.6 Cobble chert recovered from a gravel bar along Nesquehnoning Creek………………………………………………..……………………...... 14

2.7 Photograph of the Nesquehoning Creek site in 2009. Note the undulating topography created by the numerous looter pits and backdirt piles...……………………………………………………...…………...17

2.8 Del Beck (red jacket) and Tommy Davies (green sweatshirt) screening looter backdirt piles. The border of a large backfilled looter pit is visible in the foreground with many fire-cracked rockers scattered throughout the fill………………………………..………...... 19

2.9 Photograph of an exploratory excavation unit placed within a backfilled looter pit. Nesquehoning Creek is visible in the background..……………………………..………...... 19

2.10 Temple University field school student excavating Block 3 in 2013……………………………..……….……...... 20

2.11 Mouth of the Lausanne tunnel draining coal mine runoff to the wetlands complex and Lehigh River…….……...... 22

xiv 2.12 Wetlands complex facing north toward Broad Mountain. The white tent visible in the background indicates the position of the Nesquehoning Creek site.…………..……….……...... 22

2.13 Photograph of the rockshelter (36CR144) located north of the Nesquehoning Creek site. Author is pictured beneath the rockshelter overhang………..……….……...... 24

2.14 Susquehanna Broadspear recovered from eroding backdirt deposits at the rockshelter (36CR144)...... 24

3.1 The Nesquehoning Creek site (star) displayed on portions of the Weatherly and Nesquehoning USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles……………………………………………………………...…...... 51

3.2 Nesquehoning Creek site plan. Shaded excavation units indicate soil profiles discussed in this study……………...……………………………... 53

3.3 Unit 2 west wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted….………………………...... ………………………….…… 56

3.4 Block 3 west wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted. Note the backfilled looter pits visible to the far right and center-left.…………………………...... ……………………….…. 57

3.5 Profile and particle size data for the southeast quadrant of Unit 2 (adapted from Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Figure2)……....…………..…...... 58

3.6 Susquehanna Broadspear recovered from stratum 10 (Bw2b3) in Block 3…………………………………………………………..…………...... 60

3.7 Middle Archaic Bifurcate recovered from stratum 13 (Bt2b4) in Block 3…………………………………………………………..………………61

3.8 Stratigraphic and spatial relationship of AMS samples…………………….…...63

3.9 Crowfield point base recovered from stratum 17 (ABw2b6) in Block 3……………………………………………………..………………...... 63

3.10 Crowfield point base in situ……………………………………………...…… 64

3.11 Block 4 north wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted….……………………………...... …………….….….. 67

3.12 Block 4 sequence……………………………………….……..69

xv 3.13 Refitted steatite sherds recovered from stratum 10 (Bwb3) in Block 4………………………………………………………...………….…....70

3.14 Block 5 east wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted….…….…………………...... …………………………….. 73

3.15 Photograph taken from the base of Broad Mountain showing 2012 field school students excavating Unit 16 (foreground) and spoil pile CC (background)………………………………………………...…..75

3.16 Unit 16 east wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted….……………………………...... ………………………... 76

3.17 Side-notched biface recovered in situ from stratum 3/4 (AEb2) in Unit 16……………………………………………………………………… 77

3.18 Unit 17 north wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted. Note the large backfilled looter pit (left) cutting through the profile……..……………...... …………………………….. 79

3.19 Stanley point recovered from stratum 9 (Btb3) in Unit 17…………………….80

3.20 Palmer/Amos point recovered from stratum 10 (BtCb3) in Block 8 (scale in cm)……………………………………………………….…. 81

3.21 Paleoindian biface base recovered from stratum 11 (ABb4) in Unit 17 (scale in cm)…...……………………………………………….….…. 81

4.1 Photograph of tubular soil anomalies concentrated in the southeast quadrant of S5W6, Block 7.……………………………………..…... 90

4.2 Plan view map of excavation units involved in the refit study (shaded boxes)………………………………………………………………….. 98

4.3 Frequency distribution of refit sets organized by the number of specimens involved…………………………………………………………….107

4.4 Frequency distribution of refits and conjoins by 10 cm vertical increments. Refit/conjoin counts are noted at the top of bars…………………108

4.5 Composite north-south profile of Unit 2 and Block 3 showing the distribution of lithic refits and conjoins (dots [debitage], boxes [], and diamonds [overshot flake] connected by red lines). Dashed lines represent the top of strata 15, 16, and 17. Solid line represents basal gravels. Triangle indicates position of Crowfield point base which is not involved in any refit sets…………………..110

xvi 4.6 Conjoined overshot flake (refit set 42)……………………………………...… 111

4.7 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined debitage..……………….113

4.8 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined debitage…...……………113

4.9 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined tools……….…………... 114

4.10 Potentially recycled tool (refit set #2). Image shows retouch flake fragment refitted to the tool (left) and removed from tool (right)……………………………………………………………...…………. 115

4.11 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refit and conjoined tools with the possibly recycled tool eliminated from the sample………………………….. 116

4.12 Composite north-south profile of Unit 2 and Block 3 showing the distribution of point provenienced flaked stone artifacts (dots). Dashed lines represent the top of strata 15, 16, and 17. Solid line represents basal gravels. Triangle indicates position of Crowfield point base…………………………………………………………………….. 118

4.13 Proportions of lithic raw material mass by stratum/level for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7……………………………………………………… 120

4.14 Lithic raw material mass by stratum/level for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7……………………………………………………………..……. 121

4.15 Composite vertical distribution of refit and conjoin mass from Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7…………………...... ………. 122

4.16 Composite vertical distribution of flaked stone artifact mass in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7………………………………………………… 122

4.17 Composite vertical frequency distribution of refits and conjoins in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7……………………………………………… 124

4.18 Composite vertical frequency distribution of flaked stone artifacts in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7……………………………………………… 124

4.19 Refit vertical frequency distributions by stratum/level. Excavation unit designations noted in the upper right corner. All excavation units other than S5W6 used 10 cm arbitrary levels.

xvii S5W6 used 5 cm arbitrary levels which were converted to 10 cm levels for this analysis.……………………………………………………..….125

4.20 Flaked stone vertical frequency distributions by stratum/level. Excavation unit designations noted in the upper right corner. All excavation units other than S5W6 used 10 cm arbitrary levels. S5W6 used 5 cm arbitrary levels which were converted to 10 cm levels for this analysis….………………………...…………………127

4.21 Vertical (left) and horizontal (right) positioning of conjoined flake fragments involved in refit sets 20 and 40 in N10E5. All measurements are in centimeters…………………………………….………. 129

4.22 Refit set 20 (left, 3 conjoins) and 40 (right, 4 conjoins)……………………...129

5.1 Clovis/Gainey and Crowfield points reportedly recovered from the Nesquehoning Creek site (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.6)……………………………………………………… 139

5.2 Probable Paleoindian bifaces reportedly recovered from the Nesquehoning Creek site (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.7)……….……………………………………………………… 141

5.3 Assortment of Paleoindian flake tools from Unit 2 and Block 3. Dots denote extent of edge modification (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.10).……………………….…………………………… 142

5.4 Conjoined spokeshave/drill (refit set 68) recovered from excavation units N0W6 and S5W6, Block 7….………………………………. 143

5.5 Conjoined middle stage biface (refit set 68) recovered from excavation units 2 and 17……………………………………………………... 146

5.6 Middle stage biface recovered from excavation unit 8, Block 5…………....… 146

5.7 Bifacial core fragment recovered from excavation unit 11, Block 4 (scale in mm)…...……………………………………………………..147

5.8 Scrapers (dots) and spokeshaves (triangles) plotted by GIUR and mass…………………………………………………………………….… 161

5.9 Side/end (a) and spokeshave (b) that were used, broken, and reused. denote post-breakage retouch (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.9) …………………………………………..… 162

5.10 Bifaces plotted by flaking index and maximum thickness. Triangles represent the Crowfield point base, dots represent

xviii middle stage bifaces, and boxes represent early-stage bifaces/bifacial cores...………………………………………………………. 163

5.11 Cortex types listed by lithic raw materials and percentage of debitage exhibiting cortex in Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6………………... 172

5.12 Refitted informal tools struck from a bifacial core…………………………...174

5.13 Refitted late-stage bifacial thinning and retouch flakes……………………... 177

5.14 Refitted flakes struck from a nodular/informal core. Note the flat, unground, and cortical striking platforms………………………………..177

6.1 Map of the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions showing the location of Early (triangles) and Late (dots) Paleoindian sites involved in this study…………………………………………………………...189

6.2 Hypothetical group of sites (dots) plotted by proxy measures to determine relative occupation spans…………………….…………………...193

6.3 Early (triangles) and Late (dots) Paleoindian sites plotted by proxy measures to determine relative occupation spans………………….…….197

xix CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.1 Introduction

The Nesquehoning Creek site (36CR142), located in the Lehigh Gorge State Park in Pennsylvania, contains layered deposits extending 2.59 meters below the existing surface with evidence of Colonial (late 17th-early 18th century); Late, Middle, and Early

Woodland; Transitional, Late, Middle and Early Archaic; and Paleoindian occupations

(Koch 2011a, b, 2012; Stewart 2011; Stewart et al. 2012, Stewart et al. in press). Due to the paucity of stratified and contextually secure sites in the region, many studies of

Paleoindian chronology, technology, typology, and mobility have primarily relied on surface sites that contain fluted points and other artifacts considered to be technologically diagnostic of Clovis or later Paleoindians (Anderson 1990; Anderson et al. 2010; Bradley et al. 2008; Carr 1989; Cox 1986; Custer et al. 1983; Gardner and Verrey 1979;

Gingerich 2013a; Hranicky 1995; Ritchie and Funk 1984; Wilmson 1970; Witthoft

1952). The deeply buried Paleoindian deposits at Nesquehoning Creek have produced a fluted point, tools, channel flakes, debitage and three AMS dates – 12,422 ± 164, 12,255

± 177, and 11,398 ± 110 cal BP – that are Younger Dryas to Early Holocene in age.

Radiocarbon dates discussed throughout this dissertation are expressed as “cal BP” and calibrated using CalPal software and the CalPal 2007 Hulu curve (Weninger and Jöris

2008; Weninger et al. 2016).

The Paleoindian material record in eastern North America is primarily comprised of assemblages recovered from surface sites lacking radiocarbon dates (Anderson 2005;

1 Carr and Adovasio 2012; Curran 1996; Levine 1990; Miller and Gingerich 2013a, b).

This dissertation will analyze the deeply buried and radiocarbon dated Paleoindian assemblage at Nesquehoning Creek by examining stratigraphy, site formation processes, site occupation history, and lithic technology. On a broader scale, this dissertation will explore Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast using lithic assemblage data and a formal model (Surovell 2003, 2009) tailored to monitor relative occupation span. Data generated from this study will provide a window into hunter-gatherer lifeways and technological strategies at the site level and mobility strategies at the regional level during the Younger Dryas-Early Holocene.

This project focuses on the following research questions: 1) Are there multiple

Paleoindian occupations associated with identifiable depositional surfaces at the

Nesquehoning Creek site, and to what degree have Paleoindian artifacts been affected by post depositional processes? 2) What does the lithic assemblage indicate with regard to

Paleoindian technological organization at Nesquehoning Creek during or through the

Younger Dryas-Early Holocene? 3) Do data from the Nesquehoning Creek site and other

Paleoindian assemblages indicate detectable differences in residential mobility strategies employed by Early and Late Paleoindian groups in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions?

In order to address the above research questions, this project: 1) outlines the stratigraphy and geomorphology of the Nesquehoning Creek site; 2) assesses site formation processes, lithic refitting, and artifact mass and frequency data in order to clarify Paleoindian occupation history; 3) analyzes the Paleoindian artifact assemblage using a bottom-up approach (Bamforth 2009) to better understand lithic procurement,

2 production, reduction, and discard strategies; and 4) examines Early and Late Paleoindian assemblages in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast by means of a statistical model

(Surovell 2003, 2009) that uses artifact and lithic raw material ratios as proxy measures to calculate relative site occupation lengths. The proposed research will improve our understanding of the Nesquehoning Creek Paleoindian occupation, Paleoindian lithic technological organization and raw material procurement ranges, and Terminal

Pleistocene hunter-gatherer residential mobility strategies in the Middle Atlantic and

Northeast regions.

1.2 Organization of Dissertation

This dissertation is organized in the following manner. Chapter 2 discusses the site setting and history of research and explores the climate and environment during the

Younger Dryas in the Middle Atlantic region. I review the literature pertaining to the radiation of Clovis across the continent and appearance of later Paleoindian groups. The chronology, typology, and lithic technology of Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindians in the Eastern Woodlands will be explored. The site history and literature reviewed in this chapter will provide background information germane to subsequent chapters of this dissertation.

Chapter 3 examines the Nesquehoning Creek site stratigraphy, geomorphology, and disturbance processes and how they relate to the Paleoindian assemblage at the

Nesquehoning Creek site. The materials and methods used to examine the stratification of sediments and soils are outlined. The results of this study detail the correlations between alluvial deposits and archaeological components present on site. Data presented

3 in this study will provide context for the following chapter, which analyses the

Paleoindian occupation history at Nesquehoning Creek.

Chapter 4 reports the results of archaeological refitting analysis and site formation processes at the Nesquehoning Creek site. Archaeological predictions for detecting single or multiple buried occupation surfaces are formulated after reviewing the methodology and results of previous lithic refitting studies (Hofman 1986, 1992;

Laughlin 2005; Surovell et al. 2005). The materials and methods used in this chapter are outlined. The relationship between artifact mass/frequency and the vertical displacement between lithic refits will be examined to evaluate the number of Paleoindian occupation surfaces present in the study sample. Pedological data from Nesquehoning Creek, along with insights from previous studies of site formation processes (Eren et al. 2010; Gifford and Behrensmeyer 1977; Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985; Morrow 1996a; Stockton 1973;

Villa and Courtin 1983), will be scrutinized to better understand the degree to which lithic artifacts may have been displaced via post-depositional processes. Results of this study elucidate the nature of Paleoindian assemblage context formation at the

Nesquehoning Creek site. Data from this chapter will be used to organize and analyze the Paleoindian lithic assemblages in the following chapter.

Chapter 5 is a detailed analysis of Paleoindian lithic technology at the

Nesquehoning Creek site. Paleoindian lithic technological organization in the Middle

Atlantic region is reviewed. The materials and methods used in this chapter are outlined.

I then describe the Nesquehoning Creek Paleoindian assemblage providing artifact types and counts. Flake tools, bifaces, cores, debitage, and lithic refits will be examined to reconstruct Paleoindian production, reduction, maintenance, transport, and

4 discard strategies from a non-quarry-related site. Results of this analysis provide insights regarding Crowfield lithic technological organization and lithic resource procurement at

Nesquehoning Creek. An examination of three Crowfield-related lithic assemblages,

Nesquehoning Creek, Wallis, and Crowfield, place the analysis of Crowfield technology into regional context. Data from the Nesquehoning Creek site artifact assemblage are used in the analysis of residential mobility patterns in the following chapter.

Chapter 6 investigates Paleoindian residential mobility strategies in the Middle

Atlantic and Northeast regions. The literature concerning Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies is reviewed. Based on background research, it is hypothesized that Late Paleoindian groups, on average, occupied sites for longer periods of time and were less residentially mobile than Early Paleoindian groups. The materials and methods used in this chapter are described. A model designed to measure relative site occupation spans (Surovell 2003, 2009) and its application to this study are discussed. The study sample, comprised of Early and Late Paleoindian assemblages in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast, is described. The relative occupation span of Early and Late Paleoindian assemblages will be calculated and compared. Results of this study suggest continuity in residential mobility patterns between groups of terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future research directions that will help to further assess and refine the results of this study.

Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation with a summary of the research results and its significance. I characterize the stratigraphy and geomorphology at Nesquehoning

Creek, analyze the sites Paleoindian occupation history, describe the organization of lithic technology, and assess Paleoindian residential mobility patterns in the Middle

5 Atlantic and Northeast regions. The detailed data presented in this dissertation will complement and add to the current literature on Paleoindian chronology, technology, and mobility in eastern North America.

6 CHAPTER 2

THE NESQUEHONING CREEK SITE AND PALEOINDIAN CULTURE

HISTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Site Setting

The Nesquehoning Creek Site is located in the Lehigh Gorge State Park, Carbon

County, Pennsylvania (Figure 2.1a, b). The site is situated on a low, late Wisconsin age terrace bounded to the north by the steeply rising slopes of Broad Mountain (Figure 2.1c and 2.2), to the south by Nesquehoning Creek, and to the east by the Lehigh River.

Artifact deposits are found over an area measuring approximately 150 meters in an east- west direction (Figure 2.3). The site area measures 60 meters wide north-south along the

Lehigh River and is gradually tapered by Broad Mountain and Nesquehoning Creek to a width of about 15 meters on the sites westernmost margin (Figure 2.4). Elevations gradually decrease from east to west and from north to south. Along the Lehigh River, the site landscape is 4 to 5 meters above stream level. Elevations are lower along upstream portions of the Nesquehoning Creek (Stewart 2012).

Nesquehoning Creek itself is approximately 24 km long and a third order tributary of the Lehigh River. The Lehigh River is one of the two largest tributaries of the

Delaware River draining roughly 10% of the Delaware Basin (Delaware River Basin

Commission 2014; Wildlands Conservancy 2003). The site’s position along the Lehigh is approximately 72 km downstream from the river’s origin at Pocono Lake in the glaciated portion of the Appalachian Plateau. The position of the site landscape relative to the stream junction (Figure 2.5) and surrounding steep topography make it susceptible to

7

Figure 2.1 (A) Map of Middle Atlantic Region showing the location of the Nesquehoning Creek site (star). (B) Known chert (squares) and jasper (dots) quarries surrounding Nesquehoning Creek. (C) LIDAR Hillshade image of the site setting. Open holes from unauthorized digging, associated mounded earth, and formal excavations are visible on the triangularly-shaped landscape.

8

Figure 2.2 Broad Mountain viewed from Block 1, facing north. The Lehigh River is located approximately 6 m east (right) from the toe slope.

9

10

Figure 2.3 Plan view of the Nesquehoning Creek site.

Figure 2.4 Photomosaic of the Nesquehoning Creek site during the spring, summer, fall, and winter (moving clockwise from the top left). Photographs taken approximately 10 m south and west of Unit 16, facing east.

` Figure 2.5 Photograph of the Lehigh River (left) at its confluence with Nesquehoning Creek (right). 11 flooding both from overbanking of the Lehigh and hydraulic damming and flood pooling behind the junction of the Nesquehoning Creek with the river (Stewart et al. in press).

The site’s location falls within the Middle or Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province just southeast of the Allegheny Front and

Plateau (Braun 1996, 1997, 2009, 2010a, b, 2012a, b), Inners (1998), Vento (2002) and the Wildlands Conservancy (2003). There is a marked parallelism of northeast trending ridges and valleys with distinctive trellis drainage patterns. The Lehigh Gorge is approximately 52 km long and the Nesquehoning Creek site occurs near its southern, downstream margin.

Bedrock geology consists of a variety of grey and red sandstones, shales, siltstones, mudstones, and conglomerates of Late Devonian to Late Mississippian age

(Inners 1998; Vento 2002). Finer varieties of quartzitic sandstone and dense siltstone could function as toolstone in a flaked stone technology, but they generally are of a poor quality. Pebbles of quartz are found in the local conglomerate but are of a size unlikely to have been exploited by ancient tool makers. Upriver and within 5 km of the site faulted portions of the Pocono Sandstone have produced quartz crystals (Inners 1998).

Primary sources of lithic material well suited for flaked stone tool production in the surrounding region include outcrops of chert and jasper. The Stony Ridge quarry

(i.e., Carbon County/Shriver cherts), located 13 km downriver, contains cherts that are typically black in color when freshly broken and grade from mottled to entirely blue, gray, and tan when weathered (Fogelman 1999; Katz 2000). Ten jasper quarries have been recorded in the Hardyston formation within the Reading Prong geomorphic

12 province (Anthony and Roberts 1988; Berg 1980; Berg and Dodge 1981; Hatch 1993;

Stewart and Schindler 2008). These jasper quarries, including Vera Cruz (Hatch and

Miller 1985), are located approximately 50 km south and southeast of the Nesquehoning

Creek site.

Secondary sources of lithic material occur in basal gravel deposits located in the valleys and alluvial settings of the Lehigh Gorge. The late Wisconsinan glaciation deposited a terminal moraine located approximately 29 km north of the Nesquehoning

Creek site. Earlier glacial advances reached farther south into the Lehigh Gorge. These glacial deposits can contain rock types not represented in the local geology that have been subject to later transportation and redeposition by the Lehigh River (Inners 1998), but clasts derived from local bedrock should predominate (Vento et al. 2013). High-quality black cobble chert (Figure 2.6) has been recovered from a gravel bar along Nesquehoning

Creek near its confluence with the Lehigh River. Examination of the local cobble chert by the author found the toolstone to be fine-grained, uniformly black in color, and resilient to weathering. The color, texture, and patination qualities of the recently discovered cobble chert strongly contrast with, and are macroscopically distinguishable from, the multicolored cherts from Stony Ridge.

Soils mapped for the area of the site are designated as “Riverwash” and characterized by coarse water borne gravel and sediment (Fisher et al. 1962; Penn State

2010). Archaeological excavations show that this characterization is far from accurate.

The adjoining slopes and upland are mapped as areas of the Klinesville channery silt loam. Soils of the Klinesville series have developed on the local sandstone and siltstone

13

Figure 2.6 Cobble chert recovered from a gravel bar along Nesquehoning Creek.

bedrock and retain the reddish coloring of this parent material. The southern side of

Nesquehoning Creek, which now includes a wetlands replacement complex, is mapped as

Holly silt loam consisting of an A horizon overlaying a series of C horizons (Stewart et al. in press).

Prior to the 19th century there was little in the way of colonial settlement in the area of the Lehigh Gorge. The discovery of coal in nearby Summit Hill in 1791 spurred historic development in the area (Pennsylvania DCNR 2010). In 1806, an ark was constructed at the mouth of Nesquehoning Creek in order to transport coal to the city of

Philadelphia. Between 1812 and 1823, coal mining and coal transportation over water began to take off in the region (Inners 1998). The presence of coal sands and silts in alluvial profiles in the Lehigh Gorge attest to the explosion of coal mining in the area and

14 provide a stratigraphic marker that aids in assigning age estimates to local alluvial deposits (Stinchcomb et al. 2013).

The local area is part of the Appalachian Oak Forest that can include red and white oaks mixed with red maple and hickory. Understory in these forests can be dense and include shrubs such as mountain laurel, early-low blueberry, hillside blueberry, black huckleberry, and witch hazel. In uplands and on higher slopes and ridges, white, black, and chestnut oak are common and can be associated with hardwood species such as scarlet oak, black birch, red maple, blackgum, hickory, American beech and tulip poplar

(Stewart et al. in press). Prior to the spread of chestnut blight in 1904-1910, chestnut was a major component of area forests (Pennsylvania Science Office of The Nature

Conservancy 2005; Rhoads and Block 2005).

The Nesquehoning Creek site is adjacent to two designated natural areas, Hughes

Swamp and associated landscapes on Broad Mountain, and Glen Onoko encompassing steep slopes and ravines long the Lehigh River in the Gorge (Pennsylvania Science

Office of The Nature Conservancy 2005:65-66). On the flats of Broad Mountain, Hughes

Swamp is wooded with spring-fed ponds at its center. This natural area also includes a

Red-spruce Palustrine Forest Natural Community and a fire dependent Ridgetop Dwarf- tree Forest Natural Community located near the top of Broad Mountain. Palustrine areas are intermediate between aquatic and terrestrial habitats, supporting hydrophytic vegetation. A Scrub Oak Shrubland Natural Community is part of the Glen Onoko area and includes scattered pitch pines and shrubs such as sheep's laurel and lowbush blueberry (Stewart et al. in press).

15

2.2 History of Investigations

Information in this section was also presented in Stewart et al. (in press) and is abstracted here. Prior to Temple University’s involvement in 2007, the Nesquehoning

Creek site experienced serial and protracted unauthorized looting despite its location in

Lehigh Gorge State Park. In 2006, a life-long avocational archaeologist named Del Beck heard rumors from local artifact collectors that uncontrolled excavations at an archaeological site near Nesquehoning Creek and the Lehigh River had yielded thousands of prehistoric artifacts attributable to Archaic and Woodland period cultures and approximately 30 broken and complete Paleoindian fluted points. Only two of the reported 30 fluted points have been photographed and documented by Temple archaeologists. One was photographed at an artifact collector show, typed as a Crowfield point, and subsequently published in Fogelman and Lantz’s Fluted Point Survey of

Pennsylvania (2006:Figure Carbon-4). The other fluted point was shown to the author by an artifact collector and characterized as a Clovis/Gainey fluted point made on green

Normanskill chert.

An avid outdoorsman, Mr. Beck had previously visited the Nesquehoning Creek site in the 1980’s while hiking the Lehigh Gorge. He still remembered the site’s location and decided to investigate the rumored ongoing artifact looting. On his return visit in

2006, numerous open looter pits and trenches with associated spoil piles dotted the landscape. Mr. Beck recalled that over two decades ago the site area appeared to be more or less untouched by artifact collectors. Uncontrolled excavations were noted across the entire site but the levee-like setting fronting the Lehigh River and the mouth of the

16

Nesquehoning Creek appeared to be the most heavily impacted. Looter pits varied in size and shape, ranging from 0.91 x 0.91 m circular pits, to 3.65 x 1.82 m sub-rectangular areas, to erratic trenches up to 4.6 m long and 0.6 - 0.9 m wide (Figure 2.7). Following his visit to the site, Mr. Beck contacted Park administrators to see what could be done about cleaning up the site, halting the unauthorized digging, and mounting a formal investigation to document the nature of the archaeological deposits.

Figure 2.7 Photograph of the Nesquehoning Creek site in 2009. Note the undulating site topography created by the numerous looter pits and backdirt piles.

Mr. Beck contacted Dr. Michael Stewart of Temple University and Dr. Kurt Carr of the Bureau for Historic Preservation of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission (BHP/PHMC) in 2007 to discuss the Nesquehoning Creek site. All parties met on site later that year to evaluate the nature and extent of archaeological materials present and assess the impact of looting activity on the area. The field visit resulted in 17 the identification of Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts, fire-cracked rock, and flaking debris from backdirt piles and in the walls of looter pits. Following Stewart and Carr’s visit, Beck began seeking out individuals who might have dug at Nesquehoning Creek.

Several local artifact collectors he interviewed indicated that Paleoindian artifacts, including fluted points, had been found on-site and were “deeply buried” around the levee-like position adjacent to the Lehigh River. This area, called “the high ground” by collectors, corresponded to where the greatest number and size of unauthorized excavations were located on site (Stewart et al. in press).

In 2009, archaeologists from Temple University and the BHP/PHMC began controlled archaeological excavations at the Nesquehoning Creek site with the approval of Lehigh Gorge State Park administrators. The first stage of field work was designed to identify the range and age of occupations, clarify the stratification of sedimentary and archaeological deposits, and craft a model of how the landscape developed over time

(Stewart et al. in press). The examination of open looter’s pits (Figures 2.8 and 2.9) and auger borings revealed a stratified alluvial sequence that contained diagnostic artifacts from Middle Archaic and later prehistoric and historic periods. Artifacts recovered from the lowermost stratigraphic units of excavation unit 2 (hereafter referred to as “Unit 2”) were suspected to range from Terminal Pleistocene to Early Holocene in age based upon the degree of soil weathering observed, the estimated age of diagnostic projectile points recovered from overlying soil horizons, and the presence of probable Late Wisconsin braided stream gravels at the base of the soil profile (Stewart et al. in press; Stinchcomb and Driese 2011; Vento 2002).

18

Figure 2.8 Del Beck (red jacket) and Tommy Davies (green sweatshirt) screening looter backdirt piles. The border of a large backfilled looter pit can be seen in the foreground with many fire-cracked rocks scattered throughout the fill.

Figure 2.9 Photograph of an exploratory excavation unit placed within a backfilled looter pit. Nesquehoning Creek is visible in the background.

19

Beginning in 2010, controlled excavations were situated to target areas where previous investigations predicted artifacts from Paleoindian occupations might be found in buried and undisturbed contexts. Nine 1.5 x 1.5 m excavation units (N10E0, N10E5,

N10E0, N5E0, N5E5, N5E10, N0E0, N0E5, and N0E10) formed a 4.5 x 4.5 m excavation block positioned adjacent to Unit 2’s south wall. This 4.5 x 4.5 m grouping of excavation units was designated “Block 3" (Figure 2.10). Excavations also were placed to learn more about the stratigraphy and geomorphology across the entire site landscape.

Archaeological field schools were sponsored by Temple University at the

Nesquehoning Creek site in 2010, 2011, and 2012. From 2012 to present, archaeological excavations and site maintenance have been performed by small groups of professionals, students, and volunteers – Mr. Del Beck, in particular – throughout the year. (Stewart et al. in press).

Figure 2.10 Temple University field school students excavating Block 3 in 2010. 20

The Nesquehoning Creek site has served as the focus of numerous conference papers (Bachor 2011; Beck 2011; Falchetta 2011; Koch 2011a; Rankin 2011; Stewart

2011b; Stewart et al. 2011, 2012) and progress reports (Koch 2011b, 2012; Stewart

2011a, 2012; Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). Stratigraphic markers evident in soil profiles have been documented in research investigating impacts on riverine systems

(Stinchcomb et al. 2013). A forthcoming book chapter (Stewart et al. in press) represents the first published overview of the site and its use by Paleoindians.

Additional archaeological sites have been recorded in close proximity to the

Nesquehoning Creek site. On the southern side of Nesquehoning Creek are two previously recorded archaeological sites, 36CR129 and 36CR130. These sites were the focus of professional investigations beginning in 2001 in advance of wetlands construction to mitigate the effects of drainage from the Lausanne Mine Tunnel (Figure

2.11) (Archaeological Services 2002a, b). Both sites have been destroyed by the subsequent construction of a 1.5 acre man-made wetland complex (Figure 2.12).

Site 36CR129 was a prehistoric site that contained evidence of Late Archaic through Middle Archaic occupations based on the recovery of time diagnostic projectile points (e.g., Bifurcates). 36CR129’s site area extends over two distinct landforms, a low- lying T1 terrace and an overlying strath terrace (Vento 2002). The T1 terrace is roughly equivalent in elevation to the alluvial landscape of the Nesquehoning Creek site. Site

36CR130 was an archaeological site that consisted of a historic sawmill (Archaeological

Services 2002a, b).

21

Figure 2.11 Mouth of the Lausanne tunnel draining coal mine runoff to the wetlands complex and Lehigh River.

Figure 2.12 Wetlands complex facing north towards Broad Mountain. The white tent visible in the background indicates the position of the Nesquehoning Creek site.

22

Site 36CR145 is situated to the west of the wetlands replacement complex on the southern side of the Nesquehoning Creek floodplain. Unauthorized digging and artifact collecting have heavily impacted this site. Open looter’s holes and associated backdirt piles containing artifacts continue for at least 60 m moving west along the stream.

North of the Nesquehoning Creek site and approximately 46 m upstream along the Lehigh River is a small rockshelter designated 36CR144 (Figure 2.13) that has also been significantly impacted by looter activities. The recovery of temporally diagnostic artifacts (e.g., Susquehanna Broadspears) eroding from looter backdirt piles (Figure 2.14) date the early occupations between 3700-3100 RCYBP and later occupations to 1100-400

RCYBP. The shelter is situated along the steep eastern facing slope of Broad Mountain immediately adjacent to the bank of the Lehigh River (Stewart et al. in press).

2.3 Paleoenvironment

Information in this section was largely presented in Stewart et al. (in press) and is abstracted here. The Laurentide ice sheet began to retreat by approximately 18,200 cal

BP (15,000 RCYBP) (Crowl 1980) and tundra plants colonized the landscape in much of northeastern Pennsylvania. Grass-dominated tundra with dwarf shrubs were present 60 km south of the glacial ice front at Longswamp, located approximately 43 km southeast of the Nesquehoning Creek site in Pennsylvania (Watts 1979:427). By circa 13,850 cal

BP (12,000 RCYBP), spruce woodland replaced tundra in western Maryland, western and central New York and southern New England. The appearance and spread of spruce over such a broad area indicates a climatic amelioration around 13,850 cal BP that allowed

23

Figure 2.13 Photograph of the rockshelter (36CR144) located north of the Nesquehoning Creek site. Author is pictured beneath the rockshelter overhang.

Figure 2.14 Susquehanna Broadspear recovered from eroding backdirt deposits at the rockshelter (36CR144).

24 spruce to grow in areas where it was previously limited by climate (Davis 1983:179).

Forests of variable composition developed in the northeast by approximately 11,400 cal

BP (10,000 RCYBP) (Stewart et al. in press).

Several late Wisconsin-age sites in Pennsylvania have provided valuable information regarding the probable floral community present near Nesquehoning Creek during the late Pleistocene (Stewart et al. in press). A species poor spruce woodland landscape characterized Crider’s Pond in south-central Pennsylvania around 21,450 cal

BP (18,000 RCYBP). By 15,340 cal BP (13,000 RCYBP), the primary floral taxa present had shifted to alder, birch, fir, and jack pine. A similar flora assemblage invaded the spruce-dwarf birch association at Longswamp in southwestern Pennsylvania (Watts

1979, 1983). Investigations at Corry Bogs in northwestern Pennsylvania indicate that the spruce pollen zone occurs between 14,250 to 11,250 RCYBP (Cotter 1983; Cotter and

Crowl 1981; Karrow et al. 1984).

Watts (1983:307) notes that clear differences exist between the floral history of the glaciated region (i.e., Tannersville and Corry Bogs) and the periglacial region to the south of the ice margin (i.e., Longswamp and Crider's Pond) (Stewart et al. in press).

Tannersville bog, located 44 km northeast of the Nesquehoning Creek site, shows primarily sedge pollen, while Longswamp displays grass dominated tundra pollen.

Between 15,340-10,100 cal BP (13,000-9,000 RCYBP), communities of alder, aspen, and sedge began to wane, followed by an invasion of spruce, fir, jack pine, gray birch, and pitch pine (Watts 1983:307).

25

Palynological evidence from Alpine Swamp in New Jersey indicates that by

12,290 RCYBP maximum percentages of spruce pollen are seen post deglaciation followed by a spread of deciduous hardwood species (Peteet et al. 1990). A expansion dated between 12,900-11,500 cal BP (11,000 and 10,000 RCYBP) included alder, fir, larch, paper birch, and spruce. Correlation with other data sets led Peteet and colleagues (1990) to conclude that a climatic reversal coinciding with the Younger Dryas was supported by the 12,900-11,500 cal BP boreal expansion.

The Younger Dryas

The Younger Dryas was a geologically brief cold reversal which lasted from

12,900-11,500 cal BP (11,000-10,000 RCYBP) (Fairbanks 1990; Rasmussen et al.

2006). On a global scale, the Younger Dryas was colder and drier than the preceding

Bølling-Allerød, but climatic conditions varied geographically. Evidence across the northern hemisphere generally indicates a noticeably cooler and drier climate, which caused average annual temperatures to drop appreciably in northern latitudes (Alley

2000). In Greenland, where the Younger Dryas may be viewed at maximum resolution, ice cores indicate that temperatures fell at the onset of the Younger Dryas, 7°- 10°C in the first 50-100 years, while in North America, mean annual temperatures fell 2°-6°C (Alley

2000; Fiedel 2011; Grachev and Severinghaus 2005; Johnsen et al. 1992). However, there were notable exceptions to the cool and dry climates that characterized the Younger

Dryas including northern China (Hong et al. 2010), the North American Southwest

(Polyak et al. 2004), Great Basin (Liu and Broecker 2008), and Florida (Grimm et al.

26

2006) where conditions were wet. In the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, researchers used archaeological and environmental data to argue that climate change associated with the Younger Dryas may not have been perceived by Paleoindian populations (Holliday and Meltzer 2010; Meltzer and Holliday 2010).

The mass extinction of North American megafauna roughly coincides with the onset and early centuries of the Younger Dryas. The most frequently cited drivers for megafauna extinction include overkill , climate change, and extraterrestrial impact. The overkill hypothesis posits that mobile Clovis groups hunted megafauna at an aggressive pace, ultimately leading to their extinction (Martin 1967, 1973, 1984). The overkill hypothesis gained popularity at a time when Clovis sites were often associated with the remains of various extinct Pleistocene genera, most notably mammoths.

Grayson and Meltzer (2002, 2003) sought to answer the question of overkill by carefully combing through some 76 Clovis sites that claimed to be associated with hunting

Pleistocene fauna. All told, the 76 sites with purported megafauna/Clovis connections was whittled down to a total of 14. Between these 14 kill sites only two types of extinct

Pleistocene megafauna – mammoth and mastodon – are associated with Clovis predation.

Twelve of the 14 sites are associated with mammoth hunting, with the remaining two including mastodon remains. Grayson and Meltzer (2002, 2003) concluded that the archaeological data did not support a hypothesis involving human-driven extinction of megafauna (but see Surovell and Waguespack 2008). Feranec and Kozlowski (2016) investigated megafauna extirpation in New York through an analysis of 39 megafauna radiocarbon dates coupled with environmental data. The study found that mammoth and

27

American mastodon in New York were likely extirpated between 12,360-11,310 cal BP, when ecologically beneficial habitats for these types of megafauna were expanding.

Feranec and Kozlowski (2016) concluded that the drastic decline in megafauna, despite productive habitats, was likely related to the influx of Paleoindian populations to the region.

Climate change at the onset of the Young Dryas may have played a role in the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna. The cool and dry conditions of the Younger Dryas are believed to have caused the reorganization or disappearance of megafauna-friendly habitats that had been relatively stable for thousands of years. Pleistocene megafauna were then forced to seek out new resource rich patches and compete with other animals for these resources. The reproductive cycles of megafauna, in conjunction with climate pressure, may have also played a role in their extinction (Slaughter 1967). Like modern elephants, mammoths and mastodons are thought to have had long gestation periods and low fertility rates. Additionally, it is suspected that mammoths consumed more than 400 pounds of vegetation every day. This confluence of factors left Pleistocene megafauna vulnerable to extinction during periods of rapid population decline, which may have been the case during the Younger Dryas cold snap (Meltzer 2009).

The extra-terrestrial/Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (Bunch et al. 2012;

Firestone et al. 2007; Kennett et al. 2015), a hotly debated topic, asserts a cosmic impact event occurred during the early Younger Dryas causing climate change, ecological reorganization, Pleistocene megafauna extinctions, and the demise of the Clovis complex.

Evidence used to support this hypothesis includes sediment samples obtained from

28

Clovis-aged "black mats" and other soil layers associated with the onset of the Younger

Dryas. These samples, derived from 23 sites across 12 countries, contained evidence in agreement with cosmic impact, such as aciniform carbon, carbon spherules, iridium, magnetic and glassy microspherules, nanodiamonds, osmium, and platinum (Bunch et al.

2012; Firestone et al. 2007; Kennett et al. 2015). Bayesin analysis of 354 radiocarbon dates from the 23 sites examined resulted in a tight chronological range of 12,835-12,735 cal BP associated with the Younger Dryas impact event (Kennett et al. 2015). Surovell et al. (2009) sought to test the impact hypothesis by analyzing Younger Dryas-aged sediments from seven sites for the presence of magnetic minerals and microspherules.

After analyzing all seven sites for evidence of extra-terrestrial impact, Surovell and colleagues were unable to reproduce the results of Firestone et al. (2007) and, therefore, did not support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (see also Boslough et al. 2012;

Daulton et al. 2017; Meltzer et al. 2014).

Anderson and cohorts (2011) analyzed multiple types of data in order to better understand how the Younger Dryas cold reversal impacted various human populations.

The study included the analysis of North American Paleoindian point find frequencies over time and summed probability analysis of North American and Old World radiocarbon dates. Results of the study indicated a bottleneck or major human population decline at the onset of the Younger Dryas. Alternatively, the data could also be interpreted as inferring a drastic change in settlement patterns over broad geographic areas by approximately 12,900 cal BP (11,000 RCYBP) (Anderson et al. 2011).

29

While much attention has been given to the initiation of the Younger Dryas, researchers have noted that the Younger Dryas-Holocene transition saw sharp and stepped climate change that was more rapid and widespread than the period’s onset

(Alley et al. 1993; Broecker et al. 2010; Grachev and Severinghaus 2005; Steffensen

2008 et al.). Indeed, the Younger Dryas -Holocene transition was a period of accelerated warming that altered wind speeds, precipitation, and sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere by approximately 11,500 cal BP (10,000 RCYBP). In Greenland, the Younger Dryas -

Holocene transition is associated with evident changes in precipitation over 1-3 years,

10±4°C warming over the span of a few decades, and the compete transition from

Younger Dryas to Holocene over a period of ≤ 50 years (Alley et al. 1993; Grachev and

Severinghaus 2005; Steffensen 2008 et al.; Taylor et al. 1997). In the Delaware Valley micromorphological features of a soil formed between 10,700 and 9,300 cal BP are indicative of cryoturbation, or cold climate weathering (Stinchcomb et al. 2014).

The Younger Dryas-Holocene transition has been suggested to be a mechanism of technological and cultural change in the Near East, South America, the American

Northeast, Southwest, and Great Lakes (Ballenger et al. 2011; Ellis et al. 2011; Lothrop et al. 2011; Makarewicz 2011; Newby et al. 2005). Recent research in the New England-

Maritimes suggests a hasty reorganization of regional fauna and flora populations at the

Younger Dryas terminus. This shift of regional biota overlapped with the decline of fluted point technology and a proposed subsequent immigration of early Holocene populations (Lothrop et al. 2011). Other researchers in eastern North America have noted the change in projectile morphology and technology (i.e., fluted/indented

30 base to notched base) coinciding with the Younger Dryas-Holocene transition (Anderson et al. 201l; Meeks and Anderson 2011; Morse et al. 1996; Stewart 1992). However, in the Middle Atlantic region Gardner (1989) and others (Carr 1999; Carr and Adovasio

2012; Carr et al. 2013; Custer 1984, 1989, 1996) have argued that Paleoindian and Early

Archaic groups exhibit cultural continuity that persisted through the Younger Dryas and into the Early Holocene.

2.4 The Clovis Complex

Waters and Stafford (2007) evaluated 43 radiocarbon dates derived from 11

Clovis sites to establish a date range of 13,000-12,800 cal BP (11,050 to 10,800 BP) for

Clovis (but see Prasciunas and Surovell 2015). However, several other prominent researchers preferred to include additional radiocarbon dates (e.g., Aubrey site, Texas) that increased the Clovis complex timeline to approximately 13,500-12,800 cal BP

(11,500 to 10,800 BP) (Fiedel 1999, Haynes 1992). Clovis represents the first easily distinguishable continuous human occupation in many areas of North America

(Boldurian 1999). Fluted bifaces recovered from the Clovis type site eventually became known as Clovis points. Although fluting is a hallmark of Clovis, it also occurs in many later Paleoindian lithic . Notable exceptions include pre-Clovis assemblages such as the Miller complex and El Jobo complex (Adovasio et al. 1990; Cruxent and

Rouse 1956). Other Early Paleoindian technologies that did not regularly practice fluting include Nenana, Denali, Mesa, and Western Stemmed (Goebel et al. 1991; Jenkins et al

2012). Later Paleoindian complexes gradually displayed less evidence of ubiquitous

31 fluting of points. By the end of the Paleoindian period between 11,500-10,800 cal BP

(10,000-9,500 RCYBP), only occasional fluting or less pronounced basal thinning is witnessed in Late Paleoindian technologies (Meltzer 2009).

The Clovis complex and, to some extent, all subsequent Paleoindian complexes are commonly associated with far-reaching geographic settlement ranges and a propensity to procure high-quality cryptocrystalline lithic materials from primary source locations (Boulanger et al. 2015; Carr et al. 2013; Carr and Adovasio 2012; Custer 1996;

Custer and Stewart 1990; Goodyear 1989; Kelly and Todd 1988; Lothrop 1989; Meltzer

1984, 1989). Clovis and later Paleoindian stone procurement strategies intimately affected settlement patterning, range territory, and task scheduling. These observations of Paleoindian culture have been inferred to relate to the adaptive value a cryptocrystalline toolkit might impart to geographically mobile hunter-gatherers. Indeed,

Paleoindian toolkits are often characterized as portable and situationally flexible. The portable and flexible nature of Paleoindian toolkits provided these mobile hunter- gatherers security during periods of toolstone shortage or shifting subsistence strategies

(Carr et al. 2010; Goodyear 1989, Lothrop 1989).

Gardner (e.g., 1989, 2002) proposes a “biotic Mason-Dixon Line” for the Middle

Atlantic region based on the “striking differences in distance movements of raw material”

(1989:31). In the northern Middle Atlantic (i.e., north of Maryland), the distribution of various biological (e.g., herd animals) and lithic resources resulted in greater lithic raw material diversity and broader procurement distances. To the south, there was evidence of reduced lithic raw material diversity and procurement distances. Gardner (2002)

32 suggests that this biotic Mason-Dixon Line explains the presence of large quarry and non-quarry-related aggregation sites to the north (e.g., Plenge, Bull Brook, and Debert), but only large quarry-related sites (e.g., Flint Run, Williamson) to the south. That is,

“herd animals provide an opportunity for communal, or cooperative hunting, not available in the south. Hence, the only large sites in the south are associated with certain quarry settings” (Gardner 2002:98).

The Clovis toolkit has been characterized as typically including fluted projectile points, large bifaces/bifacial cores, blades, cores, and modified flakes, scrapers, and gravers (Bradley 1982; Callahan 1979; Carr 1990; Collins 1999; Gardner 1974; Haynes

2002; Meltzer 2009; Morrow 1995, 1996, 1997). Carr et al. (2010) suggest that the production of blades was largely dependent on the availability of high-quality lithic raw materials occurring in large packages sizes. Therefore, Clovis prismatic blades and blade cores are more frequently encountered at sites near toolstone sources in the southern

Plains (Collins and Lohse 2004) and parts of the Southeast (Sanders 1990), but largely absent in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions (Carr et al. 2010).

The caching of large bifaces, blades, cores, and fluted was practiced by both

Clovis and later Paleoindians. At least 16 caches confidently associated with Clovis have been recovered in North America (Kilby 2008; Lassen 2005). Although some Clovis caches have been interpreted as burials or sacred offerings, the majority are considered to be utilitarian in nature. The Crowfield site, located in Ontario, is a cache of burned fluted points, fluted preforms, bifaces, tools, and tool blanks interpreted to be “a cache of associated with Paleoindian ” (Deller and Ellis 2011:183). Paleoindian

33 caches are rare in the Middle Atlantic region. The McManus cache (Cresson and

McManus 2016) was found on the surface of a mechanically cleared piece of land located near Emmaus, Pennsylvania. The cache includes 12 fluted points, 1 bifacial , and one large biface all made on jasper toolstone. The cache is believed to be Middle

Paleoindian in affiliation based on points exhibiting multiple flutes. The points are described as “Eastern Paleoindian” (Cresson and McManus 2016:167) in style with

Barnes/Cumberland and Crowfield-like attributes, weakly corner-notched bases, and distal grinding. The unusual basal notches or barbs are thought to “relate to the fluting process as mechanical aids to hold the biface preforms securely in a clamp or jig to facilitate the full fluting via… indirect percussion, pressure, and bipolar techniques”

(Cresson and McManus 2016:167). Mean fluted point widths between incipient notches were larger on average (24.1 mm) than a sample of fluted points from the Delaware

Valley.

Early Paleoindian Settlement in Eastern North America

Anderson (1990, 1995, 1996) developed a model of Clovis colonization in the

Southeast by examining Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Cumberland, Ohio, and

Tennessee River valleys. In Anderson’s model, these resource rich river valleys served as staging areas where Clovis groups familiarized themselves with the landscape and lithic sources prior to expanding further. Staging areas may have also served as familiar territory for the exchange of mates, information, and stone. As Clovis populations increased, groups would fission from primary staging areas to secondary ones where the process was repeated. The river valleys of the Atlantic coastal plain may have been one 34 such secondary staging locus. These early and later staging areas are hypothesized to have later served as loci for regional variability of Clovis and later Paleoindians

(Anderson 1990, 1995, 1996). Supporting evidence for the staging area model is derived from fluted point surveys in the Southeast. These surveys demonstrate that the densest concentrations of fluted points in all of North America cluster in the Southeast (Anderson and Faught 2000).

A study of Clovis bifacial technology from the Carson-Conn-Short site, Topper site, and Williamson site was used to test the validity of Anderson's (1995, 1996) staging model and Kelly and Todd's (1988) high-tech forager model. Smallwood (2011, 2012) found that the data was in agreement with the staging model. Analysis of point morphology and biface production strategies suggest that each site under scrutiny exhibited subtle distinctions characteristic of separate populations. These Clovis groups practiced slightly modified technologies and served as the demographic foundations of subregional variation of Clovis. Despite the subtle variations in morphology and technology, Carson-Conn-Short, Topper, and Williamson all displayed overshot and overface flaking, the use of end thinning throughout most stages of bifacial reduction, and fluted point channel scar lengths that similar to Clovis (Smallwood 2010, 2011).

Curran (1999) and Dincauze (1993) proposed a model of Clovis settlement for the

Northeast that involved initial exploration, colonization, and settling in. Early

Paleoindian explorers would have first arrived from southern areas such as the Paleo

Crossing site in Ohio (Brose 1994). Large Paleoindian aggregation sites in the Northeast, such as Bull Brook in Massachusetts and Whipple in New Hampshire, are inferred to

35 represent marshalling stations for Clovis colonizers. From these known anchor points,

Paleoindian groups wandered further north in search of natural resources. Settling in would have first occurred in high biomass areas replete with high-quality lithic raw materials (Curran 1999; Dincauze 1993).

Paleoindian Subsistence in the Eastern Woodlands

The recovery of mammoth and mastodon remains from 14 Paleoindian sites

(Grayson and Meltzer 2002, 2004), seven of which date to Clovis, attest to at least some amount of big game hunting by early American colonizers. Mammoths and mastodons are often inferred to be an important element of Clovis subsistence strategies (Haynes

2002). The extinction of mammoth and mastodon roughly coincides with the spread of

Clovis groups across North America. The Middle Atlantic and Northeast may be exceptions to this pattern of megafauna exploitation, perhaps due to the timing of extinctions or the timing of human entry into the region (Boulanger et al. 2015, Custer

1996; Custer and Stewart 1990; Feranec and Kozlowski 2016). Megafauna sites have been recorded in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic regions; however, these sites typically date to earlier than 13,850 cal BP (12,000 RCYBP) and most have not been recovered in firm association with human activity.

The Shawnee Minisink site in Pennsylvania provided the first strong evidence of

Paleoindians utilizing a broad-based foraging strategy (McNett 1985). The Clovis occupation is dated to 10,970 RCYBP (Gingerich 2007a, 2007b, 2011; McNett 1985) and contains two Clovis points, debitage, cores, and tools that are predominated by end

36 scrapers. Most importantly, seeds from ten plant genera were recovered. Site inhabitants were inferred to have eaten blackberry, hackberry, hawthorn plum, and grape, which served as a source of carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals (Dent 2007). In addition, evidence of fishing was recovered in the form of calcined fish bone (McNett 1985).

Analysis of pollen cores from nine nearby bogs indicated that the Clovis habitat was not a park-tundra but a transitional pre-boreal forest (Dent 1979, 1985).

Meltzer (1984, 1988) proposed that two broad environmental regions existed in eastern North America during the Early Paleoindian period. The northern glaciated region reflected an open spruce parkland or periglacial tundra, while the unglaciated region was characterized as a complex deciduous and boreal forest. These contrasting paleoenvironments were also reasoned to have contrasting subsistence strategies and archaeological signatures. To the north, Clovis groups were economic specialists who habitually hunted herd animals such as caribou. These specialized hunters would have left archaeological remains in the form of dense kill and occupation sites. To the south/central, species-rich forests would have been prime hunting ground for nut collecting and deer hunting. Meltzer opined that a generalist lifestyle in the species-rich unglaciated region was less conducive to archaeological visibility than caribou hunting in the spruce parkland glaciated region (Meltzer 1988).

A subsequent study of Paleoindian environment, economy, with ethnographic analogy disagreed with Metlzer's model. Complicating issues included questionable paleoenvironmental reconstruction and interpretations of Paleoindian lifeways based on these paleoenvironments (Custer and Stewart 1990:304). Revised paleoenvironmental

37 interpretations paint a picture of a spruce-dominated boreal forests with mixed woodlands in New England, and a complex mixed boreal forest in the Middle Atlantic. Importantly, by the time Clovis groups entered the Northeast there would not have been any extensive amount of tundra throughout the entire Northeast. The revised interpretation was one of generalized Paleoindian foragers, practicing broad-based subsistence strategies in mixed boreal forests. The previously inferred specialized subsistence strategies based on caribou hunting were not supported by appropriate ethnographic data from Eastern

Subarctic cultures (Custer and Stewart 1990).

2.5 Paleoindians in the Eastern Woodlands

Paleoindian Chronology and Point Forms

The Paleoindian period is typically divided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods (but see Ellis and Deller 1990) in the Eastern Woodlands. In the Middle

Atlantic region, the Early Paleoindian period extends from approximately 13,500-12,800 cal BP (11,500-10,800 RCYBP) (Miller and Gingerich 2013a). Fluted point types recovered from this block of time include Clovis and Gainey. Clovis points are characterized by their lanceolate outline, slightly excurvate to parallel sides, slight to moderately concave base, and single or (less often) multiple or composite flutes on both faces that extend quarter- to half-way up the length of the biface (Bradley et al. 2008;

Gingerich 2013a; Morrow 1995, 1996). Gainey points have been inferred to post-date

13,000 cal BP and display subtle divergences in style from Clovis typically related to the hafting element, such as deeper basal concavities and a propensity for lengthier flute

38 scars. In the Middle Atlantic region, these Early Paleoindian fluted point variants are often recovered from plowzone, mixed, or unknown contexts (Carr and Adovasio 2012;

Cox 1986; Gingerich 2013a; Miller and Gingerich 2013a; Witthoft 1952). The

Thunderbird site in Virginia is the only published open-air site in the Middle Atlantic with Clovis through Middle Paleoindian diagnostic points recovered in secure stratigraphic context (Carr et al. 2013; Gardner 1974, 1983, 1989). Early Paleoindian occupations dated to 10,937 ± 15 RCYBP at Shawnee Minisink in Pennsylvania

(Gingerich 2007a, 2007b, 2011), 10,920 ± 250 RCYBP at Cactus Hill in Virginia

(McAvoy and McAvoy 1997), and 10,980 ± 75 RCYBP at Paleo Crossing in Ohio (Brose

1994) set the radiometric mileposts for Clovis in the Eastern Woodlands and indicate

Clovis entry to the Middle Atlantic by no later than 12,900 cal BP (11,000 RCYBP).

The Middle Paleoindian period dates to approximately 12,800-12,550 cal BP

(10,800-10,500 RCYBP) (Miller and Gingerich 2013a) and is most securely associated with the "Mid-Paleo" point type as articulated by Gardner (1989) and Gardner and Verrey

(1979). Mid-Paleo points are typically small and narrow, with more pronounced flutes on both faces and finer flaking than Clovis. Other researchers have subdivided the Mid-

Paleo type into several distinct point types such as Barnes/Cumberland and Debert/Vail

(Bradley et al. 2008; Gramly 1981, 1982, 2009; Lewis 1954; Macdonald 1968; Wright and Roosa 1966). Gingerich (2013a) describes Middle Paleoindian points as having

“moderate to deep basal concavities, tendency of more divergent sides, occurrence of bases that are more waisted, creation of well-defined medial ridges, and flutes extending over half the length of the bifaces” (125).

39

The Late Paleoindian period is bracketed between 12,550-11,500 cal BP (10,500-

10,000 RCYBP) and includes Dalton, Dalton-Hardaway, Crowfield, and Plano/Agate

Basin-related types (Miller and Gingerich 2013a; Gingerich 2013a). Dalton points are characterized by their lanceolate outline, deep basal concavities, extensive pressure flaking, and weak flute scars (Gingerich 2013a, Goodyear 1982). Crowfield points are pentagonal to “pumpkin seed” in outline, extremely thin, typically fluted on both faces, often with multiple flutes, with flute scars typically extending two-thirds to the entire length of the biface (Deller and Ellis 1984, 1988, 2011). The Crowfield heartland appears to be Ontario and the broader Great Lakes region, where sites of that type are most frequently encountered and considered to be slightly older than in surrounding regions. There are only sporadic appearances of Crowfield-related sites in the Middle

Atlantic, such as the Plenge site in New Jersey (Gingerich 2013a; Gingrich and Stewart

2010) and the Wallis site, dated to 11,453±118 cal BP (9890±40 RCYBP), in

Pennsylvania (Miller et al. 2007). Plano/Agate Basin-related points have been recovered from plowzone contexts at the Thunderbird site in Virginia (Carr et al. 2013) and the

Logan site in New Jersey (Stanzeski 1996, 1998). These points are characterized by their elongated lanceolate shape, co-lateral flaking, and a lack of prominent fluting (Bradley

1982). Gardner (1989) noted that Late Paleoindian point styles in the Middle Atlantic region tend to have a north-south division that can be roughly drawn south of Ohio’s terminal moraine, through Pennsylvania and northern Maryland. South of this line,

Dalton is the most prominent point type associated with the Late Paleoindian period.

North of this line, lanceolate to triangular, collaterally flaked, and unfluted Agate Basin-

40 related point forms are the dominant point types related to the Late Paleoindian period

(Gardner 1989:11).

In the New England-Maritimes region, the early Paleoindian period occurs between 12,900-12,400 cal BP (11,000-10,400 RCYBP) (Bradley et al. 2008; Lothrop et al. 2016) and includes the Kings Road/Whipple, Vail/Debert, Bull Brook/West Athens

Hill fluted point types. All early Paleoindian point types are characterized by their lanceolate outline, lenticular cross sections, and typically single or composite flute scars on both faces that extend one-fourth to half the length of the biface. These types are typically considered Clovis-related, but are differentiated from traditional Clovis based on slight morphological differences and radiocarbon dates that rarely predate 12,900 cal

BP (Macdonald 1968; Gramly 1981, 1982, 2009; Bradley et al. 2008).

The Middle Paleoindian period date range is 12,400-11,600 cal BP (10,400-

10,100 RCYBP) (Bradley et al. 2008; Lothrop et al. 2016) and includes

Michaud/Nesponset, Crowfield, and Cromier/Nicholas fluted point types. Middle

Paleoindian point types are distinctive for their diverse flute scar lengths and counts.

Michaund/Nesponset points are lanceolate in outline, display prominent basal ears and are fluted on both faces, with flute scars extending from half-way to the entire length of the biface. Cromier/Nicholas points display variable fluting patterns that include unfluted, fluted one or multiple times on one face, and fluted one or multiple times on both faces. Flute scars lengths are typically short, not exceeding half the length of the biface. These point types are believed to be related to the Holcombe type (Deller and

41

Ellis 1984, 2011; Spiess and Wilson 1987; Carty and Spiess 1992; Moore and Will 1998;

Bradley et al. 2008; Robinson 2009).

The Late Paleoindian period is bracketed between 11,600-10,800 cal BP (10,100-

9,500 RCYBP) (Bradley et al. 2008; Lothrop et al. 2016) and includes Agate Basin and

Ste. Anne/Varney unfluted point types. Late Paleoindian point types are characterized by their elongated lanceolate outline, collateral flaking, and a lack of prominent fluting. The de-emphasis and/or loss of fluting appears to be a pattern that spans the Northeast,

Middle Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions (Bradley et al. 2008).

In the Great Lakes region, the Paleoindian period may be roughly split into two subperiods. The Early Paleoindian period is bracketed between 12,900-12,400 cal BP

(11,000-10,400 RCYBP) (Ellis and Deller 1990) and includes Gainey, Barnes, and

Crowfield types (Lewis 1954; Wright and Roosa 1966; Deller and Ellis 1984, 1988,

1992, 2011). Barnes points are thought to be slightly younger than Clovis and Gainey, and have a lanceolate outline, lenticular cross sections, flaring basal ears, and flute scars that extend from base to the upper third of the point on both faces. Flute scars typically extended anywhere from the midpoint of the point to the entire length of the biface.

Morphologically, the Barnes type bears marked resemblance to Cumberland fluted points found to the south (Ellis and Deller 1990; 1997). Crowfield points are the final Early

Paleoindian type in the Great Lakes sequence and inferred to follow Barnes points (Ellis and Deller 1990).

The Late Paleoindian period dates to approximately 12,400-10,800 cal BP

(10,400-9,500 RCYBP) (Ellis and Deller 1990) and includes Holcombe and Hi-Lo types.

42

Point forms from this period are lanceolate in outline and tend to lack well defined flutes.

Holcombe points have a similar shape and traits as the Cromier/Nicholas type in the New

England-Maritimes region (Fitting et al 1966). Hi-Lo points are characterized by their lanceolate shape, thick cross sections, flaring and rounded basal ears, and at times weak side-notching/stemmed hafting elements (Fitting 1963; Ellis and Deller 1990).

Paleoindian Lithic Technological Organization

Clovis and, to some extent, later Paleoindian complexes are often associated with bifacial core technology. Bifacial cores have been inferred to minimize transport costs while maximizing core efficiency, and thus play a crucial role in Paleoindian mobility

(Boldurian 1991; Carr et al 2010; Goodyear 1989; Kelly and Todd 1988). Recent research has challenged the idea that Paleoindians ubiquitously used bifaces as mobile cores (Bamforth 2003; Eren and Andrews 2013) and that bifacial cores represent the most efficient core reduction strategy for mobile hunter-gatherers (Prasciunas 2007; Jennings et al. 2010). Experimental studies indicate that raw material package size plays a significant role in core reduction efficiency. Jennings and colleagues (2010) found that relatively large (>1000g) bifacial and informal cores produce flake blanks with comparable efficiency, however, amorphous cores produced flakes more efficiently than bifacial cores as package size decreased (<300-500g).

In the Middle Atlantic region, Paleoindian lithic technological organization at the

Flint Run complex (Carr et al. 2013; Gardner 1974, 1977, 1983, 1989) in Virginia has been assessed by means of experimental (Callahan 1979), quantitative (Carr 1992;

43

Gardner and Verrey 1979; Verrey 1986), and refitting (Carr 1986) studies. The results of these studies demonstrated that Paleoindians procured local jasper raw materials to be reduced into large polyhedral and bifacial cores at, or near, quarries. Core reduction was directed towards the extraction of flake blanks that would later be modified, unifacially and bifacially, into tools or bifacial cores. Bifacial cores were inferred to have long use- lives and reduction trajectories that often included reworking the biface into tools and fluted points prior to discard (Callahan 1979; Carr 1986, 1992; Verrey 1986). These tools and bifacial cores that made up the Paleoindian toolkit were subsequently transported away from quarry sites as personal gear (sensu Binford 1977, 1979).

Callahan’s (1979) examination of Paleoindian bifaces from Virginia and extensive experimental flintknapping work generated a model of staged Paleoindian , beginning with blank procurement and ending with fluted point finishing. At the Sam’s Club site in New Jersey (Mounier et al. 1993), a light scatter of jasper debitage was recovered that refitting revealed to include multiple channel flakes. Analysis of channel flake refits showed a unique fluting technique involving the removal of channel flakes from bifaces with ridged-convex cross-sections. The fluting technique, termed

“piggy-back fluting”, involves the removal of a single channel flake from the convex face, and multiple superimposed channel flake detachments on the ridged face. It was estimated that four or five jasper bifaces, measuring 8-9 cm in length and 2.6-2.8 cm in width, were fluted on site using the “piggy-back” technique (Mounier et al. 1993:17-18).

This fluting technique is believed to have been instrument-assisted and likely resulted in the finishing of waisted Paleoindian bifaces similar to Barnes or Cumberland types (Jack

44

Cresson, personal communication 2017). The Tatem site in New Jersey is another

Paleoindian assemblage containing numerous Barnes/Cumberland channel flakes but lacking finished or broken fluted points (Jack Cresson, personal communication 2017).

In central Pennsylvania, the Shoop site (Carr 1989; Cox 1986; Wilmsen 1970;

Witthoft 1952) provides valuable insight into Early Paleoindian lithic technological organization. The Early Paleoindian assemblage at Shoop is comprised of exclusively

Onondaga chert raw materials sourced via thin-section analysis by Vento (Carr et al.

2009) to the 350 km distant Divers Lake locality in New York. Analysis of unifacial tools and debitage from the Shoop site in Pennsylvania found that tabular and bifacial chert cores were used to produce tools and debitage (Carr 1989; Cox 1986). Carr (1989) found that end scrapers and side scrapers were primarily produced from tabular cores, while utilized flakes were mostly derived from bifacial core reduction. These and other

(Wilmsen 1970) studies determined that the blades and blade tools described by Witthoft

(1952) were actually blade-like flakes incidentally produced from tabular and bifacial cores.

Paleoindian sites located on the Delmarva Peninsula, such as the Paw Paw Cove

Complex, appear to have primarily procured toolstone from secondary cobble sources comprised of cherts, quartz, quartzite, and silicified sandstone. Cobbles obtained from these sources were typically reduced using techniques that best fit the quality and package size of available toolstone. Bifacial, bipolar, and blade reduction techniques were all utilized in order to produce tools and fluted points that were part of a highly curated toolkit (Lowery 1989, 2002:172).

45

In the Great Lakes and parts of the Northeast, Ellis (1984) argues that

Paleoindians tended to restrict most of their core reduction and flake blank production to quarry and quarry-related sites. The reduction of bifaces tended to progress as groups moved away from toolstone sources, although some fluted points appear to have been produced at quarries. It is inferred that Paleoindians segmented their lithic reduction activities in this fashion in order to weed out flawed or low-quality toolstone and reduce the weight of the transported toolkit (Ellis 1984:419-428; Deller and Ellis 1986).

Additional evidence of Paleoindians segmenting their lithic reduction activities comes from the Potts Paleoindian assemblage in New York. Lothrop (1988) determined that flake blanks from the Potts assemblage were primarily produced at or near quarry sites from tabular block cores, and that these flake blanks were then transported to Potts and subsequently modified. The preponderance of tools produced from tabular cores, as opposed to bifacial cores, was inferred to represent a strategy of flake blank production that focused on the extraction of large and thick flakes that would later be modified into tools, bifaces, and fluted points (Lothrop 1988, 1989). A study by Eren and Andrews

(2013) tested Paleoindian bifacial core use in the Great Lakes region by measuring the thickness of unifacial tools recovered from six Early Paleoindian sites. Data from the study led researchers to the conclusion that Early Paleoindians did not frequently utilize bifaces as mobile cores. Instead, it was proposed that Early Paleoindians preferred a transportable tool kit that included thick flake blanks (not cores) produced at toolstone quarries in gearing up episodes (Eren and Andrews 2013).

46

In the Southeast, Paleoindian sites have displayed evidence of bifacial, blade, discoidal, and informal core reduction (Smallwood 2011:106-107; Miller and Smallwood

2012:36). At the Topper site in South Carolina, Clovis groups used overshot flaking and end thinning in their reduction strategies to produce bifaces of variable size and shape, some of which did not fit the mold of "classic" Clovis points, preforms, and bifacial cores. Research conducted by Smallwood (2010, 2011) concluded that Clovis knappers modified their lithic technological organization to suit the variable package size, shape, and quality of the locally available Coastal Plain chert. Analysis of Paleoindian lithic technological organization at the Pasquotank site in North Carolina addressed questions regarding Paleoindian raw material use, toolkit composition, and transport costs. Daniel and colleagues (2007) interpreted the Paleoindian assemblage, primarily comprised of small flake tools (e.g., end scrapers), to represent a transportable toolkit. These findings were explained as Paleoindian economical solutions to transport costs, as mobile toolkits comprised of many smaller tools and tool blanks have been shown to be more efficient than carrying large cores in previous studies (Kuhn 1994; but see Morrow 1996).

Paleoindian Range Mobility and Settlement Patterns in the Middle Atlantic Region

Studies that address Paleoindian territories based on linear distance toolstone sources vary greatly throughout the Middle Atlantic region. Research by Gardner (1974,

1983) inferred that Paleoindians in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia practiced settlement ranges that rarely surpassed 140 km in any one direction. This range estimate has been tested and confirmed in southern portions of Virginia by McAvoy (1992).

47

These relatively small territories are believed to relate to Paleoindians keying onto regional outcrops of high quality toolstone. Gardner (2002:98) also states that a territorial range of 50 to 80 km is consistent for Paleoindian populations in the Potomac

Piedmont and southeastern Virginia Custer and Stewart's (1990) review of ethnographic data found that the wandering ranges of eastern sub-arctic groups correspond to a mean hypothesized Paleoindians territorial range of 250 km. Maximum territorial ranges for

Paleoindians in the Northeast verged on 500 km for Paleoindians located near present- day New York State. Furthermore, settlement rounds of 250 km were hypothesized for southeastern Pennsylvania, while northeastern Pennsylvania attenuated to 150 km territory size (Custer and Stewart 1990). The Shoop site displays evidence of long- distance transport from stone sources of Onondaga chert that reach distances of up to 350 km (Carr 1989; Witthoft 1952).

Studies of lithic raw material use and Paleoindian settlement patterns at the

Thunderbird site in Virginia concluded that Paleoindians procured their toolstone from primary sources in a cyclical fashion. A cyclical procurement pattern entailed settlement rounds that were keyed on one or more specific toolstone quarries or outcrops (Carr et al.

2013; Custer et al. 1983; Gardner 1977). Further north, Custer, Cavallo, and Stewart

(1983) found that lithic resource procurement utilized by Paleoindians in the New Jersey

Inner Coastal Plain displayed a serial procurement system. Serial procurement of stone entailed that lithic resource acquisition was largely embedded in other settlement activities (Binford 1979). This change in stone procurement strategies is believed to be

48 related to the ubiquitous nature of secondary cobble toolstone sources in the study area

(Custer et al. 1983).

Gardner (1974, 1977, 1989) proposed six types of sites based on Paleoindian and

Early Archaic research from the Flint Run complex (Callahan 1979; Carr 1986, 1992;

Carr et al. 2013; Gardner and Verrey 1979; Verrey 1986) in Virginia: base camps, base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting sites, quarry sites, quarry reduction stations, and isolated point finds (see also Custer 1996). Base camps are habitation sites, the largest of which are situated near toolstone deposits, occupied for relatively long periods of time that often contain a broad range of tool types and flaking debris representing many or all stages of lithic reduction. Base camp maintenance stations and outlying hunting sites are resource procurement locations respectively positioned close to (10-15 km) and variable distances from (< 40 km) base camps. Quarry sites include primary and secondary lithic raw material sources where toolstone was tested and procured. Quarry reduction stations are sites situated close to quarries where lithic raw materials gathered from quarries are further reduced and added to the transportable toolkit (Callahan 1979).

Isolated point finds may represent briefly occupied hunting sites or a sample of a disturbed or exposed site of unknown size (Custer 1996). It should be noted that the use of any site typology, while often fruitful (e.g., Custer et al. 1983), may limit consideration of variability outside the typological framework employed.

49 CHAPTER 3

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY AT NESQUEHONING CREEK

3.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the stratigraphy and geomorphology of the multicomponent Nesquehoning Creek site. The soil profiles of various excavation units are characterized and correlated across the site. The relationship between soil horizons and the position of archaeological deposits and time-diagnostic artifacts are reviewed.

Based on these data, a model of landscape evolution for the Nesquehoning Creek site is proposed. Excavation areas with the greatest potential for stratified Paleoindian deposits are outlined.

3.2 Site Setting

The Nesquehoning Creek site is situated on a late Wisconsin age terrace that is bounded by the steeply rising slopes of Broad Mountain to the north and the Lehigh

River and Nesquehoning Creek to the east and south (Figure 3.1). The position of the site landscape relative to the stream junction and surrounding steep topography make it susceptible to flooding both from overbanking of the Lehigh and hydraulic damming and flood pooling behind the junction of the Nesquehoning Creek with the river (Stewart et al. in press). Surface elevations gradually decrease from east to west and from north to south. The site’s position along the Lehigh is approximately 72 km downstream from the river’s headwaters at Pocono Lake in the glaciated portion of the Appalachian Plateau.

50

Figure 3.1 The Nesquehoning Creek site (star) displayed on portions of the Weatherly and Nesquehoning USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles.

3.3 Materials and Methods

Controlled excavations involved a variety of excavation unit sizes that were selected to accommodate the positioning of open looters pits, the anticipated depth of excavations, and the nature of natural and cultural deposits (Stewart et al. in press). All measurements were originally made using engineer-scaled feet (i.e., feet divided into

10ths). Excavations completed to-date include: Block 1 measuring 2.43 x 4.26 m (8 x 14 ft); Unit 2 measuring 2.13 x 2.13 m (7 x 7 ft); Block 3 measuring 4.57 x 4.57 m (15 x 15 ft); Blocks 4 and 5 each measuring 3.04 x 3.04 m (10 x 10 ft); Block 6 measuring 2.44 x

1.52 m (8 x 5 ft); Block 7 measuring 4.57 x 1.52 m (15 x 5 ft); Unit 16 measuring 1.52 x

1.52 m (5 x 5 ft); Unit 17 measuring 1.83 x 1.52 m (6 x 5 ft); 10 test units of variable sizes measuring from 1.06 x 0.91 m (3.5 x 3 ft) up to 3.04 x 1.06 m (10 x 3.5 ft); and various strata cuts and trenches excavated within backfilled looters pits, including much

51 of Block 8. Pedological data and soil profiles examined in this study include those recorded for Unit 2, Block 3, Block 4, Block 5, Unit 16, and Unit 17 (Figure 3.2, shaded excavation units).

In the field stratigraphic units were defined on the basis of color, texture, and soil structure. Nineteenth century and modern deposits were recognized and adequately examined in initial excavations. In subsequent excavations they were removed as a single unit. Excavation of all earlier contexts employed arbitrary levels within discernible stratigraphic breaks and extended to basal gravels. The majority of excavations used 9.1cm (0.3 ft) thick arbitrary levels although some initial exploratory work employed levels 7.62 cm (0.25 ft) thick. Sediment/soil texture and soil structure were determined using the USDA system and following procedures detailed in Foss et al.

(1985) and Schoeneberger et al. (2002). All artifacts recovered in situ were mapped in three dimensions. Units 1.52 x 1.52 m (5 x 5 ft) and larger were divided into quadrants for additional control of provenience. All features encountered were mapped and excavated as distinctive contexts and water-screened through 1/16 inch nylon mesh.

Excavated matrix was primarily screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh. For every excavation level in most units, the southeast quadrant was water-screened through 1/16 inch mesh in an effort to recover a finer grained sample of lithics, charcoal, and macrobotanicals. Once Paleoindian deposits were recognized, all sediments excavated from these contexts were also subject to water-screening though 1/8 and 1/16 inch mesh

(Stewart et al. in press).

52

53

Figure 3.2 Nesquehoning Creek site plan. Shaded excavation units indicate soil profiles discussed in this study.

Standardized data forms (e.g., excavation level forms, level forms, field specimen catalog) were used during the excavation. Unit wall profiles were documented upon the completion of excavations and include Munsell values, assessments of the textural class of sediments, soil structure and horizons. A series of primary datums positioned throughout the site were used to create site plans and correlate datums used for recording depths and stratigraphy in individual excavations. Digital photography was used to document all aspects of the excavation (Stewart et al. in press).

Thin section samples were collected by from the southeast corner of Unit-Block 2 and the southwest corner of Unit-Block 1 by Gary Stinchcomb (Stinchcomb and Driese

2011). Thin-section samples were collected by lightly hammering in electric switch boxes with a rubber hammer. The loamy soil texture allowed section samples to be easily removed by extracting the box by hand. Thin-sections samples were coated with epoxy and submitted to Spectrum Petrographics, Inc. for commercial thin-section preparation.

Thin-sections were described using the “Stoops” descriptive classification system

(Stoops, 2003). Soils and sediment were described using the USDA/NRCS descriptive system (Schoeneberger et al. 2002). To-date only the samples derived from Unit-Block 2 have been analyzed and reported (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011).

3.4 Results

Excavation Unit 2 and Block 3

Unit 2 and Block 3 provide one of the most complete records of sediments, soils, and cultural deposits on-site, and have been used as a foundation for correlating

54 stratigraphic sequences from other portions of the landscape at Nesquehoning Creek.

Unit 2 and Block 3’s soil profile measured 2.3 m (7.55 ft) thick and contained seventeen discernible stratigraphic layers (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). Figure 3.5 summarizes the results of the micromorphology suite derived from the southeast corner of Unit 2. Table 3.1 provides descriptive data for the soil profiles recorded in Unit 2 and Block 3. Following

Stinchcomb and Driese (2011), soil textures range from sandy loam to silt loams with weak to moderate subangular blocky structures common in the B horizons, and granular and crumb structures common in the A horizons (Stewart et al. in press).

The uppermost soil successions Oa-AC-ACb-C-Ab2-ACb2 in Unit 2 and Block 3 are stratigraphically distinct and show little to no evidence of subsoil formation

(Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). During archaeological excavations, these soil horizons were designated strata 1-6. The thickest of these layers, the ACb horizon (i.e., strata 3/4), contained appreciable amounts of coal sand/silt and sporadic clusters of burned wood at the surface of the deposit. This layer of coal-rich alluvium spans the entire site area and was likely deposited during the early 19th century. Coal was discovered in nearby

Summit Hill in 1791 and the Lehigh Coal Mine Company was founded a year later

(Pennsylvania DCNR 2010). Between 1812 and 1823, the transport and mining of coal drastically increased in the Lehigh Gorge area with the construction of dams, locks, and weirs along the Lehigh River (Inners 1998). In 1875, a massive fire engulfed what remained of the largely clear-cut Lehigh Gorge old-growth hemlock and white pine forest. The burned wood recovered from the surface of the ACb horizon may relate to this historic event (for a more detailed analysis, see Stinchcomb et al. 2013).

55

Figure 3.3 Unit 2 west wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted.

56

Figure 3.4 Block 3 west wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted. Note the backfilled looter pits visible to the far right and center-left.

57

Figure 3.5 Profile and particle size data for the southeast quadrant of Unit 2 (adapted from Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Figure 2).

58

Table 3.1 Unit 2 and Block 3 soil profile description. Soil Excavation Depth Description Horizon Stratum (cm bs) Very dark gray (10YR3/1) loam with weak medium granular structure, Oa 0-3 partly decomposed humic mat, 30-40% organic matter, abrupt smooth lower boundary. Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) loam, massive, common medium roots, AC 1 3-12 gradual smooth lower boundary. 2 Very dark gray (10YR3/1) loam with weak medium granular structure, ACb 12-24 3 common medium roots, coal sand/silt, abrupt smooth lower boundary. Yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sandy loam, massive, common medium roots, C 4 24-37 coal sand/silt dispersed throughout matrix, gradual wavy lower boundary. Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) loam with weak fine crumb structure, Ab2 5 37-45 common fine/med roots, clear wavy lower boundary. Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam with weak medium angular ACb2 6 45-50 blocky structure, 30% brown (7.5YR 5/3) mottles, common medium roots, common fine charcoal fragments, clear smooth lower boundary. Dark brown (7.5YR 4/2) loam with weak medium subangular blocky Ab3 7 50-56 structure, common medium roots, common fine/medium charcoal fragments, clear smooth lower boundary. 8 Light brown (7.5YR6/3) loam with moderate medium subangular blocky structure, common fine roots, common distinct strong brown (7.5YR5/6) BEb3 56-65 9 concentrations along root channels, few medium charcoal fragments, upper portion of horizon is slightly redder, gradual smooth lower boundary. Strong brown (7.5YR5/6) loam with moderate medium subangular blocky Bw1b3 65-75 structure, common medium to very coarse roots, few fine charcoal 10 fragments, diffuse smooth lower boundary. Brown (7.5YR5/4) loam with moderate medium subangular blocky Bw2b3 75-90 structure, common medium roots, diffuse smooth lower boundary. 11 Brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam with weak to moderate medium subang. BCb3 90-106 12 blocky structure, very few fine roots, gradual smooth lower boundary. Reddish brown (5YR5/3) sandy clay loam with moderate medium 106- subangular blocky structure, very few medium roots, common distinct very Bt1b4 127 thin clay films coating sand grains, very few distinct very thin clay films 13 coating tubular pores, diffuse smooth lower boundary. Reddish brown (5YR5/4) silt loam with moderate medium subangular 127- Bt2b4 blocky structure, very few medium roots, common very thin faint clay 147 bridges along sand grains, diffuse smooth lower boundary. Brown (7.5YR4/4) silt loam with moderate medium subangular blocky 147- structure, very few fine to medium roots, very few faint patchy clay bridges BtCb4 14 169 along sand grains, few fine charcoal fragments, clear smooth lower boundary. 169- Brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam with weak fine to medium subangular blocky ABb5 15 181 structure, few fine to medium roots, diffuse smooth lower boundary 181- Brown (7.5YR5/4) loam with weak medium subangular blocky structure, ABw1b5 16 195 very few fine roots, clear smooth lower boundary. Dark brown (7.5YR 4/2) loam with weak medium subangular blocky 195- ABw2b6 structure, few fine roots, reddish brown (7.5YR5/4) tubular mottles, 218 gradual smooth lower boundary. 17 Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) loam with weak medium subangular blocky 218- Bwb6 structure, reddish brown (7.5YR5/4) tubular mottles, clear wavy lower 230 boundary. C >230 Rounded bouldery gravels.

59

The buried soil succession Ab3-BEb3-Bw1b3-Bw2b3-BCb3 was formed in loamy overbank deposits and fines upwards, reflecting several flood events. Soil weathering has obscured some of the boundaries of individual flood events which nonetheless are discernible based upon the position of discontinuous ice-rafted debris, archaeological features, and positions of large and heavy artifacts (Stewart et al. in press; Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). During archaeological excavations, Ab3 represented stratum 7; BEb3 was split into strata 8 and 9; Bw1b3 and Bw2b3 represented upper and lower stratum 10; and BCb3 was subdivided into strata 11 (BCb3 horizon) and 12 (C3 horizon). A large

Susquehanna Broadspear crafted on metarhyolite (Figure 3.6) and diagnostic of the

Transitional Archaic was recovered from stratum 10 in Block 3.

Figure 3.6 Susquehanna Broadspear recovered from stratum 10 (Bw2b3) in Block 3.

60

The underlying buried soil succession occurs in sandy clay loam to silt loam overbank deposits and consists of a Bt1b4-Bt2b4-BtCb4 horizon sequence. The coarsening upward nature of this succession suggests that either the magnitude of flood events increased or a change in river or stream position resulted in an increasing deposition of coarser sediments. A period of landscape stability followed, where subsoil formation resulted in the production of clay and subsequent translocation, resulting in Bt horizons. This soil development episode is abruptly overlain by coarse sandy loam deposits that include gravels (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). During archaeological excavations, soil horizons Bt1b4 and Bt2b4 were designated stratum 13 upper and lower and BtCb4 was designated stratum 14. A bifurcated projectile point diagnostic of the

Middle Archaic period (Figure 3.7) was recovered from stratum 13.

Figure 3.7 Middle Archaic Bifurcate recovered from stratum 13 (Bt2b4) in Block 3. 61

The lowermost buried soil successions ABb5-ABw1b5-ABw2b6-Bwb6 are interpreted as a series of loamy buried A horizons that overlie a buried B horizon. The buried A horizons have been subsequently overprinted with subsoil characteristics, lending them the ABw transitional designation (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). During archaeological excavations, horizon ABb5 was designated stratum 15, horizon ABw1b5 was designated stratum 16, and horizons ABw2b6 and Bwb6 were designated stratum 17.

Gravels at the base of the soil profile are part of a late Wisconsin braided channel.

AMS radiocarbon dating of wood charcoal recovered from stratum 17 in Unit 2 and Block 3 has produced dates of 11,398 ± 110 cal BP (Beta-278334), 12,255 ± 177 cal

BP (Beta-379729), and 12,422 ± 164 cal BP (Beta-379217) (i.e., 9940 ± 50, 10,340 ± 40, and 10,480 ± 30 RCYBP). The occurrence of coal sand/silt at the top of the stratigraphic sequences from which the samples were derived was tracked during excavations and noted during the laboratory submission process. The final coal sand/silt-bearing layer

(i.e., stratum 4) is vertically separated from the uppermost radiocarbon-dated wood charcoal sample by approximately 1.5 m. Pretreatment of the samples did not reveal anything untoward. Unaddressed is the possibility that local groundwater might contain dissolved old carbon given the existence of a coal mine upstream from Nesquehoning

Creek and the occurrence of coal sand/silt in near-surface alluvial deposits in upstream areas (Stinchcomb et al. 2013). The variety of data sets that bear on the age of the basal deposits suggests the samples are not contaminated (Stewart et al. in press). If the position of the samples relative to the top of basal gravel is considered, the AMS dates occur in appropriate superposition (Figure 3.8). A Crowfield point base (Figures 3.9 and

62

Figure 3.8 Stratigraphic and spatial relationship of AMS samples.

Figure 3.9 Crowfield point base recovered from stratum 17 (ABw2b6) in Block 3.

63

Figure 3.10 Crowfield point base in situ.

3.10) was recovered from the same excavation level and in close proximity to (i.e., 15.24 cm horizontally distant) the charred wood sample that produced the 12,255 ± 177 cal BP date. These results indicate that the layers containing Paleoindian artifacts range from

Younger Dryas to Early Holocene in age. The radiocarbon dates conform to gross estimates of age that can be made on the basis of the degree of weathering visible in the soil sequences documented in excavation profiles. Stratigraphy, micromorphological analysis, and radiometric data suggest that multiple Paleoindian occupation surfaces may be represented in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 (Stewart et al. in press; Stinchcomb and

Driese 2011).

The results from the Unit 2 soil micromorphology generally support the soil morphology descriptions (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011). Mineralogical composition of the coarse-grained matrix is mixed for all buried soil successions. The mineralogical 64 suite is characterized in large part by subangular to subrounded quartz. Additionally, rock fragments, hydrated mica, tourmaline, and potassium feldspar with overgrowth rims were also noted. This mineralogy suite is common of fluvio-glacial terrain in the

Northeast, which includes a mixture of local and nonlocal lithologies (Stinchcomb and

Driese 2011).

Thin-sections NCS2-195, NCS2-208 (Table 3.2) are from the lowermost Unit 2 soil succession (i.e., stratum 16 and 17) and were analyzed to help characterize the soil forming environment related to the Paleoindian occupation on site. The ABw1b5 thin- section (NCS2-195) shows zones of Fe-Mn concentrations and amorphous Fe-organic material coating grains and filling pores (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Table 2, Figures

8-10). In addition, a considerable amount of charcoal particulates were noted. These data suggest the horizon was once likely a stable surface that experienced repeated phases of wetting and drying. The Fe-Mn concentrations and darker matrix colors suggest the soil may have been saturated for prolonged periods of time, but not long enough to produce gley features (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011).

The ABw2b6 horizon thin-section (NCS2-208) was sampled from the same stratum from which the 11,398 ± 110 cal BP radiocarbon assay was recovered in Unit 2.

As with the overlying ABw1b5 thin-section, this sample also shows some Fe-Mn nodules suggesting repeated wetting and drying with some prolonged moist conditions

(Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Figure 11). Large angular shaped quartz was noted along horizontal zones of the thin-section and are believed to be microdebitage fragments, not water-worn quartz (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Figures 12-13). Stinchcomb and Driese

65

Table 3.2 Soil micromorphological description of basal strata from Unit 2, SE quadrant (adapted from Stinchcomb and Driese 2011:Table 2).

Horizon Microstructure and Groundmass Coarse Micromass Organic Pedofeatures Porosit Material material ABw1b5 Massive tyo angular c/f5µm : 1/2; Angular to Undifferentiated Lignified Very few clay pore (NCS2-195) blocky chitonic subangular to tissue and channel microstructure; to monocrystallin granostriated (2%); coatings; Common intrapedal channel convex e quartz; b-fabric many typic Fe- Mn and chamber pores gefuric; subangular charcoal concretions; few (20%, vfs-fs) polycrystalline fragments microcrystalline quartz; (5-15%) fragments quartzite; dark brown dusty silt; few weathered mica ABw2b6 Subangular blocky c/f5µm : 1/2; Angular to Speckled b- Lignified Few Reddish brown (NCS2-208) and channel single- subangular fabric; tissue (2- clay channel and microstructure; spaced monocrystalli localized 5%); grain coatings intrapedal vesicular porphyric; ne quartz; grano- and some (<2%); Common to vughy pores (10- concave subangular porostriated with Fe- Typic Fe- Mn 20%, vfs); few gefuric polycrystallin b- fabric oxide concretions interpedal channel e quartz; dark coatings pores brown dusty silt

(2011) determined that the presence of microdebitage coincided with Paleoindian strata, suggesting that sediment and soil at this depth were not removed during a subsequent flooding event. Moreover, the microdebitage was found to be concentrated along horizontal layers suggesting that there has been little vertical redistribution of artifacts

(Stinchcomb and Driese 2011).

Block 4

Block 4’s soil profile measured 2.08 m (6.82 ft) thick and contained seventeen discernible stratigraphic layers (Figure 3.11). Soil morphology and stratigraphic distinctions in Block 4 essentially mirrored those observed in Unit 2 and Block 3. Both profiles contain the same 17 stratigraphic layers and are described with similar Munsell values and textural/structural classifications. 66

Figure 3.11 Block 4 north wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted. 67

Strata 1-6 have the same color, texture, and structure as described for Unit 2 and

Block 3. Heavy amounts of coal sand and silt are noted in strata 3/4, an ACb horizon that has been identified across the length of the site. Based on previous research (Stinchcomb et al. 2013), this coal-rich alluvium was likely deposited no earlier than 1840 AD.

Stratum 7 represents an Ab3 horizon comprised of brown (10YR4/3) sandy loam with crumb structure and extensive bioturbation in the form of root disturbances and krotovina (e.g., features 21, 23-26). This stratum also contained a light scatter of charcoal that persisted throughout the entire block, a soil trait that was observed in block

3 by the author as well. The fact that stratum 7 contains light to moderate charcoal flecking site-wide, and often lacks any associated artifacts, suggests that natural or cultural burns may have occurred during the span of time that stratum 7 was a surface soil. The Ab3 horizon is the first layer to contain Prehistoric artifacts, including Late

Woodland triangles, in Blocks 3-7.

Stratum 8/9 was a BEb3 horizon comprised of strong brown (7.5YR5/6) mixed with pink (7.5YR7/3) sandy loam that displayed crumb structure. Two features were recorded in this layer (features 27 and 29). A broken rhyolite contracting stem biface (Figure 3.12) base was recovered in close proximity to, and at the same depth as, feature 27.

Stratum 10 represents a Bwb3 horizon with yellowish brown (10YR5/8) loam that displayed weak subangular blocky structure. Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from this level include steatite bowl fragments, – two of which refit (Figure 3.13) – a chert Lehigh Broadspear, and a jasper Orient fishtail biface. These artifacts reinforce

68

Figure 3.12 Block 4 projectile point sequence.

69

Figure 3.13 Refitted steatite sherds recovered from stratum 10 (Bwb3) in Block 4.

previous interpretations that stratum 10 was Transitional Archaic to Late Archaic in affiliation. Several features (30, 31, and 32) were recorded in stratum 10, level 1.

Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from stratum 10, level 2 included a jasper

Perkiomen Broad biface. Recovering Orient fishtails and Broadspears in stratified contexts reinforces the established Transitional Archaic typological sequence for the region (Custer 1996:178-179; Kraft 2001) and suggests that multiple occupations may be represented in stratum 10. Features 34, 35, and 37 were recorded for stratum 10, level 2.

Stratum 11/12 represents two thin soil horizons that were lumped into one excavation level during 2012 field school excavations. Stratum 11 is a BCb3 horizon with brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam and crumb structure. Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from this layer include a chert contracting stem biface mapped in unit 11 that 70 fits the description of Late Archaic Poplar Island point. Stratum 12 is a C3 horizon with light brown (7.5YR6/4) loamy sand and crumb to granular structure. The C3 horizon in

Unit 2 and Block 3 is thicker and contains more sand than the C3 horizon in Block 4.

This slight change in soil horizon texture and thickness is likely due to Block 3's closer proximity to the Lehigh River.

Stratum 13 was a Btb4 horizon consisting of three 10 cm arbitrary levels of reddish brown (5YR4/4) loam that displayed subangular blocky structure. Stratum 13, level 1 contained a side-notched chert point in close association with a hearth (feature

44). The recovery of a side-notched biface from stratum 13, level 1 adds to our understanding of diagnostic point types associated with the Late and Middle Archaic periods at Nesquehoning Creek (e.g., Bilobate point and Genesse/Steubenville point recovered from upper portions of stratum 13 in Unit 1). Stratum 13, level 2 contained three fire-related features (45, 46, and 47), and level 3 included a post hole feature (48).

Stratum 14 was a BCb4 horizon made up of reddish brown (5YR5/4) sandy loam exhibiting crumb structure. Artifacts and features of note for stratum 14 include a cluster of roughly flaked cobble tools and a fire-related feature. Feature 50 was circular in plan, basin-shaped in profile, and most likely served as a small hearth.

The lowermost buried soil successions begin with an ABb5 horizon (i.e., stratum

15) comprised of brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam with coarse brown (7.5YR4/2) tubular mottles. Stratum 15 is followed by an ABw1b5 horizon (i.e., stratum 16) described as a brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam with coarse brown (7.5YR4/3) tubular mottles. An

ABw2b6 horizon (i.e., stratum 17) comprised of brown (7.5YR4/3) sandy loam with

71 coarse brown (7.5YR5/4) tubular mottles caps the basal gravels at the base of the soil profile

Block 5

Block 5’s soil profile measured 1.43 m (4.7 ft) thick and contained sixteen discernible stratigraphic layers (Figure 3.14). Soil morphology and stratigraphic distinctions in Block 5 were similar to those recorded for Unit 2 and Blocks 3 and 4.

Strata 1-6 did not contain cultural materials and have the same color, texture, and structure as described for Unit 2 and Blocks 3-4. The coal sand/silt present in stratum 3/4

(i.e., ACb horizon) indicates that the alluvial deposit does not predate 1840 (Stinchcomb et al. 2013).

Stratum 7, an Ab3 horizon, was comprised of brown (10YR4/3) sandy loam that demonstrated a crumb structure. As with Blocks 3 and 4, this stratum contained light amounts of charcoal scattered throughout the horizon matrix. Underlying the Ab3 horizon was strata 8/9, a BEb3 horizon comprised of strong brown (7.5YR5/6) mixed with pink (7.5YR7/3) sandy loam that exhibited crumb structure.

Stratum 10 represents a Bwb3 horizon with yellowish brown (10YR5/8) loam that displayed weak subangular blocky structure. Transitional Archaic projectile points have been recovered from this stratum in other excavation areas on site. A large prehistoric pit

(feature 41) that reached basal gravels in some areas of the excavation block is associated with stratum 10. A BCb3 horizon (i.e., stratum 11) with brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam and crumb structure underlies the Bwb3 horizon.

72

Figure 3.14 Block 5 east wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted.

73

Stratum 12 was a C3 horizon with light brown (7.5YR6/4) loamy sand and crumb to granular structure. This layer contained slightly less sand than its equivalent in Block

4, and considerably less sand than stratum 12 in Unit 2 and Block 3 (i.e., fines outwards from east [Lehigh River] to west).

Stratum 13 represents a Btb4 horizon consisting of three 10cm arbitrary levels of reddish brown (5YR4/4) loam that displayed subangular blocky structure. This layer is underlain by a BCb4 horizon (i.e., stratum 14) with reddish brown (5YR5/4) sandy loam that displayed crumb structure. Stratum 14 in Block 5 appears to correlate with stratum

14 (i.e., BtCb4), or a mixture of strata 14 and 15 (i.e., BtCb4 and ABb5), in Unit 2 and

Blocks 3-4.

The lowermost buried soil successions include ABb5 and ABwb6 horizons. The

ABb5 horizon (i.e., stratum 15) was described as a brown (7.5YR5/4) sandy loam with coarse brown (7.5YR4/3) tubular mottles. Stratum 15 in Block 5 appears to correlate with stratum 16 (i.e., ABw1b5), or a conflated manifestation strata 15 and 16 (i.e., ABb5 and ABw1b5), in Unit 2 and Blocks 3-4. Underlying stratum 15 in Block 5 was an

ABwb6 horizon (i.e., stratum 16) comprised of brown (7.5YR4/3) sandy loam with coarse brown (7.5YR5/4) tubular mottles that cap rounded gravels at the base of the soil profile.

Excavation Unit 16

Excavation unit 16 was positioned in close proximity to several spoils piles (e.g., spoils piles E and CC) and situated along the toe of Broad Mountain on the western

74 margins of 36CR142 (Figure 3.15). Previous subsurface investigations of spoils pile E revealed a shallow soil profile with evidence of stratified alluvial and colluvial deposits containing artifacts. Unit 16's soil profile measured 0.89 m (2.92 ft) thick and contained eight discernible stratigraphic layers (Figure 3.16).

Unit 16’s soil profile began with an AC horizon comprised of very dark gray

(10YR3/1) sandy loam with crumb structure and moderate coal sand and silt inclusions.

Stratum 2 represents an ACb horizon comprised of black (10YR2/1) sandy loam with heavy coal sand and silt inclusions and crumb structure. The presence of coal sand and silt in these two layers indicates an approximate terminus post quem of AD 1840 for the base of stratum 2 in Unit 16 (Stinchcomb et al. 2013).

Figure 3.15 Photograph taken from the base of Broad Mountain showing 2012 field school students excavating Unit 16 (foreground) and spoil pile CC (background)

75

Figure 3.16 Unit 16 east wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted.

Stratum 3/4, an AEb2 horizon, was excavated as single stratigraphic unit due to the thin (< 0.1') and bioturbated nature of the two layers. Stratum 3 is a dark brown

(7.5YR3/2) buried A horizon with sandy loam texture and crumb structure. Stratum 4 is a weak red (2.5YR5/2) E horizon with sandy loam texture and crumb structure. Angular siltstone and sandstone rock fragments present in strata 3/4, 5, and 6 indicate some degree of colluvial input from Broad Mountain. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from this layer included a chert side-notched biface (Figure 3.17).

Underlying the AEb2 horizon was stratum 5, a yellowish brown (10YR5/8) Bwb2 horizon with sandy loam texture and crumb structure that contained a moderate amount of granule-sized gravels. One biface fragment recovered from stratum 5 resembled a

76

Figure 3.17 Side-notched biface recovered in situ from stratum 3/4 in Unit 16.

Perkiomen Broad jasper biface tip. This horizon exhibits a similar color, texture, and degree of weathering as the Bwb3 horizon (i.e, stratum 10) in Unit 2 and Blocks 3-7.

Transitional to Late Archaic projectile points have been recovered from stratum 10 across the site, including Orient Fishtails and a variety of Broadspears (i.e., Perkiomen,

Susquehanna, and Lehigh types).

Following the Bwb2 horizon was stratum 6, a strong brown (7.5YR5/6) BCb2 horizon with loamy sand texture and crumb structure that contained more granule to pebble-sized gravels and fewer artifacts than the overlying layer. The character and stratigraphic position of this horizon are nearly identical to the BC horizon (i.e., stratum

11) in Unit 2 and Blocks 3, 4, and 5.

Stratum 7 was a reddish yellow (7.5YR6/6) C2 horizon with loamy sand texture, crumb structure, and heavy amounts of gravels. This soil horizon was traced across the

77 entire site, although the layer is noticeably thicker and sandier towards the eastern end of the site near the Lehigh River where it is recorded as stratum 13 (i.e., C horizon) in Unit

2 and Blocks 3, 4, and 5.

The basal layer of Unit 16, stratum 8, was a yellowish red (5YR5/6) Btb3 horizon with sandy loam texture, weak subangular blocky structure, heavy amounts of gravel, and is devoid of artifacts. Rounded cobbles at the base of this layer terminate the soil profile.

If the stratigraphic correlations discussed above hold true, than this Bt3b horizon is likely of a similar age as stratum 13 (i.e., Bt horizon) in Unit 2 and Blocks 3, 4, and 5. The lowermost AB horizons associated with Paleoindian artifacts in Unit 2 and Block 3-5 are not present in the Unit 16 soil profile. If Paleoindian artifacts were deposited in the vicinity of Unit 16, they would likely be recovered on, or just above, basal gravels.

Excavation Unit 17

Excavation unit 17 was situated in a near-levee position in close proximity to the

Lehigh River on the eastern margins of the Nesquehoning Creek site. Unit 17's soil profile measured 1.04 m (3.4 ft) thick and contained 11 discernible stratigraphic layers

(Figure 3.18). A series of looters pits were encountered during excavations and ranged from small holes to large pits that reached basal gravels.

The uppermost soil succession began with an AC horizon comprised of very dark gray (10YR3/1) sandy loam with crumb structure. Beneath this layer was an ACb

78

Figure 3.18 Unit 17 north wall profile with excavation strata (numbers) and soil horizons noted. Note the large backfilled looter pit (left) cutting through the profile.

horizon (i.e., stratum 2) described as a black (10YR2/1) sandy loam-loamy sand with heavy coal sand and silt inclusions and crumb structure. This stratum was followed by a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) C horizon of coarse loamy sand.

The buried soil succession AEB2-Bwb2-BCb2-C2 was formed in sandy loam, to loam sand overbank deposits. The AEb2 horizon (i.e., stratum 4/5) was a dark brown

(7.5YR3/2) and weak red (2.5Y5/2) sandy loam that exhibited crumb structure. Beneath this layer was stratum 6, a yellowish brown (10YR5/8) Bwb2 horizon with sandy loam texture and crumb structure. This horizon appears to correlate to the Transitional

Archaic-aged stratum 10 in Blocks 3-5 and stratum 6 in Unit 16. This soil succession ends with a strong brown (7.5YR5/6) BCb2 horizon (i.e., stratum 7) with sandy loam

79 texture and crumb structure, followed by a reddish yellow (7.5YR6/6) loamy sand C2 horizon (i.e., stratum 8).

Stratum 9, represents a yellowish red (5YR5/6) loam-sandy loam Btb3 horizon with weak subangular blocky structure. The color, texture, and weathering evident in this horizon suggests that it correlates to stratum 13 in Unit 2 and Blocks 3-5 and stratum 8 in

Unit 16. A broken Stanley point (Figure 3.19) diagnostic of the Middle Archaic period was recovered from this stratum and fits neatly with the anticipated age of the soil deposit based on stratigraphic correlations. Stratum 9 was followed by a brown (7.5YR4/4)

BtCb3 horizon (i.e., stratum 10) with crumb structure. A Palmer/Amos corner-notched projectile point (Figure 3.20) was recovered from this stratum in nearby excavation unit

20, Block 8.

Figure 3.19 Stanley point recovered from stratum 9 (Btb3) in Unit 17.

80

Figure 3.20 Palmer/Amos point recovered from stratum 10 (BtCb3) in Block 8 (scale in cm).

The lowermost brown (7.5YR 3/4) ABb4 horizon (i.e., stratum 11) caps rounded basal gravels at the base of Unit 17. The proximal section of a chert biface (Figure 3.21) recovered from this horizon was refitted to distal fragment recovered from stratum 16 in

Unit 2. This suggests that stratum 11 contains Paleoindian, and possibly Early Archaic, artifacts based on the conflated nature of Unit 17’s soil profile.

Figure 3.21 Paleoindian biface base recovered from stratum 11 (ABb4) in Unit 17 (scale in cm). 81

The stratigraphic units (e.g., strata 1-17) defined, interpreted, and used during excavations and in consultation with Vento were, in large part, comparable to the soil profile defined by Stinchcomb and Driese (2011). Table 3.3 correlates the results of the micromorphological analysis (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011) with the stratigraphic distinctions used to guide archaeological excavations in Unit 2 and Block 3. Cultural- historic periods and diagnostic artifacts associated with specific strata are also noted in this table (Stewart et al. in press). The time-transgressive superposition of diagnostic artifacts documented in excavation areas across the site landscape suggest that the site possesses good stratigraphic integrity.

The stratigraphic sequences, particle size of deposits, and expressions of soil development varied spatially across the Nesquehoning Creek site. This variability appears to be primarily influenced by surface topography and distance from the source of overbanking or flood pooling. Table 3.4 shows stratigraphic correlations across the site, moving east to west, for all excavation blocks and units examined in this study.

The elevations at which rounded basal gravels were encountered varied dramatically across the site landscape. Based on strata cuts and test excavations, it was determined that there is a low spot in the basal gravels along the northeastern margin of the site (i.e., north of Unit 2 and east of Block 1). From this low spot, basal gravel begin to gradually rise moving south and reach their highest point at the confluence of the

Lehigh River and Nesquehoning Creek. Along the eastern margins of the site near the

Lehigh River (i.e., Unit 17), basal gravel elevations are relatively high (1.04 m BS).

West of Unit 17, basal gravel elevations drop significantly and create a bowl-shaped

82

Table 3.3 Nesquehoning Creek site generalized soil morphology, excavation strata, diagnostic artifacts, and age estimates. Soil Excavation Recovered Diagnostic Estimated 14C Age (RCYBP) Horizon Stratum Artifacts Oa-AC- 1 through Coal sand/silt Post 144-138 RCYBP ACb-C-Ab2 5 ACb2 6 Historic

Triangles, cut fragments of Colonial (late 17th to early 18th Ab3 7 European kettles; flint lock century) and late prehistoric-Late gun parts, iron knife blade Woodland Late to Middle Woodland: 8 Triangles, contracting stem 400-2100 RCYBP BEb3 Rossville-like contracting Middle to Early Woodland: 9 stem, corner notched 2100–2500 RCYBP Orient Fishtail, Lehigh- Early Woodland to Transitional Bw1b3 10 upper Koens Crispin Broadspear, Archaic: 2700 BC–4500 RCYBP Susquehanna Broadspear Perkiomen Broadspear, Transitional Archaic: Bw2b3 10 lower Poplar Island 3500 BC–5500 RCYBP Brewerton Eared, BCb3 11 Macpherson-Normanskill, Late Archaic: 3800–4500 RCYBP Lamoka-like BCb3 12 Late Archaic

Lamoka-like, Bi-lobate, Late Archaic to Middle Archaic: Bt1b4 13 upper Steubenville-Genesee 4900-7000 RCYBP Bt2b4 13 lower Bifurcates, Stanley Middle Archaic: 7800-8900 RCYBP BtCb4 14 Palmer/Amos Early Archaic: 9000-9,500 RCYBP ABb5 15 Early Archaic (?)

ABw1b5 16 Channel flakes Late Paleoindian

Late Paleoindian: 9940±50 RCYBP, ABw2b6 17 upper Crowfield fluted biface 10,340±40 RCYBP ABw2b6 & 17 lower Late Paleoindian: 10,480±30 RCYBP Bwb6 C – basal Late Wisconsin gravel

83

Table 3.4 Nesquehoning Creek site stratigraphic correlations. Unit 17 Unit 2 & Block 3 Block 4 Blocks 5 Unit 16

AC (Strat 1) AC (Strat 1) AC (Strat 1) AC (Strat 1) AC (Strat 1) ACb (Strat 2) ACb (Strat 2/3) ACb (Strat 2/3) ACb (Strat 2/3) ACb (Strat 2) C (Strat 3) C (Strat 4) C (Strat 4) C (Strat 4) Ab2 (Strat 5) Ab2 (Strat 5) Ab2 (Strat 5)

ACb2 (Strat 6) ACb2 (Strat 6) ACb2 (Strat 6)

Ab3 (Strat 7) Ab3 (Strat 7) Ab3 (Strat 7) AEb2 (Strat 4/5) AEb2 (Strat 3/4) BEb3 (Strat 8/9) BEb3 (Strat 8/9) BEb3 (Strat 8/9) Bwb2 (Strat 6) Bwb3 (Strat 10) Bwb3 (Strat 10) Bwb3 (Strat 10) Bwb2 (Strat 5) BCb2 (Strat 7) BCb3 (Strat 11) BCb3 (Strat 11) BCb3 (Strat 11) BCb2 (Strat 6) C2 (Strat 8) C3 (Strat 12) C3 (Strat 12) C3 (Strat 12) C2 (Strat 7) Btb3 (Strat 9) Btb4 (Strat 13) Btb4 (Strat 13) Btb4 (Strat 13) Btb3 (Strat 8) BtCb3 (10) BtCb4 (Strat 14) BtCb4 (Strat 14) Gravel 0.89 m BS BtCb4 (Strat 14) ABb4 (11) ABb5 (Strat 15) ABb5 (Strat 15)

Gravel 1.04 m BS ABw1b5 (Strat 16) ABw1b5 (Strat 16) ABb5 (Strat 15)

ABw2b6 (Strat 17) ABw2b6 (Strat 17) ABwb6 (Strat 16)

Gravel 2.30 m BS Gravel 2.08 m BS Gravel 1.43 m BS

depression that is deepest in Unit 2 and Block 3 (2.3 m BS) and gradually rises towards the western margins of the site (0.89 m BS).

3.5 Conclusions

A model of landscape evolution was hypothesized for the Nesquehoning Creek site based on the stratigraphic and geomorphic data outlined above. Floods during the

Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene appear to have spread across the landscape primarily from the Lehigh River along the northeastern portion of the site where basal gravels were deepest (Stewart et al. in press). These early floods deposited thick layers of alluvium (i.e., strata 15, 16, and 17) in Unit 2 and Blocks 3-5 where basal gravels were

84 low. During this period of time, an elevated gravel bar that stretched from Unit 17 to the

Lehigh River received little sedimentation.

Following Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene flooding, the low point along the northeastern edge of the site adjacent to the Lehigh River became plugged with channel bank deposits. At this point in time, flood pooling at the confluence of the Lehigh River and Nesquehoning Creek and overbanking from the Lehigh became the major sources of alluvial deposition. There is a gradual fining of particle size and decrease in the thickness of deposits with increasing distance from the mouth of Nesquehoning Creek. This trend becomes more noticeable during the Transitional Archaic (i.e., stratum 10 in Unit 2 and

Blocks 3-5; and strata 5 and 6 in Units 16 and 17, respectively) and peaks during historic times (i.e., strata 1-7 in Unit 2 and Blocks 3-5) (Stewart et al. in press).

Paleoindian deposits recovered from the far eastern, western, and southern margins of the site have the potential to be intermingled with later prehistoric deposits due to the conflated nature of the soil profiles in those areas. The basal gravel “levee” bordering the Lehigh River near Unit 17 is illustrative of this situation. Indeed, artifact collectors who had previously dug along the far eastern margins of the site commented to

Temple University archaeologists that a had been found in close association with fluted points while digging in areas with thinner soil profiles and elevated basal gravels. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene alluvial deposits are thickest in the bowl-shaped basal gravel depression noted in Unit 2 and Block 3. Paleoindian deposits recovered from these excavation areas have the greatest potential for

85 identification of former Paleoindian occupation surfaces or “zones” that will be examined in the following chapter.

86 CHAPTER 4

PALEOINDIAN OCCUPATION AND SITE FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE

NESQUEHONING CREEK SITE

4.1 Introduction

Controlled excavations at the Nesquehoning Creek site have recovered

Paleoindian artifacts, including a Crowfield fluted point base, from the lowermost buried

A horizons in deeply stratified areas of the site. Micromorphological and stratigraphic data from the lowermost buried soil successions suggest that the Paleoindian assemblage may represent multiple occupations. In order to test this hypothesis, an excavation area with the densest concentration of artifacts in deeply buried contexts was selected for lithic refitting and vertical artifact distribution analysis. Results of these analyses were used to assess site formation processes, occupation surfaces/zones, and the degree to which artifacts have been displaced over thousands of years at Nesquehoning Creek.

4.2 Background and Predictions

Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts have been recovered from the lowermost buried A horizons, strata 15, 16, and 17, in select excavation areas of the Nesquehoning

Creek site. Gross stratigraphy and micromorphology (Stinchcomb and Driese 2011) indicate that the artifacts recovered from strata 16 and 17 may represent discrete

Paleoindian components. However, previous studies (Cahen and Moyersons 1977;

Hofman 1986, 1992; Laughlin 2005; Villa 1982; Villa and Courtin 1983) have demonstrated that lithic refitting should be attempted prior to partitioning archaeological

87 deposits based solely on stratigraphic distinctions. As Villa notes, “The existence of an apparently undisturbed matrix, or of a finely stratified sequence, is not enough to rule out vertical displacement of artifacts and, in the case of multilevel sites, mixture of assemblages.” (1982:276). Indeed, it has been archaeologically and experimentally demonstrated that natural and cultural post-depositional processes have the potential to vertically displace artifacts inter- and intra-stratigraphically to the extent that single occupation deposits resemble multiple occupations, and vice versa (Eren et al. 2010;

Stockton 1973; Villa and Courtin 1983).

Prior to Temple University’s involvement, artifact collectors reportedly found multiple fluted points while digging at Nesquehoning Creek. Despite this claim, only two fluted points, a Crowfield point and Clovis/Gainey point, have been photographed and attributed to the site.

Site Formation and Disturbance Processes

Archaeological site disturbance processes commonly responsible for vertical artifact mixing include bioturbation (i.e., faunal- and floralturbation), cryoturbation, and trampling (Holliday 2004; Schiffer 1987). The size and mass of lithic specimens

(Morrow 1996a; Muckle 1985; Nielson 1991; Pintar 1987; Stockton 1973) and nature of the substrate in which they are buried (Eren et al. 2010) have all been demonstrated to impact the direction and extent of artifact displacement that occurs on archaeological sites.

Trampling is a site disturbance process capable of vertically and horizontally displacing buried archaeological materials. Artifact size, substrate conditions, frequency

88 and duration of trampling, and the size and type of organisms walking across the surface may all influence the degree to which archaeological materials are displaced (Eren et al.

2010; Nielson 1991; Stockton 1973; Villa and Courtin 1983). An experimental study by

Eren and colleagues (2010) found that faunalturbation of water saturated sediments led to greater vertical dispersal and downward movement of artifacts than on dry substrates.

Goat trampling in saturated sediments caused a mean vertical displacement of 6 cm and maximum vertical displacement of 16 cm. Water buffalo activity in saturated ground conditions led to a mean vertical displacement of 6.5 cm and maximum vertical displacement of 21 cm. Interestingly, trampling on saturated sediments showed a pattern of downward movement, while trampling artifacts on a dry substrate tended to cause an upward movement of lithic artifacts (Eren et al. 2010:3016-3017).

Bioturbation is one of the most frequently encountered sources of post- occupational disturbance at archaeological sites. Evidence of bioturbation at the

Nesquehoning Creek site was restricted to tubular soil anomalies occasionally observed throughout the Paleoindian artifact-bearing soils in Unit 2, and Blocks 3, 4, and 7. These soil anomalies appear to be infilled root channels with Mn and Fe coated pore linings.

Fe-Mn coated pore linings are commonly found along abandoned root channels or along major changes in permeability (Gary Stinchcomb, personal communication 2014). A spatially discrete concentration of these infilled root channels was observed and recorded in the lower-most stratigraphic layers of excavation unit S5W6 in Block 7 (Figure 4.1).

The spatial distribution of the Fe-Mn coatings in this area could be a function of root proximity or variability in stagnant water (Gary Stinchcomb, personal communication

2014).

89

Figure 4.1 Photograph of tubular soil anomalies concentrated in the southeast quadrant of S5W6, Block 7.

Cryoturbation has the potential to spatially redistribute buried and surface artifacts in myriad geomorphic settings (Johnson and Hansen 1974). Relict freeze-thaw features have been documented in an extensive middle Delaware River Valley alluvial paleosol – the Jennings Lane Pedocomplex – dated between 10,723-9287 cal BP (9430-8280

RCYBP) (Stinchcomb et al. 2014). To the author’s knowledge, this is one of the first reports of preserved relict freeze-thaw features in northeastern Pennsylvania in an Early

Holocene alluvial system (Steven Driese, personal communication 2015).

No relict cryoturbation features were observed in the buried soils during controlled excavations at the Nesquehoning Creek site. However, needle ice was observed by the author over several field seasons during the winter and spring. Ice

90 crystal growth was most commonly noted in recently disturbed areas, such as the walls of excavation units and looter pits, but also noted on the ground surface in patches that lacked dense vegetation. Needle ice formation typically occurs in relatively porous and wet soils when subsurface temperatures are above freezing and surface temperatures are at, or below, freezing. Under these conditions, subsurface water is able to migrate to surface exposures where it begins to freeze and form needle-like columns (Branson 1993;

Branson et al. 1996; Lawler 1988, 1993). Near-surface sediments, gravels, and artifacts are uplifted during ice crystal growth and subside to varying degrees once the ice has thawed. It follows that Paleoindian artifacts located on or near the surface would have been susceptible to vertical displacement (i.e., mostly uplifting) from needle ice growth under the temperature and moisture conditions discussed above. Considering that

Paleoindian surface soils were often moist at Nesquehoning Creek (Stinchcomb and

Driese 2011), the possibility of sediment and artifact displacement from needle ice growth cannot be discounted. Once deeply buried, artifacts would have been relatively insulated from the effects of needle ice erosion.

Lithic Refitting, Artifact Distribution, and Reconstructing Occupation Surfaces

Disentangling the number of occupation episodes represented at archaeological sites has been attempted using a variety of methods across varied geomorphic settings

(Brantingham et al. 2007; Carr 1986, 1992; Driese et al. 2013; Graf et al. 2015; Hofman

1986, 1992; Laughlin 2005; Morrow 1996a; Surovell et al. 2005). Predictions regarding the identification of occupation surfaces were defined based on studies that used data similar to those available at Nesquehoning Creek.

91 An extensive lithic refitting and artifact distribution study by Carr (1986, 1992) examined the Fifty site, a base camp maintenance station in the Flint Run complex of

Virginia (Carr et al 2013; Gardner 1974). The analysis of Paleoindian and Early Archaic living floors resulted in a refitting rate of 14% (Kurt Carr, personal communication

2017). Refit sets from the Clovis component suggest that early stage bifacial cores crafted on Flint Run jasper toolstone were brought to Fifty and partially reduced on site.

To a much lesser degree, locally available cobble quartz and quartzite were procured and knapped into polyhedral cores. The vertical displacement of refit sets frequently ranged between 7.5 and 15 cm. This relatively minor displacement of the lithic assemblages was attributed to floral- and faunalturbation (Carr 1992:298). The results of this study indicated that Paleoindian and Early Archaic components were intact, as relatively minor vertical and horizontal post-depositional movement of artifacts was detected (Carr 1992).

A series of studies at the Spring alluvial site in Tennessee (Hofman 1981,

1986, 1992) aimed to determine the number of occupation surfaces represented in a 40-45 cm-thick buried paleosol dated between 7,300-6,500 RCYBP. Hofman hypothesized that the Middle Archaic lithic assemblage originated from one depositional surface and was subsequently displaced via post depositional processes (1981:692). In order to test this hypothesis, lithic refitting and vertical artifact distributions were used to examine the degree to which lithic debris were susceptible to post-depositional movement in fine silty clay river-terrace sediments. Frequency distribution histograms of lithic artifacts recovered from the buried paleosol at Cave Spring displayed unimodal curves that peaked in 10 cm-thick arbitrary levels. Lithic refits showed a strong tendency to fall within the excavation levels associated with peak artifact densities. Overlying and underlying levels

92 also contained numerous refits, several of which crossed stratigraphic boundaries. With regard to vertical artifact dispersal, Middle Archaic materials at Cave Spring were found to have “commonly moved 20 to 40 cm within 7,000 years” (Hofman 1986:167), although the majority of refits were displaced between 0-10 cm. Refitting results and frequency distribution histograms indicated that artifacts recovered from the buried paleosol were deposited on a single occupation surface. The vertical dispersal of lithic artifacts from the occupation surface was attributed to natural postburial processes

(Hofman 1986:166). Hofman concluded that archeologists and geologists should anticipate the vertical displacement of buried materials by 10-50 cm, and up to 1 m, within several thousand years at sites in various geomorphological contexts (1992:134).

The Barger Gulch Locality B site in Colorado was the subject of several studies

(Brantingham et al. 2007; Laughlin 2005; Surovell et al. 2005) that sought to untangle the number of occupational surfaces represented in an ABtb soil horizon dated between

9,450-10,470 RCYBP and associated with Folsom artifacts. Researchers questioned the number of archaeological components represented at the site because artifact frequency distribution profiles displayed both unimodal and multimodal distributions (Surovell et al

2005:631-632). Arbitrary excavation levels with the highest number of artifacts were used as stratigraphic markers to indicate the inferred occupation surface in each excavation unit (Surovell 2003:135; Surovell et al. 2005:632). When compared to vertical mass distribution data, heavier artifacts were shown to cluster around the inferred occupation surface (Brantingham et al. 2007). Artifact mass was used to examine vertical patterning because artifact counts can be misleading depending on size and degree of fragmentation. Median artifact inclinations ranged from 17 to 26 degrees, with

93 the flattest-lying artifacts corresponding with the reconstructed occupation surface and the uppermost levels of the site. Folsom diagnostic artifacts and nondiagnostic artifacts were shown to both peak at the inferred occupation surface and drop off in increasingly vertically distant levels. Refitting undertaken by Laughlin (2005) found no clear patterning that would suggest multiple components. The study determined that “All tests support the single-component hypothesis” (Surovell et al. 2005:632), although artifact inclination data was not entirely definitive.

In a related study, Laughlin (2005) used artifact refitting data to test the Barger

Gulch Locality B single occupation surface hypothesis. He hypothesized that occupation surfaces with associated artifacts should be identifiable as zones where refits are vertically clustered. Therefore, unimodal vertical refit distributions would indicate a single occupation surface and multimodal distributions would indicate multiple surfaces

(Laughlin 2005:21). Lithic refits at the site were shown to have ranged in vertical dispersal from under 2 cm to 33.8 cm. The refitting study identified a unimodal vertical distribution of refits from the reconstructed occupation surface, further suggesting a single occupation surface present at the site (Laughlin 2005).

The Dry Creek site, located in the Nenana Valley of Alaska, was reinvestigated by Graf and colleagues (2015) in order to clarify the number of occupations that occurred during the late Pleistocene. The site is situated on a glacial outwash terrace overlooking

Dry Creek. Artifacts recovered from terminal Pleistocene-aged loess deposits were originally interpreted to represent two components (Powers et al. 1983). This result was questioned by other researchers who suggested that site disturbance processes may have translocated artifacts down the soil profile and created a pseudo-occupation below the

94 true occupation surface (Thorson 2006). Additional excavation blocks opened in 2011 produced chipping clusters and hearth features. Vertical distribution analysis of artifacts from the new excavations revealed significantly different lithic raw material profiles and reduction activities represented in the two proposed cultural layers, confirming the existence of two occupation surfaces. Charcoal samples recovered from vertically separated dated the two components to 13,485-13,305 cal BP and 11,060-10,590 cal BP (Graf et al. 2015).

The studies reviewed in this section utilized similar methodologies to elucidate the number of occupation surfaces represented in millennia-old buried contexts. The

Cave Spring site study drew its conclusions from refitting evidence in conjunction with vertical artifact distribution histograms (Hofman 1986). The Barger Gulch Locality B studies (Brantingham et al. 2007; Laughlin 2005; Surovell et al. 2005) added to

Hofman’s framework by examining artifact mass in addition to refitting and artifact frequency data. Analysis of the Dry Creek site used artifact and lithic raw material distribution data to recognize multiple terminal Pleistocene occupations (Graf et al.

2015).

Predictions for identifying occupation surfaces at the Nesquehoning Creek site were formed based on studies reviewed above. If a single occupation surface is present, I expect: 1) a clear and coincident peak in the vertical distribution of lithic artifacts by count and mass, and 2) lithic refits primarily linked to and within a single vertically discrete zone. If multiple occupation surfaces are present, I expect to find: 1) multiple clear and coincident modes in the vertical distribution of artifacts by count and mass, and

2) lithic refits primarily linked to and within two or more vertically discrete zones.

95 It is important to note that the results of this study are restricted to Unit 2, Block

3, and Block 7, where alluvial deposits are deeply buried and artifact density is greatest.

Very few large and heavy artifacts were recovered from these deposits and total gravel samples were not collected. The points of origin for archaeological features was not an option to help assess occupation surfaces in this study.

4.3 Materials and Methods

Lithic Refitting and Vertical Artifact Distributions

Lithic refitting, the reassembly of stone artifacts, is a versatile analytical method that has been used by archaeologists since the late 1800’s (Smith 1894; Spurrell 1880).

The refitting of lithic pieces provides direct evidence of contextual links between artifacts and geologic deposits, and has been used to address questions related to archaeological site formation processes, technological organization, and spatial organization (Bergman and Doershuk 1992; Cahen et al. 1979; Carr 1986; Cziesla 1990; Morrow 1996a;

Schurmans 2007). Lithic refitting is also well suited for assessing the stratigraphic integrity of archaeological deposits and determining the degree to which artifact displacement may be the result of natural or cultural processes (Hofman 1981, 1986,

1992; Petraglia et al. 1998; Stackelbeck 2010; Villa 1982). For example, lithic refits confined to a single stratigraphic layer indicate a relatively intact deposit, while trans- stratigraphic refits often suggest some mixing or movement of artifacts after burial and provide a metric for the degree of vertical displacement (Brantingham et al. 2007:518;

Villa 1982:286). Despite the wealth of data lithic refitting provides, it is sometimes not

96 employed due to the perceived amount of time associated with the method (Gamble

1999; Laughlin and Kelly 2009).

The vertical distribution of flaked stone artifacts and refits/conjoins were examined by 10 cm levels in individual excavation units and in aggregate. Excavation units that contained more than 10 refits/conjoins or flaked stone artifacts were examined individually to further scrutinize the vertical patterning of artifacts and position of occupation surfaces. As discussed in the background and predictions section, it is expected that occupation surfaces will display clear and coincident modes in the mass and count of refits/conjoins and flaked stone artifacts. Unimodal distributions of refits and flaked artifacts are more likely to indicate a single occupation surface, while multimodal distributions are more likely to represent two or more occupation surfaces

(Brantingham et al. 2007; Hofman 1982, 1986, 1992; Laughlin 2005; Surovell et al.

2005).

Sample

This study was based on archaeological materials recovered from strata 15, 16, and 17 in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 (Figure 4.2). The complete study sample included all flaked stone artifacts recovered from mid-Younger Dryas to Early Holocene-aged alluvial deposits. Block 3 excavation units N5E10, N0E5, and N0E10 did not contain

Paleoindian or Early Archaic artifacts. No sample cut off size was used due to the fact that most of the lithic specimens were quite small (mean=0.52 g) and any size restriction would have reduced the sample population size drastically. The total number of flaked stone artifacts examined in the refitting study was 618. Artifact types examined in this

97

Figure 4.2 Plan view map of excavation units involved in the refit study (shaded boxes).

study included debitage, tools and tool fragments, biface fragments, a core, and a

Crowfield fluted point. Lithic raw material types included jasper, chert, and quartzite.

Fire-cracked rock, while present in small amounts, was not considered in this study.

The complete sample of stone artifacts were laid out on large tables and organized based on archaeological context (i.e., excavation unit, stratum, and level). All debitage and flake tools had their proximal ends oriented at 12 o’clock, distal ends at 6 o’clock, and dorsal surfaces facing the analyst. Attributes visible on the dorsal face of lithic specimens were used as anchor points to aid in refitting. Particularly informative attributes included flake scar size, shape, and patterning, the presence or absence of cortex, positive and negative bulbs of percussion, ripples/compression rings, lances, and 98 gull wings (Andrefsky 1998; Odell 2003). Flaking debris and tools were also sorted into proximal, medial, distal and longitudinally split fragments. Partitioning fragmentary lithics in this manner assisted in the analyst’s ability to quickly compare, and often successfully conjoin, lithic pieces based on breakage shape, thickness, and type.

Particular attention was paid to raw material characteristics including color, grain, and inclusions to improve the chance of successful refits and conjoins. When the rate of successful refitting drastically slowed, lithic specimens were rearranged based on similarities in size and raw material characteristics. This change in lithic specimen arrangement facilitated inter-context refitting and conjoining of flaked stone artifacts.

For the purposes of this study, complete or fragmentary flakes and tools that have interlocking ventral and dorsal surfaces are called “refits” (i.e., “production sequence refit” and “resharpening refit” in Cziesla 1990; see also Schurmans 2007). The term

“conjoin” refers to proximal, medial, distal, or longitudinally split fragments of debitage and tools that mend to one another along breakage surfaces (i.e., “break refit” in Czielsa

1990). “Refit set” refers to a group (i.e., two or more) of lithic specimens that refit and/or conjoin to one another. Terms used in previous studies that may be considered synonymous with refit set include: “articulation nets” (Carr 1986, 1992), “refit case”

(Morrow 1996a; Stackelbeck 2010), “refit chain” (Shott et al. 2011), “refit complex”

(Laughlin 2005), “refit section” (Bleed 2002), and “refit sequence” (Bamforth 1990).

4.4 Results

Lithic Refitting

A total of 157 lithic artifacts from the study sample (n=618) were successfully

99 conjoined or refitted to one another, resulting in a refitting rate of 25.4%

(157/618=25.40). Factors that may impact the success rates of refitting studies include lithic reduction activities occurring on site, excavation methodology, recovery techniques, total site area, artifact size cutoffs, and analyst skill level (Cziesla 1990:26;

Laughlin and Kelly 2010:429).

The mass of successfully conjoined and refitted pieces ranged from 0.01 g to

11.06 g, averaged 0.5 g, and totaled 78.89 g (Table 4.1). Of the 157 successfully mended lithic specimens, 61 were refits (38.85%) and 96 were conjoins (61.15%). Stratum 15 contained the fewest artifact linkages with only two conjoins (1.29%) weighing 1.94 g

(mean=0.97 g). Stratum 16 contained 28 refits and conjoins (17.83%) weighing 25.49 g

(mean=0.91 g). The bulk of conjoined and refitted lithic artifacts are from stratum 17, with 127 refits and conjoins (80.89%) weighing 51.32 g (mean=0.40 g).

The distribution of lithic raw materials amongst refits and conjoins is quite uniform, with jasper representing 98.73% (155/157=0.9873) and chert 1.27% (refit set

44) of all refitted and conjoined pieces. This nearly the lithic raw material profile for all strata 16 and 17 artifacts (>97% jasper).

The 157 total refits and conjoins are grouped into 56 refit sets (Table 4.2, Figure

4.3), the majority of which involved artifact pairs (n= 34, 60.71%). Ten of these pairs were refits and 24 were conjoins. Ten of the refit sets (17.85%) involved three artifacts.

Of these 10 refit sets, one involved all refits, eight involved all conjoins, and one included both refits and conjoins. Seven of the refit sets (12.50%) encompassed four artifacts. Of these four refit sets, three involved only refits, one involved only conjoins, and three contained both refits and conjoins. One refit set (1.79%) comprised of both refits and

100 Table 4.1 Description of refits and conjoins.

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

Refit 1 4 0 1 Unit 2 16/2 0.25 2 Unit 2 16/2 0.19 3 Unit 2 16/1 0.14 4 N10E0, NE quad 17/2 0.15 Refit 2 0 2 (Tool) 5 Unit 2 16/2 11.06 6 N10E0, NE quad 17/1 0.12 Refit 3 0 7 (Tool) 7 Unit 2 17/1 0.76 8 N10E0, NE quad 17/1 0.80 9 N10E0, NE quad 17/1 0.54 10 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.12 11 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.48 12 N10E0, NE 17/2 0.12 13 N10E0, NE 17/2 0.07 Refit 4: 0 2 14 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 15 N10E0, NE quad 17/3 0.03 Refit 5: 0 2 16 Unit 2 17/2 0.09 17 N10E5, NW quad 17/1 0.11 Refit 6: 5 0 18 Unit 2 17/2 0.18 19 Unit 2 17/2 0.36 20 Unit 2 17/2 0.23 21 Unit 2 17/2 0.10 22 Unit 2 17/2 0.10 153 Unit 2 17/2 0.09 Refit 7: 3 0 23 Unit 2 17/2 0.02 24 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 25 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 Refit 8: 0 2 26 Unit 2 17/2 0.06 27 Unit 2 17/2 0.24 Refit 9: 0 2 28 Unit 2 17/2 0.04

101 Table 4.1 (continued)

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

29 Unit 2 17/2 0.11 Refit 10: 0 2 30 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 31 Unit 2 17/2 0.06 Refit 11: 0 2 32 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 33 Unit 2 17/2 0.04 Refit 12: 0 2 34 Unit 2 17/2 0.08 35 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 Refit 13: 0 2 36 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 37 Unit 2 17/2 0.08 Refit 14: 0 2 38 Unit 2 17/2 0.05 39 Unit 2 17/2 0.04 Refit 15: 0 2 40 Unit 2 17/2 0.03 41 Unit 2 17/2 0.18 Refit 16: 3 1 42 N10E0, SE 16/2 1.11 43 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.76 44 N10E0, NE 17/1 1.49 45 N10E0, SE 17/1 0.07 Refit 17 8 0 46 N10E0, NW quad 17/1 1.42 47 N10E0, NW quad 16/1 0.16 48 N10E0, NW quad 16/2 1.97 49 N10E0, NW quad 16/2 0.32 50 N10E0, NW quad 16/2 0.21 51 N10E0, NW 17/1 0.87 52 N10E0, NW 16/2 0.41 53 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.36 Refit 18: 2 0 54 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.44 55 N10E0, NE 17/1 0.09 Refit 19 0 3 (Tool) 56 N10E5, SE quad 16/1 0.41

102 Table 4.1 (continued)

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

57 N10E5, SE quad 16/2 0.81 58 N10E10, SW quad 17/1 2.61 Refit 20: 3 0 59 N10E5, NE 17/1 1.98 60 N10E5, NE 17/1 2.71 61 N10E5, SW 16/2 0.29 Refit 21 0 3 (Tool) 62 N10E5, NW 17/2 0.84 63 N10E10, NW 17/1 1.76 64 N10E5, NE 17/1 0.43 Refit 22: 0 2 65 N5E5, NW quad 17/2 0.08 66 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.12 Refit 23: 2 2 67 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.06 68 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.07 69 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.06 70 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.02 Refit 24: 2 0 71 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.24 72 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.02 Refit 25 0 3 (Tool) 73 N5E5, NW quad 17/2 0.40 74 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.54 75 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 1.07 Refit 26: 3 0 76 N5E0, SE 17/1 0.24 77 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.06 78 N5E5, NW 16/2 0.07 Refit 27: 0 2 79 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.03 80 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.01 Refit 28: 0 3 81 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.10 82 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.01 83 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.01 Refit 29: 0 2 84 N5E0, NE 17/1 0.02

103 Table 4.1 (continued)

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

85 N5E0, SE 17/2 0.18 Refit 30 2 0 (Tool) 86 N0E0, SW quad 17/1 5.17 87 N0E0, SW quad 17/1 6.32 Refit 31 2 0 88 Unit 2 17/2 0.03 89 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 Refit 32 3 1 90 Unit 2 17/2 0.06 91 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 92 Unit 2 17/2 0.06 93 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 Refit 33 0 2 94 Unit 2 17/2 0.18 95 Unit 2 17/2 0.08 Refit 34 0 2 96 Unit 2 17/2 0.24 97 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 Refit 35 2 0 98 Unit 2 17/2 0.03 99 Unit 2 17/3 0.01 Refit 36 0 3 100 Unit 2 17/3 0.19 101 Unit 2 17/3 0.04 102 Unit 2 17/3 0.02 Refit 37 2 0 103 Unit 2 17/2 0.24 104 N10E5, NW quad 16/1 0.23 Refit 38 0 3 105 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 106 N10E5, NW quad 16/1 0.13 107 N5E0, SE quad 17/2 0.06 Refit 39 0 2 108 N10E0, SE quad 17/1 0.07 109 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.08 Refit 40 0 4 110 N10E5, NW quad 16/1 0.28 111 N10E5, NW quad 16/2 0.18

104 Table 4.1 (continued)

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

112 N10E5, SE quad 17/1 0.74 113 N10E5, NE quad 17/1 0.13 Refit 41 4 0 114 N10E5, SE quad 16/1 0.02 115 N10E5, SE quad 16/1 0.15 116 N10E5, SE quad 16/1 0.09 117 N5E5, NW quad 16/2 0.15 Refit 42 0 6 (Overshot) 118 N10E5, SW quad 16/2 0.18 119 N10E10, NW quad 15/2 0.22 120 N5E0, SE quad 17/2 0.16 121 N5E0, NE quad 17/2 0.12 122 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.04 123 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.06 Refit 43 0 2 124 N10E5, NW quad 17/2 0.10 125 N10E5, NW quad 17/2 0.04 Refit 44 0 2 126 N10E5, NW quad 17/2 0.03 127 N10E5, NW quad 17/2 0.03 Refit 45 2 0 128 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.10 129 N5E0, NE quad 17/1 0.08 Refit 46 0 2 130 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.01 131 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.01 Refit 47 4 1 132 N5E5, NW quad 17/1 0.40 133 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.17 134 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.18 135 N5E5, SW quad 17/1 0.03 136 N5E0, SE quad 17/2 0.19 Refit 48 2 1 137 S5W6, NW 16/1 0.28 138 N0W6ext, SE 17/2 1.84 139 S5W6, NE 17/3 0.12 Refit 49 0 2 (Tool) 140 S5W6, NE 17/3 1.75

105 Table 4.1 (continued)

Refit set No. Excavation unit Stratum/level Mass Refits Conjoins

141 N0W6, SW 15/1 1.72 Refit 50 0 3 (Tool) 142 S5W6, SE 17/3 0.27 143 S5W6, SE 17/3 1.16 144 N0W6ext, SW 16/1 2.11 Refit 51 0 2 (Tool) 145 N0E0, SE 16/1 2.06 146 S5W6, SW 16/1 1.62

Refit 52 2 0 147 S5W6, SE 17/1 0.14 148 S5W6, SW 17/2 0.03 Refit 53 0 2 (Tool) 149 S5W6, SE 17/3 2.48 150 S5W6, NW 17/2 1.41 Refit 54 2 0 151 S5W6, NE 17/4 0.30 152 S5W6, SW 17/2 0.04 Refit 55 3 0 154 Unit 2 17/2 0.02 155 Unit 2 17/2 0.01 Refit 56 0 2 156 N0W6 , SE 17/2 1.42 157 N0W6, SW 16/2 0.61

Totals 78.89 65 92

106

Table 4.2 Description of refit sets organized by the number of specimens involved and tallied by the type of linkages represented. Number of specimens Refits Conjoins Both Total involved in refit sets 2 10 24 34 (60.71%) 3 9 1 10 (17.85%) 4 3 1 3 7 (12.5%) 5 1 1 (1.79%) 6 1 1 2 (3.57%) 7 1 1 (1.79%) 8 1 1 (1.79%) Total 14 (25%) 36 (64.29%) 6 (10.71%) 56 (100%)

35

30

25

20

15

Number of sets refit of Number 10

5

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of specimens involved in refit set

Figure 4.3 Frequency distribution of refit sets organized by the number of specimens involved.

107 conjoins involved five artifacts. Two refit sets contained six (3.57%) artifacts comprised of refits and conjoins. One refit set included seven (1.79%) artifacts made up of conjoins.

One refit set contained eight lithic pieces comprised entirely of refits (1.79%).

Figure 4.4 and Table 4.3 show that the majority of successful refits and conjoins from the study sample displayed minor vertical displacement of 0-10 cm (n=130,

82.80%). Sixteen artifacts were found to have been vertically displaced by 11-20 cm

(10.19%). Seven artifacts were separated by 21-30 cm (4.46%), and four artifacts were displaced by 31-40 cm (2.55%). These data indicate that the majority of flaked stone artifacts recovered from Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 have experienced relatively minor vertical displacement (i.e., 0-10 cm). The remaining 17.20% of refits and conjoins have

140

120

100

80

60

40

20 Number of conjoins and refits of Number 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Vertical displacement (cm)

Figure 4.4 Frequency distribution of refits/ conjoins by 10 cm vertical increments.

Table 4.3 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts. Vertical displacement (cm) Frequency % of sample 1-10 130 82.8% 11-20 16 10.19% 21-30 7 4.46% 31-40 4 2.55% Total 157 100%

108 been displaced by 11-40 cm and are often linked between discrete stratigraphic units.

Figure 4.5 shows a composite profile of the Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7’s lowermost strata populated by lithic refits/conjoins and the Crowfield fluted point base.

The 157 refits and conjoins group into 56 refit sets that are primarily distributed throughout stratum 17. Of the 56 total refit sets, one (1.79%) is confined to stratum 16

(i.e., refit set 41) and 39 (69.64%) are confined to stratum 17. The remaining 16 refit sets

(28.57%) are linked across stratigraphic boundaries. Of these 16 cross-stratigraphic refit sets, 14 (87.5%) bridge strata 16 and 17, one (6.25%) spans strata 15, 16, and 17 (i.e., refit set 42), and one (6.25%) links strata 15 and 17 (i.e., refit set 49). When the 16 cross- stratigraphic refit sets are broken down by linkage type, three (18.75%) involve refits, ten

(62.5%) involve conjoins, and three (18.75%) involve both refits and conjoins (Table

4.4). One Paleoindian diagnostic artifact, an overshot flake (i.e., refit set 42), was among the cross-stratigraphic refit sets (Figure 4.6). The overshot flake consists of six conjoining flake fragments that were recovered from strata 17 (n=4), 16 (n=1), and 15

(n=1). The vertical distribution (Figure 4.5, diamonds) and nature of the refit set (i.e., single broken artifact that was not recycled) indicates that the overshot flake likely originated in stratum 17. In total, 98.21% (56/57=0.9821) of all refit sets are linked to

(28.57%), or within (69.64%), stratum 17. Moreover, 26.67% (28/105=0.2667) of all flaked stone artifacts in stratum 16 refit to lithic specimens in stratum 17. These results indicate that many flaked stone artifacts recovered from stratum 16 represent specimens that have been vertically displaced from the primary artifact concentration and occupation surface in stratum 17.

109

175

185

195 Stratum 15

205

215

Stratum 16 225

110 Depth below (cm) below datumDepth

235

245

Stratum 17 255

265 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Horizontal distance (cm)

Figure 4.5 Composite north-south profile of Unit 2 and Block 3 showing the distribution of lithic refits and conjoins (dots [debitage], boxes [tools], and diamonds [overshot flake] connected by red lines). Dashed lines represent the top of strata 15, 16, and 17. Solid line represents basal gravels. Triangle indicates position of Crowfield point base which is not involved in any refit sets.

`

Figure 4.6 Conjoined overshot flake (refit set 42).

Table 4.4 Same- and cross-stratum refit sets organized by linkage type. Type of refit Refits Conjoins Both Total Same-stratum 11 (27.5%) 26 (65%) 3 (7.5%) 40 (100%) refit sets Cross-stratum 3 (18.75%) 10 (62.5%) 3 (18.75%) 16 (100%) refit sets Total 14 (25%) 36 (64.29%) 6 (10.71%) 56 (100%)

111

Figure 4.7 shows a scatter plot of point provenienced debitage refit/conjoin mass plotted against vertical displacement. Figure 4.8 plots the mass of the lightest refit/conjoin in a given refit set against vertical displacement. No statistical relationship was found between debitage refit/conjoin mass and vertical displacement (R = -0.228, p =

0.262614) or between lighter debitage refit/conjoin mass and vertical displacement (R = -

0.281, p = 0.352368). Although these data are not statistically significant, there is a weak negative correlation evident in both cases. This suggests that if any relationship were to exist, it would be that lighter (i.e., smaller) artifacts are more susceptible to vertical displacement than heavier artifacts. These data are in agreement with several archaeological (Morrow 1996a:353; Stockton 1973:115), experimental (Muckle 1985;

Pintar 1987; Stockton 1973:116) and ethnoarchaeological (Gifford and Behrensmeyer

1977:257-258) studies that found smaller artifacts were more sensitive to vertical movement than larger ones (but see Eren et al. 2010; Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985; Villa and Courtin 1983).

Figure 4.9 is a scatterplot of tool refit and conjoin mass data plotted against vertical displacement. No statistical relationship was found between tool mass and vertical displacement (R = 0.2579, p = 0.223713). Although the data are not statistically significant, there is a weak positive correlation evident. This weak positive trend may suggest that heavier (i.e., larger) tools and tool fragments are more susceptible to vertical movement than lighter (i.e., smaller) tools and tool fragments. Site disturbance processes may explain this trend, as a study by Nielson (1991) demonstrated that larger lithic artifacts (i.e., tools) present on the surface were more prone to dislodgment and

112

35

30

25

20

15

10 Vertical displacement (cm) displacement Vertical 5

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Debitage refit/conjoin mass (g)

Figure 4.7 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined debitage.

35

30

25

20

15

10 Vertical displacement (cm) displacement Vertical

5

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Smaller debitage refit/conjoin mass (g)

Figure 4.8 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined debitage.

113

20

15

10

5 Vertical displacement (cm) displacement Vertical

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Tool refit/conjoin mass (g)

Figure 4.9 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refitted and conjoined tools.

displacement (e.g., kicking and scuffing) from foot traffic than smaller artifacts. An alternative explanation for this pattern is the recycling of previously abandoned tools by subsequent site occupants (Amick 2014:12-13; Hofman and Enloe 1992:4). This scenario is more likely to occur on sites that experienced repeated occupation and in locations where high quality toolstone was not otherwise readily available (Amick

2014:13; Andrefsky 1994). It is interesting to note that debitage refits/conjoins and tool refits/conjoins displayed opposing trends with regard to artifact mass and vertical displacement.

In order to explore the possibility of artifact recycling, tool refits and conjoins were examined for evidence related to recycling. Tools that were modified and left on the surface by previous occupants and subsequently scavenged by later groups should

114 display flake removals that are ordered in a logical vertical sequence. That is, early flake removals should be vertically positioned beneath later removals and the ultimately discarded tool (Hofman 1992:134; Laughlin 2005). Refit set number two (Figure 4.10) was the only tool refit to demonstrate a time-transgressive flaking and discard pattern.

This refit set includes a relatively large tool fragment and refitting retouch flake fragment recovered from stratum 16 level 2 in Unit 2 and stratum 17 level 1 in N10E0, respectively. The tool fragment is positioned 14.6 cm above the tool retouch flake fragment and is the largest and heaviest (11.02 g) artifact in the study sample to be successfully refitted or conjoined. There are at least two possible explanations for this vertical refit pattern, tool recycling or post-depositional site disturbance processes.

Figure 4.10 Potentially recycled tool (refit set #2). Image shows retouch flake fragment refitted to the tool (left) and removed from tool (right).

Tool recycling explanation: the tool was brought on site, retouched, and eventually abandoned on the stratum 17 occupation surface. Subsequent site occupants recover and possibly modify the tool, resulting in breakage and eventual discard on the

115 surface of stratum 16. The missing portion of the tool was either carried away or discarded in an unexcavated area of the site. This scenario necessarily assumes that artifacts experienced minimal to no displacement after burial. However, refitting data demonstrates that the lithic assemblage experienced trans-stratigraphic vertical artifact displacement by up to 40 cm. If the tool fragment is removed from the sample, the weak positive correlation between tool refit mass and vertical displacement shrinks close to zero correlation (R = 0.0358, p = 0.871174) as shown in figure 4.11.

20 18 16 14 12 10 8

6 Vertical displacement (cm) displacement Vertical 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tool refit/conjoin mass (g)

Figure 4.11 Scatter plot showing the relationship between vertical displacement and the mass of refit and conjoined tools with the possibly recycled tool eliminated from the sample.

Site disturbance processes explanation: the tool was brought on site, retouched, and eventually discarded. After burial, site disturbance processes (i.e., bioturbation, cryoturbation, graviturbation, or trampling) displace the tool fragment and refitting

116 retouch flake, resulting in 14.6 cm of vertical displacement between the two artifacts.

Needle ice has been observed on site and bioturbation features have been documented as isolated occurrences and in clusters (e.g., S5W6) throughout strata 15, 16, and 17. These data suggest that site disturbance processes are more likely to have been responsible for the vertical positioning of the tool and tool retouch flake.

Vertical Distribution of Artifacts and Refits

A backplot of all point provenienced flaked stone artifacts recovered from the three lowermost strata of Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 is displayed in Figure 4.12

(compare to Figure 4.5). Archaeological materials in stratum 15 are relatively isolated from lithic specimens in underlying strata; however, the number of artifacts represented is scarce (n=12). The light scatter of lithic artifacts in stratum 16 are primarily positioned near its base in excavation units N10E0-5 and N5E0-5. Refitting evidence in N0E0,

N0W6, and S5W6 demonstrates that all refit sets (100%) are linked to, or found within, stratum 17. Furthermore, over one quarter (i.e., 26.67%) of all flaked stone artifacts in stratum 16 conjoin or refit to specimens in stratum 17.

117

5.5

6

Stratum 15 6.5

7

Stratum 16 Depth BD BD (ft) Depth 7.5

118

8 Stratum 17

8.5

9 22 1020 155 100 -55 -100 -15-5 N22 Unit 2 N10 N5 N0 S5 Horizontal Distance (ft)

Figure 4.12 Composite north-south profile of Unit 2 and Block 3 showing the distribution of point provenienced flaked stone artifacts (dots). Dashed lines represent the top of strata 15, 16, and 17. Solid line represents basal gravels. Triangle indicates position of Crowfield point base.

Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show the total mass of jasper, chert, and quartzite lithic raw materials and percentages of lithic raw material mass by stratum and level, respectively.

Jasper is the dominant lithic raw material throughout all levels of strata 16 and 17 accounting for 97.47-100% of all artifact mass. Total raw material mass peaks in stratum

17 level 1 (116.55 g) and decreases in the over- and underlying levels. Stratum 15 displays a different raw material trend, with chert making up 70.94% of level 1 and

87.44% of level 2 artifact mass. The total mass of artifacts and chert raw materials reaches a maximum in level 1 of stratum 15 (15.69 g) and drops off significantly in the

Table 4.5 Lithic raw material mass by stratum/level in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Stratum/Level Jasper (g) Chert (g) Quartzite (g) Total (g) 15/1 4.55 11.13 0.01 15.69 15/2 0.26 1.81 0 2.07 16/1 51.97 1.10 0.25 53.32 16/2 82.54 0.07 0 82.61 17/1 116.41 0.14 0 116.55 17/2 50.49 0.27 0 50.76 17/3 0.42 0 0 0.42 17/4 0 0 0 0 Total (g) 306.64 14.52 0.26 321.42

Table 4.6 Proportions of lithic raw material mass by stratum/level in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Stratum/Level Jasper Chert Quartzite Total 15/1 29% 70.94% 0.06% 100% 15/2 12.56% 87.44% 100% 16/1 97.47% 2.06% 0.47% 100% 16/2 99.91% 0.09% 100% 17/1 99.88% 0.12% 100% 17/2 99.47% 0.53% 100% 17/3 100% 100%

119 following level (2.07 g). These results indicate that strata 16 and 17 are nearly identical in terms of lithic raw material proportions, with jasper accounting for greater than 97% in all levels. Stratum 15 shows a shift in lithic raw material proportions, with chert making up the majority of artifact mass in both levels (Figure 4.13). The total mass of lithic raw materials exhibit two modes, with chert raw materials cresting in stratum 15 level 1 and jasper raw materials peaking in stratum 17 level 1 (Figure 4.14).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15/1 15/2 16/1 16/2 17/1 17/2 17/3

Jasper Chert Quartzite

Figure 4.13 Proportions of lithic raw material mass by stratum/level for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

120

120

100

80

60 Mass (g) Mass

40

20

0 15/1 15/2 16/1 16/2 17/1 17/2 17/3 17/4

Jasper Chert Quartzite

Figure 4.14 Lithic raw material mass by stratum/level for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

Figure 4.15 shows a composite vertical distribution histogram of refit and conjoin mass for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. A clear unimodal distribution is demonstrated, with the mass of refitted and conjoined artifacts displaying a strong peak in stratum 17 level 1 (36.4 g). Figure 4.16 shows a composite vertical distribution histogram of flaked stone artifact mass for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. The distribution histogram shows multimodality, with flaked artifact mass exhibiting a major mode in stratum 17 level 1

(116.55 g) and a minor mode in stratum 15 level 1 (15.69 g). Peaks and valleys in the distribution of flaked artifact mass suggest that upper (stratum 15) and lower (stratum 17) occupation surfaces exist.

121

15/1 Unit 2, Block 3, Block 7 15/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

Stratum/Level 17/2

17/3

17/4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mass (g)

Figure 4.15 Composite vertical distribution of refit and conjoin mass from Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

15/1 Unit 2, Block 3, Block 7 15/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

Stratum/Level 17/2

17/3

17/4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mass (g)

Figure 4.16 Composite vertical distribution of flaked stone artifact mass in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

122

Figure 4.17 shows a composite vertical frequency distribution profile of Unit 2,

Block 3, and Block 7’s refitted and conjoined artifacts. Refits and conjoins display a unimodal distribution with counts peaking in stratum 17 level 2 (n=63) and are followed closely by stratum 17 level 1 (n=59). Figure 4.18 shows a composite vertical frequency distribution profile of flaked stone artifacts for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. A multimodal distribution is demonstrated, with the greatest number of flaked artifacts clustered in stratum 17 level 1 (n=256). A minor mode occurs in stratum 15 level 1

(n=12). Composite flaked stone artifact frequency distribution data suggest occupation surfaces in stratum 15 level 1 and stratum 17 level 1, echoing what is seen in the mass distribution data.

Figure 4.19 shows refit and conjoin frequency distributions for individual excavation units containing 10 or more specimens. Excavation units N10E0, N10E5,

N5E0, and N5E5 display unimodal frequency distributions. Refitted and conjoined artifact counts peak in stratum 17 level 1 for N10E0 (n=14), N5E0 (n=19), and N5E5

(n=11); and in stratum 16 level 2 for N10E5 (n=8). Unit 2 and S5W6 exhibit multimodal frequency distributions of refitted and conjoined artifacts. Peak refit/conjoin counts in

Unit 2 (n=42) and S5W6 (n=8) occur in stratum 17 level 2. Unit 2 displays a minor mode containing three refits in stratum 16 level 2. However, all three refits in stratum 16 level

2 are linked to artifacts from stratum 17 levels 1 and 2 (i.e., refit sets 1 and 2).

Excavation unit S5W6 exhibits a minor mode in stratum 16 level 1 that contains three refitted artifacts. These three specimens (i.e., refit sets 48, 50, and 51) refit to artifacts in levels 1 and 2 of stratum 17.

123

15/1 Unit 2, Block 3, Block 7 15/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

Stratum/Level 17/2

17/3

17/4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number of refits/conjoins

Figure 4.17 Composite vertical frequency distribution of refits and conjoins in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

15/1 Unit 2, Block 3, Block 7 15/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

Stratum/Level 17/2

17/3

17/4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of flaked stone artifacts

Figure 4.18 Composite vertical frequency distribution of flaked stone artifacts in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7.

124

15/1 Unit 2 15/2 15/1 N10E0 15/3 15/2 16/1 16/2 16/1 16/3 16/2 17/1 17/1 17/2 17/2 17/3 17/4 17/3 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20

15/1 N10E5 15/1 N5E0 15/2 15/2 16/1 16/1 16/2 17/1 17/1 17/2 17/2

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20

15/1 N5E5 15/1 S5W6 16/1 15/2 16/2 16/1 17/1 16/2 17/2 17/1 17/3

0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 4.19 Refit vertical frequency distributions by stratum/level. Excavation unit designations noted in the upper right corner. All excavation units other than S5W6 used 10 cm arbitrary levels. S5W6 used 5 cm arbitrary levels which were converted to 10 cm levels for this analysis.

125

Figure 4.20 shows flaked stone frequency distributions for individual excavation units containing 10 or more specimens. Excavation units N5E0, N5E5 and N0E0 display unimodal vertical frequency distributions. Flaked stone artifact counts peak in stratum 17 level 1 for N5E0 (n=84), N5E5 (n=28), and N0E0 (n=9). Unit 2, N10E0, N10E5, and

S5W6 display multimodal frequency distributions of flaked stone artifacts. Major modes are seen in stratum 17 level 1 for N10E0 (n=79) and S5W6 (n=24), and stratum 17 level

2 for Unit 2 (n=127) and N10E5 (n=46). Minor modes occur in stratum 15 level 1 for

N10E0 (n=4), stratum 16 level 1 for S5W6 (n=16), and stratum 16 level 2 for N10E5

(n=35) and Unit 2 (n=4). Unit 2 refitting evidence demonstrates that artifacts in the minor mode are related to stratum 17, with 75% (3/4=0.75) of all flaked stone artifacts refitting to stratum 17 specimens.

Minor modes in N10E0 (i.e., stratum 15 level 1), S5W6 (i.e., stratum 16 level 1), and N10E5 (i.e., stratum 16 level 2) represent potential occupation surfaces requiring more detailed examination. The most convincing evidence of an additional occupation surface comes from stratum 15 level 1 in N10E0. This minor mode contains four flaked stone artifacts of uncommon lithic raw material (i.e., chert n=3, quartzite n=1) that do not refit to any other lithic specimens in the study area. Minor modes in N10E5 and S5W6 offer less convincing evidence of additional occupation surfaces. Lithic refitting results indicate that artifacts recovered from S5W6 were prone to greater vertical displacement than refits throughout the rest of the study area (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). Greater displacement of artifacts in S5W6 was likely due to post depositional processes such as bioturbation, as evidenced by a cluster of infilled root channels documented throughout

126

15/1 15/1 15/2 Unit 2 N10E0 15/3 15/2 16/1 16/1 16/2 16/3 16/2 17/1 17/1 17/2 17/2 17/3 17/4 17/3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

15/1 N10E5 15/1 N5E0 15/2 15/2 16/1 16/1 16/2 17/1 17/1

17/2 17/2

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

15/1 N5E5 14/2 15/2 N0E0 15/1 16/1 15/2

16/2 16/1 17/1 17/1 17/2

0 10 20 30 0 2 4 6 8

15/1 S5W6 16/1

16/2

17/1

17/2

17/3

0 10 20 30

Figure 4.20 Flaked stone vertical frequency distributions by stratum/level. Excavation unit designations noted in the upper right corner. All excavation units other than S5W6 used 10 cm arbitrary levels. S5W6 used 5 cm arbitrary levels which were converted to 10 cm levels for this analysis.

127

Table 4.7 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts for excavation unit S5W6. Vertical displacement (cm) Frequency % of sample 1-10 9 50.00 11-20 5 27.78 21-30 2 11.11 31-40 2 11.11 Total 18 100%

Table 4.8 Vertical displacement of refitted and conjoined artifacts for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 but excluding S5W6. Vertical displacement (cm) Frequency % of sample 1-10 121 87.05 11-20 11 7.91 21-30 5 3.60 31-40 2 1.44 Total 139 100%

strata 15, 16, and 17 (see chapter 3 discussion on disturbance processes). Indeed, 100% of S5W6’s minor mode (i.e., stratum 16 level 1) refits connect to stratum 17 where artifact densities and refits/conjoins are highest. A minor mode in N10E5 occurs in stratum 16 level 2 and is comprised of 35 lithic artifacts, 14.29% (5/35=0.1429) of which refit to artifacts in stratum 17. Figure 4.21 illustrates two examples of conjoined flake fragments (Figure 4.22) in N10E5 that have been displaced across stratigraphic boundaries. This refit pattern is repeated in all excavation units that contain stratum 16 refits or conjoins.

Refitted and flaked stone artifact frequency distributions from individual excavation units demonstrate vertical artifact patterning similar to the composite distribution profiles. A stratum 17 occupation surface is inferred from flaked stone artifact counts that peak in levels 1 (i.e., N10E0, N5E0, N5E5, N0E0, and S5W6) and 2

128

200 150 Stratum 15 N10E5 Refit set 20 210 Refit set 40 220 Stratum 16 Refit set 20 75

Depth BD (cm) BD Depth 230 Stratum 17 N10E5 240 Refit set 40 150 75 0 0 Horizontal distance (cm) 0 75 150

Figure 4.21 Vertical (left) and horizontal (right) positioning of conjoined flake fragments involved in refit sets 20 and 40 in N10E5. All measurements are inaaaaaa centimeters.

Figure 4.22 Refit set 20 (left, 3 conjoins) and 40 (right, 4 conjoins).

(i.e., Unit 2 and N10E5). The minor mode in N10E0 provides evidence (i.e., uncommon lithic raw materials) for an upper occupation surface in stratum 15.

4.5 Discussion and Conclusions

This study tested the hypothesis that artifacts recovered from the two lowermost buried A horizons at Nesquehoning Creek represent stratified Paleoindian occupations.

The results of this study met the predictions outlined for a single Paleoindian component.

129

Lithic refitting and artifact distribution analyses indicate that the upper 20 cm of stratum

17 represents a Paleoindian occupation zone. Excavation levels 1 and 2 of stratum 17 exhibited major modes in artifact mass and frequency that drop off of in overlying and underlying levels. Artifacts recovered from strata 16 and 17 exhibit nearly indistinguishable raw material profiles, with jasper predominating in all levels (>98%).

The vast majority of refits and conjoins in stratum 16 link back to stratum 17. Indeed, over 98% of all refit sets in the study area are connected to (28.57%), or confined within

(69.64%), the basal buried A horizon. These data demonstrate that artifacts recovered from stratum 16 have been vertically displaced from the stratum 17 occupation zone to varying degrees over several millennia. A Crowfield point recovered from the occupation zone indicates that the lithic assemblage represents a Crowfield Paleoindian component. Radiocarbon dates derived from stratum 17 suggest that Crowfield hunter- gatherers visited the site sometime between 12,422 ± 164 and 11,398 ± 110 cal BP.

This study also identified a potential Early Archaic occupation zone in stratum 15 based on artifact distribution and lithic raw material data. The mass and frequency of flaked stone artifacts displayed a minor mode in the upper 10 cm of stratum 15. Refitted and conjoined artifacts from this layer are scant (n=2) and provide only equivocal evidence concerning the occupation surface. The artifact assemblage associated with stratum 15 is primarily comprised of chert raw materials (>70%) that are vertically separated from underlying jasper (>98%) artifact concentrations, indicating a difference in lithic raw material selection between the Early Archaic and Paleoindian occupations.

The stratum 15 assemblage is hypothesized to represent a Palmer/Amos component based

130 on the recovery of serrated and corner-notched point from a closely related, but potentially overlying, soil horizon in Block 8 (see chapter 3). Additional artifact and lithic raw material distribution analysis of the overlying layer (i.e., stratum 14) is required in order to achieve a higher degree of confidence in the interpretation of stratum 15.

Site disturbance processes documented at Nesquehoning Creek (e.g., bioturbation soil features and needle ice) offer the most parsimonious explanation for the dissipation of artifacts from the Paleoindian occupation surface. The majority (82.2%) of refitted pieces were vertically displaced by 0-10 cm. The remaining 17.2% of refits displayed

11-40 cm vertical displacement. The vertical distribution of refitted artifacts by mass suggests that the diminutive nature of lithic specimens in the study sample (mean=0.52 g) contributed to the magnitude of vertical displacement. The extent of vertical artifact displacement at Nesquehoning Creek is comparable to previous studies that found vertical displacement of artifacts on the order of 15-20 cm to be common at archaeological sites in varied geomorphic settings (Carr 1986, 1992; Hofman 1986, 1992;

Laughlin 2005; Van Noten et al. 1980; Villa 1982).

Laughlin and Kelly (2009) found that biface reduction debris, large artifact assemblages, and small flake-size cut-offs often result in lower refit success rates. The artifact assemblage examined in this study was comprised of primarily small-sized debitage (mean mass=0.52 g) derived from bifaces and, to a lesser extent, tools and cores

(discussed further in chapter 5). No artifact size cut-off was used for this refitting study so that a complete sample could be investigated. Despite these obstacles, a refitting rate of 25.4% was achieved from a study sample of 618 flaked stone artifacts. Following the

131 intentionally fractured Caradoc (Deller and Ellis 2001) and Crowfield (Deller and Ellis

1984, 2011) caches, Nesquehoning Creek has one of the highest refitting rates documented for a single Paleoindian site (Table 4.9) and falls within category III (15-

70%) of Cziesla’s refitting groups (1990). Prior to this study, the highest refitting rate attained for a non-cache Paleoindian site was 20.6% at the Barger Gulch site in Colorado

(Laughlin 2005). In the Middle Atlantic region, Carr (1986, personal communication

2017) achieved a refitting rate of 14% for the Clovis and Early Archaic components at the Fifty site in Virginia.

Table 4.9 Paleoindian lithic refitting studies and refitting rates. Refitting Site Location Reference rate (%) Caradoc (cache) Ontario 70 Christopher Ellis personal communication 2017 Crowfield (cache) Ontario 48.9 Christopher Ellis personal communication 2017 Nesquehoning Creek Pennsylvania 25.4 This dissertation, chapter 4 Barger Gulch Colorado 20.6 Laughlin 2005:14 Fifty Virginia 14 Kurt Carr personal communication 2017 Nobles Pond Ohio 13.7* Nilsson et al. 2013:71 Big Eddy Missouri 12.6 Stackelbeck 2010:44-46, 53 Allen Nebraska 2 Bamforth and Becker 2000:282 Shawnee Minisink Pennsylvania < 1 Iceland 2013:244-245 *Reflects the refitting rate for a 13.5% sample of the entire refitting study.

The results of this study do not discount the possibility of earlier or later

Paleoindian occupations in other excavated or unexcavated contexts at Nesquehoning

Creek. A Clovis/Gainey fluted point recovered by artifact collectors suggests that the site also contains an Early Paleoindian component. That said, this chapter has demonstrated 132 that the Crowfield artifact assemblage in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 was deposited on a stratum 17 occupation zone dated between 12,422 ± 164 and 11,398 ± 110 cal BP. This date range is consistent with chronological estimates of the Crowfield point style in the

New England-Maritimes region (Bradley et al 2008; Deller and Ellis 1984; Ellis and

Deller 1990) and with a 11,292 ± 39 cal BP Crowfield-related radiocarbon date from the

Wallis site in Pennsylvania (Miller et al. 2007).

This study highlights the importance and efficacy of lithic refitting in the interpretation of stratified archaeological deposits. Moreover, it demonstrates that small- sized artifacts can play a valuable role in the analysis of site occupation and archaeological site formation processes. Researchers undertaking refitting projects in the future may want to reconsider applying large flake-size cut-offs to study samples when circumstances provide the time and opportunity to examine small-sized lithic debris.

133

CHAPTER 5

PALEOINDIAN LITHIC TECHNOLOGY AT THE NESQUEHONING

CREEK SITE

5.1 Introduction

The Nesquehoning Creek site in Carbon County, Pennsylvania is one of the few contextually secure sites in the Northeast to contain a dated and intact Crowfield

Paleoindian component (Deller and Ellis 1984; Miller et al. 2007). This chapter uses a bottom-up approach (Bamforth 2009) to address the following research questions related to Paleoindian technological organization at the Nesquehoning Creek site: 1) What types of core technologies and reduction strategies did Crowfield knappers use? 2) Were bifaces and tools transported to the site as finished pieces or manufactured on-site? 3)

What flaking techniques were used to manufacture and thin bifaces? 4) To what degree are lithic reduction signatures typically associated with Clovis and later Paleoindian technologies present in the Crowfield assemblage? 5) What do these various lines of evidence indicate with regard to Crowfield toolstone procurement and reduction strategies, landscape familiarity, range mobility, and site occupation span?

After reviewing the Paleoindian lithic assemblages and artifact types at

Nesquehoning Creek, I describe the materials and methods used in this study. Next, I use metric, technological, and refitting data to reconstruct Crowfield lithic technological organization at Nesquehoning Creek. I conclude by comparing the results of this study to

Crowfield assemblages in the Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes regions.

134

5.2 Summary of Paleoindian Lithic Assemblages

Crowfield Assemblage

Refitting and spatial analysis in chapter 4 demonstrated that Paleoindian deposits recovered from Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 represent a Crowfield component. The lithic assemblage is distributed throughout strata 16 and 17, with the bulk of flaked stone artifacts and refits concentrated in the upper portion of stratum 17. Block excavations produced a Crowfield fluted point base, flake tools, bifaces, a core, and debitage for a total of 547 artifacts (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 artifact counts. Nonlocal SR Local Artifact type Jasper Quartzite Total chert chert chert Fluted point 1 1 Bifaces 1 1 Cores 1 1 End scrapers 1 1 Side scrapers 5 5 Side/End scrapers 1 1 Spokeshaves 2 2 Spokeshave/Drill 1 1 Retouched flakes 6 6 Modified flakes 22 22 Debitage 480 13 5 5 3 506 Total 520 14 5 5 3 547 *Total artifact count differs from chapter 4 because conjoined debitage and tool fragments were counted as complete specimens.

Probable Crowfield Paleoindian Assemblage

Additional excavation blocks containing Paleoindian materials examined in this chapter include Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6. The lithic assemblage associated with

135 these excavation blocks may represent a continuation of the Crowfield assemblage present in Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7; however, that association is considered tentative without additional diagnostic fluted point or AMS radiocarbon evidence. The chapter 4 refitting data demonstrated both inter- and intra-stratigraphic linkages of lithic specimens in strata 16 and 17. Consequently, artifacts recovered from the two lowermost layers

(i.e., strata 16 and 17) of Blocks 4, 5, and 6 were treated as a single analytical unit. These block excavations produced bifaces, flake tools, cores, channel flakes, and debitage for a total of 603 artifacts (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Blocks 4, 5, and 6 artifact counts. Nonlocal SR Local Chalc- Quart- Artifact type Jasper Quartz Total chert chert chert edony zite Bifaces* 1 1 2 Cores** 1 1 2 Retouched 2 2 flakes Modified 2 2 flakes 1 2 3 Channel flakes Debitage 236 62 61 26 198 1 8 592 Total 243 63 61 27 200 1 8 603 *Includes biface fragment. **Includes bifacial core fragment.

Artifact Types

All of the Paleoindian artifacts recovered from Unit 2 and Blocks 3-7 are listed in

Table 5.3. An overview of the various artifact types (i.e., flake tools, bifaces, and cores) are discussed below.

136

Table 5.3 Unit 2 and Blocks 3-7 artifact counts. Nonlocal SR Local Chalc- Quart- Artifact type Jasper Quartz Total chert chert chert edony zite Fluted point 1 1

Bifaces* 1 2 3

Cores** 2 1 3

End scraper 1 1

Side scrapers 5 5

Side/End 1 1 scrapers Spokeshaves 2 2

Spokeshave/Drill 1 1

Retouched flakes 8 8

Modified flakes 24 24

Channel flakes 1 2 3

Debitage 716 75 66 31 198 4 8 1098 Total 763 77 66 32 200 4 8 1150 *Includes biface fragment. **Includes bifacial core fragment.

Fluted Points

The base of a fluted point was recovered in situ during formal excavations at a depth of 200 cm below surface in Block 3. The point is thin, plano-convex in cross section, fluted on one face, and expands from a slightly concave base. The well-executed flute travels past the transverse fracture and skirts the right lateral margin of the point.

The proximal fragment is ground from base to break and displays fine marginal retouch overlapping the flute scar and a parallel flaking pattern. The presence of grinding and post-fluting retouch on the point base indicates that the transverse fracture likely occurred as a result of use. The lithic raw material used to manufacture the point was likely acquired from the Hardyston formation jasper quarries located approximately 50 km to the south and southeast, based on macroscopic similarities to hand samples. The fluted 137 point base has been tentatively assigned to the Crowfield type based on point morphology and metrics (Bradley et al. 2008; Deller and Ellis 1984).

Prior to Temple University’s involvement at the Nesquehoning Creek site, artifact collectors were rumored to have recovered approximately 30 fluted points from uncontrolled excavations. Despite this claim, only two fluted points reportedly found by artifact collectors at the Nesquehoning Creek site have been recorded and photographed.

Considering the dearth of photographic evidence, it may not be unreasonable to think that the number of fluted points found by artifact collectors has been overstated. Table 5.4 provides descriptive and metric data for the Crowfield fluted point recovered from Block

3 during controlled excavations, and for the Clovis/Gainey and Crowfield fluted points recovered during clandestine excavations. The collector-found Crowfield point (Figure

5.1, left) is pictured in the Fogelman and Lantz Pennsylvania fluted point survey

(2006:Figure Carbon-4) where it is typed as such. The Clovis/Gainey point (Figure 5.1, right) is made on an exotic green chert that exhibits the color, texture, and radiolaria

Table 5.4 Fluted point descriptive and metric data. Basal Face Fluted L W Th. Flutes Lithic Basal Context concavi- angle point type (mm) (mm) (mm) (n)* material grinding ty (mm) (deg.)

Crowfield Block 3 22.23 24.17 5.57 2.49 100 1-0 Jasper Present

Collector Crowfield 40 28 5 5 102 3-2 Jasper Absent find Norman- Clovis/ Collector 51 20 5.05 4 89 1-2 skill Present Gainey find chert *Indicates number of flutes per face.

138

Figure 5.1 Clovis/Gainey and Crowfield points reportedly recovered from the Nesquehoning Creek site (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.6).

microfossils of characteristic of Normanskill-Coxsackie chert (Jonathan Lothrop, personal communication 2014; Prothero and Lavin 1990:562). The closest outcropping of green Normanskill-Coxsackie chert occurs 289.6 km (180 mi) to the northeast in

Green County, New York (Luedtke 1992:130). In Pennsylvania, green cherts are used in the manufacture of Clovis/Gainey fluted points more than other types defined for the period (Fogelman and Lantz 2006:24, Map 6 – compare with maps 9, 11, 16, 17).

Additional bifaces reportedly found on site by collectors that may be Paleoindian in affiliation are shown in Figure 5.2. The third chert biface from the left resembles a

139 resharpened Crowfield point, following the resharpening model proposed by Deller and

Ellis (1997:19-20). The middle chert biface has a similar pumpkin seed shape as the resharpened point, but does not have any prominent flutes present. The far left chert biface is fluted on one face and appears to be an unfinished fluted biface. The top-most jasper point fragment was recovered by Del Beck and Temple archaeologists from looter backdirt piles and exhibits multiple flutes on one face and a series of basal thinning flakes or short flutes on the opposite face. The fluted point base is lightly ground and has a basal concavity depth of 1.12 mm (Stewart et al. in press).

End scrapers

This tool type includes flakes that exhibit steep unifacial retouch along the distal end that typically result in a well-formed working edge. One jasper end scraper was recovered from Block 3 (Figure 5.3, middle row far left). The bit end of the specimen is straight and displays a working-edge angle of 54 degrees.

Side scrapers

Side scrapers are defined as flakes that display steep unifacial retouch along the lateral edge of a flake. Five side scrapers made from jasper were recovered from Unit 2,

Block 3, and Block 7 (Figure 5.3, top row far left and far right). Tool bits were typically straight (n=4) and rarely convex (n=1). The working-edge angles of these specimens ranged from 76 to 55 degrees and averaged 64.6 degrees.

140

Figure 5.2 Probable Paleoindian bifaces reportedly recovered from the Nesquehoning Creek site (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.7).

141

Figure 5.3 Assortment of Paleoindian flake tools recovered from Unit 2 and Block 3. Dots denote extent of edge modification (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.10).

142

Side and End Scrapers

Side and end scrapers are characterized by unifacial retouch along the distal and lateral margins of a flake that form steep working-edge angles. One jasper side/end scraper was recovered from Block 3. The specimen’s tool bits are both convex and display an average working-edge angle of 72 degrees.

Spokeshaves

This tool type is characterized by unifacial retouch along the flake margin that forms a well-shaped notch or groove (Irwin 1970:29). Three jasper spokeshaves were recovered from Blocks 3 and 7. One of the three specimens is a conjoined spokeshave

(refit set 68) that was also retouched into a drill (Figure 5.4). The bit end of the drill is broken.

Figure 5.4 Conjoined spokeshave/drill (refit set 68) recovered from excavation units N0W6 and S5W6, Block 7. 143

Retouched Flakes

Retouched flakes are defined as flakes that exhibit unifacial or bifacial flake scars along the margins and lack the characteristics of other previously defined tool types. A total of eight retouch flakes made from jasper were recovered from Unit 2, Blocks 3-5, and Block 7 (Figure 5.3, top row center, middle row far right, bottom row far left).

Modified Flakes

Modified flakes (i.e., utilized flakes) include specimens that display edge utilization (e.g., shallow and erratic/irregular edge flaking with scars typically ≤1 mm in length) along the margins (Figure 5.3, middle row center, bottom row far left and right).

Modified flakes makeup the most common tool type recovered at the site, with a total of

24 specimens found in Unit 2, Blocks 3-5, and Block 7.

Bifaces

This tool type is defined as an objective piece displaying invasive flake scars on both faces that originate from the margins of the specimen. A total of four bifaces, including two biface fragments, were recovered from the site. One jasper biface fragment represents a bifacial core or early-stage biface that is described in the section reviewing cores below. The other jasper biface fragment was recovered from Block 4 and appears to be a broken lateral biface fragment that exhibits considerable edge grinding.

A conjoined ovoid middle stage biface was recovered from stratum 16 in Unit 2 and the basal layer of Unit 17 (Figure 5.5). The biface is made on a fine-grained nonlocal

144 chert of unknown origin. The distal fragment associated with Unit 2 is primarily dark gray in color with light gray-blue mottles. The proximal fragment recovered from Unit

17 has weathered to a dark grayish-brown color with light gray-blue mottles. This differential patination may be due to the proximal biface fragment’s prolonged open-air exposure on the elevated “gravel levee” surface of Unit 17. The distal fragment was recovered from a low spot on the landscape (i.e., Unit 2) where greater sedimentation appears to have resulted in relatively rapid burial of the biface fragment. The biface fragments were separated 8.84 m (28.35 ft) horizontally and 1.46 m (4.78 ft) vertically.

One ovoid middle stage biface (Figure 5.6) was recovered from Block 5. The nonlocal chert biface exhibits overface flaking, basal thinning, and bibeveled lateral margins. The alternately beveled edges were used to facilitate thinning and overface flaking of the specimen. Platform abrasion related to flake removal preparation is evident in two discrete areas on opposing lateral margins. The biface appears to have been rejected due to a flaw in the raw material that complicated biface completion. A quartz veinlet near the left lateral margin of the biface caused repeated step fractures that may have prevented complete thinning of the piece.

Cores

Cores are characterized as an objective piece that was knapped primarily to produce usable flakes. A total of three cores, including one bifacial core fragment and two bipolar cores, were recovered from the site. The jasper bifacial core fragment

(Figure 5.7) was recovered from Block 4. The biface is thick and exhibits large, widely-

145

Figure 5.5 Conjoined middle stage biface (refit set 68) recovered from excavation units 2 and 17.

Figure 5.6 Middle stage biface recovered from excavation unit 8, Block 5.

146

Figure 5.7 Bifacial core fragment recovered from excavation unit 11, Block 4 (scale in mm).

spaced flake removals and overface flaking. The width to thickness ratio and flake spacing of the biface fragment suggest that it served primarily as a core.

One jasper bipolar core was recovered from Block 7 and displays multidirectional flaking, irregular/uncontrolled flake detachments, and thermally reddening. Other than perhaps splitting the specimen a final time, the core appears to lack the size for much additional flake extraction. The specimen measures 36.38 mm in length, 31.69 mm in width, 28.23 mm in thickness, and weighs 36.16 g.

A single chert bipolar pebble core was recovered from Block 5 and exhibits cobble cortex and irregular/uncontrolled flake detachments and fracture planes. The small package size of the core suggests that it was reduced using bipolar percussion in order to open the pebble and extract small flakes. The core measures 22.35 mm in length, 17.9 mm in width, 13.62 mm in thickness, and weighs 4.78 g. 147

Lithic Raw Materials

Seven types of recognizable lithic raw materials have been identified in the

Paleoindian assemblages including jasper, nonlocal chert, Stony Ridge chert, local chert, chalcedony, quartzite, and quartz. Jasper makes up the majority of these lithic raw materials, followed by chalcedony, nonlocal chert, Stony Ridge chert, local chert, quartz, and quartzite. The majority of the Paleoindian materials (90.78%) are of nonlocal (i.e.,

>20 km distant) origin, while local raw materials are poorly represented at 9.22%.

Local Lithic Raw Materials

Stony Ridge chert artifacts are the fourth-most common type of lithic raw material with 66 pieces of debitage represented (5.74%). The Stony Ridge quarry (i.e., Carbon

County/Shriver cherts) is located 13 km downriver from the site. Bedrock chert from this location is medium to fine-grained and typically black in color when freshly broken, and weathers from black, to blue-gray, to gray, and eventually to tan (Fogelman 1999; Katz

2000). The mottles and streaks of color found in this weathered black chert cause it to resemble metarhyolite. White chert that patinates to a yellow/brown color also outcrops at Stony Ridge, although its distribution is limited and difficult to locate.

Local chert refers to black cobble chert that has been recovered from a gravel bar along Nesquehoning Creek near its confluence with the Lehigh River. Thirty-two artifacts (2.78%) of this lithic raw material type have been recovered from the site and

13% retain cobble cortex. The locally acquired cobble chert is black in color, fine- grained, and resilient to weathering. The color, texture, and patination qualities of the

148 recently discovered cobble chert strongly contrast with, and are macroscopically distinguishable from, the multicolored cherts from Stony Ridge.

Quartz is one of the more infrequently recovered lithic raw materials from the site, with only eight (0.7%) specimens represented. The few specimens recovered consisted of debitage and were all milky white in color. Pebbles of quartz are found in the local conglomerate and may exist to some degree in the nearby streams and river gravels. Small rounded quartz crystal fragments were recognized in the alluvial deposits, including Paleoindian artifact-bearing soils, at Nesquehoning Creek.

Nonlocal Lithic Raw Materials

The primary type of lithic raw material recovered from Nesquehoning Creek is jasper, accounting for 66.35% of all materials, with 763 total specimens represented. The high-quality jasper raw materials range in color from brown, to yellow, to orange, are occasionally mottled, and primarily very fine-grained. Based on macroscopic similarities to source samples, these raw materials likely originated from the Hardyston formation jasper quarries located approximately 50 km south and southeast from the site.

Chalcedony is the second-most common lithic raw material, with 200 total artifacts represented (17.39%). Lithic specimens of this material type are light gray to gray in color and display degrees of translucency based on artifact thickness (i.e., thicker artifacts exhibit less translucency). Aside from two channel flakes, the remaining chalcedony raw materials (99%) are entirely comprised of debitage. The origin of these raw materials is unknown. Chalcedony and chalcedonic jasper deposits found within and

149 around the Hardyston formation jasper quarries (i.e., Ordovician chalcedony [Fogelman

1999]) represent a potential raw material source location within 50 km of the

Nesquehoning Creek site.

Nonlocal chert raw materials recovered from the site include 77 specimens

(6.7%), making it the third-most common lithic raw material type. Variations in color included dark gray with light gray mottles, light gray with dark gray mottles, semi- translucent dark gray, and semi-translucent gray with black speckles. The source of this lithic raw material is unknown. The Zimmerman and Godfrey Ridge chert quarries, located approximately 60 km northeast of Nesquehoning Creek, represent two potential source locations for semi-translucent dark gray chert artifacts recovered on site based on macroscopic similarities to source samples. Chert from these quarries was intensively used by Clovis groups occupying the nearby Shawnee-Minisink site (Gingerich 2013b)

Quartzite represents the rarest of all lithic raw materials recovered from the

Paleoindian deposits with only four total specimens (0.35%). This lithic raw material is typically medium to coarse grained and between dark gray and light gray in color. The source location of this quartzite raw material is unknown. The Hardyston formation quartzite outcrops, which are often found adjacent to jasper deposits, offer a potential source location for these materials. The Hardyston formation quarries are particularly enticing considering that three of the four nonlocal raw material types (i.e., jasper, chalcedony, and quartzite) documented in the Paleoindian assemblage outcrop in close proximity to one another.

150

5.3 Materials and Methods

Flake tools from the Paleoindian assemblage were measured for metric and technological variables. Technological variables (Table 5.5) include condition, lithic raw material, cortex type, cortex cover, platform grinding, platform type, platform lipping, working edge outline, dorsal scars, dorsal scar orientation, transverse cross-section, and blank type. Metric variables (Table 5.6) include maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness, and mass. The degree of formal tool reduction was examined using a modified version of Kuhn's (1990) geometric index of unifacial reduction (GIUR) as outlined by Hiscock and Clarkson (2005a). The GIUR estimates the reduction intensity of flake tools exhibiting dorsal retouch on a 0 to 1 scale, with 0 representing unretouched and 1 representing completely exhausted. These values were obtained by dividing retouch thickness (t) by maximum tool thickness (T) in three locations along each retouched tool margin and averaging these scores so that GIUR = (t1/T1+t2/T2+t3/T3)/3.

Experimental studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the GIUR is one of the more robust and accurate methods for estimating the extent to which tools have been unifacially retouched (Clarkson and Hiscock 2008; Hiscock and Clarkson 2005a, b, 2009; but see Eren and Sampson 2009).

Bifaces from the Paleoindian assemblage were measured for metric and technological variables. Technological variables (Table 5.7) include condition, lithic raw material, reduction stage, cortex type, cortex cover, edge grinding, overshot scars, overface scars (i.e., scars that travel across the midpoint of a biface), end thinning scars, planview, base shape, transverse cross-section, and blank type (Smallwood 2010; Smith

151

Table 5.5 Flake tool analysis technological variables. Technological variable Value Condition Complete, proximal, medial, distal, lateral Jasper, nonlocal chert, Stony Ridge chert, local chert, Raw material chalcedony, quartzite, quartz Cortex type Cobble, nodular, indeterminate Cortex cover 0%, 1-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-99%, 100% Platform grinding Present, absent Platform type Crushed, complex, flat, not available Platform lipping Present, absent Working edge shape Concave, convex, straight, irregular Dorsal scars Count Dorsal scar orientation Bidirectional, unidirectional, multidirectional Transverse cross-section Plano-convex, trapezoidal, triangular, indeterminate Blank type Biface, nodule, blade, indeterminate

Table 5.6 Flake tool analysis metric variables. Metric variable Value Maximum length mm Maximum width mm Maximum thickness mm Mass g Exterior platform angle Degrees Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction Between 0-1 (GIUR)

et al. 2013). Metric variables (Table 5.8) include maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness, mass, and width/thickness ratio. The degree to which bifaces were reduced was evaluated using Miller and Smallwood's (2012) flaking index (FI). The FI is a measurement of bifacial reduction based on a continuous quantification of Callahan's

(1979:30) "continuous flake scar interval". In order to calculate the FI, the number of flake scars >2 mm in size that intersect a given lateral biface margin are counted and that number is divided by the length of the same lateral margin. This calculation "yields an

152

Table 5.7 Biface analysis technological variables. Technological variable Value Condition Complete, proximal, medial, distal, lateral Jasper, nonlocal chert, Stony Ridge chert, local chert, Raw material chalcedony, quartzite, quartz Reduction stage Early stage, middle stage, late stage Cortex type Cobble, nodular, indeterminate, absent Cortex cover 0%, 1-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-99%, 100% Basal grinding Present, absent Overshot scars Count Overface scars Count End thinning scars Count Planview Lanceolate, ovoid, triangular, irregular

Base shape Concave, convex, straight, irregular Bi-convex, plano-convex, lenticular, bi- Transverse cross-section beveled/rhomboid Blank type Flake spall, nodule, blade, indeterminate

Table 5.8 Biface analysis metric variables. Metric variable Value Maximum length mm Maximum width mm Maximum thickness mm Width/Thickness mm/mm Mass g Flaking Index (FI) Between 0-1

average number of flake scars per the length of the bifacial edge" (Miller and Smallwood

2012:31) and estimates the extent of bifacial reduction. High FI values are suggestive of finished bifaces while low FI values indicate bifaces early in the reduction process.

Debitage larger than 1 cm and all point provenienced flakes were subject to individual flake analysis. Individual flake analysis involves measuring and recording attributes of flakes in an assemblage or study sample. Debitage attributes measured and recorded in this study include: flake mass (Odell 1989, 2003; Shott 1994), cortex cover 153

(Mauldin and Amick 1989; Odell 1989), dorsal scar count (Magne 1985:129; Marwick

2008), size class (Ahler 1989; Patternson 1990); types (Andrefsky 1998;

Shott 1994:80; Will 2000), and lipping (Schindler and Koch 2012). In addition, debitage larger than 1 cm were assigned technological types based on flake attributes, dimensions, morphology, and platform characteristics. Technological types include platform-remnant bearing (PRB) flakes, biface thinning flakes, blade flakes, channel flakes, overshot flakes, retouch flakes, and flake fragments (Andrefsky 1998; Shott 1994). Flake fragments (i.e., distal, lateral, and medial sections) were considered non-diagnostic.

Debitage smaller than 1 cm (i.e., microflakes) were counted, weighed, and assigned a size class. Lithic refitting sequences were analyzed to provide direct evidence of biface, core, and flake tool reduction strategies (Cahen et al. 1979; Carr 1986; Close 1996; Franklin and Simek 2008; Morrow 1996a; Wyckoff 1992). The frequency and type of “ghosts”

(i.e., refitted flake sequences derived from tools taken off site [Morrow 1996a:357]) and

“orphans” (i.e., bifaces and cores without refitting flakes [Morrow 1996a:357-358]) were recorded to better understand the relative length of Paleoindian occupation.

Sample

This study was based on Paleoindian flaked stone artifacts recovered from Unit 2 and Blocks 3-7. The total number of lithic specimens examined was 1,150. Artifact types analyzed in this study include bifaces, cores, flake tools, and debitage. Lithic raw material types represented include jasper, nonlocal chert, Stony Ridge chert, local chert, chalcedony, quartzite, and quartz.

154

5.4 Results

Flake Tool Technology

Thirty-eight flake tools manufactured from jasper lithic raw materials were recovered from the Crowfield component (Tables 5.9 and 5.10). These flake tools include one end scraper, one side/end scraper, five side scrapers, two spokeshaves, one spokeshave/drill, six retouched flakes, and 22 modified flakes. The probable Crowfield assemblage contains two jasper retouched flakes and two jasper modified flakes.

Crowfield component flake tools were manufactured from jasper raw materials procured from both nodule/bedrock (n=3) and cobble sources (n=1). These tools were produced from bifacial cores (n=14) and, to a lesser extent, nodular cores (n=7).

Seventeen tools lacked adequate metric and technological indicators to assign a blank type. Measurements from complete tools indicate that Crowfield flintknappers chose tool blanks ranging from 21.25 mm to 64.07 mm in length (mean=41.14 mm) and 2.76 mm to

12.09 mm in thickness (mean=5.01 mm).

The 14 tools made on flake blanks derived from bifaces include side scrapers

(n=2, 14.29%), a spokeshave (n=1, 7.14%), retouched flakes (n=3, 21.43%), and modified flakes (n=8, 57.14%). These tools often exhibited complex platforms (n=10) that were ground (n=10) and lipped (n=7), with exterior platform angles averaging 65.14 degrees. Transverse cross-sections included plano-convex (n=8, 57.14%), triangular

(n=5, 35.71%), and trapezoidal (n=1, 7.14%). Dorsal flake scar orientation was most often multidirectional (n=10, 71.43%) with an average of 5.57 dorsal flake scars per tool.

155

Table 5.9 Flake tool metric data. Length Width Th Mass Ext. platform Tool type Provenience (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) angle (deg.) End scraper Block 3 21.25 27.34 2.91 2.55 81 Side/End scraper Block 3 31.80 24.26 4.96 3.84 86 Side scraper Unit 2 64.07 37.63 6.77 16.70 67 Side scraper Unit 2 46.69 50.18 12.09 23.49 69 Side scraper Block 3 58.00 56.62 6.44 33.38 101 Side scraper Block 3 14.52 21.35 5.38 1.42 - Side scraper Block 7 56.95 27.12 6.22 11.52 88 Spokeshave Block 3 44.45 22.48 3.05 2.00 67 Spokeshave Block 7 37.57 38.02 5.47 5.10 86 Spokeshave/Drill Block 7 31.90 20.93 4.43 2.03 - Retouched flake Unit 2 41.38 23.48 5.75 5.69 76 Retouched flake Unit 2 40.15 37.51 7.77 11.05 - Retouched flake Block 3 36.80 23.26 5.80 3.64 67 Retouched flake Block 3 35.88 25.38 5.44 4.81 62 Retouched flake Block 3 42.41 27.12 4.75 6.32 68 Retouched flake Block 7 26.60 31.51 5.15 3.46 62 Retouched flake Block 5 24.34 31.28 4.89 3.41 - Retouched flake Block 4 8.18 11.82 2.34 0.20 - Modified flake Block 3 27.25 28.29 4.35 2.80 56 Modified flake Unit 2 20.20 6.96 7.85 0.71 - Modified flake Block 3 43.50 29.13 3.14 3.04 55 Modified flake Block 3 25.98 31.86 5.67 3.75 - Modified flake Block 3 22.92 24.74 2.76 1.71 87 Modified flake Block 3 39.25 34.65 7.38 10.15 - Modified flake Block 3 19.46 27.72 4.94 1.75 - Modified flake Block 3 41.80 24.71 4.49 3.76 - Modified flake Block 3 19.62 18.33 2.47 0.78 77 Modified flake Block 3 19.85 18.89 1.93 1.23 - Modified flake Block 3 31.32 42.22 3.24 4.00 - Modified flake Block 3 22.94 20.24 3.54 1.06 - Modified flake Block 3 29.72 25.07 5.37 5.15 65 Modified flake Block 7 37.28 21.54 4.60 5.43 76 Modified flake Block 7 34.38 28.30 2.85 2.49 - Modified blade-like Block 7 48.86 18.45 3.37 2.93 70 flake Modified flake Block 7 39.85 31.05 4.31 3.95 -

156

Table 5.9 continued. Length Width Th Mass Ext. platform Tool type Provenience (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) angle (deg.) Modified flake Block 7 52.71 20.49 3.92 3.78 58 Modified flake Block 7 31.65 27.25 6.13 4.32 79 Modified flake Block 7 24.43 31.70 6.41 4.12 - Modified flake Block 7 22.94 16.34 3.35 1.38 - Modified flake Block 7 41.12 23.99 3.85 3.88 - Modified flake Block 4 56.60 58.72 6.14 15.13 58 Modified flake Block 4 24.19 17.53 7.55 15.12 -

The seven tools crafted on flake blanks struck from nodular cores include an end scraper (n=1, 14.29%), side scrapers (n=2, 28.57%), retouched flake (n=1, 14.29%), and modified flakes (n=3, 42.86%). These tools commonly displayed flat and unground

(n=5, 71.43%) platforms with exterior platform angles averaging 80.63 degrees. The cross-sections of these tools were most often trapezoidal (n=4, 66.67%) and displayed an average of 3.86 dorsal flake scars with uni- (n=5, 71.43%), bi- (n=1, 14.29%), and multidirectional (n=1, 14.29%) scar orientation. Tools produced from nodular cores were heavier on average (mean=9.49 g) than those knapped from bifacial cores (mean=7.76 g).

Formal tools (n=10) from the Crowfield assemblage (i.e., scrapers and spokeshaves) were produced from bifacial (n=3) and nodular (n=3) cores. Based on the metrics of complete specimens, formal tool blank sizes ranging from 21.25 mm to 64.07 mm in length (mean=45.1 mm) and 2.91 mm to 12.09 mm in thickness (mean=5.99 mm).

These tools displayed moderate to heavy retouch intensity based on GIUR values (Table

5.11). End scrapers, side/end scrapers, and side scrapers had GIUR values ranging from

0.473 to 0.601 (mean=0.547). GIUR values for spokeshaves and a spokeshave/drill were between 0.637 and 0.838 (mean=0.761). These results indicate that spokeshaves were 157

Table 5.10 Flake tool technological data. Cortex Cortex Platform Platform Edge Scar Cross- Blank Tool type Condition Lip DS type cover grinding type shape orientation section type End scraper Complete 0 Absent Cmplx Present Straight 2 Unidirect. Trapezoid Nodule

Side/End Complete 0 Absent Crushed Absent Convex 3 Unidirect. P-C Indeterm. scraper Side scraper Complete 0 Present Cmplx Present Straight 7 Multidirect. Triangular Biface

Side scraper Complete Nodule 1-25 Present Cmplx Present Straight 4 Multidirect. Triangular Biface Side scraper Complete 0 Absent Flat Absent Straight 7 Multidirect. P-C Nodule

Side scraper Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 5 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Side scraper Complete 0 Present Flat Absent Convex 2 Unidirect. P-C Nodule

Spokeshave Complete 0 Present Cmplx Absent Concave 3 Bidirect. Triangular Indeterm.

158 Spokeshave Complete 0 Present Cmplx Absent Concave 7 Multidirect. Trapezoid Biface

Spokeshave/ Concave/ Distal 0 NA NA NA 2 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm. Drill Straight Retouched flake Complete 0 Present Cmplx Present Straight 7 Multidirect. Triangular Biface

Retouched flake Medial Nodule 26-50 NA NA NA Straight 2 Unidirect. Trapezoid Nodule Retouched flake Complete 0 Present Flat Present Convex 5 Multidirect. Triangular Indeterm.

Retouched flake Complete 0 Present Cmplx Present Convex 6 Bidirect. P-C Biface

Retouched flake Complete 0 Present Flat Present Convex 5 Unidirect. Triangular Biface

Retouched flake Proximal 0 Absent Flat Absent Straight 4 Bidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Retouched fl.* Complete 0 Absent Crushed Absent Straight 4 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Retouched fl.** Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 4 Multidirect. Indeterm. Indeterm.

Modified flake Proximal 0 Present Cmplx Present Irregular 2 Multidirect. Triangular Biface

Modified flake Lateral 0 NA NA NA Concave 6 Multidirect. NA Indeterm.

Modified flake Complete 0 Present Cmplx Absent Straight 4 Unidirect. P-C Biface

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 5 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Table 5.10 (continued) Cortex Cortex Platform Platform Edge Scar Cross- Blank Tool type Condition Lip DS type cover grinding type shape orientation section type Modified flake Complete 0 Absent Flat Absent Convex 5 Unidirect. Trapezoid Nodule

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Convex 3 Multidirect. P-C Biface

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 4 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 5 Bidirect. Triangular Indeterm.

Modified flake Proximal 0 Absent Flat Absent Straight 3 Unidirect. Trapezoid Nodule

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Convex 4 Unidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Concave 5 Multidirect. P-C Biface

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 3 Multidirect. Triangular Indeterm.

Straight/

159 Modified flake Proximal 0 Present Cmplx Absent 8 Unidirect. P-C Biface Irregular

Modified flake Complete Cobble 1-25 Present Flat Absent Irregular 6 Bidirect. Triangular Nodule Modified flake Complete 0 NA NA NA Straight 6 Multidirect. P-C Biface

Modified blade- Complete 0 Present Cmplx Absent Irregular 4 Unidirect. P-C Indeterm. like flake Straight/ Modified flake Complete 0 Present Cmplx Absent 5 Bidirect. Triangular Indeterm. Irregular Modified flake Complete 0 Absent Cmplx Absent Straight 6 Multidirect. P-C Biface

Modified flake Proximal 0 Present Cmplx Absent Convex 5 Bidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Convex 4 Multidirect. Triangular Indeterm.

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Convex 5 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Modified flake Distal 0 NA NA NA Irregular 11 Multidirect. P-C Indeterm.

Modified fl.** Complete 0 Present Cmplx Present Straight 8 Multidirect. P-C Biface

Modified fl.** Distal 0 NA NA NA Straight 4 Multidirect. Triangular Indeterm. *Indicates flake tool recovered from Block 5. **Indicates flake tool recovered from Block 4.

Table 5.11 Formal tool GIUR and metric data. Working edge L W Th Mass Tool type Provenience Condition GIUR Bit angle shape (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) End scraper Block 3 Complete 0.473 Straight 54 21.25 27.34 2.91 2.55 Side/End scraper Block 3 Complete 0.543 Convex 72 31.80 24.26 4.96 3.84 Side scraper Unit 2 Complete 0.539 Straight 60 46.69 50.18 12.09 23.49 Side scraper Unit 2 Complete 0.579 Straight 76 64.07 37.63 6.77 16.70 Side scraper Block 3 Distal 0.601 Straight 64 14.52 21.35 5.38 1.42 Side scraper Block 7 Complete 0.549 Convex 68 56.95 27.12 6.22 11.52 Mean 0.547 65.67 39.21 31.31 6.39 9.92 Spokeshave Block 3 Complete 0.808 Concave 71 44.45 22.48 3.05 2.00 Spokeshave Block 7 Complete 0.637 Concave 81 37.57 38.02 5.47 5.10

160 Spokeshave/Drill Block 7 Distal 0.838 Concave/Straight 79 31.90 20.93 4.43 2.03 Mean 0.761 77 37.97 27.14 4.32 3.04

25.00

20.00

15.00

Mass (g) Mass 10.00

5.00

0.00 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 GIUR

Figure 5.8 Scrapers (dots) and spokeshaves (triangles) plotted by GIUR and mass.

nearly exhausted prior to discard, while scrapers exhibited moderate to heavy reduction with only minor tool edge utility remaining (Figure 5.8). Despite achieving a refitting rate of 25.4% for the Crowfield assemblage, zero formal tools were refit to cores and zero retouch flakes were successfully refit to formal tools. The paucity of tool production and edge retouch refits, coupled with high GIUR values, suggests that Crowfield flintknappers manufactured their formal tools off site and transported them from place to place as “finished” (i.e., shaped and retouched) pieces in their portable toolkit. Formal tools appear to have been retouched/reshaped according to need until edge exhaustion or breakage resulted in abandonment of the tool.

Two refit sets exemplify the extensive retouching several formal tools were subject to prior to discard. A refit side/end scraper (Figure 5.9a) was retouched and used prior to the scraper bit snapping. The broken tool edge was retouched and used again

161

Figure 5.9 Side/end scraper (a) and spokeshave (b) that were used, broken, and reused. Arrows denote post-breakage retouch (adapted from Stewart et al. in press:Figure 4.9).

until a second break resulted in its abandonment. A refit spokeshave (Figure 5.9b) fractured below the bulb of percussion following retouch or use. The distal fragment was then reworked and likely used along the left lateral margin until the tool broke once again. The remaining medial fragment was then retouched along the right lateral edge and may have been used as a scraper and/or piercing tool prior to discard.

Informal tools (i.e., retouched flakes and modified flakes) in the Crowfield (n=28) and probable Crowfield assemblage (n=4) were primarily produced from bifacial cores

(Crowfield n=9, probable Crowfield n=1), but nodular cores were also represented

(Crowfield n=4). Measurements from complete specimens indicate that informal tool blank sizes ranging from 22.92 mm to 52.71 mm in length (mean=38.5 mm) and 2.76 162 mm to 5.8 mm in thickness (mean=4.36 mm). Informal tools exhibited narrower exterior platform angles (67.96 degrees) and complete specimens weighed less on average

(mean=3.96 g) than formal tools (80.44 degrees, mean=12.32 g). Evidence of on-site informal tool production comes from two tool refits (i.e., refit set 30) that were sequentially removed from a bifacial core and subsequently abandoned in close proximity to one another after minimal use.

Biface Technology

Metric and technological variables in conjunction with flaking index values indicate that two bifaces (one conjoined and one complete) are in the middle stage of reduction, one is a finished point, and one is in the early stage of reduction (Figure 5.10 and Tables 5.12 and 5.13). The conjoined middle stage biface and the finished fluted point are associated with the Crowfield component. The early stage biface/bifacial core fragment and complete middle-stage biface are from the probable Crowfield assemblage.

18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00

2.00 Maximum Thickness (mm) Thickness Maximum 0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Flaking Index

Figure 5.10 Bifaces plotted by flaking index and maximum thickness. Triangles represent the Crowfield point base, dots represent middle stage bifaces, and boxes represent early-stage bifaces/bifacial cores. 163

Table 5.12 Biface technological data. Biface Raw Cortex Cortex Basal W/T Plan- Base Cross- Blank Condition Stage type material type cover grinding ratio view shape section type Fluted Finished Flake Proximal Jasper Absent 0 Present 4.35 NA Concave P-C point base point spall Mid-stage Nonlocal Flake Complete Middle Absent 0 Absent 4.24 Ovoid Convex Lenticular biface chert spall Mid-stage Nonlocal Flake Complete Middle Absent 0 Absent 4.23 Ovoid Convex Rhomboid biface chert spall Bifacial Distal Jasper Early Nodular 1-25% Absent 2.72 NA NA Bi-convex Indeterm. core frag. Biface Lateral Jasper NA Absent 0 NA NA NA NA NA Indeterm. frag.

164

Table 5.13 Biface metric data. Length Width Thickness Mass Width: Flaking Biface type Provenience (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) Thickness Index Fluted point base Block 3 22.23 24.20 5.57 3.22 4.35 0.67 Refit mid-stage biface Block 3/Unit 17 59.82 33.23 7.86 17.06 4.23 0.34 Mid-stage biface Block 5 57.80 35.69 8.41 22.40 4.24 0.21 Bifacial core fragment Block 4 41.52 42.40 15.60 26.38 2.72 0.19 Biface fragment Block 4 31.18 21.13 11.38 7.26 NA NA

`

Both middle stage bifaces and fluted point were knapped from flake spalls of nonlocal chert and jasper, respectively. The early-stage biface/bifacial core fragment retains nodular/bedrock cortex and was likely crafted at or near a jasper quarry. Early- and middle-stage bifaces were initially thinned with basal flaking (i.e., end-thinning) and widely-spaced lateral flaking that often traveled past the biface midline. Lateral overface flaking is present on all four bifaces (Table 5.14), with most demonstrating one removal

(n=3) and the conjoined middle stage biface exhibiting six removals. The presence of overface flaking on early, middle, and late/finished bifaces indicates that overface thinning was a strategy used during all stages of reduction to thin bifaces and achieve lenticular or plano-convex cross-sections. Overshot flaking was not observed on any of the bifaces; however, several overshot flakes (debitage n=2, tools n=2) recovered from the Crowfield assemblage attest to the use of this technique at Nesquehoning Creek.

Table 5.14 Frequency of overface flaking on bifaces. Total bifaces with Biface type 0 removals 1 removals 6 removals overface flaking Early-stage biface 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) (n=1) Middle-stage bifaces 0 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) (n=2) Finished point (n=1) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%)

End-thinning is present on both middle-stage bifaces and on the finished fluted point in the form of a flute (Table 5.15). The presence or absence of end-thinning on the early-stage biface/bifacial core fragment is indeterminate due to breakage. These results indicate that end-thinning was a strategy used during most stages of biface reduction.

Middle-stage bifaces were transported to Nesquehoning Creek in unfinished ovoid forms 165

Table 5.15 Frequency of end-thinning on bifaces. 0 1 2 3 Total bifaces with Biface type removals removals removals removals end-thinning Middle-stage 0 0 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) bifaces (n=2) Finished point 0 1 (100%) 0 0 1 (100%) (n=1)

that displayed considerable regularity in length (mean=58.81 mm), width (mean=34.46 mm), thickness (mean=8.14 mm), and width to thickness ratios (4.23 and 4.24). The paucity of debitage resembling the lithic raw material middle-stage bifaces were made on, coupled with an absence of flake-to-biface refits, indicates that mid-stage bifaces were primarily thinned off site. The size and thickness of these bifaces would have limited their use as cores, and a lack of edge regularity and basal grinding suggests they had not been hafted. Therefore, middle-stage bifaces appear to have been transported as reserve gear that could be flaked into knifes or projectile points based on situational demands.

Bifaces were abandoned when breakage or flaws in the raw material prevented further thinning and shaping of the piece. The fluted point, early-stage biface/bifacial core, and conjoined middle-stage biface were discarded due to transverse fractures. The complete middle-stage biface was abandoned due to a flaw in the lithic raw material that caused a buildup of step fractures.

Debitage

Crowfield assemblage debitage was comprised of several flake types including platform remnant bearing (PRB) flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, overshot flakes, uniface 166 retouch flakes, flake fragments, and microflakes (Table 5.16). Jasper is the predominant lithic raw material (n=480, 94.86%) represented in the lithic assemblage, with nonlocal chert (n=13, 2.6%), Stony Ridge chert (n=5, 0.99%), local chert (n=5, 0.99%), and quartzite (n=3, 0.6%) also present in minor amounts.

Table 5.16 Debitage totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Mean Nonlocal SR Local Flake type Jasper Quartzite Total mass chert chert chert PRB flake 0.40 73 1 74

Bifacial thinning flake 0.48 27 1 1 29

Overshot flake 0.41 2 2

Uniface retouch flake 0.12 3 3

Flake fragment 0.45 49 1 1 1 1 53 Microflake 0.11 326 11 2 4 2 345 Total 0.33 480 13 5 5 3 506

Amongst flakes larger than 1 cm in size, PRB flakes are the most common (n=74,

45.96%), followed by flake fragments (n=53, 32.92%), bifacial thinning flakes (n=29,

18.01%), overshot flakes (n=4, 2.48%), and uniface retouch flakes (n=3, 1.86%).

Bifacial thinning flakes were struck from predominantly jasper raw materials (n=27,

93.1%) and exhibit complex (n=21), complex/abraded (n=7), and crushed (n=1) platform types (Table 5.17), average 4.72 dorsal flake scars (Table 5.18), and are typically lipped

(72.43%) (Table 5.19). PRB flakes were flaked from almost entirely jasper raw materials

(n=73, 98.65%) and have complex (n=31), flat (n=22), crushed (n=13), complex/abraded

(n=4), cortical (n=3), and flat/abraded (n=1) platform types, average 3.97 dorsal flake scars, and are most often not lipped (18.92%). Overshot flakes (n=2) and uniface retouch flakes (n=3) are uncommon and knapped from exclusively jasper raw materials.

167

Table 5.17 Debitage platform types for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Raw Com- Complex/ Flat/ Cor- Flake type Flat Crushed Total material plex abraded abraded tical PRB flake Jasper 31 4 21 1 3 13 73 PRB flake SR chert 1 1

BT flake Jasper 20 6 1 27

BT flake NL chert 1 1

BT flake SR chert 1 1

Overshot fl. Jasper 1 1

Uniface Jasper 3 3 retouch fl. Total 53 11 25 1 3 14 107

Table 5.18 Debitage dorsal scar (DS) counts for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Flake type DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS PRB flake 4 8 15 23 16 3 3 1 1

BT flake 1 11 4 6 1 2 4

Overshot flake 1 1

Uniface retouch flake 1 1 1

Flake fragment 6 13 10 15 4 2 3

Total 11 22 36 44 26 7 9 1 4 1

Table 5.19 Lipped platform totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Flake type Lipped platform count % lipped PRB flake 14 18.92% Bifacial thinning flake 21 72.43% Overshot flake* 1 50.00% Uniface retouch flake 0% *Does not include two overshot flake tools.

168

Overshot flakes have complex platforms, average 2.5 dorsal flake scars, and are lipped

50% of the time. Uniface retouch flakes all display flat platforms, average 5.67 dorsal flake scars, and are not lipped. Jasper raw materials make up the majority of flake fragments (92.45%), which averaged 3.3 dorsal flake scars per specimen. Cortex was uncommon in the Crowfield assemblage (Table 5.20), with 3.23% of jasper debitage exhibiting nodular cortex (n=15).

Table 5.20 Debitage cortex totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Raw material Absent Nodular Cobble Jasper 465 15

Nonlocal chert 13

Stony Ridge chert 5

Local chert 5

Quartzite 3

Total 491 15 0

The probable Crowfield assemblage includes platform remnant bearing (PRB) flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, channel flakes, flake fragments, and microflakes (Table

5.21). Jasper makes up the majority of lithic raw materials (n=237, 39.83%), followed closely by chalcedony (n=200, 33.61%), nonlocal chert (n=62, 10.42%), Stony Ridge chert (n=61, 10.25%), local chert (n=26, 4.37%), quartz (n=8, 1.34%), and quartzite (n=1,

0.17%).

Amongst flakes larger than 1 cm in size, PRB flakes were the most common

(n=63, 37.06%), followed by bifacial thinning flakes (n=54, 31.58%), flake fragments

(n=50, 29.24%), and channel flakes (n=3, 1.75%). Bifacial thinning flakes were struck from predominantly jasper and chalcedony raw materials and exhibit complex (n=11),

169

Table 5.21 Debitage totals for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6. Mean NL SR Local Chal- Quart- Flake type Jasper Quartz Total mass chert chert Chert cedony zite PRB flake 0.39 21 16 9 17 63

BT flake 0.29 29 3 3 1 18 54

Channel fl. 0.71 1 2 3

Flake frag. 0.45 21 2 10 6 10 1 50

Microflake 0.09 165 57 32 10 153 8 425

Total 0.39 237 62 61 26 200 8 1 595

complex/abraded (n=42), and crushed (n=1) platform types (Table 5.22), average 4.78 dorsal flake scars (Table 5.23), and are typically lipped (72.22%) (Table 5.24). PRB flakes were struck from jasper (n=21), chalcedony (n=17), Stony Ridge chert (n=16), and local chert (n=9) raw materials and display complex (n=24), crushed (n=18), flat (n=11), complex/abraded (n=5), and flat/abraded (n=5) platform types. These flakes average

3.41 dorsal flake scars and are most often not lipped (15.87%). Three channel flakes were flaked from jasper (n=1) and chalcedony (n=2) raw materials, display complex, complex/abraded, and crushed platforms, average 11 dorsal flake scars, and are not lipped. Flake fragment lithic raw materials included jasper (n=21), chalcedony (n=10),

Stony Ridge chert (n=10), local chert (n=6), nonlocal chert (n=2), and quartzite (n=1) and averaged 3.32 dorsal flake scars per fragment. Cortex was rarely encountered in the probable Crowfield assemblage (Table 5.25), with 0.85% of jasper (n=2) and 1.67% of

Stony Ridge chert (n=1) debitage exhibiting nodular cortex. Debitage from local lithic raw materials including quartz (n=1, 14.29%) and local chert (n=3, 13.04%) retain cobble cortex more frequently than nonlocal materials exhibit nodular cortex (Figure 5.11).

170

Table 5.22 Debitage platform types for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6. Raw Complex/ Flat/ Flake type Complex Flat Crushed Total material abraded abraded PRB flake Jasper 6 1 4 10 21

PRB flake Chalcedony 11 4 1 1 17

PRB flake SR chert 5 3 5 3 16

PRB flake Local Chert 2 3 4 9

BT flake Jasper 5 23 1 29

BT flake Chalcedony 5 13 18

BT flake NL chert 1 2 3

BT flake SR chert 3 3

BT flake Local Chert 1 1

Channel flake Jasper 1 1

Channel flake Chalcedony 1 1 2

Total 36 48 11 5 20 120

Table 5.23 Debitage dorsal scar (DS) counts for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Flake type DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS PRB flake 1 17 20 11 11 1 1 1 BT flake 11 14 18 3 4 3 1

Channel fl. 1 1 1

Flake frag. 15 17 8 8 1 1

Total 1 32 48 33 37 5 6 4 1 1 1 1

Table 5.24 Lipped platform totals for Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6. Flake type Lipped platform count % lipped PRB flake 10 15.87% Bifacial thinning flake 39 72.22% Channel flake 0%

171

Table 5.25 Debitage cortex totals for Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7. Raw material Absent Nodular Cobble Jasper 235 2

Chalcedony 200

Nonlocal chert 62

Stony Ridge chert 60 1

Local chert 23 3

Quartz 7 1

Quartzite 1

Total 588 3 4

16.00%

14.00%

12.00%

10.00%

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00% Jasper Stony Ridge chert Local chert Quartz

Nodular cortex Cobble cortex

Figure 5.11 Cortex types listed by lithic raw materials and percentage of debitage exhibiting cortex in Block 4, Block 5, and Block 6.

172

Lithic refitting analysis indicates that the majority (n=21, 95.2%) of refitted flake sequences represent “ghosts” (i.e., refit sets derived from bifaces or cores taken off site)

(Morrow 1996a). Of these 21 ghosts, 12 were knapped from bifaces (including 1 bifacial core), 1 was produced from a nodular core, and 7 were of indeterminate origin. Only 1

(4.8%) of the 22 total refit sequences involved flake removals that refit to a parent tool.

The remaining 34 refit sets represent broken flakes (n=29) and broken tools (5). Refitting data also shows that bifaces (n=4) and cores (n=3) in the Crowfield assemblages all represent “orphans” (i.e., bifaces and cores that lack refitted flakes) (Morrow 1996a).

5.5 Discussion

Crowfield Lithic Technological Organization at Nesquehoning Creek

Two distinct flake tool production, transport, retouch, and discard strategies were identified in the Crowfield assemblages. Formal tools were manufactured by Crowfield flintknappers from nodular/informal and bifacial cores. Tool blank production may have taken place at or near toolstone quarries (see Eren and Andrews 2013) where large and thick flakes exhibiting platform angles >80 degrees on average were selected for shaping and retouching into formal tool types. These pre-fashioned tools served as carefully curated staples in the Crowfield toolkit that were typically abandoned due to tool margin exhaustion or breakage. Informal tools were principally derived from bifacial cores that were, at least in part, knapped on site (Figure 5.12). Tool blanks well-suited to accomplish expedient tasks were selected based on their size, shape, working edge angle, and edge shape. Informal tools struck from bifacial cores were smaller, thinner, and

173

Figure 5.12 Refitted informal tools struck from a bifacial core.

lighter, had more dorsal flake scars, and narrower platforms on average than formal tools.

Furthermore, informal tools were produced on an as-needed basis and subsequently discarded after relatively minor use/modification. This stands in contrast to formal tools that were manufactured in advance of use and regularly retouched and reworked to extend their utility. The number of informal flake tools (n=32) represented in the

Crowfield toolkit compared to formal tools (n=10) may reflect a familiarity with the surrounding landscape and lithic resources that allowed for the discard of informal tools with considerable edge utility remaining (Andrews et al. 2015).

Bifaces from the Crowfield assemblages were primarily crafted from flake spalls at, or near, toolstone source locations. The presence of an early-stage biface/bifacial core provides direct evidence that bifacial cores were a part of the Crowfield toolkit. Bifaces

174 in all stages of reduction, regardless of size or shape, were knapped using a flaking strategy that involved lateral overface flake removals and end-thinning. Indeed, 100% of the bifaces at Nesquehoning Creek exhibit overface flaking and 75% have end-thinning scars. Similar biface reduction strategies were used by Clovis knappers at the Topper quarry site in South Carolina. Drawing from a much larger sample size of bifaces representing all stages of reduction, 75.28% of all Topper bifaces exhibited overface removals and 42.53% displayed end-thinning scars (Smallwood 2011:88-89).

Middle-stage bifaces were crafted on flake spalls that were thinned primarily off- site and transported to Nesquehoning Creek as reserve gear. These bifaces displayed similar dimensional measurements, W/T ratios, and planview/base shapes. The relatively small and thin character of these middle-stage bifaces suggests that not all preforms/bifaces began as large cores that were gradually reduced to finished fluted points (Callahan 1979). Rather, Crowfield flintknappers produced both small bifacial preforms that could be readily fashioned into or fluted points but would not have been suitable as cores; and larger bifacial cores intended for flake extraction and informal tool production.

The Crowfield assemblages were predominated by jasper lithic raw materials quarried from bedrock sources located approximately 50 km south-southeast of

Nesquehoning Creek. Stone tool production strategies similar to Clovis and later

Paleoindian technologies were identified in the debitage and tool assemblages. Bifaces were commonly edge abraded and knapped so that thinning flakes traveled past the midline or, more rarely, overshot to the opposite margin of the biface. Overshot flakes

175 derived from bifaces and nodular/informal cores indicate that Crowfield knappers used this flaking technique to aggressively thin bifaces in all stages of reduction and produce large and thick tool blanks. Jasper and chalcedony channel flakes recovered from the probable Crowfield assemblage attest to fluting or basal thinning of at least two additional bifaces.

Lithic refits demonstrate that multiple bifaces not present in the artifact assemblage (i.e., “ghosts” [Morrow 1996a:357]) were edge-abraded, thinned, and retouched on site (Figure 5.13). Refitting evidence also indicates that at least one nodular/informal core (Figure 5.14) and one bifacial core were reduced at Nesquehoning

Creek. The proportion of “ghosts” (95.2%) amongst refitted flake sequences and

“orphans” (100%) amongst bifaces and cores suggests that the duration of occupation at

Nesquehoning Creek did not exceed the use-life of these artifact types. The high refitting rate, low artifact density, proportion of “ghosts” and “orphans”, few discarded formal tools, and paucity of local lithic raw materials suggest that the Crowfield occupation at

Nesquehoning Creek was relatively short-lived (Morrow 1996a:370; Seeman 1994:278).

Lithic Raw Material Sources and Range Mobility

Given the role that lithic raw material sources played in Paleoindian settlement patterns (Carr et al. 2013; Custer and Stewart 1990; Gardner 1989; Goodyear 1989; Ellis

2011), the nearly exclusive use jasper toolstone in the Crowfield assemblage indicates a degree of regularity in how Late Paleoindian groups were organizing their movements

176

Figure 5.13 Refitted late-stage bifacial thinning and retouch flakes.

Figure 5.14 Refitted flakes struck from a nodular/informal core. Note the flat, unground, and cortical striking platforms.

177 across the landscape (Stewart et al. in press). The predominance of expediently used and discarded informal flake tools in the Crowfield assemblage suggests a familiarity with the surrounding landscape and toolstone source locations (Andrews et al. 2015). Nearby lithic raw material sources (i.e., Stony ridge) were visited by Crowfield flintknappers, but only exploited to a minor degree. These toolstone types tentatively link earlier settlement movements to the Stony Ridge quarries 13 km downstream (Fogelman 1999; Katz 2000) and jasper outcrops located approximately 50 km south and southeast of Nesquehoning

Creek (Anthony and Roberts 1988; Berg 1980; Berg and Dodge 1981; Hatch 1993;

Stewart and Schindler 2008).

The predominance of nonlocal jasper tools and debitage, and paucity of local lithic raw materials, suggests that jasper quarries played an important role in the organization of Crowfield settlement patterns. Alternatively, constricting Late

Paleoindian territorial ranges (Anderson 1995, 1996; Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006;

Ellis 2011; Meltzer 2009; Tankersley 1994) may have narrowed the number of lithic raw material sources quarried on a regular basis. A Clovis/Gainey fluted point reportedly found by artifact collectors at Nesquehoning Creek was crafted on green Normanskill chert derived from quarries located approximately 290 km northeast in present-day New

York state. This find provides tentative evidence that Early Paleoindian groups visiting

Nesquehoning Creek employed larger range sizes than later Crowfield occupants.

A Comparison of Crowfield Assemblages

The Crowfield type site is situated on a sand knoll on the Caradoc Sand Plain in

178

Middlesex County, Ontario (Deller and Ellis 1984, 2011). Artifacts diagnostic of the

Paleoindian and Middle Archaic through Late Woodland periods were recovered from plowzone and subsoil contexts. The Paleoindian deposits are concentrated in and around two truncated features containing thermally-altered artifacts, one of which is argued to represent “a cache of grave goods associated with Paleoindian cremation” (Deller and

Ellis 2011:183). Lithic raw materials in the assemblage include Onondaga,

Collingwood/Fossil Hill, Ancaster, Selkirk, and Kettle Point cherts procured from quarries located 100 km, 200 km, 125 km, 90 km and 55 km, respectively, from the

Crowfield site. Onondaga and Collingwood chert predominate the Paleoindian feature assemblages that include Crowfield fluted points and preforms, assorted bifaces, scrapers, gravers, notches, and retouched/used flakes. Deller and Ellis (2011) argue that the artifacts placed within the cremation feature may represent a single person’s lithic toolkit.

The analysis of lithic technological organization at the Crowfield site by Dellis and Ellis (2011) is briefly summarized below. Tool blanks and biface preforms were produced at quarries and transported from site to site in their unfinished forms. Tool blank production typically involved knapping large flakes from the corners of blocky cores at quarries, or from large bifacial cores (Deller and Ellis 2011:41). The artifact assemblage was primarily comprised of finished and resharpened tools including fluted points and preforms, various types of bifaces, and formal tools. This suggests that the artifact assemblage at Crowfield does not represent a recently manufactured toolkit

“freshly refurbished at a lithic source” (Deller and Ellis 2011:183), an observation strengthened by the absence of artifacts typed as cores.

179

The Wallis site is located on a floodplain of the Susquehanna River in Liverpool,

Pennsylvania (Miller et al. 2007). Occupation of the site spans the Paleoindian through

Late Woodland periods. The Paleoindian assemblage was recovered from a C horizon at the base of the soil profile, and on top of/within the underlying terrace cobbles. Artifacts recovered from three discrete chipping clusters include Crowfield points, bifaces, scrapers, spokeshaves, denticulates, and modified flakes. With regard to lithic raw material selection, locally acquired toolstone including Penn’s Creek chert, Mahantango chert, quartz, sandstone, and siltstone predominate the assemblage (~85%). Nonlocal raw materials are less common (~15%) and include Onondaga chert, jasper, and rhyolite.

Primary deposits of jasper and Onondaga chert are approximately 130 km and 350 km, respectively, distant from the Wallis site. Miller and colleagues suggest that the occurrence of exotic raw materials suggest that Paleoindians at Wallis practiced a “wide- ranging foraging strategy” (2007:105).

Nesquehoning Creek has the lowest density of artifacts and fewest total number of tools (i.e., bifaces, cores, and unifaces) compared to the Crowfield and Wallis sites

(Table 5.26). The large number of fluted and unfluted bifaces (n=110, 69.19%) recovered from the Crowfield type site stands apart from Nesquehoning (n=4, 8.16%) and

Wallis (n=16, 10.46%). Alternately beveled bifaces have been documented at Crowfield and Barnes sites in the eastern Great Lakes (Ellis and Deller 1997:Table 5) and New

England-Maritimes region (Chapdelaine 2012), but appear to be absent from Early

Paleoindian toolkits in those same areas (Lothrop et al. 2016). An alternately beveled biface recovered from Nesquehoning Creek is beveled on one side primarily due to biface

180

Table 5.26 Comparison of Crowfield tool assemblages (adapted from Deller and Ellis 2011:Tables 4.2, 10.2; Miller et al. 2007:Tables 27, 33, 37, 41). Nesquehoning Crowfield* Wallis** Artifact type n % n % n % Fluted points 1 2.04 31 19.50 3 1.96 Bifaces 3 6.12 79 49.69 13 8.50 Cores 3 6.12 0 0.00 31 20.26 End scrapers 1 2.04 4 2.52 6 3.92 Side scrapers 5 10.20 19 11.95 4 2.61 Other scrapers 1 2.04 0 0.00 1 0.65 Spokeshaves 2 4.08 1 0.63 9 5.88 Drill 1 2.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Denitculates 0 0.00 2 1.25 8 5.23 Gravers 0 0.00 2 1.25 7 4.58 Retouched flakes 8 16.33 21 13.21 31 20.26 Modified flakes 24 48.98 0 0.00 40 26.14 Total 49 100.00 159 100.00 153 100.00 *Artifact totals derived from Paleoindian feature contexts only. **Artifact totals derived from secure Paleoindian contexts only (i.e., basal C horizon and cobble layer).

blank morphology, and the other side due to flaking/retouch. The biface from the

Crowfield site appears to be alternately beveled entirely due to intentional retouch (Deller and Ellis 2011:Figure:9.7).

With regard to flake tools, Nesquehoning Creek exhibits the highest percentage of informal unifaces (i.e., denticulates, gravers, modified and retouched flakes) compared to formal unifaces (i.e., scrapers, spokeshaves, and drills) (Table 5.27). The high proportion of informal unifaces at Wallis (73.58%) is not surprising considering the sites proximity to local lithic raw materials. The proportion of modified flakes at Nesquehoning Creek

(48.98%) is uncommon for Paleoindian sites in the region, including Wallis (26.14%) and the 60 km distant Shawnee Minisink site (31% from recent excavation units) (Gingerich

181

Table 5.27 Proportions of formal and informal unifaces from three Crowfield assemblages. Site Formal unifaces (%) Informal unifaces (%) Nesquehoning Creek 23.81 76.19 Crowfield 48.98 51.02 Wallis 26.42 73.58

2007b). Of the three Crowfield assemblages under scrutiny, the Crowfield type site

(48.98%) contains the most formal unifaces. The high frequency of formal unifaces and bifaces, and low incidence of informal tools and cores, suggest that the toolkit deposited at the Crowfield site was crafted with portability in mind. Trianguloid end scrapers commonly found at Clovis and other Paleoindian sites (e.g., Nobles Pond, Shawnee

Minisink) are noticeably rare to absent in the Crowfield (feature context n=0, non-feature context n=2) (Deller and Ellis 2011:183), Wallis (n=1) (Miller et al. 2007:Plate 8), and

Nesquehoning Creek (n=0) assemblages. The absence of this tool type may relate to site function, as Paleoindian trianguloid end scrapers are often interpreted as hide working tools (Loebel 2013; Seeman et al. 2013). This seems unlikely, however, as all end scrapers at Wallis with identifiable microwear traces were identified as hide scraping tools (Miller et al. 2007:92) despite their relatively irregular forms. Additional uniface types absent from Nesquehoning Creek, but present in the other two Crowfield assemblages, include denticulates and gravers.

Nonlocal lithic raw materials predominate at both Nesquehoning Creek (50 km from nearest source) and Crowfield (55-200 km to nearest sources), while primarily local toolstone was used at Wallis. The procurement, transport, and reduction of numerous cores (n=31) fashioned from local lithic raw materials at the Wallis site may indicate

182 longer site occupation (Surovell 2003, 2009) and/or the establishment of sub-regional cultural traditions. Paleoindians at Nesquehoning Creek did not intensively exploit local raw materials despite a familiarity with the surrounding landscape. The selection of nonlocal jasper may relate to Paleoindian cultural preference for high-quality cryptocrystalline raw materials documented by several researchers in the Middle Atlantic region (Carr and Adovasio 2012; Carr et al. 2013; Custer et al. 1983; Gardner 1974,

1977; Stewart 1987, 1992).

5.6 Conclusions

Analysis of the Nesquehoning Creek Crowfield assemblage has broadened our knowledge of Paleoindian technological organization in the Middle Atlantic region.

Crowfield hunter-gatherers produced and used flake tools, retouched bifaces, and reduced various types of cores at Nesquehoning Creek. Bifaces were manufactured away from the site on flake spalls using a combination of end-thinning, overface, and rarely overshot flaking techniques. Formal tools were produced from bifacial and nodular/informal cores off site, presumably near jasper quarries, and continually retouched and reworked until exhausted or broken. Informal tools derived from bifacial and, less often, nodular/informal cores were at least partly knapped on site and discarded prior to edge exhaustion. Crowfield flake tool production and discard strategies suggest a familiarity with the surrounding landscape and lithic resources during the closing centuries of the

Younger Dryas. Lithic refitting, artifact density, and toolstone selection data indicate that the Crowfield occupation was relatively brief. The predominant use of lithic raw

183 materials derived from the 50 km-distant Hardyston formation quarries may suggest a reduction in territory size during the Late Paleoindian period (Anderson 1995, 1996;

Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006; Ellis 2011; Ellis and Deller 1997; Lothrop et al. 2016;

Meltzer 2009).

184 CHAPTER 6

PALEOINDIAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY PATTERNS IN THE MIDDLE

ATLANTIC AND NORTHEAST

6.1 Introduction

It is generally agreed that Late Paleoindian groups in the Middle Atlantic and

Northeast exhibited greater stylistic variation in fluted point forms and decreased annual range territories relative to Early Paleoindian groups (Anderson 1995, 1996; Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006; Ellis 2011; Ellis and Deller 1997; Lothrop et al. 2016; Meltzer

2009). However, to what extent residential mobility strategies changed from Early to

Late Paleoindian periods is less clear and requires further investigation (Gingerich 2012).

In this chapter, I will attempt to determine if there are detectable differences between

Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility patterns in the Middle Atlantic and

Northeast using an independent measure of mobility. Residential mobility will be gauged by comparing the relative occupation spans of Early and Late Paleoindian sites.

Specifically, I hypothesize that Late Paleoindian groups occupied sites for longer periods of time and were less residentially mobile than Early Paleoindian populations.

6.2 Background

Paleoindians have traditionally been viewed as small groups of mobile foragers that were "technology oriented" and practiced high degrees of residential and range mobility (Goodyear 1989; Kelly and Todd 1988). More recently, other researchers have argued that Early Paleoindian mobility was initially high, but decreased as groups

185 encountered and settled into "staging areas" – places replete with faunal, floral, and lithic resources – along the Cumberland, Ohio, and Tennessee rivers (Anderson 1995, 1996;

Smallwood 2012). Staging areas would have served as habitual use territories for those

Early Paleoindian groups that settled in, and safety nets for groups that pushed onward.

Both Anderson (1995:11) and Kelly and Todd's (1988:6) models expect relatively high range and residential mobility from Early Paleoindian groups.

Settlement pattern analysis in the Middle Atlantic region indicates that

Paleoindian groups had territorial ranges spanning 150-250 km in eastern Pennsylvania

(Custer and Stewart 1990), 250 km in the Delmarva Peninsula (Custer 1984, 1989), 325-

400 km in New York (Gramly 1988), and 40-150 km in the Ridge and Valley and

Piedmont portions of Virginia (Carr et al. 2013; Gardner 1983). Within these territories,

Paleoindians procured cryptocrystalline lithic raw materials in a cyclical fashion in locales with relatively few outcrops, and in a serial pattern in areas with numerous small quarries (Carr et al 2013; Custer 1984, 1996; Custer et al. 1983).

Meltzer (1984, 1988) hypothesized that Paleoindian populations in the previously glaciated areas of eastern North America demonstrated different lifeways, including greater residential mobility (i.e., briefer occupations), than generalists in unglaciated areas. A recent study by Gingerich (2012) tested Meltzer’s hypothesis following methods outlined by Surovell (2003, 2009). The study determined that occupation spans of Early Paleoindian sites did not significantly differ between glaciated and unglaciated regions, and that “environmental or resource differences do not seem to have influenced general patterns of mobility among Early Paleoindian groups” (Gingerich 2012:25).

186 A number of researchers have argued that Late Paleoindian groups demonstrate a reduction in range mobility and residential mobility compared to Early Paleoindians (e.g.,

Anderson 1995, 1996; Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006; Ellis 2011; Ellis and Deller

1997; Tankersley 1994:98-99). Evidence used to support this observation includes the diversification and regionalization of point styles and a detectable decrease in mean toolstone procurement distances (Anderson 1995, 1996; Meltzer 2009). A recent study by Ellis (2011) tested the hypothesis that Early Paleoindians practiced broader wandering ranges than Late Paleoindians. The study found that linear distances between

Paleoindian sites and primary toolstone sources significantly decreased during the Late

Paleoindian period. Ellis (2011) concluded that these data confirmed a decrease in range mobility from Early to Late Paleoindian periods in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. Anderson's (1995, 1996) staging-area model indicates that Late Paleoindians more frequently procured locally available lithics and "adopted bounded habitual-use areas or settlement ranges... resulting [in] decreased mobility" (1995:5).

In the Middle Atlantic region, previous Paleoindian settlement pattern studies have analyzed sites from the Paleoindian period as a single chronological unit, as opposed to subdividing into Early, Middle, or Late subperiods (Custer 1984, 1996; Custer et al.1983; Gardner 1974, 1983; Pagoulatos 2004). Several researchers have noted that lifeways appear to be consistent throughout the Paleoindian period (e.g., Carr et al 2013;

Custer 1996). The relatively recent discovery and excavation of several Late Paleoindian sites (e.g., Nesquehoning Creek and Wallis) and adoption of more nuanced regional typologies (e.g., Bradley et al. 2008; Miller and Gingerich 2013a) provides the opportunity for a comparison of residential mobility patterns between Early and Late

187 Paleoindian groups over a relatively broad study area. Gingerich (2012) previously analyzed sites distributed across eastern North America, however, a more limited study area confined to the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions was chosen for this study based on the number of published Late Paleoindian sites available that include artifact counts (e.g., debitage and tools) and lithic raw material data (e.g., distance from site to toolstone sources) required by Surovell’s model.

Based on the research discussed above, I hypothesize that Late Paleoindians occupied sites for longer periods of time and were less residentially mobile than Early

Paleoindians. In order to test this hypothesis, proxy measures for relative occupation span were calculated for both groups of sites (i.e., Early and Late) following an approach developed by Surovell (2003, 2009) to determine if there are detectable differences between Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

6.3 Materials and Methods

This study was based on lithic assemblage data from 22 Paleoindian assemblages distributed throughout the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions (Figure 6.1). In order to evaluate Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies, relative occupation span data was calculated for 10 contextually secure assemblages containing diagnostic projectile points, over half of which have been radiocarbon-dated between 12,261-11,453 cal BP

(10,345-9,980 RCYBP) (Table 6.1). Late Paleoindian assemblages selected for this study include Janet Cormier (Moore 2002; Moore and Will 1998) and Michaud (Spiess and

Wilson 1987) in Maine; Colebrook (Richard Boisvert, personal communication 2014;

188

Figure 6.1 Map of the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions showing the location of Early (triangles) and Late (dots) Paleoindian sites involved in this study.

189

Table 6.1 Late Paleoindian sites included in the study sample. Dates (cal BP/ Site Period Fluted point type Location RCYBP) Nesquehoning 12,261±165/ Late Paleoindian Crowfield-like Pennsylvania Creek 10,345±22* 11,292±39/ Wallis Late Paleoindian Crowfield-like Pennsylvania 9890±40 12,060±221/ Hidden Creek Late Paleoindian Cromier-Nicholas Connecticut 10,260±70 11,944±140/ Colebrook Late Paleoindian Michaud-Neponset New Hampshire 10,226±48 Hume HB-1 Late Paleoindian None Ste. Anne-Varney New Hampshire Jefferson I Late Paleoindian None Michaud-Neponset New Hampshire Jefferson IV Late Paleoindian None Cromier-Nicholas New Hampshire Potter Late Paleoindian None Michaud-Neponset New Hampshire 12,009±245/ Janet-Cromier Late Paleoindian Cromier-Nicholas Maine 10,240±90 11,757±834/ Michaud Late Paleoindian Michaud-Neponset Maine 10,200±620 *Derived from three dates (9940±50, 10,340±40, 10,480±30 RCYBP) averaged using OxCal "R Combine" function in OxCal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2016).

190 Bunker et al. 1997; Bunker and Potter 1999), Hume (Boisvert and Bennett 2004),

Jefferson I and IV (Richard Boisvert, personal communication 2014), and Potter

(Rockwell 2014) in New Hampshire; Hidden Creek (Jones 1997; Jones and Forrest 2003) in Connecticut; and Nesquehoning Creek (Chapter 5, this dissertation) and Wallis (Miller et al. 2007) in Pennsylvania.

Late Paleoindian occupation span data were compared to 12 Early Paleoindian assemblages (Table 6.2) from Gingerich’s (2012) study in order to evaluate patterns of

Paleoindian residential mobility through time. The Early Paleoindian sample includes

Adkins and Vail in Maine; Whipple in New Hampshire; Lamb, West Athens Hill, and

Zapp in New York; Bull Brook I and II, and Sugarloaf in Massachusetts; Shawnee-

Minisink in Pennsylvania; and Conover and Thunderbird in Virginia (Joseph Gingerich

2012, personal communication 2016). A few sites could not be included in this analysis because they lacked artifact or toolstone types the model described below requires to calculate relative occupation span (e.g., Templeton lacks nonlocal raw materials [Moeller

1980] and Cactus Hill lacks accurate debitage counts [McAvoy and McAvoy 1997]).

Multiple methods have been proposed to determine the occupation span of archaeological sites (e.g., Gallivan 2002; Lightfoot and Jewett 1984; Morrow 1996a;

Schiffer 1987; Surovell 2003, 2009; Varien and Potter 1997). A formal model designed to measure relative occupation span developed by Surovell (2003, 2009) was considered the best fit for this study for multiple reasons. The model is well suited for analyzing relatively large site samples that include assemblages recovered from plowzone, surface, and stratified contexts (Surovell 2003, 2009). It uses basic artifact and lithic raw material data available in most published site reports as proxy measures for relative occupation

191 Table 6.2 Early Paleoindian sites included in the study sample. Site Period Fluted point type Location Conover Early Paleoindian Clovis Virginia Thunderbird Early Paleoindian Clovis Virginia Shawnee-Minisink Early Paleoindian Clovis Pennsylvania Lamb Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey New York West Athens Hill Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey* New York Zappavigna Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey New York Bull Brook Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey* Massachusetts Bull Brook II Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey* Massachusetts Sugarloaf Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey** Massachusetts Whipple Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey** New Hampshire Adkins Early Paleoindian Clovis-Gainey** Maine Vail Early Paleoindian Vail-Debert Maine *Bull Brook-West Athens Hill type according to Bradley et al. (2008). **Kings Road-Whipple type according to Bradley et al. (2008).

span. Finally, the model has been successfully used in similar studies examining

Paleoindian mobility in the Rocky Mountains (Surovell 2003, 2009), Great Basin (Smith

2011), and eastern North America (Gingerich 2012; Rockwell 2014).

Surovell’s model uses artifact and lithic raw material ratios as proxy measures to determine the relative occupation spans of archaeological sites or assemblages. The model assumes that, all things being equal, as occupation span lengthens, nonlocal tools will be progressively used up and archaeological assemblages will become increasingly predominated by local raw materials (Surovell's 2003:132, 2009:77) – an observation echoed by other researchers (Jones et. al 2003:7-8; Kuhn 1995:26, 2004:433-434;

Smallwood 2011:107). In addition, this model assumes that debitage is primarily the result of on-site (i.e., local) lithic reduction activities, and that nonlocal tools represent

192 curated implements that have been transported from site to site (Surovell 2009:82).

Following this approach, the relative occupation span of an assemblage may be estimated by comparing ratios of local:nonlocal artifacts and debitage:nonlocal tools. When these ratios are plotted for several assemblages, they provide a relative measure for which assemblages represent brief occupations and which were protracted (Figure 6.2).

13 12 11 10 9 Longer occupations 8 7 6 5 4

3 Shorter occupations Log (Debitage:Nonlocal Tools) (Debitage:Nonlocal Log 2 1 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Log (Local:Nonlocal)

Figure 6.2 Hypothetical group of sites (dots) plotted by proxy measures to determine relative occupation spans.

Surovell (2003, 2009) tested this model with data from several Folsom and

Goshen sites from the northern Plains and Rocky Mountains and by simulating archaeological assemblages. He found that “the tests strongly indicate that both measures are monitoring the same phenomenon, which is argued to be mean per capita occupation span” (Surovell 2003:142). This approach has also been employed by other researchers examining residential mobility patterns. Smith (2011) analyzed pre-Archaic and Archaic

193 assemblages in the Great Basin and found that significant differences in toolstone ratios suggest that settlement strategies varied over time, with earlier sites showing greater residential mobility than later sites. Smith considered the use of Surovell’s model to be successful in the study and opined that “comparing relative occupation spans offers an excellent but underused opportunity to identify diachronic changes in Great Basin lifeways” (2011:466). Gingerich (2012) successfully applied the model to test the hypothesis that Early Paleoindians practiced different lifeways in glaciated and unglaciated areas of eastern North America (Meltzer 1984, 1988). The study determined that Early Paleoindian sites showed similar relative occupation spans between varying environmental zones, indicating similar residential mobility patterns (Gingerich 2012).

It is important to note that, while Surovell’s model assumes that ratios of local artifacts to transported artifacts partially reflect the length of occupation, there are other variables that may influence how local and nonlocal toolstone enter archaeological assemblages (Bamforth 1986, 1990; Larson 1994; Shott 1989). One such variable includes the preferential procurement of cryptocrystalline lithics by Paleoindian groups, sometimes to the exclusion of other equally accessible toolstone types such as argillite and metarhyolite (Carr and Adovasio 2012; Carr et al. 2013; Custer et al. 1983; Gardner

1974, 1977; Goodyear 1989; Stewart 1987, 1992). The nature of recovered assemblages may be impacted by the scope of excavations and activity patterning at a given site, an issue that all multisite studies must cope with. Indeed, Gingerich notes that “Paleoindian research is plagued by problems of temporal control, sample size, and biases in site surveys” (2012:25). While the sites included in this study were not uniform with regard to extent of excavations, the study sample was considered acceptable based on their

194 inclusion in previous studies using the same model (e.g., Gingerich 2012) and published site reports indicating a suitable sample of Paleoindian artifacts had been recovered.

With these cautions in mind, all models make assumptions and have associated pitfalls whether they are based on qualitative or quantitative data. The primary assumptions of this model, that locally procured toolstone should be increasingly represented in assemblages as occupation span lengthens, has been noted (Jones et. al 2003:7-8; Kuhn

1995:26, 2004:433-434; Smallwood 2011:107) and used by other researchers (e.g.,

Gingerich 2012; Rockwell 2014; Smith 2011) and was considered appropriate for this study.

Following previous studies (Gingerich 2012; Smith 2011; Surovell 2003, 2009), local toolstone is defined as lithic raw materials procured from within a 20 km radius of a given site. The 20 km threshold represents the average round trip distance a pedestrian hunter-gatherer might travel throughout the course of a single day, and is substantiated by ethnographic evidence (Binford 2001:235-238; Kelly 1995; Surovell 2003:133).

A null and alternative hypothesis regarding Late Paleoindian residential mobility patterns were developed using the materials and methods outlined above. Null hypothesis: there are no significant differences in local to nonlocal toolstone ratios between Early and Late Paleoindian assemblages. Alternative hypothesis: Late

Paleoindian assemblages have significantly higher mean ratios of local to nonlocal toolstone than Early Paleoindian assemblages.

I expect that if Late Paleoindian residential mobility was significantly lower than

Early Paleoindians, then mean ratios of local to nonlocal toolstone and debitage to nonlocal tools will be significantly higher in Late Paleoindian assemblages. Failure to

195 reject the null hypothesis will be interpreted to indicate that that there are no detectable differences in occupation span and residential mobility strategies between Early and Late

Paleoindians. Rejection of the of the null hypothesis will be interpreted as evidence that

Late Paleoindians practiced mobility strategies characterized by longer occupation spans and decreased residential mobility relative to Early Paleoindian complexes in the Middle

Atlantic and Northeast regions.

Sites included in this study are situated across varying environmental zones

(Custer and Stewart 1990; Gardner 1974, 1977; Lothrop et al. 2011; Meltzer 1984, 1988;

Newby et al. 2005; Schuman et al. 2002). To test environmental effects on residential mobility patterns, Late Paleoindian sites will be examined for detectable differences in occupation span for sites located in glaciated and unglaciated regions (see Meltzer 1984,

1988) of eastern North America.

6.4 Results

The relative occupation spans of all sites in the study sample were determined using the formal model discussed above (Figure 6.3). The results of a student’s t-test found that local to nonlocal lithic raw material ratios between Late Paleoindian (Table

6.3) and Early Paleoindian (Table 6.4) sites were not statistically significant (t=0.2179, df=20, p=0.8297). Debitage to nonlocal tool ratios between Early and Late Paleoindian sites were also not considered to be statistically significant (Student’s t-test: t=0.6855, df=20, p=0.5009). These results indicate that mean occupation durations between Early and Late Paleoindian sites in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions are not

196 13 12 Hume 11 Shawnee 10 Jefferson I 9 Colebrook Whipple Thunderbird 8 Potter West 7 Jefferson IV Wallis Athens Hidden Creek 6 Zapp Michaud Conover 5 J-C Lamb 4 Nesquehoning Sugarloaf 3 Log (Debitage:Nonlocal Tools) (Debitage:Nonlocal Log Bull Brook II 2 Bull Brook I 1 Vail Adkins 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Log (Local:Nonlocal)

Figure 6.3 Early (triangles) and Late (dots) Paleoindian sites plotted by proxy measures to determine relative occupation spans.

Table 6.3 Late Paleoindian relative occupation span data. NL Debitage:NL Site Local Nonlocal Debitage Local:NL tools tools Nesquehoning 106 1044 1101 48 0.102 22.938 Creek Wallis 2770 553 3086 26 5.009 118.692 Hidden Creek 30 3407 3375 62 0.009 54.435 Colebrook 34 3219 3247 4 0.011 811.750 Hume 12707 1115 13602 3 11.400 4534.000 Jefferson I 704 4 702 1 176.000 702.000 Jefferson IV 165 80 240 2 2.063 120 Potter 11675 4187 11567 77 2.790 150.220 Janet-Cromier 48 2418 2410 59 0.020 40.847 Michaud 189 2058 2158 73 0.092 29.562 Mean 19.749 658.444

197 Table 6.4 Early Paleoindian relative occupation span data. NL Debitage:NL Site Local Nonlocal Debitage Local:NL tools tools Conover 1173 29 1073 15 40.448 71.533 Thunderbird 8111 85 7753 19 95.424 408.053 Shawnee-M. 30180 2556 32583 13 11.808 2506.385 Lamb 525 66 494 13 7.955 38.000 West Athens Hill 11292 86 6897 17 131.302 405.706 Zappavigna 1374 300 1550 17 4.580 91.176 Bull Brook 1728 40491 36722 4954 0.043 7.413 Bull Brook II 58 428 3249 428 0.136 7.591 Sugarloaf 63 2249 2105 189 0.028 11.138 Whipple 1916 36200 38000 66 0.053 575.758 Adkins 80 344 276 133 0.233 2.076 Vail 302 13288 8464 4983 0.023 1.699 Mean 24.336 343.877

statistically different. The failure to reject the null hypothesis suggests that Early and

Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies were not significantly different with regard to site occupation lengths. Both Early and Late Paleoindian samples included quarry-related (e.g., Thunderbird and Jefferson I and IV) and non-quarry sites (e.g.,

Shawnee-Minisink and Wallis) likely representing longer occupations, and sites containing predominately nonlocal toolstone that represent shorter occupations (e.g., Vail and Colebrook). Late Paleoindian sites located in formerly glaciated and unglaciated areas of eastern North America did not display statistically different ratios of nonlocal to local lithic raw materials (Student’s t-test: t=0.4723, df=8, p=0.6493) and debitage to nonlocal tools (Student’s t-test: t=0.6456, df=8, p=0.5366). This suggests that the

198 relative occupation lengths of Late Paleoindian sites did not significantly differ based on the environmental zones discussed by Meltzer (1984, 1988).

6.5 Discussion and Conclusions

In the Middle Atlantic region, Early Paleoindian groups displayed variable territory sizes with maximum distance traveled ranging from 40-400 km and averaging approximately 250 km (Carr et al. 2013; Custer 1984, 1989; Custer and Stewart 1990;

Gardner 1983; Gramly 1988). Lithic raw material data from the Nesquehoning Creek

Crowfield component suggest a relatively small wandering radius on the order of 50 km.

This reduction in range size is in agreement with several other studies that suggest Late

Paleoindian populations in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions displayed a reduction in range mobility relative to Early Paleoindian groups (Anderson 1995, 1996;

Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006; Ellis 2011; Ellis and Deller 1997; Tankersley

1994:98-99).

Based on this research, it was hypothesized that Late Paleoindian sites would display decreased residential mobility compared to Early Paleoindian sites. A formal model designed to measure the relative occupation span of archaeological assemblages was used to test this hypothesis. The results of this study did not conform to the expectation that Late Paleoindian groups displayed decreased residential mobility, as mean occupation lengths displayed little statistical difference between the two samples.

Specifically, both Early and Late Paleoindian samples included quarry-related and non- quarry-related sites with longer occupation lengths, and short-term occupation sites containing primarily nonlocal toolstone. A comparison of Late Paleoindian sites situated

199 in previously glaciated and unglaciated landscapes found no detectable differences in mean occupation spans between the two regions. These findings are consistent with a previous study that found no difference in Early Paleoindian residential mobility strategies based on glaciated and unglaciated areas (Gingerich 2012). From a broad prospective, the results of this study suggest that although Late Paleoindians had smaller range sizes, they moved from site to site within those territories about as frequently as

Early Paleoindians in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

In the previous chapter, it was suggested that the Crowfield occupation at

Nesquehoning Creek was relatively brief based on lithic refitting, artifact density, and lithic raw material data. The results of this study are in agreement with this impression, as the Nesquehoning Creek assemblage fell within the cluster of Paleoindian sites representing relatively short occupations (see Figure 6.3). Sites that could be considered base camps as outlined by Gardner (1974, 1977, 1989) (e.g., Thunderbird) cluster around the longer duration occupations in the study sample. This follows, as base camps such as

Thunderbird are described as habitation sites occupied for long periods of time that are often situated near lithic raw material sources (Gardner 1974, 1977, 1989).

The relative occupation span data presented in this chapter may be updated and reassessed several ways in the future. First, the discovery, excavation, and reporting of additional Paleoindian sites in secure temporal context would help to further clarify or reassess the results of this study. Specifically, increasing the sample size of such sites in areas with relatively few contextually secure and dated Late Paleoindian assemblages

(e.g., Middle Atlantic region) would be particularly valuable. Second, the majority of lithic raw material data in this chapter was drawn from site reports and journal articles

200 that did not involve trace element analysis of artifacts and toolstone outcrops. Increasing the use of quantitative sourcing techniques such as neutron activation analysis (e.g.,

Boulanger et al. 2015) and laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

(e.g., Speer 2013, 2014) to validate previous lithic raw material assignations will improve the confidence and accuracy of future studies involving toolstone provenance data.

Finally, this study analyzed Paleoindian lifeways using a single measure of residential mobility (i.e., relative occupation span). The examination of additional dimensions of mobility in the future will help to piece together a more complete picture of Paleoindian lifeways in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

201 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

The Nesquehoning Creek site is one of the few archaeological sites in the Middle

Atlantic region to contain a buried, contextually secure, and radiocarbon-dated

Paleoindian occupation (Carr and Adovasio 2012; Miller and Gingerich 2013a, b). The primary focus of this dissertation was to investigate the Paleoindian lithic assemblages at

Nesquehoning Creek and assess them in the context of what is already known about

Paleoindian technology in the region and beyond. This was accomplished through a detailed examination of stratigraphy, site formation and disturbance processes, lithic refitting, and technological organization. On a broader scale, this dissertation explored

Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies in the Middle Atlantic and

Northeast regions using lithic assemblage data from 22 Paleoindian sites and a formal model (Surovell 2003, 2009) designed to measure relative occupation span.

An examination of the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and site disturbance processes at Nesquehoning Creek indicated that the variability in stratigraphic sequences, particle size of deposits, and expressions of soil development documented across the site were primarily influenced by basal gravel depth, surface topography, and distance from the Lehigh River and Nesquehoning Creek. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene alluvial deposits are thickest in Unit 2 and Block 3, where basal gravels are deepest. These results show that Paleoindian deposits recovered from deeply stratified excavation areas have the potential for identification of former occupation surfaces or “zones”. However,

Paleoindian artifacts recovered from excavation units positioned on the far eastern,

202 western, and southern margins of the site may be intermingled with later prehistoric deposits due to elevated basal gravels and conflated soil profiles.

Site disturbance processes, lithic refitting, and artifact mass and frequency distributions were investigated in order to determine the number of Paleoindian occupation surfaces present in select excavation areas at Nesquehoning Creek. The artifact assemblage examined in this study was comprised of small-sized debitage derived primarily from bifacial implements. A refitting rate of 25.4% was achieved from a study sample of 618 flaked stone artifacts. The Nesquehoning Creek refitting rate ranks as one of the highest amongst Paleoindian studies of its kind, surpassed only by the intentionally broken Caradoc (Deller and Ellis 2001) and Crowfield (Deller and Ellis 2011) caches.

The results of lithic refitting analysis and vertical artifact distribution data from

Unit 2, Block 3, and Block 7 indicate that two identifiable occupation surfaces/zones are present. The occupation zone associated with stratum 15 is undated, but is inferred to be

Early Archaic in affiliation. The underlying occupation zone represents a Crowfield

Paleoindian component that has been dated between 12,422 ± 164 and 11,398 ± 110 cal

BP. This date range is consistent with chronological estimates of the Crowfield point style in the New England-Maritimes region and the Crowfield component dated to 11,292

± 39 cal BP at the Wallis site in the Susquehanna Valley of Pennsylvania (Miller et al.

2007).

Site disturbance processes documented at Nesquehoning Creek offer the most parsimonious explanation for the displacement of artifacts from the Crowfield occupation zone. The small size of most artifacts in the refitting study sample (mean=0.52 g) appears to have contributed to the magnitude of vertical displacement. The extent of

203 vertical artifact displacement at Nesquehoning Creek (i.e., 1-40 cm) is comparable to the results of previous lithic refitting studies (e.g., Hofman 1986, 1992; Laughlin 2005; Van

Noten et al. 1980; Villa 1982). While this analysis did not reveal an identifiable Early

Paleoindian component in the excavation areas under scrutiny, a Clovis/Gainey fluted point recovered by artifact collectors suggests that Early Paleoindians may have also visited the site.

The Crowfield biface assemblage showed evidence of production strategies similar to Clovis and later Paleoindian technologies, including end-thinning, overface flaking, and overshot flaking. Overshot flakes struck from bifaces and nodular/informal cores indicate that this flaking technique was used to thin bifaces and create large and thick tool blanks. Crowfield knappers manufactured both small bifacial preforms to be used as knives or projectiles, and large bifacial cores intended for flake extraction and informal tool production. Two flake tool manufacturing, maintenance, and discard strategies were recognized in the Crowfield assemblage. Crowfield knappers produced large and thick flakes struck from nodular/informal and bifacial cores, often at or near toolstone quarries, to serve as formal tools and tool blanks. These formal tools were curated and transported from place to place until broken or exhausted of edge utility. In contrast, informal tools were principally produced and discarded on an as-needed basis from bifaces and, less often, nodular/informal cores. The prevalence of discarded informal flake tools with considerable edge utility remaining suggests a general knowledge of, and confidence in, the surrounding landscape and lithic resources. Lithic refitting, artifact density, and lithic raw material selection data indicates that the

Crowfield occupation at Nesquehoning Creek was relatively brief.

204 The proportion of modified flakes at Nesquehoning Creek is notably higher than at the Wallis, Crowfield, and Shawnee Minisink sites. Trianguloid end scrapers commonly recovered from Early Paleoindian sites are absent from the Nesquehoning

Creek Crowfield assemblage, and rare at Wallis and the Crowfield type site. The preponderance of lithic raw materials procured from sources in the immediate vicinity of

Wallis and within 50 km of Nesquehoning Creek may suggest a constriction in territory size during the Late Paleoindian period (Ellis 2011). A Clovis/Gainey point reportedly found by artifact collectors at Nesquehoning Creek supports this observation, as the point was made on a type of Normanskill chert that outcrops 290 km northeast of the site.

Previous research suggests that Late Paleoindian groups showed signs of decreased range and residential mobility compared to Early Paleoindian populations

(Anderson 1995, 1996; Anderson et al. 1990; Burke 2006; Ellis 2011; Ellis and Deller

1997; Tankersley 1994). Based on this research, I hypothesized that Late Paleoindian groups, on average, occupied sites for longer periods of time and were less residentially mobile than Early Paleoindian groups. To test this hypothesis, a formal model designed to measure relative site occupation span (Surovell 2003, 2009) was used to calculate the average length of time Early (n=12) and Late Paleoindian (n=10) sites in the Middle

Atlantic and Northeast regions were occupied. This model was considered the best fit for this study because of its ability to analyze a large number of sites from varied contexts

(e.g., plowzone, surface, or stratified) using artifact and lithic raw material counts available in most published site reports. Moreover, it has been successfully used in several recent Paleoindian studies focused on residential mobility (Gingerich 2012;

Rockwell 2014; Smith 2011; Surovell 2003, 2009). Pitfalls associated with the model

205 include assumptions about artifact and toolstone accumulation the does not consider cultural preference and an inability to analyze sites that do not contain both local and nonlocal lithic raw materials.

The results of this analysis suggest continuity between Early and Late Paleoindian residential mobility strategies. Specifically, both Early and Late Paleoindian site samples contained quarry-related and non-quarry sites occupied for long periods; and sites containing primarily nonlocal toolstone occupied briefly. Late Paleoindian sites situated in previously glaciated and unglaciated landscapes were not found to display detectable differences in mean occupation spans between the two regions. Similar results from a recent study (Gingerich 2012) suggest that environmental factors did not drastically change Paleoindians occupation lengths. The results of this study indicate that, despite clear evidence of constricting territory size, Late Paleoindians appear to have occupied sites for similar spans of time as Early Paleoindians in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast regions.

This dissertation has presented new data on Paleoindian occupation history, lithic technology, and lithic resource procurement strategies at the Nesquehoning Creek site.

Detailed analyses of contextually secure Paleoindian assemblages is critical to identifying similarities and differences between archaeological complexes. A concerted effort was made to document and analyze a robust set of metric and technological variables so that data from this dissertation may be used in future studies examining toolkit variability

(Andrews et al. 2015), Paleoindian mobility strategies (Ellis 2011; Gingerich 2012), and regional syntheses of Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene hunter-gatherers (Anderson et al. 2015; Carr and Adovasio 2012; Lothrop et al. 2016). This research demonstrates the

206 importance of lithic refitting studies in the assessment of stratified, multicomponent archaeological sites. In addition, this dissertation shows that stone artifacts small enough to pass through 1/4 inch mesh can play a critical role in evaluating prehistoric archaeological sites. Detailed examination of the lithic assemblage has improved our understanding of Paleoindian technological organization in non-quarry-related context.

The evaluation of Paleoindian residential mobility patterns has complimented previous studies and presented new data that may be updated and reassessed in the future.

207

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, James M., J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath 1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348-354.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest rather than the tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological Papers of the Anthropological Association no. 1, pp. 85-118.

Alley, Richard B. 2000 The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

Alley, Richard B., C. Meese, C. Shuman, A. Gow, K. Taylor, P. Grootes, J. White, M. Ram, E. Waddington, P. Mayewski, and G. Zielinski 1993 Abrupt Increase in Greenland Snow Accumulation at the End of the Younger Dryas Event. Nature 363:527-529.

Amick, Daniel S. 2016 Evolving views on the Pleistocene colonization of North America. Quaternary International 1:27.

Amick, Daniel S., R. P. Mauldin, and S. A. Tomka 1988 An Evaluation of Debitage Produced by Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction of a Georgetown Chert Nodule. Lithic Technology 17(1):26-36.

Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by K. Tankersly and B. Isaac, Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, pp. 163-216. JAI Press, Inc., Greenwich. 1995 Paleoindian interaction networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the

208

Eastern Woodlands, edited by M.S. Nassaney and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 3-26. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1996 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. Sassaman, pp. 29-57. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2004 Paleoindian Occupation in the Southeastern United States. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 119-128. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station. 2005 Pleistocene human occupation of the Southeastern United States: research directions for the early 21st century. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, M. R. Waters, pp. 29–42. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 2013 Paleoindian Archaeology in Eastern North America: Current Approaches and Future Directions. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich, pp.371-403. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Anderson, David G. and M. Faught 2000 Paleoindian Artifact Distribution: Evidence and Implications. Antiquity 74:507-513.

Anderson, David G., Albert C. Goodyear, James Kennett, Allen West 2011 Multiple Lines of Evidence for Possible Human Population Decline/Settlement Reorganization during the Early Younger Dryas. Quaternary International 242:570-583.

Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa O'Steen 1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report Number 28.

Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, J. Christopher Gillam, Erik N. Johanson, Derek T. Anderson, Albert C. Goodyear, and Ashley M. Smallwood 2010 PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings. Archaeology of Eastern North America 38:63-90.

Anderson, David G., Ashley M. Smallwood, D. Shane Miller 2015 Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future Directions. PaleoAmerica 1(1):7-51.

209

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1994a Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 21-34. 1994b The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology 9: 345-362. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2008 An Introduction to Stone Tool Life History and Technological Organization. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 3-22. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Andrews, Brian M., Edward J. Knell, and Metin I. Eren 2015 The Three Lives of a Uniface. Journal of Archaeological Science 54:228- 236.

Anthony, David W. and Daniel G. Roberts 1988 Stone Quarries and Human Occupations in the Hardyston Jasper Prehistoric District of Eastern Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. On file, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Archaeological Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania 2002a Phase II Cultural Resource Management Report, Lausanne Tunnel Project, Lehigh Gorge State Park, Nesquehoning Borough, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. ER#00-2297-025-E. Report prepared for the Wildlands Conservancy, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. On file, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2002b Management Summary, Phase III Data Recovery, Archaeological Investigation of Site 36CR129 in Hickory Run State Park, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the Wildlands Conservancy, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. On file, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Bachor, Susan 2011 Analysis of Steatite Vessel Fragments from the Nesquehoning Creek Site. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.

210

Bamforth, Douglas. B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38- 50. 1990 Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:70-104. 2003 Rethinking the Role of Bifacial Technology in Paleoindian Adaptations on the Great Plains. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 209–228. University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. 2009 Top Down or Bottom Up?: Americanist Approaches to the Study of Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. In Horizons. Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Vol. 1, edited by McCartan, S. B., Schulting, R., Warren G., Woodman, pp. 81- 88. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bamforth, Douglas. B. and Mark S. Becker 2000 Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologist 45(173):273-290.

Ballenger, Jesse A. M., Vance T. Holliday, Andrew L. Kowler, William T. Reitze, Mary M. Prasciunas, D. Shane Miller, Jason D. Windingstad 2011 Evidence for Younger Dryas global climate oscillation and human response in the American Southwest. Quaternary International 242:502-519.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer 1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:159-177.

Beck, R. Kelly 2008 Transport Distance and Debitage Assemblage Diversity: An Application of the Field Processing Model to Southern Utah Toolstone Procurement Sites. American Antiquity Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 759-780.

Beck, C., A. K. Taylor, G. T. Jones, C. M. Fadem, C. R. Cook, and S. A. Millward 2002 Rocks Are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481-507.

211

Beck, Del 2011 “If At First You Don’t Succeed…” Securing the Future of the Past at the Nesquehoning Creek Site. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.

Berg, Thomas M. (Chief Compiler) 1980 Geologic Map of Pennsylvania. 1:250,000. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental resources, Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.

Berg, Thomas M. and Christine M. Dodge 1981 Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth Series, Harrisburg

Binford, Lewis R. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 24-36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5- 31. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic Data Sets. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Blades, Brooke S. 2003 End Scraper Reduction and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68(1):141-156.

Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting : Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737-747.

Boisvert, Richard A. 2008 Dating Debitage – Assessing Michaud/Neponset Style Channel Flakes at the Colebrook Paleoindian Site. The New Hampshire Archeologist 47:57-65.

212

Boisvert, Richard A. and Gail N. Bennett 2004 Debitage Analysis of 27-HB-1, A Late Paleoindian/Archaic Stratified Site in Southern New Hampshire. Archaeology of Eastern North America 32:89- 100.

Boisvert, Richard A., Linda M. Fuerderer and George E. Leduc 2014 The Jefferson I Site: A Paleoindian Encampment on a Stony Knoll. The New Hampshire Archeologist 52:18-43.

Boldurian, Anthony T. 1999 Clovis revisited: new perspectives on Paleoindian adaptations from Blackwater Draw New Mexico. University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Boslough M, Nicoll K, Holliday V, T. L. Daulton, D. Meltzer, N. Pinter, A. C. Scott, T. Surovell, P. Claeys, J. Gill, F. Paquay, J. Marlon, P. Bartlein, C. Whitlock, D. Grayson, and A. J. T. Jull 2012 Arguments and evidence against a Younger Dryas impact event. Geophysical Monograph Series 198: 13-26.

Boulanger, Matthew T., Briggs Buchanan, Michael J. O’Brien, Brian G. Redmond, Michael D. Glascock, and Metin I. Eren 2015 Neutron Activation Analysis of 12,900 year-old stone artifacts confirms 450-510+ km Clovis tool-stone acquisition at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), northeast Ohio, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science 53:550-558.

Bradbury, Andrew P., and Philip J. Carr 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20:100-115. 1999 Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105-116.

Bradley, Bruce A. 1982 Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In The Agate Basin Site, edited by George Frison and Dennis Stanford, pp. 181-208. Academic Press, New York.

213

Bradley, J. W., A. E. Spiess, R. A. Boisvert, and J. Boudreau 2008 What’s the Point? Modal forms and Attributes of Paleoindian bifaces in the New England-Maritimes Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 36:119-172.

Branson, Julia 1993 Soil Erosion and Transport by Needle Ice: A Laboratory Investigation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Geography, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Branson, Julia, Damian M. Lawler and J. W. Glen 1996 Sediment inclusion events during needle ice growth: A laboratory investigation of the role of soil moisture and temperature fluctuations. Water Resources Research 32(2):459-466.

Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, Todd A. Surovell, Nicole M. Waguespack 2007 Modeling Post-Depositional Mixing of Archaeological Deposits, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:517-540.

Braun, Duane D. 1996 Surficial Geology of the Nesquehoning 7.5' Quadrangle, Carbon and Schuylkill Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-File Report and Map 96-25. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg. 1997 Surficial Geology of the Palmerton 7.5' Quadrangle. Open-File Report 97-07. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg. 2009 Surficial Geology of the White Haven 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Carbon and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-File Surficial Geologic Map Report 09–02.0. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg. 2010a Surficial Geology of the Lehighton 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Carbon and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-File Surficial Geologic Map Report 10– 01.0. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg. 2010b Surficial Geology of the Pohopoco Mountain 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Carbon and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-File Surficial Geologic Map Report 10–02.0. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg. 2012a Surficial Geology of the Christmans 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Open-File Surficial Geologic Map Report 12–01.0. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg.

214

2012b Surficial Geology of the Weatherly 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Carbon and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-File Surficial Geologic Map Report 12–02.0. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Harrisburg.

Braun, Duane D., Edward J. Ciolkosz, Jon D. Inners, Jack B. Epstein, G. Michael Clark, Ira D. Sasowsky and Robin Koberle 1994 Late Wisconsinan to Pre-Illinoian Glacial and Periglacial Events in Eastern Pennsylvania. (Guidebook for the 57th Field Conference, Friends of the Pleistocene Northeastern Section, May 20-22, 1994, Hazleton, Pennsylvania).Open-File Report 94-434. U.S. Geological Survey.

Broecker, W., G. Denton, R. Edwards, H. Cheng, R. Alley, and A. Putnam 2010 Putting the Younger Dryas Cold Event into Context. Quaternary Science Reviews 29:1078-1081.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2016 OxCal version 4.2. Retrieved from http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html

Brose, David S. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the , a Paleoindian Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of North America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 61-76. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Buchanan, Briggs and Mark Collard 2007 Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:366–393.

Bunch, Ted E., Robert E. Hermes , Andrew M.T. Moore , Douglas J. Kennett , James C. Weaver , James H. Wittke , Paul S. DeCarli , James L. Bischoff , Gordon C. Hillman, George A. Howard , David R. Kimbel , Gunther Kletetschkak, Carl P. Lipo, Sachiko Sakai, Zsolt Revay , Allen West, Richard B. Firestone, and James P. Kennett 2012 Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(28):E1903–E1912.

215

Bunker, Victoria, Edna Feighner, and Jane Potter 1997 Technical Report Archaeological Resources Phase I-B Preliminary Archaeological Assessment and Phase II Intensive Survey. Portland Natural Gas Transmission System Northern New Hampshire Revision Route. Report on file at the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, Concord.

Bunker, Victoria and Jane Potter 1999 Early Occupation in the Far Upper Connecticut River Valley. The New Hampshire Archaeologist 36(1):70-81.

Burke, Adrian 2006 Paleoindian Ranges in Northeastern North America Based on Lithic Raw Materials Sourcing. In Notions de territoire et de mobilité: exemples de l'Europe et des premières nations en Amérique du Nord avant le contact européen, ERAUL 116, edited by C. Bressy, A. Burke, P. Chalard, and H. Martin, pp. 77-89. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, Liège.

Cahen, Daniel and J. Moeyersons 1977 Subsurface Movements of Stone Artifacts and their Implications for the of Central Africa, Nature 266:812-815.

Cahen, Daniel and Lawrence H. Keeley 1980 Not Less than Two, Not More than Three. World Archaeology 12(2):166- 180.

Cahen, Daniel, Lawrence H. Keeley, F. L. Van Noten 1979 Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory. Current Anthropology 20(4):661-683.

Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: a Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:8-180.

Carbone, Victor 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Unpublished

216

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Carr, Kurt W. 1986 Core Reconstructions and Community Patterning at the Fifty Site. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 2:79-92. 1989 The Shoop Site: Thirty-Five Years After. In New Approaches to Other Pasts, edited by W. F. Kinsey and R. W. Moeller, pp. 5-28. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem. 1992 A Distributional Analysis of Artifacts from the Fifty Site: A Flint Run Paleoindian Processing Station. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1998 Archaeological Site Distributions and Patterns of Lithic Utilization during the Middle Archaic in Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period, edited by Paul A. Raber, Patricia E. Miller, and Sarah M. Neusius, pp.77-90. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, Number 1. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 1999 The Early Archaic Period in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 68(2):42-69.

Carr, Kurt W. and James M. Adovasio 2002 Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt W. Carr and James M. Adovasio, pp.1-50. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, Number 2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2012 Shades of Gray Redux: The Paleoindian/Early Archaic “Transition” in the Northeast. In From the Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America, edited by C. Britt Bousman and Bradley J. Vierra, pp 273-318. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Carr, Kurt W., James M. Adovasio, and Frank J. Vento 2009 A Report on the 2008 Field Investigation at the Shoop site (36DA20). Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta, Georgia.

Carr, Kurt W., Christopher A. Bergman, and Crista M. Haag 2010 Some Comments on Blade Technology and Eastern Clovis Lithic Reduction Strategies. Lithic Technology 35(2):91–125.

217

Carr, Kurt W., R. Michael Stewart, Dennis Stanford and Michael Frank 2013 The Flint Run Complex: A Quarry-Related Paleoindian Complex in the Great Valley of Northern Virginia. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich, pp.156-217. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Carr, Philip J. and Andrew P. Bradbury 2001 Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production, and the Organization of Technology. In Lithic Debitage Analysis: Studies in Context, Form, and Meaning, edited by W. Andrefsky, pp. 126-146. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Carr, Philip J., and Andrew P. Bradbury 2011 Learning from Lithics: A Perspective on the Foundation and Future of the Organization of Technology. PaleoAnthropology 2011:305–319.

Carr, Philip J., Andrew P. Bradbury, Sarah E. Price (editors) 2012 Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast: Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Carty, Frederick M. and Arthur E. Spiess 1992 The Neponset Paleoindian Site in Massachusetts. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 20:19-37.

Chapelaine, Claude 2012 “The early Paleoindian occupation at the Cliché Rancourt site, southeastern Quebec.” In Late Pleistocene Archaeology and Ecology in the Far Northeast, edited by Claude Chapdelaine, pp. 135–163. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Clarkson, Chris and Peter Hiscock 2008 Tapping into the Past: Exploring the Extent of Palaeolithic Retouching Through Experimentation. Lithic Technology 33:5-16.

Close, Angela E. 1996 Carry That Weight: The Use and Transportation of Stone. Current Anthropology, 37(3)545-553.

218

2000 Reconstructing Movement in Prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(1):49-77.

Collins, Michael B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Collins, Michael B. and J. Lohse 2004 The nature of Clovis Blades and blade cores. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by D. B. Madsen, pp. 159-183. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Cotter, J. 1983 The Minimum Age of the Woodfordian Deglaciation of Northeastern Pennsylvania and Northwestern New Jersey. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Lehigh University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Cotter, J. and G.H. Crowl 1981 The Paleolimnology of Rose Lake, Potter County, Pennsylvania: A Comparison of Palynologic and Paleo- Studies. In Geobotany II, edited by Robert C. Romans, pp.91-122. Plenum Press, New York.

Cox, Steven L. 1986 A Re-Analysis of the Shoop Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 14:101-170.

Cresson, Jack and Jay McManus 2016 An Unusual Paleo-Indian Cache in Eastern Pennsylvania: Experiments and Insights into Fluted Point manufacture. Archaeology of Eastern North America 44:161-178.

Crowl, G.H. 1980 Woodfordian Age of the Wisconsin Glacial Border in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Geology 8(1):51-55.

219

Cruxent, J. M., and Irving Rouse 1956 A Lithic of Paleo-Indian Type in Venezuela. American Antiquity 22(2):172-179.

Curran, Mary Lou 1996 Paleoindians in the Northeast: the problem of dating fluted point sites. Review of Archaeology 17(1):2-11. 1999 Exploration, Colonization, and Settling In: The Bull Brook Phase, Antecedents, and Descendants. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman, and M. S. Nassaney, pp. 3-24. Westport, CT, Bergin and Harvey.

Custer, Jay F. 1984 Delaware : An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press, Newark. 1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. University of Delaware Press, Newark. 1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Anthropological Series Number 7, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2001 Classification Guide for and Spearpoints of Eastern Pennsylvania and the Central Middle Atlantic. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Custer, Jay F., John A. Cavallo, and R. Michael Stewart 1983 Lithic Procurement and Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns on the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. North American Archaeologist, 4(4):263-275.

Custer, Jay F. and R. Michael Stewart 1990 Environment, Analogy, and Early Paleoindian Economies in Northeastern North America. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, 303-322.

Cziesla, Erwin 1990 On Refitting of Stone Artifacts. In The Big Puzzle; International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987, edited by E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoff, N. Arts, D. Winter, pp. 9-44. Studies in Modern Archaeology, Vol. 1. Holos, Bonn.

220

Daniel, Ian Randolph, Jr., William H. Moore, and James Pritchard 2007 Analysis of the Paleoindian Stone Tool Assemblage from the Pasquotank Site (31PK1) in Northeastern North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 26(1):73-90.

Daniel, Ian Randolph, Jr. and Albert C. Goodyear 2006 An Update on the North Carolina Fluted-Point Survey. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:99-101.

Davis, M. 1983 Holocene Vegetational History of the Eastern United States. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 2, The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright Jr., pp.166-181. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Daulton, Tyrone L., Sachiko Amari, Andrew C. Scott, Mark Hardiman, Nicholas Pinter, and R. Scott Anderson 2017 Comprehensive analysis of nanodiamond evidence related to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. Journal of Quaternary Science 32(1):7-34.

De Bie, Marc 2007 Benefiting From Refitting in Intra-Site Analysis: Lesson from Rekem (Belgium). In Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined, edited by Utsav Schurmans and Marc De Bie, pp. 31-44. BAR International Series 1596. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Delaware River Basin Commission 2014 Basin Information. http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/basin/ accessed 6/26/14.

Deller, D. Brian and Christopher J. Ellis 1984 Crowfield: A Preliminary Report on a Probable Paleo-Indian Cremation in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:41-71. 1986 Post Glacial Lake Nipissing Waterworn Assemblages from Southeastern Huron Basin Area. Ontario Archaeology 45:39-60. 1988 Early Palaeo-Indian Complexes in Southwestern Ontario. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region: Proceedings of the Smith Symposium, held at the Buffalo Meseum of Science, October 24-25, 1986, edited by Richard S. Laub, Norton

221

G. Miller and David Steadman, pp.251-263. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo. 1992 Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 24. Ann Arbor, MI. 1997 Variability in the Archaeological Record of Northeastern Early Paleoindians: A View from Southern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:1-30. 2001 Evidence for Late Paleoindian Ritual from the Caradoc Site (AfHj-104), Southwestern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 66(2):267-284. 2011 Crowfield (AfHj-31): A Unique Paleoindian Fluted Point Site from Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 49.Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1979 Ecological and Sociocultural Reconstruction in the Upper Delaware Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, The American University Washington, D.C. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1985 Amerinds and the Environment. In Shawnee-Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, edited by C. W. McNett, Jr., pp. 123–163. Academic Press, Orlando. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. 2002 Paleoindian Occupation of the Upper Delaware Valley: Revisiting Shawnee Minisink and Nearby Sites. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt Carr and James Adovasio, pp.51-78. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, Number 2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2007 Seed Collecting and Fishing at the Shawnee-Minisink Site: Everyday Life in the Pleistocene. In Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America, edited by R.B. Walker and B.N. Driskell. pp 116-131. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Dibble, Harold L. and John C. Whittaker 1981 New Experimental Evidence on the Relation Between Percussion Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 6:283-289.

Dincauze, Dena F. 1993 Pioneering in the Pleistocene: Large Paleoindian Sites in the Northeast. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams

222

edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 43-60. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 25. Jackson, MS.

Domanski, Marian, J.A. Webb, and J. Boland 1994 Mechanical properties of stone artefact materials and effect of heat treatment. Archaeometry 36:177–208.

Driese, Steven G., Lee C. Nordt, Michael R. Waters, and Joshua L. Keene 2013 Analysis of Site Formation History and Potential Disturbance of Stratigraphic Context in Vertisols at the Debra L. Friedkin Archaeological Site in Central Texas, USA. Geoarchaeology 28:221-248.

Dunnell, R. C. 1990 The role of the southeast in American archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9:11-22.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Michael D. Glascock, Craig E. Skinner, Sharon A. Waechter 2007 Reduction Strategies and Geochemical Characterization of Lithic Assemblages: A Comparison of Three Case Studies from Western North America. American Antiquity, 72(3):585-597.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Amy M. Spurling, and Michelle A. Gras 2008 Measuring Prehistoric Mobility Strategies Based on Obsidian Geochemical and Technological Signatures in the Owens Valley, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:668-680.

Egloff, Keith T. and Joseph M. McAvoy 1990 Chronology of Virginia’s Early and Middle Archaic Periods. In Early and Middle Archaic research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp.61-79. Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.

Ellis, Christopher J. 1984 Paleoindian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization in the Lower Great Lakes Area: A First Approximation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

223

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. 2004 Understanding “Clovis” Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A Perspective from the Debert Site, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28:205-253. 2011 Measuring Paleoindian Range Mobility and Land-Use in the Great Lakes/Northeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:385-401.

Ellis, Christopher J. and D. Brian Deller 1990 Paleoindians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, pp 37- 63, edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. London Chapter OAS Occasional Paper No. 5, 1990. 1997 Variability in the Archaeological Record of Northeastern Early Paleoindians: A View from Southern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:1-30.

Ellis, Christopher, Dillon H. Carr, Thomas J. Loebel 2011 The Younger Dryas and Late Pleistocene peoples of the Great Lakes region. Quaternary International 242:534-545.

Epstein, Jack B., W. D. Sevon and J. Douglas Glaeser 1974 Geology and Mineral Resources of the Lehighton and Palmerton Quadrangles, Carbon and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania. Atlas 195cd Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth Series. Harrisburg.

Eren, Metin I. and Brian N. Andrews 2013 Were Bifaces Used as Mobile Cores by Clovis Foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes Region? An Archaeological Test of Experimentally Derived Quantitative Predictions. American Antiquity 78:166- 180.

Eren, Metin I., Adam Durant, Christina Neudorf, Michael Maslam, Ceri Shipton, Janardhana Bora, Ravi Korisettar and Michael Petralia 2010 Experimental Examination of Animal Trampling Effects on Artifact Movement in Dry and Water Saturated Substrates: A Test Case from South India, Journal of Archaeological Science 37:3010-3021.

224

Eren, Metin I. and G. Sampson 2009 Kuhn's Geometric Index of Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction (GIUR): Does it Measure Missing Flake Mass? Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1243-1247.

Fairbanks, R.G. 1990 The age and origin of the “Younger Dryas climate event” in Greenland ice cores, Paleoceanography 6:937–948.

Falchetta, Jenifer 2011 An Upland Perspective on the Nesquehoning Creek Site. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.

Feranec, Robert and Andrew L. Kozlowski 2016 Implications of a Bayesian radiocarbon calibration of colonization ages for mammalian megafauna in glaciated New York State after the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Research 85:262-270.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 2009 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64(1):95-115. 2011 The Mysterious Onset of the Younger Dryas. Quaternary International, 242:262-266.

Firestone, R.B., A. West, J. P. Kennett, L. Becker, T. E. Bunch, Z. S. Revay, P. H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D. J. Kennett, J. M. Erlandson, O. J. Dickenson, A. C. Goodyear, R. S. Harris, G. A. Howard, J. B. Kloosterman, P. Lechler, P. A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S. S. Que Hee, A. R. Smith, A. Stich, W. Topping, J. H. Wittke, and W. S. Wolbach 2007 Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. PNAS 104(41):16016-16021.

Fisher, Glen, Raymond Mattern, Robert McCombs, Joel Norgen, and Attlee Rebert 1962 Soil Survey, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. USDA, Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture and Experiment Station, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Series 1959, No.14.

225

Fitting, James E. 1963 The Hi-Lo Site: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in Michigan. Wisconsin Archaeologist 44(2):87-96.

Fitting, James E., Jerry DeVisscher and E. Wahla 1966 The Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Holcombe Beach. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 27.

Fogelman, Gary L. 1983 The Pennsylvania Artifact Series: Lithics Book. Booklet No.34. Fogelman Publishing Company, Turbotville, Pennsylvania. 1999 Pennsylvania Chert: Identifying Some of the Materials Used by the Indians in Pennsylvania and Surrounding Area. Fogelman Publishing Company, Turbotville, Pennsylvania.

Fogelman, Gary L. and Stanley Lantz 2006 The Pennsylvania Fluted Point Survey. Fogelman Publishing Company, Turbotville, Pennsylvania.

Foss, John E, Fred P. Miller, and Antonio V. Segovia 1985 Field Guide to Soil Profile Description and Mapping. Soil Resources International, Inc., Moorhead, Minnesota

Franklin, J. D. And J. F. Simek 2008 Core Refitting and the Accuracy of Techniques for Aggregate Lithic Analyses: The Case of 3rd Unnamed Cave, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 27(1):108-121.

Gallivan, Martin D. 2002 Measuring Sedentariness and Settlement Population: Accumulations Research in the Middle Atlantic Region. American Antiquity 67(3):535-557.

Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process during the Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons, edited by William M. Gardner, Occasional Publication

226

No. 1 pp. 5-47. Catholic University of America Archaeology Laboratory, Washington D.C. 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian complex and Its Implication for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W. Newman and B. Salwen. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:257-263. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York. 1983 Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before: The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex Revisited. Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 11, 49-64. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart, pp.5-51. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond. 2002 The Paleoindian Problem Revisited: Observations on Paleoindians in Pennsylvania (a Slightly Southern Slant). In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt Carr and James Adovasio, pp. 97-103. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, No. 2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Gardner, William M. and Robert A. Verrey 1979 Typology and Chronology of Fluted Points from the Flint Run Area. Pennsylvania Archeologist 49(1-2):13-46.

Gifford, Diane P. and A. Kay Behrensmeyer 1977 Observed Formation and Burial of Recent Human Occupation Site in Kenya, Quaternary Research 8:245-266.

Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert L. Thunen 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50(4):803-818.

Gingerich, Joseph A.M. 2007a Picking up the Pieces: New Paleoindian Research in the Upper Delaware Valley. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 35:117-124. 2007b Shawnee Minisink Revisited: Re-Evaluating the Paleoindian Occupation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Anthropology Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 2011 Down to Seeds and Stones: A New Look at the Subsistence Remains from Shawnee-Minisink. American Antiquity 76(1): 127-144.

227

2012 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America: Evidence of Universal Adaptations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 2013a Fifty Years of Discovery at Plenge. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich, pp.121-147. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2013b Revisiting Shawnee Minisink. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich, pp.218-256. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Gingerich, Joseph A. M. and R. Michael Stewart 2010 Revisting the Plenge Paleoindian Site. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27:83-85.

Goebel, Ted, Roger Powers, and Nancy Bigelow 1991 The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis Origins. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Karen Turnmire, pp. 49- 79. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Goodyear, Albert 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity, 47(2), 382-385. 1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp.1-10. Westview Press, Boulder. 2006 Recognizing the Redstone Fluted Point in the South Carolina Paleoindian Point Database. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23, 112–114.

Grachev, A., Severinghaus, J.P. 2005 A revised +10±4 °C magnitude of the abrupt change in Greenland temperature at the Younger Dryas termination using published GISP2 gas isotope data and air thermal diffusion constants. Quaternary Science Reviews 24:513-519.

Graf, Kelly E. 2010 Hunter-Gatherer Dispersal in the Mammoth-Steppe: Technological

228

Provisioning and Land-use in Enisei River Valley, South-Central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:210-223.

Graf, Kelly E., Lyndsay M. DiPietro, Kathryn E. Krasinski, Angela K. Gore, Heather L. Smith, Brendan J. Culleton, Douglas J. Kennett, and David Rhode 2015 Dry Creek Revisited: New Excavations, Radiocarbon Dates, and Site Formation Inform On the Peopling of Eastern Beringia. American Antiquity 80(4):671-694.

Gramly, Richard Michael 1981 A New Paleo-Indian Site in the State of Maine. American Antiquity, 46(2):354-361. 1982 The Vail Site: A Paleo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Vol. 30. Buffalo, New York. 1984 Kill Sites, Skilling Ground and Fluted Points at the Vail Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:110-121. 1988 Paleo-Indian Sites South of Lake Ontario, Western and Central New York State. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by Richard S. Laub, Norton G. Miller, and David W. Steadman, pp. 265-280. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Vol. 33, Buffalo. 2010 The Vail Habitation and Kill Site: Implications for Palaeo-American Behavior and Band Size. Ohio Archaeologist 60(3):4-17.

Gramly, Richard Michael (editor) 2009 Palaeo-Americans and Palaeo-Environment at the Vail Site, Maine. Persimmon Press, North Andover.

Grayson, Donald K. and David J. Meltzer 2002 Clovis Hunting and Large Mammal Extinction: A Critical Review of the Evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 16(4):313-359. 2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585-593.

Grimm, E.C., Watts, W.A., Jacobson Jr., G.L., Hansen, B.C.S., Almquist, H.R., Dieffenbacher-Krall, A.C. 2006 Evidence for warm wet Heinrich events in Florida. Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (17-18): 2197-2211.

229

Grove, Matt 2009 Hunter-gatherer Movement Patterns: Causes and Constraints. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:222-233.

Hatch, James W. 1985 Procurement, Tool Production, and Sourcing Research at the Vera Cruz Jasper Quarry in Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology, 12(2):219-230. 1993 Research into the Prehistoric Jasper Quarries of Bucks, Lehigh and Berks Counties, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Hatch, James W. and Patricia E. Miller 1985 Procurement, Tool Production, and Sourcing Research at the Vera Cruz Jasper Quarry in Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:219-230.

Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Haynes, C. Vance Jr, 1992 Contributions of Radiocarbon Dating to the Geochronology of the Peopling of the New World. In Radiocarbon After Four Decades, edited by R. E. Taylor, A. Long, and S. Kra, pp. 355-374. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Hiscock, Peter and Chris Clarkson 2005a Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015-1022. 2005b Measuring Artefact Reduction: An Examination of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction. In Rocking the Boat: Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, edited by C. L. Lamb, pp. 9-28. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2007 Retouched Notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the Reduction Hypothesis. American Antiquity 72(1):176-190. 2009 The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: reply to Eren and Sampson. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1576-1581.

Hofman, Jack L. 1981 The Refitting of Chipped-Stone Artifacts as an Analytical and Interpretive

230

Tool. Current Anthropology 22(6):691-693. 1986 Vertical Movement of Artifacts in Alluvial and Stratified Deposits. Current Anthropology 27(2):163-171. 1992 Defining Buried Occupation Surfaces in Terrace Sediments. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J. L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, pp. 128-150. BAR International Series 578, Oxford.

Holliday, Vance T. 2004 Soils in Archaeological Research. Oxford University Press, New York. Holliday, Vance T. and David J. Meltzer 2010 The 12.9 ka ET impact hypothesis and North American Paleoindians. Current Anthropology 51:575–607.

Hong, B., Hong, Y.T., Lin, Q.H., Shibata, Y., Uchida, M., Zhu, Y.X., Leng, X.T., Wang, Y., Cai, C.C. 2010 Anti-phase oscillation of Asian monsoons during the Younger Dryas period: Evidence from peat cellulose 13C of Hani, Northeast China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology 297 (1):214-222.

Hranicky, William Jack 1995 Middle Atlantic Projectile Point Typology and Nomenclature, Archaeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication Number 33

Iceland, Harry 2013 Refining Paleo-Indian Lithic Technology at Shawnee-Minisink via an Artifact Refitting Study. North American Archaeologist 34(3):237-267.

Ingbar, E. E., M. L. Larson, B. A. Bradley 1989 A Non-Typological Approach to Debitage Analysis. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Mauldin, pp. 117-136. BAR International Series, Oxford.

Inners, Jon D. 1998 Rocks and Ruins of the Upper Grand: An Illustrated Trail Guide to the Geology and Historical Archaeology of Lehigh Gorge State Park, Northeastern Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of

231

Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Open File Report 98-03. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Irwin, Henry I. 1970 Paleo-Indian Tool Types in the Great Plains. American Antiquity 35(1):24-34.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Paula F. Campos, Bryan Hockett, George T. Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, Thomas J. Connolly, Robert M. Yohe II, Summer C. Gibbons, Maanasa Raghavan, Morten Rasmussen, Johanna L. A. Paijmans, Michael Hofreiter, Brian M. Kemp, Jodi Lynn Barta, Cara Monroe, M. Thomas Gilbert, Eske Willerslev 2012 Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Science 337:223-228

Jennings, Thomas A., Charlotte D. Pevny, William A. Dickens 2010 A biface and blade core efficiency experiment: Implications for Early Paleoindian technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2155-2164.

Jodry, Margaret A. 1992 Fitting Together Folsom: Refitted Lithics and Site Formation Processes at Stewart's Cattle Guard Site. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by Jack L. Hofman and James G. Enloe, pp. 128-150. BAR International Series 578, Oxford.

Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrup, C. U. Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, D. Stauffer, J. P. Steffensen 1992 Irregular Glacial Interstadials Recorded in a New Greenland Ice Core, Nature 359:311-313.

Jones, Brian D. 1997 The Late Paleoindian Hidden Creek Site in Southeastern Connecticut. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:45-80.

Jones, Brian D. and Daniel T. Forrest 2003 Life in a Postglacial Landscape: Settlement-Subsistence Change during

232

the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Southern New England. In Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the Glaciated Northeast, New York State Museum Bulletin 497, edited by David L. Cremeens and John P. Hart, pp. 75- 89, The New York State Education Department, Albany.

Jones, George T., Charlotte Beck, Eric Jones, Richard Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

Jones, George T., Lisa M. Fontes, Rachel A. Horowiz, Charlotte Beck, and David G. Bailey 2012 Reconsidering Paleoarchaic Mobility in the Central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77(2):351-367.

Jones, J.B. and D. Blanton 1993 Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery for Mitigation of Adverse Effects to Site 44HN204 Associated with the VNG Mechanicsville to Kingsmill Lateral Pipeline, Hanover County, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Justice, Noel D. 1995 and Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Karrow, P., B. Warner and P. Fritz 1984 Cory Bog Pennsylvania: A Case Study of the Radiocarbon Dating of Marl. Quaternary Research 21(3):326-336.

Katz, Gregory 2000 Heat Treatment and Characterization of Pennsylvania’s Stony Ridge Chert. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 16:143-153.

Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717-734. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-gatherer Lifeways. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

233

Kelly, Robert L. and L.C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity (53) 2: 231-244.

Kennett, James P., Douglas J. Kennett, Brendan J. Culleton, J. Emili Aura Tortosa, James L. Bischoff, Ted E. Bunch, I. Randolph Daniel Jr., Jon M. Erlandson, David Ferraro, Richard B. Firestone, Albert C. Goodyear, Isabel Israde-Alcántara, John R. Johnson, Jesús F. Jordá Pardo, David R. Kimbel, Malcolm A. LeCompte, Neal H. Lopinot, William C. Mahaney, Andrew M. T. Moore, Christopher R. Moore, Jack H. Ray, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Kenneth Barnett Tankersley, James H. Wittke, Wendy S. Wolbach, and Allen West 2015 Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835-12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(32):E4344-E4353.

Kilby, J. David 2008 An Investigation of Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological Organization. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of New Mexico.

Kinsey, W. Fred, III (editor) 1972 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series Number 2. Harrisburg.

Koch, Jeremy W. 2011a Preliminary Analysis of the Paleoindian Occupation at the Nesquehoning Creek Site in Northeast Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey. 2011b The Nesquehoning Creek Site (36CR142) 2011 Field Season Progress Report. Report prepared for the Bureau of Historic Preservation Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2012 The Nesquehoning Creek Site (36CR142) 2012 Field Season Progress Report. Report prepared for the Bureau of Historic Preservation Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Kraft, Herbert C. 2001 The Lenape Indian Heritage: 10,000 BC - AD2000. Lenape Lifeways, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey.

234

Kuhn, Steven L. 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583-593. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426-442. 1995 Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 2004 Upper Raw Material Economies at Ucagizli Cave, Turkey. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:431-448.

Lassen, Robert Detlef 2005 A Comparison of Clovis Caches. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Larson, Mary L. 1994 Toward a holistic analysis of chipped stone assemblages. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 57-69. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Laughlin, John P. 2005 149 Refits: Assessing Site Integrity and Hearth-Centered Activities at Barger Gulch Locality B. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Laughlin, John P. and Robert L. Kelly 2010 Experimental Analysis of the Practical Limits of Lithic Refitting. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:427-433.

Lawler, Damian M. 1988 A bibliography of needle ice. Cold Regions Science and Technology 15(3):295-310. 1993 Needle ice processes and sediment mobilization on river banks: The River Ilston, West Glamorgan, UK. Journal of Hydrology 150:81-114.

Leigh, David S. 2006 Terminal Pleistocene braided to meandering transition in rivers of the Southeastern USA. Catena 66:155-160.

235

Leigh, David S., P. Srivastava, G. A. Brook 2004 Late Pleistocene braided rivers of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 23:65-84.

Levine, Mary Ann 1990 Accommodating Age: Radiocarbon Results and Fluted Point Sites in Northeastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North American 18:33- 63.

Lewis, T. M. N. 1954 The Cumberland Point. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 11, 7-8.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and R. Jewett 1984 Late Prehistoric Ceramic Distributions in East-Central Arizona: An Examination of Cibola, White Mountain, and Salado Wares. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation: Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by A. P. Sullivan and J. L. Hantman, pp. 36-73. Anthropological Research Paper No. 31, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Liu, T. and Broecker,W.S. 2008 Rock varnish evidence for latest Pleistocene millennial scale wet events in the drylands of western United States. Geology 36:403-406.

Loebel, Thomas J. 2013 Endscrapers, Use-Wear, and Early Paleoindians in Eastern North America. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich, pp. 315-330. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

López-Ortega, Esther, Xosé Pedro Rodríguez, Manuel Vaquero 2011 Lithic refitting and movement connections: the NW area of level TD10-1 at the Gran Dolina site Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(11): 3112-3121.

Lothrop, Jonathan C. 1988 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University

236

of New York, Binghamton. 1989 The Organization of Paleoindian Technology at the Potts Site. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp.99- 138. Westview Press, Boulder.

Lothrop, Jonathan C., Darrin L. Lowery, Arthur E. Spiess, Christopher J. Ellis 2016 Early Human Settlement of Northeastern North America. PaleoAmerica, 2(3):192-251.

Lothrop, Jonathan C., Paige E. Newby, Arthur E. Spiess, James W. Bradley 2011 Paleoindians and the Younger Dryas in the New England-Maritimes Region. Quaternary International 242:546-569.

Lowery, Darrin L. 1989 The Paw Paw Cove Paleoindian Site Complex, Talbot County, Maryland. Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:143-164. 2002 A Time of Dust: Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations at the Paw Paw Cove Paleo-Indian Site Complex in Talbot County, Maryland. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Monograph.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McAvoy, Joseph M. 1992 Nottoway River Survey: Pt 1: Clovis Settlement Patterns: The 30 Year Study of a Late Ice Age Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication, No. 28 Dietz Press, Richmond.

McAvoy, Joseph M. and L. D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 48SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, VA. Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

MacDonald, George F. 1968 Debert: A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. Anthropology

237

Papers 16, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Magne, Martin P. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper no. 133. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Magne, Martin P. and David Pokotylo 1981 A Pilot Study in Bifacial Lithic Reduction Sequences. Lithic Technology 10:34-47.

Makaewicz, Cheryl A. 2011 The Younger Dryas and Hunter-Gatherer Transitions to Food Production in the Near East. In Hunter-Gatherer Behavior: Human Response during the Younger Dryas, edited by Metin I. Eren, pp.195-230. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Martin, Paul S. 1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H. E. Wright Jr, pp. 75-120. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974. 1984 Prehistoric Overkill: The Global Model. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 354-403. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mauldin, Raymond P. and Daniel S. Amick 1989 Investigating Patterning in Debitage from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Mauldin, pp. 67-88. BAR International Series, Oxford.

Manninen, Mikael A. and Kjel Knutsson 2014 Lithic Raw Material Diversification as an Adaptive Strategy--Technology, Mobility, and Site Structure in Late Mesolithic Northernmost Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 33:84-98.

238

Marwick, Ben 2008 What Attributes Are Important for the Measurement of Assemblage Reduction Intensity? Results from an Experimental Stone Artefact Assemblage with Relevance to the Hoabinhian of Mainland Southeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1189-1200.

McNett, Charles W., Jr. (editor) 1985 Shawnee-Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Meeks, Scott C. and David G. Anderson 2011 Evaluating the Effect of the Younger Dryas on Human Population Histories in the Southeastern United States. In Hunter-Gatherer Behavior: Human Response during the Younger Dryas, edited by Metin I. Eren, pp.111- 138. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Mercer, Henry C. 1894 Indian Jasper Mines in the Lehigh Hills. American Anthropologist 24(1):20-21.

Meltzer, David J. 1984 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:1-52 1989 Why Don't we Know When the First People Came to North America. American Antiquity 54(3):471-90. 2009 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. University of California Press.

Meltzer, David J. and Ofer Bar-Yosef 2011 Looking for the Younger Dryas. In Hunter-Gatherer Behavior: Human Response During the Younger Dryas, edited by Metin I. Eren, pp.249-267. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Meltzer, David J. and Vance T. Holliday 2010 Would North American Paleoindians have Noticed Younger Dryas Age

239

Climate Changes? Journal of World Prehistory 23:1-41.

Meltzer, David J., Vance T. Holliday, Michael D. Cannon, and D. Shane Miller 2014 Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(21):E2162-E2171.

Miller, Patricia E., T. Marine, and F. J. Vento 2007 Archaeological Investigations, Route 11.15 Improvements (SR 0011, Section 008), Juniata and Perry Counties, Pennsylvania, ER No. 1989-0381- 042, Volume II: Site 36Pe16. Submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.

Miller, Shane and Joseph A. M. Gingerich 2013a Paleoindian Chronology and the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, pp. 9-37. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2013b Regional Variation in the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Radiocarbon Record of Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 79:175- 188.

Miller, Shane and Ashley M. Smallwood 2012 Beyond Stages: Modeling Clovis Biface Production at the Topper Site, South Carolina. In Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast: Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations, edited by Philip Carr, Andrew Bradbury, and S. Price, pp. 28-41. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Moeller, Roger W. 1980 6LF21: A Paleoindian Site in Western Connecticut. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

Moore, Edward and Richard Will 1998 Initial Investigation of the Janet Cormier Paleoindian site (23.25). Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin, 38(1):23-36.

Moore, Edward C. 2002 Variability and Continuity between Paleoindian Assemblages in the

240

Northeast: A Technological Approach. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Maine, Orono.

Morrow, Juliet E 1995 Clovis Projectile Point Manufacture: A Perspective from the Ready Hills/Lincoln Site, 11JY46, Jersey County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 20(2):167-191. 1996 The Organization of Clovis. Lithic Technology in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1997 End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22(1):70-85.

Morrow, Toby M. 1996a Lithic Refitting and Archaeological Site Formation Processes: A Case Study from the Twin Ditch Site, Greene County, Illinois. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George Odell, pp. 345- 373. Plenum Press, New York. 1996b Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn’s Formal Approach to Mobile Tool Kits. American Antiquity 61:581-590.

Morse, Dan F., David G. Anderson, and Albert C. Goodyear 1996 The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in the Eastern United States. In at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene- Holocene Transition, edited by Lawrence Guy Straus, Berit Valentin Eriksen, Jon M. Erlandson, and David R. Yesner, pp.319-338. Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Mounier, R. Alan, Jack Cresson, and John W. Martin 1993 New Evidence of Paleoindina Biface Fluting from the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jersey at 28-OC-100. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:1-23.

Muckle, Robert J. 1985 Archaeological Considerations of Bivalve Shell Taphonomy. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.

241

Nash, Carole, L. 2009 Modeling Uplands: Landscape and Native American Settlement Archaeology in the Virginia Blue Ridge Foothills. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, E. M. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Newby, Paige, James Bradley, Arthur Spiess, Bryan Shuman, and Philip Leduc 2005 A Paleoindian response to Younger Dryas climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24:141-154.

Newby Paige E., Bryan N. Shuman, Jeffrey P. Donnelly and Dana MacDonald 2011 Repeated Century-scale Droughts over the Past 13,000 yr Near the Hudson River Watershed, USA. Quaternary Research 75:523-530.

Newman, J. 1994 The effects of distance on lithic material reduction technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 491-501.

Nielson, A. E. 1991 Tramping the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study, American Antiquity 56:583-503.

Nilsson, N. E., L. L. Morris, G. L. Summers, and P. J. Barans 2013 Interesting Discoveries from Refitting at Nobles Pond. Central States Archaeological Journal 60(2):70-74.

Nordt, L.C., Boutton, T.W., Hallmark, C.T., and Waters, M.R. 1994 Late Quaternary vegetation and climate change in central Texas based on the isotopic composition of organic carbon. Quaternary Research 41:109–120, doi:10.1006/qres.1994.1012.

242

Odell, George H. 1989 Experiments in Lithic Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Mauldin, pp. 163-198. BAR International Series, Oxford. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique. Spring Science+Business Media, LLC. New York, NY.

Parry, W., and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview, Boulder.

Patterson, L. W. 1990 Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution. American Antiquity 55(3):550-558.

Pelcin, Andrew 1997 The Effect of Indentor Type on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24:613-621.

Penn State, College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension 2010 Pennsylvania Soil Map. http://soilmap.psu.edu/(accessed 7.13.2010).

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2010 Pennsylvania State Parks Lehigh Gorge – website http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/lehighgorge.aspx (accessed 5.30.2010).

Pennsylvania Science Office of the Nature Conservancy 2005 A Natural Areas Inventory of Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for Carbon County Office of Planning and Development, Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania.

Peteet, D.M., J.S. Vogel, D.E. Nelson, J.R. Southon, R.J. Nickmann and L.E. Heusser 1990 Younger Dryas Climatic Reversal in Northeastern USA? AMS Ages for an Old Problem. Quaternary Research 33(2):219-230.

243

Pintar, E. 1987 Controles Experimentales de Desplazamiento y Alteración de Artefactos Líticos en Sedimentos Arenosos: Aplicaciones Arqueológicas. BD dissertation. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

Polyak, V.J., Rasmussen, J.B.T., Asmerom, Y. 2004 Prolonged wet period in the southwestern United States through the Younger Dryas. Geology 32 (1):5-8.

Powers, William R., R. Dale Guthrie, and John F. Hoffecker 1983 Dry Creek: Archeology and Paleoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting Camp. U.S. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Prasciunas, Mary M. 2004 Bifacial versus amorphous core technology: experimental testing of differential flake tool production efficiency. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 2007 Bifacial cores and flake production efficiency: an experimental test of the technological assumptions. American Antiquity 72:334-348.

Prasciunas, Mary M. and Todd A. Surovell 2015 Reevaluating the duration of Clovis: The problem of non-representative radiocarbon. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by A. M. Smallwood and Todd. A. Jennings, pp. 21-35. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Prothero, Donald R. and Lucianne Lavin 1990 Chert Petrography and Its Potential as an Analytical Tool in Archaeology. In Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by N. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp.561-584. Geological Society of America, Centennial Special Volume 4.

Rankin, Jennifer 2011 Experimental/Comparative Microwear Analysis of Stony Ridge Chert at the Nesquehoning Site (36Cr142). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.

244

Rasmussen, S. O., K. K. Andersen, A. M. Svensson, J. P. Steffensen, B. M. Vinther, H. B. Clausen, M.-L. Siggaard-Andersen, S. J. Johnsen, L. B. Larsen, D. Dahl-Jensen, M. Bigler, R. Rothlisberger, H. Fischer, K. Goto-Azuma, M. E. Hansson, and U. Ruth 2006 A new Greenland ice core chronology for the last glacial termination. Journal of Geophysical Research 111:D06102.

Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L Hoffmann, Alan G Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A Staff,Christian S. M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 INTCAL13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887

Rhoads, Ann F. and Timothy A. Block 2005 Trees of Pennsylvania: A Complete Reference Guide. The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert Funk 1984 Paleo-Indians in New Perspective: Comments on the Assembled Papers. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:1-4.

Robinson IV, Francis W. 2009 The Reagen Site Revisited: A Contemporary Analysis of a Formative Northeastern Paleoindian Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 37:85- 147.

Rockwell, Heather M. 2014 A Functionalist Approach to the Design of Mobile Toolkits: Case Studies from New England and the Canadian-Maritimes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Sanders, T. N. 1990 Adams: The manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo.

245

Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schindler, William and Jeremy W. Koch 2012 Flakes Giving You Lip? Let Them Speak: An Examination of the Relationship Between Percussor Type and Lipped Platforms. Archaeology of Eastern North America 40:99-106.

Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham and W.D. Broderson 2002 Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Schuman, B. N., T. Webb III, P. J. Bartlein, J. W. Williams 2002 The anatomy of a climatic oscillation: Vegetation change in eastern North America during the Younger Dryas chronozone. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:1777-1791.

Schurmans, Utsav A. 2007 Refitting in the Old and New Worlds. In Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined, edited by Utsac Schurmans and Marc DeBie, pp.7-23. Archeopress, Oxford.

Seeman, Mark F. 1994 Intercluster Lithic Patterning at Nobles Pond: A Case for “Disembedded” Procurement among Early Paleoindian Societies. American Antiquity 59(2):273-288.

Seeman, Mark F., Thomas J. Loebel, Aaron Comstock and Garry L. Summers 2013 Working with Wilmsen: Paleoindian End Scraper Design and Use at Nobles Pond. American Antiquity 78(3):407–432.

Semken, H. 1983 Holocene Mammalian Biogeography and Climate Change in the Eastern and Central United States. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United

246

States, Volume 2, The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright Jr., pp.182-207. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool Class Use-Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9-30. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):69-110.

Slaughter, Bob H. 1967 Animal ranges as a clue to Late Pleistocene extinction. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H. E. Wright Jr., pp. 155-167. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Smallwood, Ashley M. 2010 Clovis biface technology at the Topper site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2413-2425. 2011 Clovis Technology and Settlement in the American Southeast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. 2012 Clovis Technology and Settlement in the American Southeast: Using Biface Analysis to Evaluate Dispersal Models. American Antiquity 77(4):689- 713.

Smith, Geoffrey M. 2010 Footprints Across the Black Rock: Temporal Variability in Prehistoric Foraging Territories and Toolstone Procurement Strategies in the Western Great Basin. American Antiquity 75(4):865-885. 2011 Shifting Stones and Changing Homes: Using Toolstone Ratios to Consider Relative Occupation Span in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:461-469.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Emily S. Middleton, Peter A. Carey 2013 Paleoindian Technological Provisioning Strategies in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4180-4188.

247

Speer, Charles A. 2013 Clovis Mobility at the Gault Site: A Chert Provenance Study Using Laser Ablation – Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio. 2014 LA-ICP-MS analysis of Clovis period projectile point from the Gault Site. Journal of Archaeological Science 52:1-11.

Spiess, Arthur E. and Deborah B. Wilson 1987 Michaud: A Paleoindian Site in the New England-Maritimes Region. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology Number 6. The Maine Archaeological Society and Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, ME.

Stackelbeck, Kary L. 2010 Maximizing the Research Potential of Refit Analysis without Replicating Pincevent: A Case Study from the Big Eddy Site in Southwest Missouri. Lithic Technology 35(1):37-62.

Stanzeski, Andrew J. 1996 Agate Basin and Dalton in a New Home: 28BU214 in New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North America 24:59-79. 1998 Four Paleoindian and Early Archaic Sites in Southern New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:41-53.

Steffensen, J. P., K. K. Andersen, M. Bigler, H. B. Clausen, D. Dahl-Jensen, H. Fischer, K. Goto-Azuma, M. Hansson, S. J. Johnsen, J. Jouzel, V. Masson-Delmotte, T. Popp, S. O. Rasmussen, R. Rothlisberger, R. Ruth, B. Stauffer, M.-L. Siggaard-Andersen, A. E. Sveinbjornsdottir, A. Svensson, J. W. C. White 2008 High-resolution Greenland ice core data show abrupt climate change happens in a few years. Science 321:680-684.

Stewart, R. Michael 1987 Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:47-57. 1989 Trade and Exchange in Middle Atlantic Region Prehistory. Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:47-78. 1992 Paleo-Indian or Early Archaic? Kirk Sites and Early Holocene Raw

248

Material Preferences in the Middle Atlantic Region, In Upland Archaeology in the East: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference, edited by Michael Barber and Eugene Barfield, pp.219-233. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. 2011a Excavations at the Nesquehoning Creek Site (36cr142), Lehigh Gorge State Park, Pennsylvania. Draft technical report submitted to the Bureau for Historic Preservation of the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2011b An Overview of Archaeology at the Nesquehoning Creek Site (36CR142). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Mt. Holly, New Jersey. 2012 Excavations at the Nesquehoning Creek Site (36cr142), Lehigh Gorge State Park, Pennsylvania. Summary Report prepared for the Lehigh Gorge State Park, Pennsylvania. 2013 Formation of Hearth Basin Features: Implications for the Interpretation of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in the Middle Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 29:101-122.

Stewart, R. Michael, Kurt Carr, Jeremy W. Koch, Gary Stinchcomb, Del Beck and Tom Davies 2011 The Battle for the Past at Nesquehoning Creek. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.

Stewart, R. Michael, Jeremy W. Koch, Kurt Carr, Del Beck, Gary Stinchcomb and Frank Vento 2012 The Paleoindian Occupation at Nesquehoning Creek (36CR142) Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Stewart, R. Michael, Jeremy W. Koch, Kurt Carr, Del Beck, Gary Stinchcomb, Steven G. Driese, and Frank Vento In press The Paleoindian Occupation at Nesquehoning Creek (36CR142) Carbon County, Pennsylvania. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition Vol. II, edited by Joseph A.M. Gingerich. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Stewart, R. Michael and William Schindler 2008 Analysis of Artifacts from the Kings Quarry Site (36Lh2). Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Heritage Society and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

249

Stinchcomb, Gary E. and Steven G. Driese 2011 A Micromorphological Assessment of Nesquehoning Creek (36CR142) Archaeological Site, Carbon County, PA: A Preliminary Report. Ms. On file, Terrestrial Paleoclimatology Research Group, Department of Geology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Stinchcomb, Gary E., Steven G. Driese, Lee C. Nordt, Peter M. Allen 2012 A mid to late Holocene history of floodplain and terrace reworking along the Delaware River valley, USA. Geomorphology 169-170:123-141.

Stinchcomb Gary E., Steven G. Driese, Lee C. Nordt, Lyndsay M. DiPietro and Timothy C. Messner 2014 Early Holocene Soil Cryoturbation in Northeastern USA: Implications for Archaeological Site Formation. Quaternary International 342:186-198.

Stinchcomb, Gary E., Timothy C. Messner, Steven G. Driese, Lee C. Nordt, and R. Michael Stewart 2011 Pre-colonial (A.D. 1100-1600) sedimentation related to prehistoric maize agriculture and climate change in eastern North America. Geology 39(4):363- 366.

Stinchcomb, Gary E., R.M. Stewart, T.C. Messner, L.C. Nordt, S.G. Driese, and P.M. Allen 2013 Using Event Stratigraphy to Map the Anthropocene–An Example from the Historic Coal Mining Region in Eastern Pennsylvania, USA. Anthropocene 2:42-50.

Stockton, Eugene D. 1973 Shaw’s Creek Shelter: Human Displacement of Artifacts and its Significance. Mankind 9:112-117.

Stoops, George 2003 Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin-sections. Soil Science Society of America, Madison.

Surovell, Todd A. 2003 The Behavioral Ecology of Folsom Lithic Technology. Unpublished

250

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Surovell, Todd A., Vance T. Holliday, Joseph A. M. Gingerich, Caroline Ketron, C. Vance Haynes, Jr., Ilene Hilman, Daniel P. Wagner, Eileen Johnson, and Philippe Claeys 2009 An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis. PNAS 106(43):18155-18158.

Surovell, Todd A. and Nicole M. Waguespack 2008 How many elephant kills are 14? Clovis Mammoth and Mastodon Kills in Context. Quaternary International 191:82-9.

Surovell, Todd A., Nicole M. Waguespack, James H. Mayer, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison 2005 Shallow Site Archaeology: Artifact Dispersal, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Dating at the Barger Gulch Locality B Folsom Site, Middle Park, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 20(6):627-649.

Tankersley, K. B., 1994 Was Clovis a colonizing population in eastern North America? In The First Discovery of America. Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by W. A. Dancey, pp. 95–116. Ohio Archaeological Council Inc., Columbus.

Taylor, K. C., P. A. Mayewski, R. B. Alley, E. J. Brook, A. J. Gow, P. M. Grootes, D. A. Meese, E. S. Saltzman, J. P. Severinghaus, M. S. Twickler, J. W. C. White, S. Whitlow, G. A. Zielinski 1997 The Holocene-Younger Dryas Transition Recorded at Summit, Greenland. Science 278: 826-827.

Thacker, Paul T., Joel Hardison, Carolyn Conklin 2012 Provisioning Middle Archaic Places: Changing Technological Organization and Raw Material Economies in the Uwharrie Mountains. In Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast: Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations, edited by Philip Carr, Andrew Bradbury, and S. Price, pp. 96- 112. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

251

Thorson, Robert M. 2006 Artifact Mixing at the Dry Creek Site, Interior Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, New Series 4:1-10.

Tomka, Stevan A. 1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Mauldin, pp. 137-161. BAR International Series, Oxford.

Torrence, R. 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11-2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van Noten, Francis L., Daniel Cahen, and Lawrence H. Keeley 1980 A Paleolithic campsite in Belgium. Scientific American 242(4):48-55.

Varien, Mark D. and James M. Potter 1997 Unpacking the discard equation: Simulating the accumulation of artifacts in the archaeological record. American Antiquity 62:194-213.

Vento, Frank J. 2002 Appendix A: Geological-Geomorphological Investigations. In Phase II Cultural Resource Management Report, Lausanne Tunnel Project, Lehigh Gorge State Park, Nesquehoning Borough, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. ER#00-2297-025-E. Report prepared by Archaeological Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. On file, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Vento, Frank J., H. B. Rollins, A. Vega, J. M. Adovasio, P. Stahlman, D. B. Madsen, and J. S. Illingworth 2008 Development of a Late Pleistocene-Holocene Genetic Stratigraphic Framework for the Mid-Atlantic Region: Implications in Archaeology. Presented at the 73rd meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

252

Vento, Frank J., Ethan Mott and Devin Kuberry 2013 Phase IA Geomorphologic Investigations at the Lehigh River Crossing along the PPL Northeast-Pocono Reliability Project, Luzerne and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the URS Corporation, Inc., Harrisburg, PA

Vento, Frank J., Harold B. Rollins, R. Michael Stewart, and William Johnson 1992 Genetic Stratigraphy, Climate Change and Deep Burial of Sites in Alluvial Contexts within the Susquehanna, Ohio, and Delaware River Drainage Basins. Grant report submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Verrey, Robert A. 1986 Paleoindian Stone Tool Manufacture at the Thunderbird Site (44Wr11). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Villa, Paola 1982 Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47:276-290.

Villa, Paola and Jean Courtin 1983 The Interpretation of Stratified Sites: A View from Underground, Journal of Archaeological Science 10:267-281.

Waters, Michael R. and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315(5815):1122-1126.

Watts, W. 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation of Central Appalachia and the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Ecological Monographs 49(4):427-469. 1983 Vegetational History of the Eastern United States – 25,000 to 10,000 Years Ago. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 1, The Late Pleistocene, edited by H. Wright Jr. and S. Porter, pp. 294-310. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

253

Weninger, Bernhard, and Olaf Jöris 2008 A 14C age Calibration Curve for the Last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th Timescale and Its Impact on Understanding the Middle to Transition in Western Eurasia. Journal of 55:772-781.

Weninger, Bernhard, Olaf Jöris, and U. Danzeglocke 2016 CalPal- 2007. Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration & Palaeoclimate Research Package. Radiocarbon Lab Köln. URL: http://www.calpal.de/.

Werner, David J. 1964 Vestiges of Paleo-Indian Occupation Near Port Jervis, New York. New World Antiquity 11:30-52.

Wildlands Conservancy 2003 Lehigh River Watershed Conservation Management Plan. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, and The William Penn Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Will, Richard T. 2000 A Tale of Two Flint-Knappers: Implication for Lithic Debitage Studies in Northeastern North America. Lithic Technology, vol. 25 no 2.

Wilmsen, E. N. 1970 Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-Indian Case. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Witthoft, John 1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 96, 464-495.

Wright, Henry T. and William B. Roosa 1966 The Barnes Site: A Fluted Point Assemblage from the Great Lakes Region. American Antiquity, 31(6):850-860.

254

Wyckoff, Don G. 1992 Refitting and Protohistoric Knapping Behavior: The Lowrance Example. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by Jack L. Hofman and James G. Enloe, pp. 128-150. BAR International Series 578, Oxford.

255