Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2011 Archaic Bone Tools in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida: Microwear and Manufacture Traces Julia C. Byrd

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

ARCHAIC BONE TOOLS IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA: MICROWEAR AND MANUFACTURE TRACES

By

JULIA C. BYRD

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2011 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Julia C. Byrd defended on March 17, 2011.

______Glen H. Doran Professor Directing Thesis

______Rochelle A. Marrinan Committee Member

______Lynne A. Schepartz Committee Member

Approved:

______Glen H. Doran, Chair, Department of Anthropology

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee. members. ii

This thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Julia Gooch, who told me,

“If I could do it again, I would go to school to study archaeology and art.”

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the many people who contributed to this thesis. First, I thank my Major Professor, Dr. Glen Doran, who showed endurance answering my endless questions. Thank you to Drs. Rochelle Marrinan and Lynne Schepartz for serving on my committee.

Several people and businesses generously contributed deer parts for my replication experiments. I thank Star’s Meat Market and Mack’s Country Meats for leftover deer bones and unwanted deer legs. Thanks to American Sportsman Taxidermy for deer antler. I appreciate Roger Whitt’s contribution of bone tool preforms and conversation about working bone. I thank Hayley Singleton for giving me my pick of her shark tooth collection.

Archaeologists offered help with access to collections, and many went above and beyond their job description. Thank you to Beth Horvath and ACI for making the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden artifacts available for study and for lending me the outstanding mitigation report. Marie Prentice and Dr. Dave Dickel offered direction with initial research and pulled artifacts from Groves’ Orange Midden, Gauthier, and Blue Spring collections at Florida’s Bureau of Archaeological Research. I appreciate Dr. Ken Sassaman and Jason O’Donoghue’s help while I was studying the assemblage temporarily stored at UF. Thanks to Dr. Mike Russo for always being available to answer questions about the Salt Springs bone artifacts and for offering helpful advice on a background chapter. I will always remember Andy Hemmings’ enthusiastic descriptions of worked bone artifacts, and for that I thank him.

I am grateful to several of my FSU colleagues, without whom I would be less educated. Ian Pawn, Jim Dunbar, Grayal Farr, Raphael Kampmann, Tim Parsons, and Dan Seinfeld helped with specific topics. I am indebted to Ryan Duggins, for help with writing and his continued patience. Thanks for putting up with dead deer parts in the yard, garage, freezer, cooler, and patio table. More importantly, I appreciate Ryan’s devotion to balancing work and play. Finally, I thank my parents who never questioned my decision to pursue anthropology as a career.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures...... i

Abstract...... iii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Problem Orientation...... 1 Functional Typology ...... 1 Manufacture Processes...... 2 Methodological Orientation ...... 3 Microwear Analysis ...... 3 Experimental Replication...... 4 Theoretical Orientation ...... 4 Technological Organization...... 4 Chaîne Opératoire ...... 5 Bone Tool Analysis Methods Past and Present ...... 5 History of Analysis Methods ...... 6 Current Trends in Bone Tool Analysis Methods ...... 8 Summary ...... 10

Chapter 2: Environmental Background and Culture History...... 11 Introduction...... 11 Environmental Background ...... 11 Before the Archaic Period: Paleoindian Period ...... 13 Early Archaic Period...... 14 Middle Archaic Period...... 15 Late Middle Archaic Period (Mount Taylor Period in the St. Johns Region) ...... 16 Late Archaic Period (Orange Period in the St. Johns Region)...... 17 After the Archaic Period: Woodland and Mississippian Periods (St. Johns I and II in the St. Johns Region)...... 18 Summary ...... 19

Chapter 3: Florida’s Bone Tools Over Time ...... 21 Introduction...... 21 Before the Archaic Period: Paleoindian Period ...... 22

v

Early Archaic Period...... 24 Middle Archaic Period...... 25 Late Archaic Period ...... 26 After the Archaic Period: Woodland, Mississippian, and Contact Periods ...... 28 Summary ...... 32

Chapter 4: The Sites Sampled...... 35 Introduction...... 35 Lake George Area: Salt Springs (8MR2322)...... 37 Middle St. Johns: Blue Spring (8VO43)...... 38 Middle St. Johns: The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53)...... 39 Middle St. Johns: Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601)...... 40 Upper St. Johns (or Indian River Area): Windover (8BR246) ...... 40 Upper St. Johns: Gauthier (8BR193) ...... 41 Summary ...... 42

Chapter 5: Methods: Microwear and Experimental Replication ...... 45 Introduction...... 45 Subsampling Methods...... 45 Microwear Data Collection Methods...... 47 Data Collection Lexicon ...... 48 Tool Form...... 50 Object Type...... 52 Tool Part...... 53 Microwear ...... 54 Modification Rating ...... 56 Use Rating...... 57 Preservation Rating ...... 58 Modification Type...... 59 Statistical Methods...... 60 Experimental Replication Methods...... 60 Summary ...... 62

Chapter 6: Results and Interpretations Part I: Microwear and Tool Use...... 63 Introduction...... 63 Overview of Tools and Types...... 63 Modification, Use, and Preservation Ratings...... 63 Complete Tools and Fragmented Tools ...... 64 Metric Measurements on Tools...... 65

vi

Morphological Tool Typology...... 66 Overview of Morphologies ...... 67 Overview of Microwear...... 68 Analysis of Microwear by Tool Type...... 71 Wear Location and Tool Type ...... 71 Wear Direction and Tool Type ...... 73 Wear Intensity and Tool Type...... 74 Haft Cut Direction...... 75 Interpretations of Microwear and Tool Types ...... 76 Awls ...... 76 Pins...... 77 Flat Weaving Tools...... 77 Ulna awls...... 78 Splinter Tools...... 79 Bone Points ...... 79 Antler Points...... 80 Bipoints ...... 81 Analysis of Microwear by Specific Morphological Form ...... 81 Tip Form and Wear Location...... 83 Shaft Form and Wear Location...... 84 Base Form and Wear Location...... 84 Cross-Section and Wear Location...... 85 Metric Measurements and Wear Location ...... 86 Wear Direction and Tool Forms ...... 87 Wear Intensity and Tool Form ...... 88 Wear Frequency and Tool Form ...... 89 Polish and Tool Form...... 89 Evaluation of Significance of Tool Length...... 90 Differences Among Sites ...... 91 Temporal Comparisons Within Sites ...... 93 Summary ...... 93

Chapter 7: Results and Implications Part II: Manufacture Traces and Toolmaking...... 96 Introduction...... 96 Overview of Non-Tools ...... 96 Overview of Manufacture Methods ...... 97 Experimental Replication Results...... 99 Sequence of Bone Tool Manufacture...... 101 Stage 1: Remove distal epiphysis...... 102 Stage 2 (or 3): Low heat-treat bone...... 105 Stage 3 (or 2): Score preform...... 108 Stage 4: Split dried preform ...... 110

vii

Stage 5: Lithic shave to shape tool...... 111 Stage 6: Cut proximal end off tool...... 112 Stage 7: Finish with polishing or hafting ...... 113 Methods of Antler Point Manufacture ...... 114 Remove Distal Tine...... 114 Pre-soak and Shape Antler...... 115 Bore Basal Socket ...... 116 Haft antler point ...... 118 Antler Lateral Breaks...... 119 Comparisons of Modification Types Among Sites...... 121 Comparison of Bone Debitage and Preforms Among Sites...... 123 Summary ...... 124

Chapter 8: Conclusions ...... 126 Overview and Significance ...... 126 Tool Use Conclusions ...... 127 Tool Manufacture Conclusions...... 129 Bone Tool Manufacture Sequence...... 129 Antler Point Manufacture Methods...... 130 Future Work ...... 131

Appendix A: Data Collection Form...... 133

Appendix B: Statistical Analyses of Microwear...... 134

References...... 163

Biographical Sketch...... 177

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Florida’s organic technology over time ...... 33 Table 4.1: Comparison of sites by date, culture, context, midden type, specific location, and date excavated ...... 43 Table 5.1: Composition of the subsamples ...... 46 Table 5.2: Micrographs and photographs taken by site ...... 47 Table 5.3: Description of data collected...... 48 Table 5.4: Lexicon by data field...... 49 Table 5.5: Object types by gross morphology including tool classes (top) and modified bone and debitage classes (bottom) ...... 53 Table 5.6: Ordinal 0-5 scale describing level of modification...... 57 Table 5.7: Ordinal 0-5 scale describing level of use...... 58 Table 5.8: Ordinal 1-5 scale describing level of preservation...... 58 Table 6.1: Overview of metric measurements on tools...... 65 Table 6.2: Overview of number of tools by morphological variables: Cross-section, tip form, base form, and shaft form ...... 67 Table 6.3: Summary of wear locations, wear directions, and wear intensity by tool type...... 76 Table 6.4: Summary of microwear by morphological form...... 82 Table 7.1: Summary of metric measurements on modified bone (non-tools)...... 98 Table 7.2: Maximum length and maximum width of antler points...... 120 Table 7.3: Maximum length and maximum width of snapped antler tips...... 120

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Paleoindian rod made of mammoth ivory ...... 23 Figure 3.2: Beveled, cross-hatched end (A-B) and sharpened tip (C-D) of bone rods ...... 23 Figure 3.3: An Archaic bone pin with a cross-hatched haft area ...... 24 Figure 3.4: Antler clasps ...... 26 Figure 3.5: Hypothetical reconstruction of antler artifact from Gauthier (8BR193) ...... 26 Figure 3.6: Late Archaic decorated bone pins...... 27 Figure 3.7: Carved bone pin with zoomorphic base...... 29 Figure 3.8: Highly decorated carved bone implements...... 29 Figure 3.9: Undecorated bone bipoints ...... 30 Figure 3.10: Illustrations of pins and other engraved bones decorated with rectilinear geometric designs31 Figure 3.11: Illustration of a bird effigy antler carving...... 32 Figure 4.1: Map of archaeological sites sampled...... 36 Figure 5.1: Cross-section...... 50 Figure 5.2: Tip form...... 51 Figure 5.3: Shaft form ...... 51 Figure 5.4: Base form...... 52 Figure 5.5: Tool parts (right) and striation direction (left)...... 54 Figure 6.1: Histogram of modification level rating for tools ...... 64 Figure 6.2: Histogram of use level rating for tools ...... 64 Figure 6.3: Summary of tool fragments by part preserved ...... 65 Figure 6.4: Total tools by type ...... 66 Figure 6.5: Total number of wear types recorded by range ...... 68 Figure 6.6: Overview of wear direction on tools ...... 69 Figure 6.7: Overview of wear intensity on tools...... 70 Figure 6.8: Overview of polish intensity on tools...... 70 Figure 6.9: Wear location by tool type...... 72 Figure 6.10: Wear direction by tool type...... 74 Figure 6.11: Wear intensity by tool type...... 75 Figure 6.12: Boxplot of complete tool length ...... 90 Figure 6.13: Side-by-side boxplot of complete tool mean length by tool type...... 91 Figure 6.14: Stacked barchart of tool types by site...... 92 Figure 7.1: Modified bone types by count ...... 97 Figure 7.2: Modification type of non-tools compared to all objects...... 98 Figure 7.3: Experimentally replicated bone tools ...... 100 Figure 7.4: Stage 1 archaeological evidence: Metapodials with distal epiphysis removed ...... 103 Figure 7.5: Stage 1 archaeological evidence: Distal metapodial debitage...... 104 Figure 7.6: Distal metapodial debitage distance cut from end...... 105 Figure 7.7: Stage 2 or 3 replication evidence: Failed experimental splitting...... 106 Figure 7.8: Stage 3 or 2 archaeological evidence: Grooved preform for improved longitudinal splitting...... 109 Figure 7.9: Stage 3 or 2 archaeological evidence: Micrographs of grooved bone...... 109 Figure 7.10: Stage 4 archaeological evidence: Bone tool preforms after splitting lengthwise...... 110 Figure 7.11: Stage 5 archaeological and experimental evidence ...... 111 Figure 7.12: Stage 6 archaeological evidence: Debitage from proximal end of bone at base of tool...... 113 Figure 7.13: Stage 7 archaeological evidence: Micrograph of binding evidence on tool base...... 114 Figure 7.14: Antler debitage, scored and snapped full circumference...... 115 Figure 7.15: Cut and snapped antler debitage with shark tooth shaving...... 116 Figure 7.16: Modification type on antler ...... 116 Figure 7.17: Socketed antler point preform with incipient boring and no tine shaping...... 117 Figure 7.18: Socketed antler bore manufacture by rotational drilling ...... 118 Figure 7.19: Socketed antler bore manufacture by scooping...... 118 Figure 7.20: Evidence of haft binding at base of socketed antler point...... 119 Figure 7.21: Maximum lengths of antler points and snapped antler tips ...... 120 Figure 7.22: Percent of shark tooth shaving by site ...... 121 Figure 7.23: Percent of lithic shaving by site...... 122 Figure 7.24: Percent of abrading by site ...... 123

ii

ABSTRACT

This research examines Archaic Period (~9500-2500 RCYBP) bone tool use and production strategies in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Bone artifacts (n=509) from six sites form the composite assemblage studied. Microwear and manufacture patterns are analyzed to answer three questions about bone technology: 1) Are archaeologically imposed morphological tool “types” functionally relevant? 2) What aspects of tool shape influenced prehistoric tool use? 3) Did Archaic groups in the St. Johns River Basin have a consistent bone tool production strategy?

Results from statistical analysis of microwear patterns indicate that morphological tool “types” are functionally relevant. Furthermore, statistical tests indicate that bone tool use varies according to specific tool tip forms, base forms, shaft forms, and cross-sections. Buttressed by replication experiments, this research provides quantitative evidence for consistent Archaic bone tool manufacture strategies in the St. Johns River Basin. Overall, this thesis provides comparative use and manufacture data for bone tools in the region, grounded in statistically significant patterns.

iii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Problem Orientation

This chapter introduces the problems related to function and manufacture in bone tool analysis. It describes the theories and methods this thesis employs to overcome such problems. In order to place this thesis’ approach in context, Chapter 1 provides historical background for research directions and methodologies used in similar studies.

The simplest questions still remain unanswered in prehistoric bone technology studies. “How was this bone tool used?” and “How exactly was this bone tool made?” are questions that have persisted. Archaeologists solved questions related to function and manufacture for most artifact classes long ago. Social and economic interpretations of worked bone assemblages will be enriched when archaeologists answer foundational questions.

Functional Typology

Several basic problems continually plague worked bone research. First, recovery of well- preserved bone is rare, so studies of bone technology are rarely undertaken in comparison to lithic analyses. As a result, focused bone tool studies lag behind stone. The body of literature on worked bone is much smaller, and most methodologies were first applied to stone. Many bone tool analysts characterize this disparity as neglect (Gates St-Pierre and Walker 2007:2; LeMoine 2001:1; Olsen 2007:175; Scheinsohn 2010:1), but it reflects preservation more than research choice.

Second, bone tool typologies are quite varied. Most are not explicitly articulated, and few are comparable (Choyke and Schibler 2007:53). This problem stems from the seemingly similar appearance of bone assemblages. LeMoine (2001:2) notes that osseous assemblages often appear unvaried, “as anyone who has ever had to deal with a tray full of long, vaguely pointed objects can attest.” Since distinctions between the elongated, pointed tools are subtle, archaeologists debate over which criteria are useful for classifications.

The third problem in bone tool research revolves around functional interpretation through microwear. Archaeologists agree that microscopic traces on tools are useful for generating functional hypotheses (LeMoine 1997; Semenov 1964; Unger-Hamilton 1988). However, a few

1 practical hurdles prevent accurate microscopic study of all bone assemblages. It takes time for an archaeologist to develop the skill of differentiating use from taphonomic alterations and manufacture traces. Even with these skills, microscopic analysis is time consuming. Some collections are simply too large for such detailed study. Further complicating the situation, archaeologists debate connections between use-wear patterns and specific functional interpretations.

Macroscopic typologies are useful for general (non trace-wear) descriptions, but they may not be functionally relevant. If microscopic use-wear patterns do vary by morphological type, this will lend validity to archaeologically imposed typologies. If there is no relationship between archaeological types and prehistoric tool use, morphological typologies should be reconsidered.

Fourth, archaeologically imposed “types” may not be equated with prehistoric choices. This applies whether bone tool typologies are functionally relevant or not. Ultimately, anthropologists are interested in factors affecting prehistoric tool creation and use. The best macroscopic typologies are built upon specific morphological variables. Correlating these specific variables with use-function may elucidate prehistoric reasons behind tool use variation.

This research aims to overcome each of the four problems identified above. The sample analyzed in this thesis consists of bone objects from six archaeological sites with exceptional preservation of bone artifacts. This project proposes a model of morphological types. Proposed types reflect prevailing trends in classification systems. This thesis uses statistical analysis of microwear to test the validity of morphological types. Then, this research explores how each specific morphological trait relates to microwear patterns.

Manufacture Processes

Bone tool manufacture processes are better understood than variation in bone tool use. Prehistoric manufacture traces are usually visible macroscopically, and therefore they can be more easily identified. Bone tool manufacture methods are often described for a single site rather than a broad regional area. For example, manufacture sequences are already established for two sites studied in the project (Penders 1997; Wheeler and McGee 1994). Without systematic comparison between sites, specific differences in manufacture are masked. Likewise, continuity can be overlooked in single site analyses.

2 This thesis presents conclusions that largely agree with existing bone tool production models for the study area. The sample considered here is expanded to increase comparison and generalization for the region. This research uses quantitative data to ground existing manufacture sequences in archaeological evidence across Archaic sites.

Methodological Orientation

Two methods are used to analyze tool production and tool function: microwear analysis and experimental replication. Microwear observations are recorded to test tool form and function. Experimental replication aids in the identification of microscopic use-wear and manufacture traces. Replication also contributes to an understanding of the actions that produce archaeological preforms and debitage.

Microwear Analysis

Microwear encompasses the “traces of wear and use” and “traces of manufacture” on tools (Semenov 1964:2). Osseous materials are soft and therefore hold a particularly rich record of microwear. Use-wear analysis is the art of inferring tool function from traces of use on ancient tools (Keeley 1974). Manufacture trace analysis uses the same method to explain traces of manufacture. Since basic questions such as tool function and manufacture are unclear, microwear analysis continues to be an extremely relevant method in bone tool analysis.

While some researchers use high-powered scanning electron microscopes (SEM) (e.g. Mansur-Franchomme 1983; Villa and d’Errico 2001), the majority of productive studies are conducted at low magnification with a stereoscope or metallographic light microscope (Becker 2001; Buc and Loponte 2007; Campana 1989; Gates St-Pierre 2007; Legrand and Sidera 2007; LeMoine 1997). It is advantageous to use direct light microscopy over SEM because of practicality, time and budget constraints, and ease of polish identification (LeMoine 1997:15; Moore and Schmidt 2009:69; Penders 1997:30-31). To verify low-powered microtrace interpretations, archaeologists compare micrographs with tools used experimentally (Buc and Loponte 2007; d’Errico and Backwell 2009; Francis 2002; Hallen 1994). This thesis employs a stereoscope with 100X magnification to observe microwear.

3 Experimental Replication

According to Ascher’s (1961:793) classic definition, experimental replication simulates past tool production and use in order to test hypotheses about cultural behavior. Archaeological replication is intended to recreate past behavior and typically uses prehistoric tools. Replication is a common archaeological method, used across the discipline in areas ranging from pottery production (Skibo et al. 1989) to ancient ship reconstruction (Crumlin-Pedersen 2007). Through comparison with archaeological evidence, successful experiments aid the interpretations about the past and can even recreate specific actions.

Experimental replication has informed reconstructions of bone tool production in Florida’s prehistory (Penders 1997) and worldwide (Buc and Loponte 2007; d’Errico and Backwell 2009; Campana 1989; Francis 2002; Gates St-Pierre 2007; Griffitts 2006; Hallen 1994; LeMoine 1997; Richter and Dettloff 2002; van Gijn 2007). Replication of bone tool production for Florida is very similar to that seen elsewhere. This thesis uses bone tool replication experiments to strengthen hypotheses about manufacture methods.

Theoretical Orientation

Technological organization and chaîne opératoire approaches form the theoretical foundation of this thesis. The theories underlying this work relate directly to the methods described above. The primary goal of microwear analysis is to identify tool use strategies or technological organization. Through experimental replication and the analysis of manufacture traces, this study proposes a more detailed bone tool reduction sequence or chaîne opératoire. The proposed manufacture sequence describes the toolmaker’s step-by-step actions. These actions are interpretations of artifacts informed by the replication experiments.

Technological Organization

Studies that aim to consider all the variables involved in decisions of tool making and tool use address a culture’s Organization of Technology. Technological organization theories were created from lithic units of analysis (Ammerman and Feldman 1974; Bamforth 1991; Shott 1986), but they can be similarly applied to bone. Nelson defines technological organization as:

4 The study of the selection and integration of strategies for making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for their manufacture and maintenance. Studies of the organization of technology consider economic and social variables that influence those strategies (Nelson 1991:57). Technological organization studies are rooted in the idea that humans make specific choices while creating technology. Decisions are the strategic result of considering all “technological options” and “organizational alternatives” (Binford 1979:255). The goal of technological organization studies is to identify how the strategy relates to human behavior (Carr 1994). This thesis relies on technological organization theory in exploring bone tool manufacture strategies and tool use choices.

Chaîne Opératoire

Coined by the French archaeologist Leroi-Gourhan, chaîne opératoire is literally translated as “operational sequence” (Leroi-Gourhan 1993:253). Simply put, it is the study of how a technology is manufactured (Sellet 1993). The chaîne opératoire approach focuses on the “gestures” or actions that transform raw materials into tools (Leroi-Gourhan 1993).

Interpretations of chaîne opératoire are broad. Some interpret chaîne opératoire as a theoretical foundation while others see it as a methodological procedure (Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009:105). Both interpretations are employed in this thesis, using the following definition:

The notion of chaîne opératoire is therefore the means to chronologically organize the process of the transformation of raw material obtained from the natural environment and introduced into the technological cycle of production activities [Geneste 1989:76-77; Translation by Bar-Yosef and Van Peer (2009:105)]. This thesis draws upon the chaîne opératoire approach in descriptions of bone tool manufacture processes (see Chapter 7). Here, it is sometimes used to mean the “reduction sequence” with special attention to the actions of the toolmaker.

Bone Tool Analysis Methods Past and Present

Two themes in the history of bone tool research are: 1) a general struggle to classify tool forms and 2) the inability to confidently describe artifact functions. Analytical methods aimed at typology and function have changed over time. Archaeologists have classified bone tools by broad morphological form, manufacture technique, “intuitive” functional categories, use-wear data, ethnographic analogy, and archaeological context. Researchers conclude that no one

5 method will work alone; rather, a combination of all techniques is the most productive approach (Olsen 1984:471-472).

History of Analysis Methods

In 1932 Kidder devised one of the earliest systems of bone tool classification in North America. Previous descriptions of bone tools were not systematic and usually focused on a few implements discovered with a burial. Kidder (1932) examined over 5000 bone artifacts from Pecos, New Mexico and grouped the materials for descriptive purposes. Of the 3000 plus tools, he called 79 percent awls, or artifacts “apparently sharp enough to have been of use for perforating hides or for the manufacture of coiled basketry” (Kidder 1932:202). Kidder subdivided the awls by source material species and then by degree of modification. He noted the preferred raw material was deer metapodial. The large sample size allowed him to fully illustrate five steps in the chain of production, from blank to finished awl. Kidder’s early contribution provides an example of artifact analysis focused on function, material choice, and manufacture sequence.

Gifford (1940) expanded Kidder’s method by incorporating ethnology. He analyzed over 3000 osseous artifacts from California. Explicitly building on Kidder’s framework, Gifford used the 1932 classification system and further subdivided types based upon anatomical element. For each type, he cited ethnographic use from Northern California for similar tool forms. Informed by his thorough ethnographic survey, Gifford astutely cautioned future archaeologists to beware that multiple “types” of tools were used for the same task and multiple tasks were performed with a single tool.

With a few modifications, Kidder’s framework remained dominant for decades. In 1946, Webb (1974, republished from 1946) described a total of 12,532 artifacts from Indian Knoll in Kentucky. He categorized artifacts based on assumed function, leading him to identify 80 percent of the bone implements as awls (Webb 1974:232-233). Webb then subdivided functional categories by species and element. He used awl specimen length to create further divisions. He made a functional category of hairpins based on their positioning close to skulls in burials (Webb 1974:291). Bone tool studies like Webbs’—with large sample sizes and classification by gross morphological form—were typical of midcentury archaeologists working on culture history.

6 In 1957, Semenov examined microscopic traces on stone and bone tools in an effort to identify a tool’s “real purpose” from the list of possible functions (Semenov 1964:1). He described processes of manufacture and noted the differences between stone and bone. Most importantly, Semenov connected specific human actions with microtraces left on tools. His seminal study inspired further use-wear analyses, and it provided a foundation for future experimental studies.

Applying Semenov’s use-wear analysis, Chomko (1975) tested Kidder’s classification system on an assemblage from Missouri. He found very little overlap between types of use-wear striations and the classes proposed by Kidder (1932). Within the type I awl category alone, Chomko identified seven different wear patterns. Furthermore, the same wear pattern was present on five different classes of awls. Either awls were multi-tools that defied classification or Kidder’s system was ineffective. Chomko called into question the functional relevance of Kidder’s morphological classification system.

Processual archaeologists embraced scientific methods and reevaluated descriptive classification. In 1981, Barondess and Kidder noted the variety of bone tools in collections from the Mississippi River delta. Criticizing that “simple description by gross morphology alone is inadequate and inaccurate” (Barondess and Kidder 1981:87), they proposed a new classification system based on reduction method. The study identified three classes of tools from manufacturing processes. All three classes were identified in the four sites examined. Barondess and Kidder (1981:96) were skeptical about assigning functional categories, especially without relevant ethnographic data for the study area. Instead, they relied on experimental archaeology, an emerging archaeological method.

Olsen’s frequently cited 1984 dissertation exemplified the strength of using multiple methods. She studied three disparate assemblages from the Old and New Worlds and incorporated the scientific methods of experimentation, use-wear analysis, ethnographic analogy, and archaeological context. Using a high-powered scanning electron microscope, Olsen compared striations seen on artifacts with those she replicated and experimentally used. Extensive experimentation aided her dissertation; this included being trained to weave baskets by a “master craftsman” and using a bow and arrow to fire bone projectiles into carcasses. Archaeological context proved useful in distinguishing awls from pins, as pins were repeatedly

7 found in burials under the heads of high-status males. Largely due to Olsen’s study, research since the 1980s usually employs a combination of methods.

Campana (1989) followed Olsen’s multiple method approach. In his study of Natufian and Protoneolithic bone tools, he incorporated ethnography, experimentation, and use-wear data. Like Olsen, Campana experimentally “used” bone tool reproductions and recorded the resulting striation patterns. He tested a hypothesis about tip shape but found no bimodality in tips and concluded it was not a useful variable for tool function. Instead, he proposed that the variability in tips could be explained by the wear-history of the tools, with tips starting at 0.5 to 1.5 mm and becoming more rounded (wider) until their discard at 3 mm (Campana 1989:56, 66-69). Many low-powered microscopic photographs supported his use-wear descriptions. Published micrographs of experimental use-wear provide an important component of microwear studies.

Current Trends in Bone Tool Analysis Methods

Several M.A. theses from the 1990s contribute to the body of knowledge on bone tools in the Southeast. At the University of Kentucky, Bader (1992) devised an elegant system for describing bone tool morphology and use-wear. Rather than describing overall morphology, Bader focused on attributes such as shaft cross-section, symmetry, and tip outline. Based on her sample of 253 tools from Archaic sites in Kentucky, she concluded that tool morphology and microtraces are indeed statistically correlated. Her research is important because it successfully connected aspects of macroscopic form with microscopic wear patterns. At the University of Tennessee, Coughlin (1996) studied over 500 tools from the multi-component Widows Creek site in Alabama and compared them with two other sites in the region. Coughlin demonstrated the ability to draw conclusions about site function over time from differences in manufacture technology (Coughlin 1996:115-116, 135). At Florida State University, Penders (1997) described the form and function of 119 faunal artifacts from Windover, an Archaic wet site in Florida. Replicative studies and low power (4X-11X) microscopy informed his hypotheses of tool purposes and manufacture processes. Bader’s microwear and morphology, Coughlin’s archaeological context and manufacture process, and Penders’ microwear and replication studies exhibit the success of using a combination of methods.

Jeffries (1997) used decorative bone pins from eight Middle Archaic sites in the southern Midwest to map spheres of social interaction. Stylistic similarities on decorated pin heads

8 indicated regional social groups participated in exchange, whether physical or ideological. Not only did Jeffries show that inhabitants of many sites were in contact, he demonstrated that others were not. As a result, he was able to isolate regions of stylistic differences, and he corroborated projectile point distributions that do not extend south of the Ohio River in Tennessee and Kentucky (Jeffries 1997:477, 481).

Similar to Jeffries’ study, Wheeler (1992; 1994; Wheeler and Coleman 1996) outlined several culture areas of bone pin decoration styles in Florida. In addition to his study of decoration, Wheeler has made significant contributions using function to classify bone implements. Focusing on use-wear and therefore function, Wheeler and McGee (1994) identified techno-functional differences. They grouped functional tool types such as awls, decorative pins/fasteners, and gouges under the following categories: textile and leather working complex, wood and bone working complex, lithic working complex, personal adornment complex, hunting/fishing complex, and a miscellaneous category. Wheeler and McGee’s classification system is a framework used for other studies in Florida (e.g. Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001).

White (2003) analyzed tool styles with respect to radiocarbon dates to develop a chronology for Late Middle Archaic bone pins in the Midwest. He developed a seriation for decorative pins using head shape and carved or incised decorative designs. Clear stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates allowed White to establish date ranges within two hundred years for each style. Changes in pins occurred at a faster rate than changes in hafted bifaces, providing the possibility for tighter dating through diagnostic artifacts.

Walker (2000) used archaeological context and maritime literature to infer bone bipoint function in southwest Florida. She tested the hypothesis that bone tools were fishing implements by correlating type of fish exploited with bipoint and single point abundance. Ethnographically, fish gorges are often used for shallow water fishing. Walker reasoned that if bipoints functioned primarily as gorges, they should occur more frequently at inshore sites with shallow waters. She found a correlation between bipoint distribution and fishing of small fish in shallow waters. Walker used similar methods to associate other artifact types—grooved shell columnella (fishing sinkers) and polished rectangles (fishing net spacers)—with fishing technology. Quantitative data about bipoints, grooved shells, and polished rectangles complimented each other and

9 supported Walker’s argument about fishing technology. Relying heavily on ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources, Walker used archaeological context to infer function.

In the concluding chapter of the recent conference publication, Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, Olsen (2007:176-177) offers a statement on the current state of bone tool research methods: “The analytical methodology used to approach bone artifacts relies heavily on the trident of microscopic traces, experimental replication, and ethnographic analogy to attack osseous artifact collections.” Overall, research questions have remained somewhat unchanged and largely unanswered since the beginnings of worked bone analysis. What has changed, however, is a realization that no one method will answer these enduring questions, and that the answers vary over space and time (Olsen 2007:177, 179).

Summary

Although basic questions have remained unchanged in bone tool research, analysis methods have changed over time. Early analyses provided gross morphological classification systems. Morhpological typology provided a framework for archaeologists working on culture history to describe large assemblages. In the 1950s, morphology alone came into question as a classificatory scheme. The system’s applicability was questioned when ethnological data showed morphologically similar bone tools had different functions in different cultures. By the 1960s, processual archaeologists sought more scientific methods for functional interpretations. Microscopic use-wear and experimental replication provided scientific methods to distinguish different patterns of use. Since the late 1980s, successful studies have used several analytical methods including archaeological context, specific aspects of morphology, microtrace analysis, replicative experiments, and ethnographic analogy.

The methods of microtrace analysis and experimental replication form the backbone of this thesis. Use-functions and manufacture processes are interpreted for the study area. Interpretations are couched in the technological organization and chaîne opératoire approaches. Applying methods and theories tested worldwide, this thesis describes local patterns within Archaic assemblages from a single river basin of Florida.

10 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND CULTURE HISTORY Introduction

After briefly describing the environmental changes in the Early Holocene (10,000-8000 Radiocarbon Years Before Present [RCYBP]), the Mid-Holocene (8000-5000 RCYBP), and the Late Holocene (5000 RCYBP to present), this chapter will characterize human presence during those times. Brief summaries of the time periods before and after the Archaic period set up the review of diachronic bone tool use in Chapter 3. Summaries describe the Paleoindian Period (before 12,000-9500 RCYBP), the Early Archaic Period (9500-7000 RCYBP), the Middle Archaic Period (7000-5000 RCYBP), the Late Middle Archaic Period (6000-4000 RCYBP), the Late Archaic Period (4000-2500 RCYBP), and the time after the Archaic Period including the Woodland and Mississippian Periods (2500 RCYBP- European Contact). The following descriptions of environment and culture history are relative to Florida, and where possible, the St. Johns River Basin.

Although all sites sampled for this thesis date to the Archaic Period, it is necessary to understand the surrounding time periods in order to place the assemblages and sites in context. Discussion of prehistoric lifeways is especially pertinent with regard to hypothetical tool function. In order to make remotely accurate hypotheses about the production and function of bone tools, one must consider the values and organization of the toolmakers’ cultures.

The environment influences human adaptations. Environmental conditions determine the distribution of forested hunting grounds, the location of freshwater, and the flora and fauna available for subsistence. Native Americans—from the Pleistocene through the late Holocene— made choices about where to live, what to eat, and how to obtain water. The availability of choices was influenced by the climate, the visible environment, and knowledge passed down through ancestors.

Environmental Background

Pleistocene air temperatures were noticeably cooler than present temperatures, especially in the winter. Winter temperatures in the boreal forests north of what is now Florida were

11 approximately 32 degrees lower than present-day averages. The cold air was dry, and the forest soils were also dry. Cold temperatures trapped water in the glaciers, making unfrozen surface water scarcer than present day (Miller 1998:42-43).

During the Pleistocene, the sea level was approximately 130-165 feet lower than current levels. As a result, Florida’s shoreline was much farther out, making the footprint of the state nearly twice as large (Milanich 1994:39, Miller 1998:42). A noteworthy effect of lowered sea levels was an absence of many of Florida’s lakes, rivers, springs, and marshes. Rather than the lake-rich environment of central-east Florida, the area would have been dry and free of swamps and inland rivers (Milanich 1994:38, 40). Megafauna like the mammoth, mastodon, saber-tooth cat, and giant tortoise thrived in the dry, cold climate (Miller 1998:47).

The onset of the Holocene brought comparatively rapid environmental change. As the Pleistocene ended around 10,000 RCYBP, the glaciated landscape gave way to a milder climate. The climate was warmer and less rainy, not only than the preceding Pleistocene, but also than present day (Miller 1998:58-59). As the temperature rose glacial ice sheets melted. Meltwater raised sea levels. From 10,000-6000 RCYBP the sea level rose rapidly, on the order of 100-110 centimeters per century (Miller 1998:45). Florida’s landscape became more like it is at present. Beginning around 8000 RCYBP, the rising water table filled in dry lake basins and deepened existing lakes (Watts et al. 1996: 29).

During the Holocene, oak-dominated forests replaced Pleistocene beech forests. Oak forest with prairie openings provided a place for game to graze (Miller 1998:59; Watts et al. 1996:37). From 8000 - 5000 RCYBP, the Holocene forests transitioned from oak-dominated to mostly pine (Anderson et al. 1996:5-6; Schuldenrein 1996:4). Smaller game that foraged alone or in small groups replaced large herd animals that lived in open savannas. After the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, white-tailed deer became the largest commonly available game in the Southeast (Miller 1998:59).

In the Mid-Holocene (8000-5000 RCYBP), estuaries, rivers, and coastal marine habitats established their present patterns (Schuldenrein 1996:3). Swamps and marshes developed in low-lying areas. Springs, rivers, and sinkholes grew and were no longer as reliant on deep springs and perched basins (Milanich 1994:40). Florida’s abundant coastal and riverine habitats existed in the Mid-Holocene, as they do today. By 6000 RCYBP, the early Holocene warm

12 summers and cold winters yielded to the more temperate environment of present time (Watts et al. 1996:29). During the middle Holocene, sea levels rose over 50 meters and leveled off around 5000 RCYBP (Miller 1998:45).

The late Holocene (5000 RCYBP to present) climate is “essentially the modern one” except with even heavier summer rainfall (Watts et al. 1996:37). By 4000 RCYBP, sea levels were only four meters below present levels (Miller 1998:45). Pine became the dominant tree type in forests, and it has remained dominant since. The continually rising water table allowed water-loving cypress forests to develop in swampy areas. Large swamps like the Okefenokee and Everglades started to form around 5000 RCYBP (Watts et al. 1996:36). Since the beginning of the late Holocene, Florida has had abundant wetlands that make the area unlike any others in North America. The establishment of modern warm weather, current sea level stands, and a wet environment around 5000 RCYBP was the beginning of Florida as it appears today.

Before the Archaic Period: Paleoindian Period

The Pleistocene-age occupants of North America, Paleoindians, arrived in Florida by at least 12,000 RCYBP. Decreased surface water in the Pleistocene significantly influenced human and larger mammal settlement patterns. During the arid Pleistocene, humans relied most on springs as reliable sources of freshwater. Deep springs, or “watering holes,” also attracted game and therefore good hunting (Milanich 1994:38, 40-44, 48). Paleoindians hunted large Pleistocene megafauna and small animals, both of which contributed significantly to the Paleoindian general foraging strategy (Anderson 1996).

Paleoindians tipped their hunting spears with points made of stone, bone, and ivory. However, Paleoindian presence is often apparent only by surface finds of their stone projectile points (Thulman 2006:60-61). As a result, archaeologists rely on diagnostic hafted stone tools to define the Paleoindian Period. Paleoindians made bifacial, lanceolate points, with basal grinding, fluting, or both. The most abundant Paleoindian Period points in Florida are the Suwannee and Clovis. The large blades are generally thin and expertly fashioned (Milanich 1994:48). The quality of Paleoindian stone tools reflects the high value placed on the lithic tool kit.

The highly curated and formal toolkit suggests Paleoindians were logistically organized collectors, with task groups that embarked on extended forays for resources such as high quality

13 stone (Anderson et al. 1996:6). Mobile Paleoindians probably moved among different camps frequently (Milanich 1994:48). In North Central Florida, there is evidence for increasing regionalization within the Paleoindian Period. Thulman studied Paleoindian projectile point traditions and concluded that variation was more pronounced with time (Thulman 2006:219). Regional groups made tools that looked less like the tools in other regions, suggesting either decreased mobility or decreased social interaction across broad regions.

Although projectile points and debitage from their manufacture are the most prevalent and most studied aspect of Paleoindian technology, we have evidence that Paleoindians used many other tools. Their toolkit contained unifacial scrapers, endscrapers, adzes, retouched flakes, spokeshaves, bifacial knifes, denticulates, bola stones, and atlatls (Anderson et al. 1996:6, Milanich 1994:48). Paleoindians also used a diverse array of formal bone and ivory tools, which will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

Early Archaic Period

The end of the Paleoindian Period coincides roughly with the end of the Pleistocene (Anderson et al. 1996:7, 15; Milanich 1994:63). In many respects, the Early Archaic Period (9500-7000 RCYBP) is similar to the Paleoindian Period. The most noticeable difference visible archaeologically is that Early Archaic flintknappers began making stemmed projectile points (Milanich 1994:63). Based on the Early Archaic Kirk points in strata overlying or associated with Paleoindian occupations, Milanich (1994:63) is convinced that “at least initially, early Archaic peoples and Paleoindians shared similar lifeways.” Bolen points (or Bolen knives) also overlap temporally with Paleoindian points at some sites (Milanich 1994:53-54).

Because of the warming climate and rising water levels, Early Archaic populations were not as constrained by water as their forebears. Readily available surface water probably changed foraging and settlement patterns. Archaeologists should expect Early Archaic sites not only near deep springs and large rivers, but also at shallower water features such as smaller lakes and rivers. To date, Early Archaic aquatic exploitation has not been well recorded. However, the absence of shellfish middens is sometimes explained by higher sea levels inundating coastal sites (Milanich 1994:63-64, 67).

Southeastern archaeologists debate the degree of Early Archaic mobility. Some argue that Early Archaic groups were not as logistically organized as Paleoindians (Anderson and

14 Hanson 1988:278), while others argue Early Archaic groups relied heavily on long distance stone-seeking forays (Daniel 1996:89-91). Both arguments are grounded in lithic procurement. In Florida at least, where knappable rock is comparatively rare, archaeologists may need to rethink lithic resource-centered models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic mobility. At the Windover site alone, over 119 bone tools were present, but there were only seven lithic artifacts (Penders 1997:2, 193). Lithic artifacts dominate archaeological thinking because of preservation, but the bulk of material culture was organic.

Other tools from the Early Archaic include unifacial and bifacial scrapers, unifacial and bifacial knives, end scrapers, flake tools, choppers, and drills (Milanich 1994:66-67). There was also a diverse array of wooden tools. Early Archaic perishables include nets, woven matting, and baskets (Adavasio 2001). Although not preserved at most sites, Early Archaic bone and antler tools are abundant and are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Middle Archaic Period

The beginning of the Mid-Holocene (8000 RCYBP) (Schuldenrein 1996:3) just precedes the Middle Archaic Period (7000-5000 RCYBP) (Milanich 1994:75). Warmer climate, pineland forest growth, and newly formed water features presented Middle Archaic people with a different environment in which to hunt and live (Schuldenrein 1996:3-4). Between the Early Archaic and the Middle Archaic, technological organization changed quickly. Expedient tools increased, and emphasis on high-quality, curated toolkits decreased. Middle Archaic land use decreased in scale, and populations used more local raw materials. Residential mobility—moving camp to exploit new resources rather than sending out task groups—increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53).

The changing environment influenced Middle Archaic subsistence. As sea level rose and river channels infilled, “critical resource zones emerged” (Schuldenrein 1996:3). New estuaries, inlets, and other rich biotic communities offered rich marine resources. To generalize, trends in the greater Southeast show that Middle Archaic populations ate more fish than in the Early Archaic (Styles and Klippel 1996:132-133). Florida’s earliest evidence of canoes dates to the Middle Archaic Period (Wheeler et al. 2003).

The Middle Archaic toolkit expanded to include ground stone tools. Among these are ground stone mortars and pestles, ground nutting stones, ground stone vessels, grooved axes, and stone atlatl weights (Sassaman 1996:57). Nonnative ground stone in St. Johns River Valley sites

15 indicates regional interaction or mobility. Another Middle Archaic advancement in stone toolmaking is the use of heat-treatment. Heating stone makes it easier to work, thus improving the quality of poor lithic material (Amick and Carr 1996:45). Heat-treating bone is not documented for the Middle Archaic, but evidence from the present study indicates toolmakers may have simmered bones before producing tools.

Late Middle Archaic Period (Mount Taylor Period in the St. Johns Region)

The Middle and Late Archaic Periods are relevant divisions within the Archaic, especially with regard to the greater Southeast. These divisions also reflect environmental variability. However, the divisions do not fully reflect cultural changes in Florida, so many archaeologists use alternative terminology. The preceramic Archaic describes the Middle Archaic plus the portion of the Late Archaic just before ceramic technology.

Specific terminology also exists to describe Middle to Late Archaic culture in the St. Johns River Basin. As originally defined, the Mount Taylor Period applied to all preceramic Archaic cultures near the St. Johns Region (Goggin 1952:40). Present definitions place the beginning of the Mount Taylor Period around 6000 RCYBP and the end around 4000 RCYBP. This chronology bridges the Middle and Late Archaic. Most Mount Taylor occupations are clustered around the Upper St. Johns. There are also occupations near the Atlantic Coast, the Oklawaha River drainage, and the Indian River area (Wheeler et al. 2000:142-143).

Mount Taylor Period assemblages contain diagnostic artifacts beyond stemmed projectile points. Other artifacts are significant because they represent decorative arts, incipient ceramic technology, and regional interaction. Decorative items such as beads from Mount Taylor assemblages show regional patterns. Ground stone and marine shell tools are found outside regions where the raw material occurs, indicating populations made long forays or participated in regional interaction. Baked clay balls for cooking represent the foundation for the development of pottery (Wheeler et al. 2000:150-153).

Increased surface water availability and the establishment of rich marine resources influenced Middle Archaic adaptations (Goggin 1952:41). The Mount Taylor type site has a 25- 27 foot thick midden (Wheeler et al. 2000:132). The midden is composed of predominantly banded mystery snail (Viviparus georgianus), a freshwater gastropod that lives in lakes and slow river mud bottoms (Kipp and Benson 2011). Smaller amounts of apple snail (Ampullariidae)

16 and crushed shell are also present (Wheeler et al. 2000:137). The amount of shell at preceramic Archaic sites suggests shellfish were a major portion of the diet. Shellfish accounts for 33 to 87 percent of dietary meat weight for the Mount Taylor Period (Wheeler et al. 2000:151).

Ovoid midden mounds or ridges of shell are typical of Mount Taylor sites. Multi- component sites may have a large shell mound, shell fields, and later shell and sand burial mounds (Wheeler et al. 2000:143). The archaeological context and composition of many Mount Taylor shell accumulations point to intentional mounding. By the late Middle Archaic, shell mounding becomes obvious at a regional scale (Russo 1996:273-276).

The riverine Mount Taylor culture seems to have a coastal analog (Ste. Claire 1990; Wheeler et al. 2000:147), which may be an expression of the same culture (Goggin 195:51; Wheeler et al. 2000:154). Aquatic resources in Florida’s coastal zones were available year- round. Thus, coastal populations could subsist on local estuarine foraging. Russo and his colleagues (1992:95) argue that there was a sedentary, marine-adapted population during the preceramic Archaic. Shell tools decreased the need for lithic materials, further encouraging settlement at the coast (Russo 1996:196-197; Wheeler et al. 2000:148). Mount Taylor populations also made use of bone technology, which is discussed further in Chapter 3.

Late Archaic Period (Orange Period in the St. Johns Region)

Milanich (1994:86, 88) claims that there were few differences in basic lifeways between Mount Taylor and Orange assemblages aside from the invention of pottery. The Orange Period is named for the first ceramics: a fiber-tempered ware called Orange pottery. Late Archaic peoples developed ceramic technology by about 4000 RCYBP (Sassaman 2002a). Late Archaic groups continued to make large shell middens (Goggin 1952:43), often in ring or horseshoe shapes (Milanich 1994:97; Russo and Heide 2001). Middle Archaic and Late Archaic freshwater shell middens in the St. Johns River show continuity in site selection, artifacts, and fauna (Milanich 1994:83). Russo (1996) makes a similar case for preceramic and ceramic Archaic continuity at coastal sites in eastern Florida. Continual occupation, with Late Archaic people building middens upon earlier Middle Archaic middens, is probable at many sites. The invention of pottery may not so much indicate a new settlement, but a shift in one aspect of technology (Goggin 1952:45).

17 Compared to the advent of ceramic technology, Late Archaic changes in lithic technology were more minute. Populations went back to a reliance on formal hafted bifaces, and expedient flake tools decreased. Compared to Middle Archaic assemblages, Late Archaic stone tools are more often made of nonlocal material. An increase in extralocal material has been interpreted as a Late Archaic shift back toward logistic mobility (Amick and Carr 1996:53). Late Archaic groups in Florida acquired marine resources from the coast. For example, the whelk (Busycon) served as a cooking vessel or a shell pick (Milanich 1994:93).

Population and reliance on marine resources increased during the Late Archaic. Evidence for larger populations includes an increase in number of sites, area of sites, as well as the density of occupation within sites. Orange Period settlement reflects not only larger, but also more sedentary populations (Milanich 1994:86-87). Marine resources supported the large population. Shellfish account for 98 percent dietary meat weight for the Orange Period (Wheeler et al. 2000:151). The larger populations in the Orange Period may account for the greater quantity of bone tools. Chapter 3 explains this apparent increase in bone technology.

After the Archaic Period: Woodland and Mississippian Periods (St. Johns I and II in the St. Johns Region)

In the same way early archaeologists used projectile point types to establish preceramic cultural periods, ceramic typology traditionally sets the boundaries for succeeding eras. People in the St. Johns Region stopped making and using fiber-tempered pottery around 2500 RCYBP. Instead, they added sponge spicules to clay, creating a chalky ceramic known as St. Johns ware. By this time, “virtually no populations existed without pottery” (Sassaman 2002b:416). Potters decorated the exterior of many vessels, and local styles proliferated. Innovations in pottery continued across the Southeast, with sand-temper, grit-temper, or a combination of both (Sassaman 2002b:417-418). In the St. Johns River basin, ceramic tempering remained the same until contact, but surface decorations changed (Milanich 1994:246-247). This continuity is reflected in the chronological periods for the region, simply called St. Johns I (2500 RCYBP- 750 C.E.) and St. Johns II (750 C.E. - Contact) (Goggin 1952:68; Milanich 1994:247). Aside from the chalky St. Johns wares, other pottery is often recovered at St. Johns sites. Among the other ceramic traditions represented from Woodland to Contact are Deptford, Swift Creek, Dunns Creek Red, Weeden Island, Fort Walton, Safety Harbor, and Mississippian influenced

18 shell-tempered wares. Distinct cultures emerged in different geographic areas, even within the St. Johns Region (Milanich 1994:247-248).

St. Johns I and II Periods are similar to preceding cultural periods but show resource intensification, population growth, and increasing social complexity. Like the continuity seen from Mt. Taylor to Orange occupation, St. Johns I sites were often in the same locales as Orange sites, indicating local cultural change (Milanich 1994:254). People continued collecting shellfish and foraging, but manipulation of plants increased over time. By the end of the St. Johns I Period, people were growing plants, especially in the northern soils (Milanich 1994:262). Woodland Period and Mississippian Period population increased. Groups buried their dead— and sometimes their leaders—in sand burial mounds. Ceremonialism accompanied funerals (Goggin 1952:79; Milanich 1994:260). Long-distance exchange of objects and ideas continued (Goggin 1952:79; Sassaman 2002b:398). For example, stylized bird motifs on St. Johns pottery are also found on pottery traditions to the north (Milanich 1994:260).

Continuity between St. Johns I and St. Johns II cultures is even more pronounced than previous periods (Milanich 1994:263). St. Johns II groups produced huge snail middens, followed by post-contact era mussel shell middens (Milanich 1994:265). Population continued to increase and some places developed complex political organization. Clay effigies of the era illustrate Mississippian influence; among the effigy forms are corncobs, squashes, gourds, acorns, and animals (Milanich 1994:264). Conspicuous “pyramidal” mounds also show Mississippian influence. Elaborate artifacts illustrate St. Johns II period imagery. For example, a copper breastplate with forked eyes and concentric circles was at the Mount Royal mound site (Milanich 1994:271). A tall, wooden owl totem was found near Hontoon Island (Milanich 1994:273). Such imagery is repeated in other media, including bone, which is discussed further in Chapter 3.

Summary

In the area that is now called Florida, human adaptations changed considerably over the past 12,000 years. Warming temperatures caused sea level rise and changes in flora and fauna. During the Pleistocene, populations relied on deep springs for freshwater and hunted megafauna and small game. Highly mobile Paleoindians curated quality stone, bone, and ivory tools. Contrasted with the Pleistocene, the early Holocene was warmer and wetter. In the Early

19 Archaic, white-tailed deer replaced megafauna as the preferred large game. As rich marine zones became established in the Mid-Holocene, Middle Archaic groups fished more and settled near rivers and at the coast. Climate and sea levels stabilized around the time of the late Holocene onset at 5000 RCYBP. Late Archaic groups relied more on marine resources, and their populations grew. By 4000 RCYBP Late Archaic groups developed pottery. Plant manipulation intensified in the Woodland Period. Some Woodland settlements practiced agriculture. Social stratification increased during the Mississippian Period, as did iconography and ceremonialism. In general, there was a trend of increasing sedentism, increasing population, and increasing regionalization. Technological adaptations and subsistence patterns changed over time. But, the main theme of prehistoric human presence in the St. Johns River Basin is cultural continuity.

20 CHAPTER 3: FLORIDA’S BONE TOOLS OVER TIME Introduction

This chapter reviews cultural trends in bone technology for the area now known as Florida. It traces both continuity and change over time. First, the chapter reviews osseous tool form and manufacture processes for each cultural period (see Chapter 2). Then it highlights diachronic shifts and constants in bone technology.

Florida has an especially rich record of bone tools but a surprisingly small amount of research on them. In contrast to the volume of ceramic seriation literature and point type handbooks, publications focused specifically on Florida’s bone tools are rare. The phenomenon and its causes are not confined to Florida (Chapter 1). Several factors may explain the void. First, assemblages are frequently small. Finding a few bone tools at a site warrants little more than description. Bone and antler objects are often noted in passing or examined on a site-by-site basis rather than synthetically (but see Wheeler 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994; Wheeler and Coleman 1996).

Secondly, the function of much organic technology is ambiguous. Comparing data from different publications risks misrepresentation because functional interpretation varies by researcher. The functional categories in this chapter are other researchers’ interpretations. To avoid confusion with later chapters, alternative names are sometimes put in parentheses for clarification. Most classes are similar to this thesis’ typology. The main terminology divergence is that of “pins.” While many researchers lump elongated, pointed objects into one category, they are separated in this work (see Chapter 5). Generally, this thesis reserves the word “pin” for thin, round cross-section, elongated tools (sensu Olsen 1984:283).

The final reason literature focused on Florida’s bone tools is rare is that Florida’s organic technology shows much continuity over time. Unlike points and ceramics, many bone tools are temporally undiagnostic. The consistency in bone tool shape is due in part to consistency in source material. There is so much continuity in bone tool form that implements worldwide resemble each other, despite being continents and millennia apart (LeMoine 2001:2).

21 Before the Archaic Period: Paleoindian Period

Stone tool studies dominate Paleoindian research because there is often not much else preserved. Preservation of organic material is unlikely for Pleistocene age material, but wet sites in Florida exist with unique preservation. In fact, Florida provides the majority of the organic Paleoindian record (Milanich 1994:34). A single site in Florida, Sloth Hole, has produced more formal ivory tools than the rest of North America combined (Hemmings 2004:126). In Florida Clovis sites alone, Hemmings enumerated 16 formal bone tools and 142 formal ivory tools (Hemmings 2004:140).

Paleoindian organic technology was diverse. Pleistocene hunters had access to ivory, a strong yet highly flexible material. Paleoindians also worked bone. Osseous technology included hafted projectiles, compound bone fishhooks, awls, wrenches, atlatl hooks, atlatl weights, billets, daggers, beads, beamers, needles (Hemmings 2004:128, 141, 167, 170, 190), handles, an abrader, an anvil, and a mattock (Dunbar and Webb 1996). It is abundantly clear that by the terminal Pleistocene, the inhabitants of southeastern North America exploited bone and ivory effectively.

Perhaps most significantly, humans in Florida were making bone and ivory tools in consistent, formalized manners over 10,000 years ago. Ivory rods are the most abundant type of formal osseous tool, and they illustrate the regularized production process (Hemmings 2004:187). The function of rods is heavily debated, but evidence leans towards their use as projectiles (Hemmings 2004:185, Moore and Schmidt 2009:59-61). Less debated are the consistent manufacture methods of ivory rods.

Ivory rods in intermediate stages of production (semifabricates), combined with manufacturing experiments, have helped researchers reconstruct the sequence. Making a formal ivory tool began with cutting the tusk free from the dead mammoth or mastodon’s skull. Then the toolmaker husked the outer dentin to reveal the stronger material at the core. Paleoindians shaped the rod by pecking the ends of the core and grinding the shaft (Hemmings 2004:121, 196). The toolmaker always placed the bevel on the outside of the curve. Paleoindian ivory rods are always oriented with the tip of the tool towards the tip of the original tusk (Hemmings 2004:189). The tusk’s distal end is the tool tip. The tool base or the bone proximal end was

22 cross-hatched to aid hafting. Sometimes Paleoindians substituted proboscidian bone for ivory to produce rods, but the resulting form was the same.

Figure 3.1: Paleoindian rod made of mammoth ivory (From Figure 2, Wheeler 1994:49). Rod is 30 centimeters in length. (No specimen number published, Aucilla River, Florida).

Figure 3.2: Beveled, cross-hatched end (A-B) and sharpened tip (C-D) of bone rods (From Figure 2, Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974:148). A-C) (67, 24PA506, Anzick site, Montana); D-F) (118-119, 25PA506).

The second most commonly found Paleoindian bone tool is the bipoint, a thick, double- pointed bone tool (also called pins, double-pointed points, simple points, or bone points) (Purdy 1973:146). The Priscilla site on the Aucilla River in northern Florida contained hundreds of bipoints in association with a proboscidian kill. The bipoints were about 10 centimeters long and round in cross-section (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:41-43). Microwear studies from the Paleoindian Period are notably absent (Moore and Schmidt 2009), so archaeologists often rely on contextual and ethnographic evidence for functional interpretations. The association of

23 numerous bipoints with proboscidian kills suggests the double-pointed pins were used to hold back tissue during butchering. Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:41-43) propose the possibility of use as barbed fishing spears (leisters). Pins and bipointed pins illustrate the continuity of form and manufacture traceable back to the Paleoindian Period.

Early Archaic Period

The Pleistocene-Holocene transition marks the beginning of the Early Archaic Period. Proboscidians became extinct after the Pleistocene, so the preferred raw material for organic tools changed. Just like the straight and long form of proboscidian longbones, the metapodials of deer offered a workable form. Archaic Period toolmakers were drawn to the strength and flexibility of deer antlers for the same reasons Paleoindians used proboscidian tusks.

Early Archaic people did not make the rods that were so abundant in the Paleoindian Period, nor did they continue to make large bi-beveled bone tools. Cross-hatching was less common but still practiced (Figure 3.3). More often, Archaic haft elements are roughened or left unmodified.

Figure 3.3: An Archaic bone pin with a cross-hatched haft area (From Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:49, Figure 9). (“Incised bone pins (Ichetucknee River),” Florida, no other provenience information published).

Although ivory was no longer available, much of the bone technology from the Late Pleistocene existed in the Early Holocene. Holocene bone is more often recovered, but the difference could be because of preservation. Specifically, deer pins and bipoints are found at a higher proportion of sites in the Early Archaic. Huge accumulations are less common, but a concentration of 1,000 pins at Sloth Hole may be partly Archaic (Hemmings 2004:146,194). In the Early Archaic, bipoints are the most common bone tool form (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:54). As deer became the preferred large mammal, deer ulna awls and socketed antler points proliferated. Antler and bone atlatl components also increased in the Early Archaic (Moore and Schmidt 2009:68).

24 Sites like Windover with excellent preservation illustrate the diversity of the organic toolkit. Early Archaic implements include fish hooks, atlatl weights, socketed antler handles, atlatl triggers, splinter awls, deer ulna awls, antler punches, bipoints (Milanich 1994:67), antler projectiles, bone projectiles, flakers, shaft straighteners, antler perforators, bird bone tubes, turtle shell containers, gravers, daggers or hairpins, fish gorges, bone needles, radii awls, ulna gouges, ulna burnishers or awls, pins, battens, awls, beads (Penders 1997:7, 105), antler billets, antler handles, and even proposed “deer calotte cups/vessels” (Carter and Gifford 2002). Although rare in the Early Archaic, there is evidence of decorative engraving on bone. Three decorated bird bone tubes from Windover have diamond motifs (Wheeler 1994:47). The diamond patterns are reminiscent of earlier cross-hatching. Despite similarities, archaeologists have interpreted engraved patterns as decorative and interpreted cross-hatching as functional.

Middle Archaic Period

Bone pins continue to increase in the Middle Archaic. Middle Archaic pins are frequently “triangular in cross-section” (Aten 1999:157), preserving some natural shape of a deer metapodial. The longbone distal end consistently formed the tip of the pin, and likewise the proximal end formed the base of the pin (Aten 1999:157). This pattern is very much like the Paleoindian tradition of orienting ivory rods in the direction of the natural bone.

In addition to pins, Middle Archaic osseous assemblages include other elongated tools interpreted as hairpins, clothing fasteners (Wheeler and McGee 1994:352), fids, needles, or bipoints (Aten 1999:158-159). There was a variety of awls in addition to general awls: ulna awls, shouldered awls, and splinter awls (Wheeler and McGee 1994:352). Middle Archaic people used antler for atlatl components (Milanich 1994:81-82), handles, flakers, clasps (Aten 1999:158-159), and socketed points (Wheeler and McGee 1994:352). Other utilitarian tools include defleshers (Aten 1999:158-159; Milanich 1994:81-82), deer scapula scrapers (Milanich 1994:81-82), burnishers, celts, gouges, splinter gouges, and splinter gravers (Wheeler and McGee 1994:352). They incised bone with decorations and made bird bone beads (Aten 1999:158-159; Wheeler and McGee 1994:352).

Middle Archaic decorative patterns resemble the diamond motifs from the Early Archaic. Wheeler (1994) notes that Middle Archaic decorations are better executed than early forms. Whereas Windover incisions were light and sloppy, Middle Archaic designs are more precise

25 and deeper (Wheeler 1994:47-49). A cut, bored, and incised piece of antler beam was found at two late Middle Archaic sites, Gauthier and Tick Island (Aten 1999:158; Jones and Carr 1981). Two identical antler pieces and an associated raccoon baculum accompanied a burial at Gauthier. Jones hypothesized that these pieces of modified antler were ornamental hair barrettes. In theory, one would adorn each side of a person’s head with hair drawn through the hole. The barrette clasp would have been locked in place with the raccoon baculum (Jones and Carr 1981:86).

Figure 3.4: Antler clasps (From Figure 13, Aten 1999:158). (No specimen number published, 8VO24, Tick Island, Florida).

Figure 3.5: Hypothetical reconstruction of antler artifact from Gauthier (Figure 4, Jones and Carr 1981:87). (No specimen number published, 8BR193, Gauthier, Florida).

Late Archaic Period

Late Archaic peoples created elongated bone tools in increasing quantities. Pins are so frequently found at Orange sites that Goggin suggested the bone pin as a cultural marker for the

26 Orange Period (Goggin 1952:46). But, the population increase during the Orange Period may partially explain the increase in the number of bone pins.

Late Archaic pins are often more intensively worked than Middle Archaic pins. Compared to the triangular cross-section of the preceding period, bone pins with rounded cross- sections increased (according to terminology in this thesis, bone points decreased and pins increased). In these round cross-section pins, fewer features of the original bone surface are present. This suggests that the bone was more reduced. Decoration on pins also increases. Many decorations, such as engraving and carving, are confined to the base of pins (Figure 3.6). Engravings sometimes match the incisions on Orange Period ceramics (Milanich 1994:94).

Figure 3.6: Late Archaic decorated bone pins (From Figure 31, Jahn and Bullen 1978:40). (No specimen numbers published, 8VO24).

Whereas motifs in the Early and Middle Archaic were limited to variations of the diamond motif, decorated bone objects from Late Archaic contexts exhibit much variation. Wheeler (1994:49) comments “the overall decoration of pieces dated to the Late Archaic presents a complicated, yet flamboyant organization that is found in neither previous nor subsequent periods.” From Orange contexts at Tick Island alone, Wheeler lists “rectilinear themes, simple lines, diamonds, frets, chevrons, zigzags, spirals, ticking, positive and negative

27 shading, and fine parallel or crosshatch shading” (Wheeler 1994:49). Late Archaic peoples also decorated mandible bones, deer toe bones, longbones, deer radius awls, alligator bone, and turtle bone (Jahn and Bullen 1978).

While decorative forms often attract the attention of researchers, undecorated utilitarian tools were also present in large numbers. Bone bipoints are very common in Late Archaic assemblages, as are plain splinter awls (Mowers and Williams 1972:68). Organic technology included antler handles, bone fish hooks (Milanich 1994:94), socketed points (Mowers and Williams 1972:68), deer radius awls, bone points with hollow tips, beads, as well as undecorated bone pins, points, and awls (Jahn and Bullen 1978).

After the Archaic Period: Woodland, Mississippian, and Contact Periods

According to Milanich, “from the Orange Period on [through the historic period], the same shell tools, bone pins, bone awls, and bone points appear to have been used” (Milanich 1994:12). The same basic processes of tool-making also persisted. Preforms illustrate that modification of deer metapodials followed the same manufacture sequence as the Archaic (Gilliland 1975:205-209; Wheeler 2004:149). Pins from Woodland through Contact era contexts at Granada show that tool bases corresponded to the proximal end of the original bone, while tips were usually on the distal end (Richardson and Pohl 1984:112). From preceramic times into the Contact era, people preferably selected white-tailed deer bones for modification (Richardson and Pohl 1984:149; Wheeler 2004:154), although they did not exclude other animals from modification (Richardson and Pohl 1984:112; van der Schailie and Parmalee 1960:50).

Bone pins continue to predominate in assemblages (Ashley 2005:294; Penders 2005; Wheeler 2004). Pins from Woodland context vary in cross-section, with round, flat, triangular, and U-shaped forms (Wheeler 2004:144, 146). Most Late Woodland and Mississippian pins are round in cross-section, but a few have rectangular cross-sections. Some pins are fully carved (not just incised) at the base, occasionally with intricate zoomorphic representations (Figures 3.7 and 3.8) (Gilliland 1975:205-209; Mowers and Williams 1972; Williams and Mowers 1977:72). Many finished pin forms are finely polished, which obliterates any manufacture wear (Gilliland 1975:205-209).

28

Figure 3.7: Carved bone pin with zoomorphic base (From Plate 127, Gilliland 1975:209). (240620, 8CR48/8CR49, Key Marco, Florida).

Figure 3.8: Highly decorated carved bone implements (From Plate 126, Gilliland 1975:208). A) (40635); B) (40877); C) (40876); D) (40876); E) (40638); F) (40876) G) (40883); H) (40881); I) (40797). All specimens are from Key Marco (8CR48/8CR49), Florida.

29 Undecorated utilitarian objects such as bipoints, hollow shaft pins, gouges, socketed points, spatulates, and awls were more likely to be unpolished or “not so finely finished” (Richardson and Pohl 1984:112). Also present are barbed points (Purdy 1973:149), hollow bird bone pins, spatulas, bone points, bone daggers, socketed bone points, harpoons, alligator bone points, drilled deer toes, fleshers, handles, turtle bone net spacers, socketed antler points, antler adze sockets (Gilliland 1975:205-223), scrapers, flakers, perforators, hafted bipoints, punches, (Milanich 1994:232) as well as adornment objects like gorgets, beads, and modified jaw bones (Gilliland 1975:205-233). The counts for bone tools increase from Woodland through Contact eras, but this is probably due to a population increase (Purdy 1987) or increased likelihood of preservation rather than greater use of bone tools.

Figure 3.9: Undecorated bone bipoints (From Figure 7, Wheeler 2004:145). A) (1.1002.2); B) (1.447.1 1/2); C) (1.1009.6); D) (1.20.3); E) (1.122.7 3/3); F) (1.627.15); G) (1.300.10 1/2); H) (1.300.10 2/2); I) (1.989.1 2/2); J) (1.989.1 1/2); K) (1.427.3); L) (1.593.12). All specimens are from Brickell Point (8DA12), Florida.

The decorated bone and antler industry flourished in the Mississippian Period. Among the decorative styles are the rectilinear guilloche, interlocking patterns, curvilinear designs, scroll motifs, pendent-loop designs, zoned punctuations, and cross-hatching. Like earlier forms, some

30 engraved motifs correspond with incised designs on contemporaneous ceramics. Decorative styles become increasingly easier to group with regions and cultures, and most all in Florida are influenced by broader Mississippian patterns in the Southeast (Wheeler and Coleman 1996:61).

Figure 3.10: Illustrations of pins and other engraved bones decorated with rectilinear geometric designs (From Figure 2, Wheeler and Coleman 1996:51). A) (8VO202, Hontoon Island); B) (8MO17, Upper Matecumbe); C) (8MO49, Onion Key); D) (8PB30, Riviera); E) (78-101-330-4, 8DA11, Granada); F) (8VO202, Hontoon Island ); G) (8BR90, Fuller); H) (128481, 8SE18, Palmer-Taylor ); I) (8PI54, Navarez); J) (78-101-450-68,DA11, Granada); K) (78-101-38-95, 8DA11, Granada). All sites are in Florida. Specimen numbers are from the Bureau of Archaeological Research.

Bone effigy carvings (Figure 3.11) are found from Woodland through the Contact contexts, but most date to the Woodland and Early Mississippian Periods. Carved effigies of many different animal forms are known, including birds, snakes, mammals, aquatic species, and even humans (Wheeler and Coleman 1996:49). Sometimes human or animal representations are incorporated into the more common geometric designs (Penders 2005:247).

31

Figure 3.11: Illustration of a bird effigy antler carving (From Figure 1, Wheeler and Coleman 1996:50). (94380, 8DA45, Florida Portland).

Summary

Florida’s organic technology shows diachronic continuity in manufacture processes. Paleoindians followed consistent methods to produce ivory rods. As traditions of tool-making were passed down, tool-makers learned to orient the tip of the tool at the distal end of the tusk or original bone. Likewise, the proximal end of the tusk or bone became the base or hafted portion. This pattern is evident throughout prehistory and into the Contact era. Late Holocene pins show the same patterns of orientation: the distal end of the bone is the tool tip. Similarly, ivory preforms from the Pleistocene and deer bone preforms from the Holocene show consistent stages of manufacture from raw form to finished tool. Beginning with raw material selection, people preferred tusks, antlers, and large longbones because of their inherent strength and size. To make the preform, toolmakers cut and snapped the unusable distal ends, split the bone, and then shaped the blanks. Prehistoric groups have had specific traditions of making organic tools, which have persisted over thousands of years.

Florida’s organic technology also shows diachronic continuity in form. The bipoint and the bone pin were in use by Paleoindian times and proliferated in the Early Archaic. Both continued to be a staple throughout Florida’s history. Similarly, the socketed antler point persists in the prehistoric toolkit. Bone pins and awls are also found in all cultural periods. Throughout prehistory, people made beads and some type of decoratively engraved bone. In the ceramic era, engravings on bone mirrored decorative incisions on pottery. This began with the earliest Orange Incised patterns and continued through to Mississippian Period motifs.

32 Table 3.1: Florida’s organic technology over time. Functional categories follow Wheeler and McGee 1994. Tool types below are interpretations by other researchers. Note that apparent differences may merely reflect differences in typology or interpretation.

Functional Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Woodland, Category Mississippian, Contact

Hunting -ivory rods -antler -socketed antler -points -bone points implements -bone projectiles points -socketed points -socketed antler points projectiles -bone projectiles -defleshers -hollow bone -socketed bone points -dagger -daggers -atlatl components points -barbed points -wrenches -atlatl weights -bone daggers -atlatl hook -atlatl triggers -fleshers -atlatl weights

Fishing -bipoints -bipoints -bipoints -bipoints -bipoints implements -compound -fish hooks -fish hooks -harpoons bone fishhooks -fish gorges -turtle bone net spacers Lithic, -handles -antler punches -flakers -antler handles -flakers wood, and -abrader -flakers -antler handles -punches bone -an anvil -shaft -splinter gravers -handles working -billets straighteners -splinter gouges -antler adze sockets -antler billets -gouges -scrapers -ulna gouges -celts -gouges -gravers -burnisher Textile and -pins -pins -pins -pins -pins leather -awls -awls -awls -awls -awls working -beamers -needles -ulna awls -splinter awls -perforators -needles -radii awls -splinter awls -deer radius -spatulates -antler -ulna burnishers -burnishers awls perforators -ulna awls -fids -battens -needles -splinter awls Personal -bead -beads -bird bone beads -beads -beads adornment -artistic -hairpins -hairpins or fasteners -decorated pins -modified jaw bones representations -decoratively incised -gorgets bone -drilled deer toes -antler clasps References Dunbar and Carter and Aten 1999:158-159; Jahn and Bullen Gilliland 1975:205-233; Webb 1996; Gifford 2002; Milanich 1994:81-82; 1978; Milanich Milanich 1994:232; Hemmings Milanich Wheeler and McGee 1994:94; Richardson and Pohl 2004:128,141, 1994:67; 1994:352; Mowers and 1984:112; Purdy 167,170,190 Penders Archaeological Williams 1973:149 1992:7,105 Consultants, Inc. and 1972:68 Janus Research 2001:7.2

33 Bone and antler technology was not without innovation. The megafauna extinction in the Holocene caused a necessary shift to a smaller mammal, the white-tailed deer. Atlatl components are common from the Paleoindian through Middle Archaic but not in the later periods, signaling a shift in subsistence and technology. Antler points and flakers remained relevant over time. Pin cross-section varied among cultural periods, going from round to triangular, back to round, to varied, and finally back to round. Regardless of shape, people decorated bone pins. Early decoration consisted of cross-hatching, followed by diamond shaped engraving. Deep carving later replaced incising. Carving and ornamentation styles flourished in the Late Archaic. Woodland and Mississippian bone and antler tools show even more elaborate decoration in zoomorphic pins and carved effigies. Diachronic differences illustrate cultural and technological change, while continuity over time shows the continued relevance of organic toolmaking.

34 CHAPTER 4: THE SITES SAMPLED Introduction

This chapter describes the chosen sites sampled: Six Archaic Period sites in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida. It begins with an overview of preservation, geography, age, and context of the collective sites. Then, each site is described. Location, year excavated, radiocarbon date, midden composition, and resource exploitation are the main components of each site description. The chapter concludes by noting the differences but highlighting the similarities in the composite sample.

First and foremost, the lack of good bone preservation limited the sample to a few sites. Fortunately, Florida’s wet environments are more conducive to organic conservation than most places. At Windover (8BR246), the wet peat had such a preserving effect that archaeologists recovered textiles, plants, and even brain matter in addition to well-preserved bone (Doran 2002). Salt Springs (8MR2322), Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), and Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601) also had constantly waterlogged components with excellent preservation. At Blue Spring (8VO43), Lake Monroe Outlet Midden, and Windover, preservation was so good that traces of mastic remained on several hafting elements. Much of the bone at Gauthier (8BR193) was mineralized, making it resilient to deterioration (Jones and Carr 1981). Because of exceptional bone preservation, these six sites showed high potential to yield information about organic technology.

Geographically, the chosen sites lie near the vicinity of the St. Johns River Valley in central-east and northeastern Florida (Figure 4.1). The project area extends from northern Lake George (30 miles northeast of Ocala) southward to Lake Poinsett (30 miles east of Orlando). The St. Johns River flows south to north, so the northernmost site, Salt Springs, represents the Lower St. Johns in Marion County. In Volusia County, Lake Monroe Outlet Midden, Groves’ Orange Midden, and Blue Spring are clustered tightly in the Middle St. Johns. To the south in Brevard County, Gauthier and Windover represent the Upper St. Johns area. Straight as the crow flies, the entire project area covers almost 90 miles north to south, united by the St. Johns River.

35

Figure 4.1: Map of archaeological sites sampled.

The sites span the Archaic Period (10,000-3000 RCYBP), but most artifacts examined were from strata dating roughly around 5000 RCYBP. In Florida, 5000 RCYBP is around the time of the Middle Archaic to Late Archaic transition (Chapter 2). In the St. Johns River Basin, the Mount Taylor Period (6000-4000 RCYBP) refers to this transitional preceramic era. Four of the sites in the sample have Mount Taylor components: Salt Springs, Blue Spring, Lake Monroe Outlet Midden, and Groves’ Orange Midden. Although every artifact in the sample is Archaic in age, some diachronic differences are noted in the results (Chapters 6 and 7).

The sample includes artifacts from two multi-generational cemeteries that extend beyond the Mount Taylor Period: Windover and Gauthier. Although both sites also had Mount Taylor occupations, Windover dates predominantly to the Early Archaic and Gauthier extends into the Late Archaic (Doran 2002:72, Jones and Carr 1981). Most artifacts from midden contexts at non-burial sites were fragmented, whereas complete bone tools were deposited and preserved in

36 burial contexts. The presence of well-preserved, complete tools justified including these sites in the sample.

Windover and Gauthier are coastal Archaic sites that can be lumped with Mount Taylor sites in order to discuss general Archaic technology. In an article summarizing and defining the Mount Taylor Period, Wheeler and colleagues (2000:145) include Gauthier, Windover, Groves’ Orange Midden, Lake Monroe Outlet Midden, and Salt Springs in his table of “Mount Taylor Period sites and coastal Archaic sites.” Had Blue Spring been published at the time, it would surely be listed among the other Mount Taylor sites. Together, the six sites are a representative sample of Archaic organic technology in the St. Johns River Basin.

Lake George Area: Salt Springs (8MR2322)

The Salt Springs site is located on the north side of a second magnitude spring, just east of Lake Kerr. It is approximately 3 miles northwest of Lake George, the largest lake on the St. Johns River. In 2009, the National Park Service (NPS) and US Forest Service (USFS) conducted salvage excavations for the replacement of a retaining wall on the north side of the spring (Russo 2009). Later the same year, the University of Florida (UF) excavated the Salt Springs’ prehistoric shoreline, an area of the same site slightly closer to the spring (O’Donoughue et al. 2011).

Salt Springs has Early, Middle, and Late Archaic components, with Mt. Taylor Period levels accounting for most of the organic artifacts. Radiocarbon dates from the UF excavations fall between 5710 ± 50 and 5130 ± 50 RCYBP (O’Donoughue et al. 2011:46-47), while the NPS/USFS organic material produced younger dates between 4870 ± 30 and 4340 ± 30 RCYBP. Both represent preceramic Mount Taylor occupations. Beneath the Mount Taylor levels, NPS excavations identified an older (7610 ± 30 and 6700 ± 30 RCYBP) Early Archaic component (Russo 2009).

A thick shell midden overlaid the wet lower levels. Like many other Mount Taylor sites, Salt Springs’ shell midden was predominantly banded mystery snail (Viviparus georgianus). In addition to collecting snails, Salt Springs’ populations were adept fishers and also carried on the Archaic Period tradition of hunting game with stemmed projectile points. Faunal analysis of NPS and UF excavated Salt Springs material indicates intense exploitation of fishes (42.8 [NPS] and 75.4 [UF] percent of the MNI) and reptiles (38.7 [NPS] and 15.8 [UF] percent of the MNI).

37 Because fish are small and have many bones, a large MNI or NISP may not contribute much to diet by biomass. However, MNI does give a conservative estimate of number of individuals killed and presumably eaten. Mammals accounted for less of the MNI at Salt Springs (12.2 [NPS] and 5.8 [UF] percent but over half of the NPS biomass (52.4 [NPS] percent). Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was the only large mammal identified in the sample. People at Salt Springs also exploited birds and amphibians, but to a lesser degree (5.0 [NPS] and 1.7 [UF] percent of the MNI and 1.4 [NPS] and 1.4 [UF] percent of the MNI, respectively) (O’Donoughue et al. 2011:68; Worthington 2009). This subsistence pattern is consistent with that at other Mount Taylor Period sites, including those studied for this project.

Middle St. Johns: Blue Spring (8VO43)

Blue Spring is a first magnitude spring about 35 miles southeast from Salt Springs. The site is located on Blue Spring Run off the St. Johns River (Sassaman 2003:2). It is less than two miles south of Lake Beresford and less than four miles north of Lake Monroe. The site dates between 4360 ± 120 and 3510 ± 70 RCYBP, and the Mount Taylor strata returned dates of 4360 ± 120 and 4210 ± 50 RCYBP (Sassaman 2003:29, 34, 47). Based on the juxtaposition of shell- free midden beneath shell-bearing midden in two well-dated excavation units, Sassaman (2003:47-48) argues that shellfish exploitation at the site may have begun in the preceramic centuries just before 4000 RCYBP.

The preceramic and ceramic era middens are comprised of banded mystery snail with varying amounts of apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) and lenses of bivalves (Sassaman 2003:25). Marine shell in preceramic contexts is evidence that people were in contact with coastal populations or made forays to the coast. As indicated by primary and secondary refuse middens, Blue Spring (Midden B) was a habitation area during the Orange Period (4100-3500 RCYBP). Larger shell heaps of almost exclusively banded mystery snail were centered nearby the confluence of the St. Johns River and Blue Spring Run, but most of this mound no longer exists (Sassaman 2003:23-24).

Zooarchaeological remains from the preceramic component at Blue Spring clearly display a reliance on fishing (77.3 percent of the MNI). Sunfish remains dominated the faunal assemblage. Inhabitants also took shiner, sucker, catfish, and to a lesser degree gar, pike, and

38 bowfin. Like Salt Springs, turtles were exploited (7.6 percent of the MNI), as were birds, snakes, and mammals (Sassaman 2003:132).

Middle St. Johns: The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53)

Some eight miles south of Blue Spring is the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden. The site is located on a ridge of Lake Monroe’s northwest shoreline where the St Johns River meets the lake (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:10.1). In 1999, private archaeological consulting firms, Janus Research and Archaeological Consultants, Inc. excavated the site for the I-4 (S.R. 400) six lane and bridge construction project.

Dates for Lake Monroe Outlet Midden fall between 5080 ± 80 and 4650 ± 110 RCYBP (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:9.1). The artifact assemblage led archaeologists to interpret the site as a Mount Taylor Period residential base-camp (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:ii). A lack of sterile sand or humic layers in the midden suggests the site was occupied somewhat continuously (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:10.1).

Regular activities at the site included “maintenance of lithic tools, food collection, preparation and processing, fishing, hunting, collecting, and gathering” as well as wood and shell working, net and basket making, and the burial of one person within the midden (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:ii). Away from the midden locale was a lithic workshop, devoid of evidence for any other types of daily activity (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:10.2).

The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden further supports the contention that Mount Taylor peoples had a heavy reliance on aquatic resources. Fishing centered around the shallow lake and river waters nearby as evidenced by catfish, sunfish and eel bones. Inhabitants ate a sizeable amount of fish, as well as reptiles, mammals, and birds. Fish were the largest category of vertebrate exploitation by MNI (between 0.4 and 4.1 percent of the MNI). Faunal analysis included bivalves and gastropods in the calculations, therefore shellfish was by far the largest class by MNI overall (between approximately 84-99 percent MNI of the samples). Apple snail and mussels comprised the midden. Unlike many Mount Taylor Period sites, the banded mystery snail made up only a small proportion of the shellfish count (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:6.1-6.22).

39 Middle St. Johns: Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601)

On the northeastern side of Lake Monroe, Groves’ Orange Midden is located just five miles from the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden. Groves’ Orange Midden meets the eastern extent of Old Enterprise (8VO55), an Archaic mound complex. Groves’ Orange Midden was excavated in 1989, and again in 1992-1993 because of its potential to yield well-preserved wet remains. As expected, the inundated lakeshore site contained preserved woodworking chips, nuts, squash, gourds, bone, and even green botanicals (Purdy 1994:328-331; Russo et al. 1992:99). Dates for Groves’ Orange Midden fall between 6210 ± 60 and 4080 ± 60 RCYBP, spanning the beginning of the Mount Taylor Period through the Orange Period (McGee and Wheeler 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000:143).

Like other Mount Taylor and Orange Period sites, the shellfish midden contained banded mystery snail as well as some apple snail, rasp elimia (Elimia floridensis) (Russo et al. 1992:103), and mesa ramshorn (Planorbells sclaris) (Wheeler and McGee 1994:399). If land snails, freshwater snails, and bivalves are included in the MNI calculations, together they represent 99% of the MNI. Faunal analysis was conducted on a stratum between two strata dating to 4399 ± 123 and 3750 ± 60 RCYBP. As the relative MNI abundance of fish shows (63.6 percent of the vertebrate fauna MNI), human populations were adapted to their aquatic environment. They fished for mudfish, warmouth, bass, bream (Russo et al. 1992:103, Wheeler and McGee 1994:396-400), bullhead, shellcracker, and sunfish (Wheeler and McGee 1994:394- 400). Residents also exploited reptiles (27.3 percent of the MNI), and in lesser quantities, birds and mammals (less than one percent each of the vertebrate MNI) (Russo et al. 1992:103). Seasonal nuts show that Groves’ Orange Midden was occupied at least during the late summer to fall (Russo et al. 1992:104). Like Blue Spring, the presence of marine shell at Groves’ Orange Midden suggests forays to the coast or exchange with coastal populations (Wheeler and McGee 1994:396).

Upper St. Johns (or Indian River Area): Windover (8BR246)

Windover is located thirty miles southeast of the Lake Monroe Area sites. The site is about five miles west of the coast and near the St. Johns River Basin. In 1982 a backhoe operator inadvertently discovered the Windover burials during a development project.

40 Construction was halted and excavation of the peaty pond lasted three seasons (1984-1986) (Doran 2002:4).

Windover differs from the other sites not only in geography but also in radiocarbon dates and archaeological context. Perhaps most importantly, Windover is not a midden; it is a burial pond where over 150 persons were interred (MNI=168) (Doran 2002:26). Most of the burials date maximally to 8120 to 6980 RCYBP (Doran 2002:72), but radiocarbon dates for the entire site are between 10,750 ± 190 and 4790 ± 100 RCYBP (Doran 2002:61, Table 3.1). Most artifacts, including bone tools and preforms, were associated with the Early Archaic burials (Penders 1997).

Isotopic analysis shows that riverine resources dominated the diet of people buried at Windover. Neither classic terrestrial mammals nor deep sea animals made up a significant portion of the diet. Bone collagen levels at Windover suggest people relied on protein from animals such as duck, turtle and catfish (Tuross et al. 1994:295). Exceptional preservation of plant remains gives direct evidence that populations also consumed gathered resources. Grape and hackberry seeds were ingested just prior to one person’s death and remained in his abdomen for some 7,000 years (Newsom 2002:201). Inhabitants also ate seeds from black gum, maypop, persimmon, prickly pear, hickory, possibly elderberry, and gourds (Newsom 2002:200).

Upper St. Johns: Gauthier (8BR193)

Like Windover, Gauthier is a multigenerational Archaic cemetery in the Upper St. Johns Region. The site is on the north side of Lake Poinsett (Sigler-Eisenberg 1985:35), “essentially on the St. Johns River” (Wheeler et al. 2000:153) around ten miles west of the coast. In the late 1970s, the landowner’s ditch construction accidentally uncovered several of the 90-121 burials (Maples 1987:3). With the help of volunteers, archaeologists excavated the site in 1977 and 1978 (Jones and Carr 1981:81).

Radiocarbon dates for bone collagen of two buried individuals are 4340 ± 170 and 1600 ± 190 RCYBP (Sigler-Eisenberg 1985:35). Associated artifacts in the cemetery confirm the Middle to Late Archaic age. Orange and St. Johns pottery at a midden nearby the interments indicates a later component of the site (Jones and Carr 1981:81).

41 Unlike Windover, the Gauthier burials were on a sandy ridge. Preservation of bone is due in part to freshwater mollusks that lined some of the burial pits. Calvin Jones attributes the bone mineralization to the low-lying land 19 feet above mean sea level (Jones and Carr 1981:83). The bone artifacts studied from this site are associated with the preceramic Archaic burials. Presumably because of the burial context, many of the artifacts are complete, unbroken tools. Detailed information on the Gauthier site is lacking due to the paucity of publications and its hasty excavation.

Summary

All the sites in the sample are Archaic in age and close to the St. Johns River in location. Many sites are directly adjacent to freshwater sources, and most are at low-lying elevations very close to a lake. Thick shell middens at Salt Springs, Blue Spring, Lake Monroe Outlet Midden, and Groves’ Orange Midden point to heavy shellfish use. Each site with faunal information shows evidence for a heavy reliance on fishing. The sites show a patterned exploitation of other resources second to fish. By relative MNI reptiles comprise the most abundant class below fishes, and mammals and birds follow.

Windover and Gauthier are different from the rest of the sample for a few reasons. Both sites depart temporally from the mode of 5000 RCYBP. They are located in or near the Upper St. Johns River, geographically south of the other four sites. Including larger numbers of complete tools beyond those which the four strictly Mount Taylor Period sites yielded strengthened the sample. The burial contexts at Windover and Gauthier provided such assemblages. The aggregated samples are considered as a single unit of study regarding tool manufacture, use, and discard patterns during the Archaic Period in the St. Johns River Basin. Where significant discrepancies exist potentially due to age or geography- those portions of the sample are considered separately.

42

Table 4.1: Comparison of sites by date, culture, context, midden type, specific location, and date excavated.

SITE RADIOCARBON PERIOD/ SITE TYPE SHELL LOCATION DATE REFERENCE DATE RANGE CULTURE MIDDEN EXCAVATED TYPE

Salt Springs 7610 ± 30 – Middle Midden Preceramic Spring-fed run 2009 Russo 2009 (NPS/USFS) Archaic to organic off St. Johns 4340 ± 30 RCYBP Preceramic deposits River. Lake to Late Archaic beneath banded west and east. (Mount mystery snail Taylor) midden Salt Springs 5710 ± 50 – Middle Midden Banded Spring-fed run 2009 O’Donoughue (UF) Archaic to mystery snail off St. Johns et al. 2011 5130 ± 50 RCYBP Preceramic with some river. Lake to Late Archaic apple snail and west and east. (Mount bivalve Taylor) Blue Spring 4360 ± 120 – Preceramic Middens; Preceramic Spring-fed run 2000-2001 Sassaman 2003 Late Archaic Orange Period deposits off St. Johns 3510 ± 70 RCYBP (Mount habitation area beneath River. Lake to Taylor) to (primary refuse gastropod and north, lagoon Late Archaic area) and bivalve midden to south. (Orange) secondary refuse midden Lake 5080 ± 80 – Middle Midden; Apple snail and Lake to south 1999 Archaeological Monroe Archaic to Residential mussel snail meeting St. Consultants, 4640 ± 40 RCYBP Outlet Preceramic base camp Johns River Inc. and Janus Midden Late Archaic Research 2001 (Mount Taylor)

43 Table 4.1 - Continued SITE RADIOCARBON PERIOD/ SITE TYPE SHELL LOCATION DATE REFERENCE DATE RANGE CULTURE MIDDEN EXCAVATED TYPE

Groves' 6210 ± 60 – Middle Midden Banded Lake to south 1989, 1992- McGee and Orange Archaic to mystery snail meeting St. 1993 Wheeler 1994; 3160 RCYBP Midden Late Archaic Johns River Russo et al. (Mount 1992 Taylor to Orange) Windover 10750 ± 190 - Early Cemetery N/A Shallow pond, 1984-1986 Doran 2002 4790 ± 100 Archaic to marsh to east, RCYBP Middle three miles east Archaic of St. Johns River, three miles west of Indian River Gauthier 4340 ±170 – Middle Cemetery N/A but Lake to 1977-1978 Jones and Carr Archaic freshwater southwest, 1981; Sigler- 1600 ± 190 (relative mollusks lining flows to St. Eisenberg 1985 RCYBP dated by several burials Johns River artifacts) to Late Archaic (Orange)

44 CHAPTER 5: METHODS: MICROWEAR AND EXPERIMENTAL REPLICATION Introduction

This chapter explains the two methods behind this thesis: microtrace analysis and experimental replication. Building on the description of the sites sampled (Chapter 4), it summarizes the composite sample of artifacts. Microwear analysis is the primary method this thesis employs, so this chapter begins by describing the microtrace data collection methods and lexicon. Then, it reviews the statistical methods used to analyze the microwear data. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of my experimental replication methods.

I examined 509 pieces of modified bone. Of these, 297 were tools for which I observed use-wear. I gathered information about manufacture processes wherever possible, particularly from the 212 pieces of debitage or otherwise modified bone. My observations are documented in photographs and micrographs. For each piece, I took seven basic metric measurements and, if possible, noted the type of animal bone worked. I recorded four aspects of modification and polish as well as five descriptive fields on use-wear. I classified tools by overall morphology and described specific morphological traits. I evaluated the extent of modification, use, and preservation. To funnel data into relevant categories, I relied on a specific vocabulary. In this chapter, my explanation of microtrace data collection methods focuses on the terminology I used and my database lexicon.

Subsampling Methods

I selected my sample from much larger modified bone assemblages. Practical constraints—and more importantly, my specific research questions—led me to reduce the sample systematically. My goal in microwear analysis was to understand osseous tool manufacture and use, particularly of the ambiguous pointed tool category. Therefore, I omitted artifacts that were clearly modified for other purposes (worked shell, decorative beads, raccoon bacula, shark teeth). Bone and antler points, awls, pins, and other elongated, pointed tools were the primary sources for microwear data. Bone and antler debitage as well as traces on formal tools illustrated manufacture processes.

45 The assemblages from Salt Springs (both the UF excavation and the NPS excavation) were the only assemblages for which I personally sorted out modified bone. Although I took notes and photographs of all modified bone at Salt Springs, I did not include all of the data in analyses. For example, I eliminated the Salt Springs bones with butchering marks from my database because they were not analyzed in other samples. Note that the totals in Figure 5.1 reflect all modified bone photographs for Salt Springs but the artifact count for other sites excludes minimally modified objects.

With the exception of Salt Springs, other archaeologists previously sorted, catalogued, and analyzed all other assemblages. Previous sorting may have unknowingly reduced the sample of modified bone. This sorting undoubtedly introduced inconsistent biases in the samples. Prior to the laboratory sort, different excavation methods also introduced bias. For example, excavators at Gauthier selectively bagged or discarded artifacts. Preservation conditions among the sites also caused selective retention of bone tools. These biases are known problems, but avoiding them is beyond the scope of this study.

I also culled the sample based on artifacts’ potential to yield relevant data. Very poorly preserved specimens (those rated 2 or lower, see Preservation Rating below) were not examined because over 60 percent of the surface area was too degraded to observe. The only exceptions were those that yielded other (non-microwear) information. I only analyzed poorly preserved specimens if aspects of gross morphological form were relevant. For example, the maximum length of complete tools is typically not affected by surface deterioration or shell concretions.

Table 5.1: Composition of the subsamples. Note that totals reflect all modified bone photographs for Salt Springs, but the artifact count for other sites excludes minimally modified objects. Methods varied because I examined all Salt Springs modified bone (UF and NPS) for a related project.

SITE ARTIFACTS STUDIED Salt Springs 231 Blue Spring 32 Lake Monroe Outlet Midden 62 Groves’ Orange Midden 117 Windover 43 Gauthier 24 TOTAL 509

46 Microwear Data Collection Methods

I examined each artifact with a Leica stereoscope. The lens magnification was 8X to 100X and a digital camera mount adapter added another 1.6X. I used direct light at different angles depending on the specimen. By controlling shadows, the topography of the artifact surface is visible. I found that most use-wear was observable below 40X. Higher magnification was useful for investigating the nature of striations or cuts in detail.

I first took low magnification (8X) micrographs of each artifact on both sides. The other portion of micrographs focused on points of interest on the artifact, usually microwear or scoring. Microwear micrographs were at various magnifications between 8X and 100X plus the additional 1.6X from the camera mount. The photograph log contains the magnification level for each picture, but a 1mm scale is visible in most low magnification images. On average, I took 20 to 50 photographs and micrographs of each artifact. This usually included three macroscopic photographs--both sides and a profile shot. It also included overview micrographs of the artifact at 8X as well as any areas of interest at higher magnification. I often bracketed the photos for optimal lighting or optimal focus through post-processing. This reduces the number of unique angles; for example, 30 photographs may only represent seven unique angles. I collected most microwear data during photographing but reviewed it later on the computer screen. When I digitized my paper data collection forms in the database program Filemaker, I viewed photographs and micrographs again. Having a more acutely trained eye, I reevaluated my initial analysis and made changes where needed. All digital photograph and micrograph files were renamed by provenience, burned to a DVD, and returned with the collection of artifacts. Selected images are presented with my database online at http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/lib/digcoll/byrd.

Table 5.2: Micrographs and photographs taken by site.

SITE MICROGRAPHS AND PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN Salt Springs 6,214 Blue Spring 928 Lake Monroe Outlet Midden 3,305 Groves’ Orange Midden 2,799 Windover 1,395 Gauthier 751 TOTAL 15,392

47 Data Collection Lexicon

Table 5.3: Description of data collected.

DATA FIELD EXPLANATION Maximum Length Greatest distance measured along the longitudinal axis (mm) Maximum Width Greatest distance perpendicular to the maximum length (mm) Minimum Width Smallest distance perpendicular to the maximum length (mm) Average Diameter Average distance perpendicular to longitudinal axis for elongated objects only (pins, awls, etc.) (mm) Tip Width Smallest distance between the sides of the tip; if blunt or flat tipped, the distance where tip begins to curve (mm)

Number If one object broken in pieces, number of pieces Weight If broken in pieces, weight for all parts of object combined (g)

Species Type of animal bone modified. Element Anatomical element modified

Object Type Artifact class based on morphology alone; traditional “type” Object Part Identifiable portion of artifact present Modification Type Method of modification or reduction

Description of Polish Qualitative evaluation of polish Location of Polish If polish is localized, part of tool where polish is concentrated Polish Measurement If polish is localized, measurement (mm) with respect to specified tool part

Measure of cut Location (mm) of scoring from identifiable part of bone or tool Percent cut Percentage of circumference with scoring marks Diameter of Cut Width bone nearest to scoring

Wear Direction Angle of striation(s) with respect to longitudinal axis of bone Wear Frequency Number of striation(s) Wear Intensity Depth of striation(s) Wear Length Length of striation(s) Wear Location Location (mm) of striation(s) with respect to identifiable tool part

Degree of On 0-5 scale, portion of original bone modified Modification Degree of Use On 0-5 scale, portion of tool with microwear Degree of On 0-5 scale, portion of object’s surface intact enough to analyze. If low, Preservation record reason.

Cross-Section Shape of cross-section, by type Tip Shape of working end, by type Shaft Shape of tool’s longitudinal axis, by type Base Shape of non-working end, by type Haft cut direction If cut deeply at an angle at haft zone, direction of angled cuts

48 I developed a form (Appendix A) to facilitate data collection. The fields used on the form are described briefly above. In order to make meaningful comparisons, I limited the descriptive lexicon for most fields. For specimens warranting unique description, I wrote comments. Sometimes two descriptive terms were appropriate for a single artifact. For example, many artifacts showed evidence of both shark tooth shaving and lithic shaving, so two descriptive terms applied. Few artifacts exhibited identifiable characteristics in all fields. Therefore, many fields were indeterminable or unknown. If a single tool was broken I counted it as one object but noted the number of parts. On tools, I noted whether the tip, base, midsection, or entirety was present.

Table 5.4: Lexicon by data field.

DATA FIELD LEXICON

Object Type Cut bone, cut bone debitage, modified bone debitage, modified bone, awl, bone point, antler point, flaker, lateral break, ulna awl, pin, flat weaving tool, bipoint, splinter tool, needle, billet, decorated pin, preform Object Part Base, tip, shaft, complete Modification Type Shaped by indeterminate method, cut, cut and snapped, shaving, lithic shaving, shark tooth shaving, abraded, carved, bored, chopped, incised, unmodified but used, splintered

Description of Polish High, medium, low Location of Polish Continuous, none, base, tip, shaft, raised surfaces only, neck Polish Measurement Distance (mm) measured from base, tip, shaft, neck

Measure of cut Distance (mm) from cut to proximal end, distal end, unknown end, base, tip

Wear Direction Transverse, oblique, longitudinal, random Wear Frequency Few (1-2), several (3-4), many (over 4) Wear Intensity Gouge, deep, medium, light, very light Wear Length Short, long Wear Measurements Distance (mm) of wear from base, tip, haft, cut, neck, proximal, distal

Cross-Section Round, square, plano-convex, flat, oval, U-shaped, U-shaped triangle Tip Pointed, rounded, blunt, bifurcated, broken, flat, stepped, hollow, beveled, bi- beveled Shaft Parallel, converging, expanding, excurvate, stepped, asymetrical, Base Round, square, pointed, expanding, constricting, natural, flat, concave, spheres, waisted, socketed, t-topped, bifurcated, incised, beveled Haft cut direction Toward haft, away from haft

49 Tool Form

Form attributes are adapted from Bader (1992) and apply only to tools and not all modified bone. Cross-section, Tip form, Shaft form, and Base form are variables aimed at describing specific aspects of tool shape. They are designed to single out aspects of morphology glossed over when characterizing overall tool form. Of all the form variables Bader recorded, she found cross-section, tip form, base form, shaft form, and symmetry to be the most useful variables for creating functional types for bone tools according to use-wear (Bader 1992:330). In other words, these morphological variables correlated with patterned wear striations. As a result of her work, I recorded cross-section, tip form, shaft form, and base form. I captured Bader’s fifth useful variable, symmetry, in the description of shaft form.

Cross-section refers to the profile of the tool shaft, as if it were cut perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. The terms round, square, flat, and oval are self-explanatory. Plano-convex cross-sections have a semi-circular appearance. U-shaped cross-sections retain the original curvature and hollow interior of the bone. U-shaped triangular cross-sections are hollow and u- shaped on one side and have a triangular ridge on the opposite side. The U-shaped triangular form often occurs when working deer metapodials, as the triangular shape is produced naturally on each side of the groove. If artifacts had rounded shafts near the tip but flat cross-sections near the base I noted both forms.

A B C D E F G

Figure 5.1: Cross-section, loosely after Bader (Figure 5.3, Bader 1992:78). A) Round, B) Square, C) Oval, D) Flat, E) Plano-convex, F) U-shaped, G) U-shaped triangular.

Tip form describes the shape of the working end. Pointed tips come to a sharp point, without significant rounding. Rounded tips are pointed but not sharp, as the end terminates to a point at a less acute angle. Blunt tips terminate quickly with a tip surface that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Flat tips are exaggerated blunt forms. Beveled tips have one straight side and one angled face, with the working end on an angled face. Bi-beveled tips have two working

50 faces, both at angles. Bifurcated tips come to a termination with an indentation parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool. Stepped tips have a shoulder on the terminating part of the tool (past the shaft). I noted if tips were broken. Some tips exhibited more than one shape, for example a rounded/stepped form (Figure 5.2:H).

A B C D E F G H

Figure 5.2: Tip form, loosely after Bader (Figure 5.2, Bader 1992:78). A) Pointed, B) Rounded, C) Blunt, D) Beveled, E) Bi-beveled, F) Flat, G) Bifurcated, H) Stepped.

Shaft form refers to the angle of the tool sides along the longitudinal axis. Descriptive terms describe the angle of the sides with respect to the working tip. The sides of a tool may be simply parallel to each other. If the sides become increasingly closer together toward the tip, the tool has a converging shaft form. If the sides are angled away from the tip, the shaft has expanding form. A shaft is excurvate if it converges both at the tip and the base. Shaft form is stepped if it has a shoulder somewhere along the shaft. Most tools were symmetrical in outline, so I noted if shaft form was asymmetrical.

A B C D E

Figure 5.3: Shaft form, loosely after Bader (Figure 5.4, Bader 1992:80). Tip is towards top of illustrations. A) Parallel, B) Converging, C) Expanding, D) Excurvate, E) Stepped.

Base form refers to the shape of the tool base. The base were identified either by hafting evidence or by default, i.e. the base being opposite of the working end. The definitions outlined

51 for tip form apply to base form. Base form can be pointed, round, bifurcated, expanding, or contracting. Like tips, some bases are beveled. But unlike beveled tips, the bevel refers only to the form, not the working face of the tool. Other self-explanatory bases include the squared and concave forms. If any natural features were present on the base (original bone groove, medullary cavity, spongy bone, articular end), I noted that it retained aspects of natural form. As a second record of base form, I used the term flat to describe the shape of termination, if applicable. For pins, sometimes bases are decorated, often by incising. Bases can also be carved to have a waist, carved in the shape of spheres, or carved to have a t-topped base.

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Figure 5.4: Base form loosely after Bader (Figure 5.4, Bader 1992:80). A) Beveled, B) Flat, C) Expanding, D) Contracting, E) Rounded, F) Pointed, G) Bifurcated, H) Concave, I) Natural, J) Waisted, K) Spheres, L) T-topped.

During analysis I repeatedly observed deep cuts near the hafting area. Many were angled, revealing the direction of impact. After over half my data collection was finished, I began recording the direction of these cuts. I recorded haft cut direction for the Windover collection and the (NPS) Salt Springs assemblage. I filled in some missing observations on other collections when examining micrographs. Haft cut direction was either towards the base or away from the base.

Object Type

I assigned object types purely on gross morphology. The following classifications aim to approximate the way most archaeologists would classify the artifact without detailed use-wear information. Although typology varies by researcher, my typology reflects predominant trends in the literature (see Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001; Campana 1989; Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Emery 2009; Gates St-Pierre and Walker 2007; Knecht 1997; Legrand-Pineau et al. 2010; LeMoine 1997; Penders 1997; Wheeler and McGee 2004).

52 Table 5.5: Object types by gross morphology including tool classes (top) and modified bone and debitage classes (bottom). Here, polish may be intentional and not use-related.

TOOL TYPE MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Awl Elongated form, pointed tip, variable cross-section from oval to round Pin Elongated form, pointed or rounded tip, round cross-section, highly polished Decorative pin Elongated form, rounded tip, round cross-section, decoration on base, highly polished Flat weaving tool Elongated form, pointed tip, flat cross-section, highly polished tip Bone point Elongated form, pointed tip, thick cross-section often U-shaped triangular or U-shaped, converging base with natural features Antler point Straight antler tine tip, socketed base for hafting Bipoint Elongated form, variable length, pointed tip on both ends Flaker Antler tine tip, lateral break, may show chipped wear at tip Ulna awl Modified or used ulna bone, often beveled, tip at distal end Splinter tool Minimally modified bone, often with broken edges left unmodified, signs of use on tip (use is sometimes the only indication object is a tool) Needle Elongated, delicate thin form, rounded in cross-section, sometimes perforated on base Billet Cut antler beam, battering wear on end

Cut bone Cutting, scoring, or grooving present Cut bone debitage Discarded portion of scored and snapped bone Modified bone Butchering marks, abrasion, or shaving present Modified bone Discarded portion of bone with butchering marks, abrasion, or shaving debitage present

Even typologies built mostly on use-wear consciously or subconsciously classify based on morphological form. For example, Wheeler and McGee separate awls into splinter awls, ulna awls, and awls (Wheeler and McGee 2004:352). Since there is no standard typology for most regions (much less cross-culturally), my typology considered the most relevant sources (Campana 1989; Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Emery 2009; Gates St-Pierre and Walker 2007; Legrand-Pineau et al. 2010; LeMoine 1997) and non-use-wear aspects of existing analyses of

53 collections in the sample (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001; Penders 1997; Wheeler and McGee 2004).

Inherent biases exist in the typology that may have skewed use-wear interpretations. For example, the diagnostic part of decorated pins is the base. It is possible that objects in the pin category were in fact decorated before fragmentation. Similarly, a bipoint must be complete for classification as a bipoint. If diagnostic elements of other tool types were missing due to incomplete preservation, the tools may have been misclassified. Fragmentation is common in archaeology, and these biases are unavoidable.

Tool Part

Figure 5.5: Tool parts (right) and striation direction (left).

The term base refers to the handling end, while tip indicates the working end of a tool. Many researchers use the anatomical terms distal and proximal to refer to tool ends, confounding the orientation of the tool with the orientation of the animal’s bone. I use tip/base to describe

54 tool part and distal/proximal to describe bone part. Likewise, I call the middle portion of a tool the shaft, while I call the middle portion of a bone the medial section.

Microwear

I described striations with directional terms (Figure 5.5 above). I characterized use-wear angle with three directional categories: longitudinal, transverse, and oblique. Longitudinal striations are in line with the tool or the bone length (0 to 30 degrees from parallel). Transverse striations are perpendicular to longitudinal striations (60 to 90 degrees from parallel). Regardless of specific directionality, oblique striations are those at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees from the longitudinal axis. Random striations are a combination of all three types without apparent pattern.

I further described striations based on length to characterize the actions that presumably caused the mark. Length of striation is qualified only as long or short. For transverse and oblique marks, long striations wrap around more than one plane of the surface while short striations do not extend around the sides of the tool surface. For longitudinal striations, some interpretation was necessary. I compared longitudinal striations to an estimation of the tool width. If the striation was longer than the width, I categorized it as long.

I recorded intensity of trace marks in order to approximate the use action. Using the tool for purposes such as weaving or ornamentation would have presumably been undertaken with less force than gouging fish or launching a projectile. It is important to note that the width of the striation is not in question because striation width merely reflects the size of the abrasive material between the tool and object, which was often sand. No quantitative measurements were made to gauge depth; rather, I estimated depth with the object under stereoscope and away from stereoscope. Quantitative categories outlined below served as a guide.

A gouge is the most intense of striations, usually extending over 0.25 mm in depth below the tool surface. Gouge striations are always visible without magnification, often even at distance. Deep striations are slightly less intense than gouges, sometimes as much as 0.15 mm below the surface. They are still deep enough to observe without magnification. Medium striations still penetrate the surface, at least 0.05 mm but need angled, direct light to be visible without magnification. Light striations are only visible with magnification and just brush the surface of the object. They are approximately less than 0.05 mm in depth and usually need

55 direct, angled light beneath the stereoscope for observation. Very light striations are the faintest of trace marks, only visible with angled direct light, and just barely scraping the surface under magnification. All measurements are approximate. Actually using calipers on all use-wear would have needlessly extended this project for years. Most bone microwear literature involves similarly approximated wear descriptions. For example, in a recent paper on microwear and tool function, Buc’s descriptions of striation depth are “defined by the observer,” meaning interpreted and not specifically measured (Buc 2011:547).

I noted the number of striations for each observation of wear patterns. Few indicates only one or two striations; several indicates three or four striations; and many refers to over four striations. Each count describes a single pattern, and not the total number of striations for a whole artifact.

I qualitatively described degree of polish as high, medium, or low. Objects with high polish have a glossy finish. Objects with medium polish have a similar sheen, but to a lesser degree. Objects with low polish may have a smoothed appearance but only exhibit the shimmer effect with direct, angled light.

I recorded wear on antler in a slightly different manner than wear on bone. Normal wear is expected on the antlers of all living deer. Therefore, I did not record striations on antler unless they were intrusive into identifiable cultural modification. I classified antler tips that were possibly tools but lack clear evidence of modification in a non-tool category, “lateral antler breaks.” Many people unreservedly call antler tine tips “antler flakers,” but the distinction is made here only if antler tips have clear evidence of pressure flaking stone.

Modification Rating

Modification rating refers to the overall transformation of the implement from natural state to culturally modified form. I adapted a Modification and Use rating system from Choyke (1997), “The Bone Tool Manufacturing Continuum.” She developed increasing ordinal scales from 0 to 5, categorizing percentage of surface affected by manufacturing and use-wear. Choyke did not further describe the 0-5 increasing ordinal scale, so I established the following definitions of these values before I collected data.

56 Table 5.6: Ordinal 0-5 scale describing level of modification. After Choyke (1997).

RATING MODIFICATION LEVEL DESCRIPTION 0 None of the original surface Use-wear is the only modification present. was modified. 1 Modification of 20 percent The original bone is recognizable. It has been or less of original surface. appropriated for a use and may have wear or slight alterations such as splintering 2 Modification of 20-40 Recognizable features of the original bone percent of original surface. exist over most of the entire surface, but altered in shape according to use. 3 Modification of 40-60 Roughly half of the bone was altered, and percent of original surface. roughly half of the unaltered bone remains. 4 Modification of 60-80 Highly modified but still retains a feature of percent of original surface. the original bone, such as the vascular groove of mammal long bones. 5 Modification of 80-100 All or almost all features of the original bone percent of original surface. have been modified.

Use Rating

Also adapted from Choyke (1997), a 0-5 use rating categorizes the amount of surface area with visible signs of wear. While the modification rating recorded signs of both manufacture and wear, the use rating excludes manufacture traces. Use and handling will obliterate manufacture traces, so smoothed surfaces that obscure manufacture wear indicate high use. Interpretive caution must be exercised, as visible manufacture traces are sometimes the only signs of retouching a heavily used tool—not lack of use. Therefore, a rounded appearance of production traces is interpreted as high use, and production traces do not necessarily indicate low use. For the purpose of use rating, I had to categorize areas with visible, unsmoothed manufacture as unused.

57 Table 5.7: Ordinal 0-5 scale describing level of use. After Choyke (1997).

RATING USE LEVEL 0 Use-wear or polish not present. 1 Use-wear or polish present on under 20 percent of the tool surface. 2 Use-wear or polish present on 20-40 percent of the tool surface. 3 Use-wear or polish present on 40-60 percent of the tool surface. 4 Use-wear or polish present on 60-80 percent of the tool surface. 5 Use-wear or polish present on 80-100 percent of the tool surface.

Preservation Rating

Preservation rating describes the amount of information still available from the tool in its present state. I rated the condition of the surface on an ordinal scale, with “one” indicating very poor preservation and “five” indicative of excellent preservation. If preservation was poor I noted the reason. Deterioration could be due to root etching, bioturbation, exfoliation from chemical environment, concretions, and even preservative coatings. Where poor preservation made looking for use-wear futile, I considered that area deteriorated. Quantifying the condition of tools gives a metric variable useful in eliminating tools which will contribute little to studies of surface wear.

Table 5.8: Ordinal 1-5 scale describing level of preservation.

RATING PRESERVATION LEVEL 1 Postdepositional deterioration of 80-100 percent of the surface. 2 Postdepositional deterioration of 60-80 percent of the surface. 3 Postdepositional deterioration of 40-60 percent of the surface. 4 Postdepositional deterioration of 20-40 percent of the surface. 5 Postdepositional deterioration of 0-20 percent of the surface.

58 Modification Type

Intentional modification of bone and antler leaves behind distinctive traces. Several modification types are obvious and unmistakable. For example, bored artifacts are those modified by drilling or scooping a hole. Carved bone also has a distinctive appearance, particularly when chisel marks are present. Like wood that has been chopped, carved bone has a splintery appearance before finishing. Sometimes carved bone is so finely finished that direct signs of carving are obliterated. I assumed that tool bases with three-dimensional decoration were carved.

Incised bone shows evidence of a deep mark, usually made using a stone tool. Incising can be decorative or the start of a utilitarian groove. The “groove and splinter technique” (Clarke and Thompson 1953) is a method of bone modification where the bone is cut and snapped along the groove. I distinguished cut bone from incised bone. In general, cuts are deeper than incisions. While incised bone may be merely marked with a tool, cut bone shows signs of intentional grooving. Chopped bone is not as precise as cut or incised bone. Chopped bones are cut with forceful blows, while cut and incised bones are modified with back-and-forth sawing.

Shaving a bone by scraping a hard object over its surface reduces it by taking off thin curls of bone. Two types of materials, lithics and shark teeth, leave distinctive patterns when used to shave bone. Lithic shaving produces long, wavy, parallel striations (Bader 1992:194- 195; Campana 1989:31; Olsen 1984:135-136, 138). Lithic shaving also creates distinctive “chattermarks” or ridges perpendicular to the direction of shaving, caused when the stone tool edge inevitably gets caught on bone (Campana 1979; Semenov 1964). Shark tooth shaving creates similar long, parallel striations, but with very regular ridges. Whereas the ridges lithic shaving produces have differing heights and have variable spacing from one ridge to the next, shark tooth shaving reflects the regular spacing of the sharp edges on a shark tooth. The resulting ridges are uniformly shaped and uniformly spaced. Abraded bone also has long parallel striations, but instead of being wavy they are straight (Bader 1992:194-195). This is because a stone tool is more likely to slip and move horizontally while shaving than an abrader. Such modification is illustrated and described further in Chapter 6.

59 There are other, less distinct categories of modified bone. Manufacture traces can be obscured by use or by intentional polishing. Manufacture evidence can also fade over time as natural processes deteriorate the surface. In cases where the bone was clearly altered from its natural state but the method was indeterminate, I recorded the modification type as shaped indeterminate. Many objects are unmodified but used. Such tools are called expedient tools and require little or no effort to produce. Sometimes the only difference in form was that the bone was broken or splintered.

Statistical Methods

I used Analysis of Variance (AOV and ANOVA) tests to detect differences between categorical groups and quantitative variables. I performed Chi-squared tests to test for independence between categorical variables. All Chi-squared results include a Yates’ continuity correction to account for small sample size. A Fisher’s Exact test, which also accounts for small sample sizes, produced similar results when compared randomly. Significance was established if p< 0.05. When initial tests produced significant results, I conducted further tests to explore the nature of the relationship. All results, significant or insignificant, are in Appendix B.

Experimental Replication Methods

I replicated bone tools using manufacture sequences approximated from other studies (e.g. Figure 3 and Figure 4, David 2007:39; Figure 3, Maeir 2009:44) and archaeological evidence. I augmented prehistoric methods or tools with faster modern methods when stages became repetitive or unproductive. I performed most experiments with a toolkit I made, which included flake tools, burins, scrapers, bifaces, sandstone abraders, chert nodules, shark teeth, and a hafted shark tooth tool. Experimentally replicated tools emulate archaeological examples from Mount Taylor (Late Middle Archaic) context, but they are less competently made than prehistoric tools. Modern tools used to speed up repetitive processes were a hack saw (for sawing the ends of metapodials) and an exacto knife (for slicing the deer hide and tendons). All experiments were done with deer bones. I recorded each experiment in HD using an iPhone, and I took digital photos of preforms as I proceeded through the stages.

The first set of experiments was on upper limb bones (scapula, humerus, ulna, radius, femur, tibia). Star’s Meat Market in Tallahassee generously donated an assorted box of already butchered but fleshy bones. I investigated the effectiveness of each cutting tool, meanwhile

60 producing characteristic cut marks on the bone. I made five deep transverse grooves using a flake, a retouched flake, a biface, a burin, and a stationary chert spall. I used each tool to score the bone for 15 minutes.

I separated a scapula from the humerus and scored near the glenoid cavity to replicate four artifacts from Salt Springs (NPS). After scoring, I snapped the bone in two and easily removed the periosteum in a clean peel. I also cut and snapped the humerus. I made many practical mistakes in the first few experiments. The first mistake I made in the first round of experiments was leaving the bones outside under a bucket. A nocturnal scavenger made off with my scapula and humerus fragments. I recovered the cut radius in the bushes not far from the bucket. No gnaw marks were observed on the radius while taking micrographs. The second mistake I made was leaving the remaining bones in a cooler for a few days. The ice quickly melted in Florida’s summertime heat. I had to dispose of the rest of the bones and accompanying stinky flesh.

The good people at Mack’s Country Meats in Crawfordville, Florida donated eight lower deer limbs. The bones were from two deer, one subadult and one adult. I performed several sets of experiments with the goal of replicating elongated, pointed tools. I experimented with fresh (iced, 3-9 days after death) bones as well as bones that had been previously frozen for one month.

I used lithic tools to slice the hide and skin and cut the tendons. When I was unsuccessful at prying the hoof from the distal end, I scored and snapped the bone near the distal epiphysis. On one bone I removed both the distal and proximal ends. On another I removed only the distal, and on another only the proximal. I experimented with several splitting methods: longitudinal scoring and snapping, indirect percussion with a lithic wedge at proximal end, indirect percussion with a lithic wedge at distal end, indirect percussion with a lithic wedge on shaft, grooving and drying in sun, and finally cutting with a modern saw.

I was unable to replicate the clean splits I observed on archaeological specimens, so I experimented with thermal expansion. I placed pre-grooved bones 1) next to a small wood fire; 2) in slowly boiling water; and 3) outdoors (on a clothesline in mesh bags) to dry in the sun for two weeks during winter. I also thermally altered ungrooved bones in simmering water and next to a small wood fire. I simmered one with proximal end removed, one with distal end removed,

61 one with both ends removed, and one with marrow removed. I also experimented with removing marrow on some but not all to test how marrow behaves at a low boil.

An enthusiast of ancient and present hunting technology, Roger Whitt, donated two of his bone tool preforms. Whitt sawed the ends off a deer metapodial, and then sawed it in half longitudinally, creating two preforms. He cleaned out all the marrow and let it dry for two years. I split the bones experimentally to test whether the length of drying time affects fracture qualities.

I produced a great quantity of debitage illustrating manufacture errors but only six finished tools. Morphological tool types replicated were an awl, an incised pin, a needle, a flat weaving tool, a bone point, and a bipoint. I recorded the tool type (lithic shaving, shark tooth shaving, or abrading) used for secondary reduction. I took micrographs of experimental manufacture traces. I formed polish by rubbing the bone in my hands with abrasive and wet materials. A polish formed in five minutes by rubbing with sweaty hands, then sand and spit, then water. Results from the experiments and images of the artifacts are discussed in Chapter 7.

Summary

I collected microtrace data illustrative of manufacture or use on over 500 bone and antler objects. Photographic and micrographic records of my observations are available for other researchers to verify my results. In order to facilitate expansion of the project, the entire database is online at http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/lib/digcoll/byrd. As outlined above, I used a discrete lexicon as well as consistent terminology. I adapted data collection methods that previous researchers found most useful—specifically Bader’s (1992) morphological traits and Choyke’s (1997) 0-5 rating scale of manufacture and use. Since most of the data is categorical, I used Chi- squared tests and ANOVA to explore statistically significant patterns.

I experimentally replicated bone tools, manufacture traces, and preform stages. Experimental replication made me much more familiar with the interior and exterior of deer bone, particularly metapodials. Failed preform splitting led me to explore different methods of longitudinally breaking bone. Examining my manufacture traces under stereoscope solidified my methodology of differentiating between lithic shaving, shark tooth shaving, abrading, taphonomic traces, and use-wear. Experimentation prepared me for assessments of microwear on artifacts and identification of artifacts in preform stages.

62 CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS PART I: MICROWEAR AND TOOL USE Introduction

The broad question “How is tool morphology related to use-wear patterns?” dictated the nature of this analysis. First, this chapter documents the relationships between wear patterns and traditional tool types. Then it explores how specific tool shapes are related to tool use. Statistical exploratory data analysis identified preliminary relationships between use and form. When Chi-squared or Analysis of Variance tests identified a statistically significant relationship, it was necessary to look at the data to interpret the nature of the dependence. Before presenting results from statistical analyses of microwear, this chapter will review general trends in the data.

Overview of Tools and Types

The sample consists of 509 artifacts total. This includes 409 bone artifacts and 100 antler artifacts. Unless noted, “modified bone” and “bone tools” include both bone and antler artifacts. Of all the modified bone studied, 297 objects (58%) are tools. Evidence of use-wear is present on 207 of the tools.

Modification, Use, and Preservation Ratings

As expected, tools have a higher level of modification and use than non-tools (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). Most tools were rated four or five on the five-point modification scale, meaning 60-100 percent of the tool surface was modified (refer to definitions in Chapter 5). Most other modified bone received only a one on the five-point scale, indicating less than 20 percent modification by surface area. Trends according to use are similar, with high use for tools and low use for non- tools. Most objects in the class “modified bone” show no use-wear at all. In contrast, tool classes exhibit use-wear on varying amounts of the object surfaces, without any true mode.

The majority of tools have 60-80 percent preservation by surface area, and there is no preservation difference between tools and non-tools. The lack of difference is logical if one assumes preservation is similar within collections. However, polish acts as a protective barrier, better preserving surfaces of tools. Polish levels should therefore be higher on tools than non- tools, but the similar preservation ratings do not reflect such a trend.

63

Figure 6.1: Histogram of modification level rating for tools. Tools are more highly modified from original form than otherwise modified bone.

Figure 6.2: Histogram of use level rating for tools. Modified bones have less use-wear than bone tools.

Complete Tools and Fragmented Tools

Most archaeological objects are incomplete, and the artifacts in this study are no exception. However, a large number of tips and complete tools were preserved, making the

64 sample suitable for use-wear analysis. Tips (n=104) are the most commonly preserved part, accounting for 35 percent of all tools (Figure 6.3). The next most common classes are complete tools (n=71) and shafts (n=70) at about 24 percent each. There are only half as many bases (n=35). Another 5 percent of tools (n=17) are unidentifiable parts of tools, usually fragments.

Tool Fragments by Part Preserved

n=17 Tip (35%) n=35 n=104 Complete (23.9%) Shaft (23.6 %) n=70 Base (11.8%) n=71 Indeterminate (5.7%)

Figure 6.3: Summary of tool fragments by part preserved. Percents are with respect to all tools. See Chapter 5 for definitions of parts.

Metric Measurements on Tools

Metric measurements were taken on tools where applicable. Weights have the greatest variation with a range of over 160 grams. Maximum width, minimum width, and height also have large ranges. Diameter is more consistent, with a mean of 6.67 mm and a median of 6.50 mm. Tip width is also less variable; the mean tip width is 2.3mm, while the median tip width is 1.50 mm.

Table 6.1: Overview of metric measurements on tools. Refer to descriptions of measurement methods in Chapter 5.

MEASUREMENT MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX N Weight (g) 5.98 2.65 0.10 169.70 296 Diameter (mm) 6.67 6.50 0.70 13.00 171 Maximum Width (mm) 10.24 8.60 1.05 88.40 294 Minimum Width (mm) 5.09 4.54 0.20 28.10 206 Tip Width (mm) 2.30 1.50 0.10 13.10 101 Height (mm) 6.91 5.00 1.80 33.80 96

65

Morphological Tool Typology

As described in Chapter 5, tools were classified according to general morphological types. Elongated and pointed tools dominate the assemblages (Figure 6.4). Pins are the most numerous (n=88), followed by bone points (n=55), and then awls (n=50) (Figure 6.4). The morphological distinction among these three categories is minute, and even nonexistent to some researchers. For example, Russell’s (2001:243) definition lumps all elongated pointed tools together as “points (a term I use to designate any pointed tool, including what are often referred to as awls, pins, perforators, and so on.).” If lumped together, elongated pointed tools comprised 52 percent of all modified bone studied and 89 percent of all tools. The vast majority of elongated tools in the sample are undecorated. Only eight decorated pins are present in the entire sample.

Total Tools by Type

Pin (29.6%)

8 7 6 5 Bone point (18.5%) 13 Awl (16.8%) n=88 Antler point (8.1%) n=16 Splinter tool (7.4 %) n=22 Ulna awl (5.4%) Flat weaving tool (4.4%) n=24 Decorated pin (2.7%) n=55 Billet (2.4%) n=50 Bipoint (2%) Needle (1.7%)

Figure 6.4: Total tools by type. Percents refer to number of tools of each type over all tools. Refer to Chapter 5 for definitions.

66

Overview of Morphologies

As outlined in Chapter 5, specific morphological attributes were recorded according to tip form, base form, shaft form, and cross-section (Table 6.3). The most common cross-sections are round and U-shaped; each has over 100 tools. There are 80 tools with natural bases, making it the most numerous type of base form. Pointed tips and rounded tips are the most common. With well over 100 tools each, parallel shafts and converging shafts are the most numerous shaft forms.

Table 6.2: Overview of number of tools by morphological variables: Cross-section, tip form, base form, and shaft form. Note that categories are not mutually exclusive. Refer to definitions in Chapter 5.

CROSS-SECTION # TOOLS BASE FORM # TOOLS Round 134 Natural 80 U-shaped 109 Straight 31 U-shaped triangle 54 Contracting 21 Oval 49 Expanding 15 Flat 43 Rounded 12 Plano-convex 24 Pointed 9 Square 23 Concave 6 Spheres 5 Bifurcated 2 Incised 2 Waisted 1 TIP FORM # TOOLS Beveled 1 Pointed 88 T-topped 1 Rounded 61 Blunt 34 SHAFT FORM # TOOLS Broken 32 Parallel 171 Beveled 12 Converging 140 Stepped 11 Asymmetrical 36 Flat 9 Excurvate 22 Bi-Beveled 3 Stepped 6 Bifurcated 2 Expanding 1

67 Overview of Microwear

Seventy percent of tools yielded use-wear data (n=207). Forty-two percent (n=124) of tools have two types of wear present, and 21 percent (n=62) have three types of wear present. As outlined in Chapter 5, a “type” of wear means a direction/intensity/length combination. For example, a tool with short transverse gouges and short transverse light striations has two types of wear. It is assumed that two types of wear indicate two use actions, but it could be the result of variation in use direction, intensity, or length. Use-wear was recorded separately from modification traces. Although sometimes difficult to distinguish, use-wear is also separate from post-depositional wear.

Total Number of Wear Types Recorded by Location

Count 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0-10 from tip 10-20 from tip 20-30 from tip 30-40 from tip 40-50 from tip 50-60 from tip 60-70 from tip 70-80 from tip 80-90 from tip 90-110 from tip 0-10 from base 10-20 from base

Wear Type by Location by Location Type Wear 20-30 from base 30-40 from base 40-50 from base 50-60 from base 60-70 from base 100-110 from base

Figure 6.5: Total number of wear types recorded by 10 mm intervals. Note that several different wear types are present on most objects, so total number of wear types recorded is larger than total number of objects.

68 The exact location and type of wear was recorded and later transformed into a present/absent evaluation at 10 mm intervals. Most wear in the sample is confined to the tip or base of tools (Figure 6.5). Wear near the tip is assumed to be from use of the working end. Use- wear was recorded over twice as often in ranges near the tip than in ranges near the base (324 and 121 observations, respectively). The wear distribution favors ranges near the tip, which lends evidence to support the assumption that wear is use-related. Wear near the base may be from hafting or it could be evidence that both tool ends were used as tips (and therefore erroneously called bases). Wear near the bases is more likely evidence of hafting and was often identified as haft wear during analysis. There are few incidences of wear on the shaft overall, except for a high density of wear observations 50-60 mm from the tip. The range 50-60 mm from the tip may have been more aptly measured from the base, but in many cases the base was not preserved.

The most abundant wear directions are transverse and oblique (Figure 6.6). Almost 46 percent of all tools have transverse wear, and 41 percent have oblique wear. Only 20 percent of tools in the sample exhibit longitudinal striations, and even fewer tools (5%) have random wear. Many tools have more than one direction of wear.

Wear Direction on Tools

Random Longitudinal Oblique

Wear Type Type Wear Transverse

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Count

Figure 6.6: Overview of wear direction on tools. Note that some tools have several wear directions.

Intensity of wear is distributed evenly across the sample of tools, with one exception (Figure 6.7). Only seven instances of very light wear exist. The difficulty of observing very light wear may have erroneously led to low records of its occurrence. Deep and medium wear

69 are the most numerous categories, with over 80 instances recorded each. Gouges and light wear are close behind, with over 70 instances each.

Wear Intensity on Tools 100 80 60

Count 40 20 0 Gouge Deep Medium Light Very Light Wear Intensity

Figure 6.7: Overview of wear intensity on tools. Note that some tools have more than one type of wear.

The vast majority of tools are unpolished (n=217) (Figure 6.8). Fifty-one tools have high polish, which accounts for only 17 percent of all tools. Nineteen tools have low polish, and medium polish occurs on even fewer tools in the sample (n=10).

Polish Intensity on Tools

n=51 High (17.2%) 10 Medium (3.4%) n=19 n=217 Low (6.4%) None (73.1%)

Figure 6.8: Overview of polish intensity on tools.

70 Analysis of Microwear by Tool Type

Chi-squared tests were used to determine if there is a significant relationship between morphologically determined tool type and microwear location, direction, or intensity. Results indicate traditional tool types are associated with different tool use patterns. When Chi-squared results showed significant relationships between variables, the relationships were explored further.

In the following section, results are intentionally organized by statistical test rather than by tool type. Seemingly backwards, the organization highlights the methods utilized. Presentation of the same material by tool type downplays the blindness of statistical tests. Results are presented for tests between tool type and wear location, wear direction, and wear intensity. Interpretations of relationships are held until the next section of this chapter, where tool types are presented and wear types are compared.

Wear Location and Tool Type

Wear location by 10 mm zones varies significantly by tool type (X2 = 203.037, p= 2.271e-15). Localized wear at the tip, the base, and on the shaft shows significant relationships with different tool types (Appendix B.1-B.8). Such patterns suggest different morphological tool types were used in different manners. This is preliminary evidence that archaeological types are useful for behavioral interpretations and are not merely morphological classes imposed according to tool shape.

Tip area wear. Awls, ulna awls, and flat weaving tools have significant relationships with wear in the first 10 mm from the tip, and other tool forms do not (Appendix B.1, B.3, B.4) (Figure 6.9). Awls also have significant wear 10-20 mm from the tip, while flat weaving tools show patterned wear 20-40 mm from the tip. Such wear suggests awls, ulna awls, and flat weaving tools were used predominantly near the tool tips. Flat weaving tools were also used a few centimeters up the shaft from the tip.

Base area wear. There are significant differences in base area wear among tool types, indicating that bone points were hafted while other tool forms were not. Awls, pins, flat weaving tools, ulna awls, and splinter tools have no significant relationships with wear near the base. This lack of a significant relationship was due to the paucity of base area wear, suggesting

71 weaving tools were unhafted. In contrast, bone points show significant relationships with wear 10-70 mm from the base (Appendix B.6). Antler points were hafted but do not show significant relationships with basal wear zones. This is most likely due to the conservative interpretation of wear on all antler (Chapter 5). Furthermore, most haft wear on socketed antler points should be located inside the bore.

Wear Location by Tool Type

Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0-10 from tip

10-20 from tip

20-30 from tip

30-40 from tip Awl 40-50 from tip Pin 50-60 from tip Flat weaving Ulna awl Splinter Tool Bone point 0-10 from base Bipoint

Wear Location (mm) Location Wear Antler point 10-20 from base

20-30 from base

30-40 from base

40-50 from base

50-60 from base

60-70 from base

Figure 6.9: Wear location by tool type. Bars represent percent of that tool type showing wear by 10 mm intervals.

72 Mid-shaft wear. Despite the small sample size, bipoints demonstrated a unique wear pattern. Bipoints show significant relationships 10-30 mm from the tip, which may as well be 10-30 mm from the base. Since bipoints are double tipped, the tip with wear was interpreted to be the tip while the other side was considered the base. Bipoints also have patterned wear in the midsection of the tool, 50-60 mm from the tip and 50-60 mm from the base.

Non-localized wear. Pins, splinter tools, and antler points do not have any significant associations with wear locations.

Wear Direction and Tool Type

Direction of wear could be transverse, oblique, longitudinal, or random. Wear direction varies significantly with tool type (X2=171.3666, p=6.942e-11). Overall, transverse and oblique wear directions are the most common, especially on awls, pins, bone points, antler points, and splinter tools (Figure 6.10). Random wear is present with low frequencies on pins, flat weaving tools, bone points, and antler points. There are no broad patterns in wear direction by tool type distinguishing hafted classes from the weaving classes. Although statistical tests showed significant variation in wear direction by tool type, differences between certain tool types are subtle.

Awls and pins have very similar patterns of wear direction, with about 40 percent transverse and 40 percent oblique. Pins have a small percentage of random wear, while awls have no random wear at all. Compared to other weaving tools, there is a smaller amount of transverse wear on flat weaving tools. Ulna awls have over 50 percent transverse wear, no random wear, and very little oblique wear. The highest percentage of longitudinal wear is on ulna awls (35.3%).

Antler points have the most transverse wear (62.5%) and have no longitudinal wear at all. Wear on bone points is very similar to wear on awls and pins, with about 40 percent oblique and 40 percent transverse. Bipoints have more oblique wear (45.5%) than transverse wear (27.3%).

73 Wear Direction by Tool Type

Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

awl transverse pin oblique flat weaving tool ulna awl longitudinal splinter tool random Tool Type Type Tool bipoint bone point antler point

Figure 6.10: Wear direction by tool type. (If printing in grayscale: Note that categories in legend correspond to bars from left to right).

Wear Intensity and Tool Type

Intensity (or depth) of wear was classified as gouge, deep, medium, light, or very light. There are statistically significant patterns of wear depth according to tool type (X2 = 198.2859, p=4.823e-11). Depth of wear varies between points and weaving tool classes (Figure 6.11). Deeper wear is more common on projectile classes, and lighter wear is more common on weaving classes.

Ulna awls have the most light wear with 60 percent of all wear on the tool type. Bone points, bipoints, and antler points were used with more force than flat weaving tools and ulna awls; the points have over 60 percent deep wear or gouges. For comparison, flat weaving tools have only slightly over 20 percent deep wear or gouges, while ulna awls have no gouges and less than 10 percent deep wear. The most medium wear is on awls, flat weaving tools, and ulna awls. Wear on pins is distributed evenly between gouge, deep, medium, and light striations. Pins have the most very light wear of the whole sample, still a small amount by percent (4%).

74 Wear Intensity by Tool Type

Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

awl gouge pin deep flat weaving tool medium ulna awl light splinter tool very light Tool Type Type Tool bipoint bone point antler point

Figure 6.11: Wear intensity by tool type. (If printing in grayscale: Note that categories in legend correspond to bars from left to right).

Haft Cut Direction

Wear that is deeper than the “gouge” level was classified as a “cut” and noted separately from use wear. Often these cuts are transverse and are located in the haft area (30-50 mm from base) of the tools. Of those tools with cuts, only nine have any directionality to the deep cuts. Eight of those tools are bone points and one is a splinter tool. Most artifacts with haft cuts are from Groves’ Orange Midden. Directionality of the transverse cut is patterned, with eight away from the base and one towards the base.

With such a small sample size it is difficult to generalize, but the directionality of these deep gouges may shed light on the nature of the cut. Since almost all were cut away from the base (haft end) of the bone point, and all cuts are near the end of the haft zone (30-50 mm from the base), perhaps the cuts were made as an attempt to score the bone in preparation for hafting. It is possible that the gouges away from the base were made while cutting something off the bone such as the haft itself. If unhafted, something tied to the bone tool shaft may have been cut away. None of these patterns were observed in the literature review. Further investigation into this pattern is warranted but beyond the scope of this thesis.

75 Interpretations of Microwear and Tool Types

The previous section organized statistically significant patterns according to microwear. The table below (Table 6.3) summarizes the significant wear patterns according to tool type. Results of this study are compared with literature on experimental wear. Where relevant, archaeological examples of wear are reviewed. Most examples are from areas outside of Florida and beyond North America because only a small number of detailed bone microwear studies exist. By tool type and hypothesized function, most use-wear identified in the sample is surprisingly consistent with replicated use-wear.

Table 6.3: Summary of wear locations, wear directions, and wear intensity by tool type. Note that blank cells indicate no significant association is present. Strikethroughs indicate a low frequency of the wear type.

TOOL TYPE WEAR WEAR WEAR INTENSITY LOCATION DIRECTION (mm) Awl 0-20 from tip Transverse; Oblique Deep; Medium; Light Pin Transverse; Oblique Gouge; Deep; Medium; Light; Very Light Flat weaving 0-10 from tip; Oblique; Transverse Light; Medium tool 20-40 from tip Ulna awl 0-10 from tip Transverse; Light Longitudinal Splinter tool Transverse

Bone point 20-70 from base Transverse; Oblique Gouge; Deep; Very Light Antler point Transverse; Gouge Longitudinal Bipoint 10-30 from tip; Oblique Deep 50-60 from tip; 50-60 from base

Awls

Functional definitions typically indicate that “awls may serve as piercing instruments in a variety of tasks. The most common ethnographic uses are for perforating hides and in weaving coiled baskets” (Olsen 1984:387). Olsen, who did extensive basketry experimentation, found out that basketmaking did not leave striations on awls (Olsen 1984:387). Rather, making baskets

76 only leaves polish at the tip. Based on his ethnographic studies of Iroquoian bone tool use, Gates St-Pierre notes that awls most likely have more than one function in Iroquoian culture (Gates St- Pierre 2007).

Awls studied for this thesis have moderately intense transverse or oblique wear near the tip. Experimentally used piercing tools show transverse wear close to the tip (Buc 2011:553- 554; Campana 1989:58; d’Errico et al. 2003: 264-265; Olsen 1984:208, 386). Transverse wear on awls is created through rotational use of the implement’s tip, creating “concentric striae” (Olsen 1984:387). Statistically significant relationships between wear and awls in the archaeological sample suggest the classification of awls is functionally valid.

Pins

Pins are not solidly defined functionally, but their use as clothing fasteners or hairpins has been suggested (Olsen 1984; Wheeler 1994). No experiments of using pins either to fasten clothes or decoratively hold back hair were located. Logically, if used as hairpins or fasteners, wear should be light and localized mid-shaft. Wheeler observed “a high polish along the length of the shaft” and “some slight rotational wear at the tip” on Groves’ Orange Midden artifacts he categorized as pins (Wheeler and McGee 1994:354). Olsen found that hairpins in the Southwest have an absence of wear at the tip (Olsen 1984:330) and an even, non-localized polish (Olsen 1984:334).

Pins in the archaeological sample have no localized wear and no prevailing depth of wear. The evenly distributed wear on pins is consistent with the interpretation of pins as fasteners or hairpins. Pins also have evidence of gouges and deep striations, which do not support decorative use. It is likely that the category of pins is too broad and actually encompasses several types of tools. Perhaps those with lighter wear were ornamental while those with deeper wear (like that seen on bone points) should have been classified as points or another type entirely. Alternatively, each pin may have served multiple purposes prehistorically, creating different wear types in varying locations.

Flat Weaving Tools

The monikers are inconsistent for flat profile tools, but the functional attribution is usually weaving. Flat weaving tools are sometimes referred to as “fids” (Wheeler and

77 McGee:352-353) or as “bodkins” if they are perforated (Campana 1989:95-97). Based on a “lack of wear data” Penders placed such tools from Windover in a category called “Bone Pins/Awls and Battens” (Penders 2007:141).

Flat weaving tools in the sample show wear in the first 10 mm from the tip and the area 20-40 mm from the tip. Most wear is oblique or transverse and light or medium in depth. Griffitts’ (2001) experimental evidence from matting and weaving work on grasses produced wear patterns that were transverse and short. Wear was confined to the tip and also observed “running inward from the edge of the tool shaft” (Griffitts 2001:186-187, 194). Images of experimental wear formed from basket making and plant fiber working show mostly transverse wear with some oblique wear and little longitudinal wear (Figures 3 and 6, Griffitts 2001:194). Such experimental weaving and basketry wear matches that of this project’s type called flat weaving tools.

Archaeologically, Olsen observed that wear on flat implements “consists primarily of a polish along and confined to the rounded edges from the tip to as much as 4 to 5 cm up the shaft” (Olsen 1984:372). Olsen’s experimentation led her to conclude that the appearance of wear made by weaving and hide piercing is indistinguishable (Olsen 1984:207-208). Artifacts from Florida do not confirm this statement. Flat tools in the collection differ slightly from awls in wear location and intensity. Tools with flat profiles have wear farther up the shaft than awls. This project’s detailed observations on depth of wear show that flat tools were used with a slightly lighter action than awls.

Ulna awls

Ulna awls are inappropriately named, as it is hypothesized that the tools were actually used more like a chisel than an awl. Most have beveled ends, sometimes described as “chisel shaped.” Beveled tips have been connected with digging, prying, fleshing, shaping (Griffitts 2001:187), burnishing, working wood, or bark stripping (Penders 1997:136, 158).

Ulna awls are a unique tool type in that the anatomical element is the main determinant of classification. Also resulting from shape, wear direction on ulna awls is slightly different as the form of the presumed handle determined the direction of tip wear. When holding the olecranon process (curved “trigger-like” handle), a push/pull motion creates longitudinal wear. Transverse wear would form from a lateral motion, and oblique wear from angled motions.

78 Most microwear on ulna awls from the sample is confined to the very tip. It is light in force and rarely oblique in direction. The rarity of oblique wear is consistent with the form of the tool, as oblique use would not take advantage of the ulna bone’s natural strength. Griffitts used bevel-ended tools to work wood and hide. Her experiments showed that “striations on these tools have a predominantly longitudinal orientation with a few striations running diagonally” (Griffitts 2001:187). Micrographs of her work (100X magnification) reveal that the striations would have been characterized as light or very light if observed in this project. The wear on ulna tools observed in this thesis is consistent with other bevel-ended artifacts in wear location, direction, and intensity.

Splinter Tools

Splinter tools are defined by expedient manufacture. By splitting splinter tools into three functional categories (splinter gravers, splinter gouges, and splinter awls), Wheeler reveals that they were used in a variety of ways in Florida (Wheeler and McGee 1994).

Archaeologically, the only pattern in the sample is that use-wear is most often transverse. Olsen noticed two distinctive wear patterns on splinters: polished tips and fine transverse striations. She interpreted function as burnishing, smoothing, or flattening soft material (Olsen 1984:381, 384). Wear on splinter tools studied for this thesis is similar to other archaeological wear in direction, but there is no patterned wear by location or intensity. The functions of splinter tools are unknown and are probably varied.

Bone Points

Some archaeologists hypothesize that hafted bone points functioned as projectiles (Guthrie 1983; Knect 1997). For hunting, bone points are not as lethal as stone but have a longer use-life (Knect 1997:206). Others have a broader interpretation of hafted tools, suggesting their use as projectiles, awl-like implements, or composite fish hooks (Schibler et al. 2010; Villa and d’Errico 2001). Schibler and colleagues inferred projectile, perforating, and fishing functions from archaeological context in Neolithic Switzerland (Schibler et al. 2010). Experimental use of bone points as projectiles focuses on breakage patterns, rather than microwear (Ardnt and Newcomer 1986; Knect 1997).

79 Tools called bone points from this thesis’ sample show wear at the base and not the tip. The basal wear is transverse or oblique and ranges from gouges to deep or very light in intensity. Patterned base area wear on bone points is most likely haft wear, as it is consistent with patterns created with experimental hafted tools (Rots 2008:55) and descriptions of microscopic haft wear (Griffitts 2001:186; Rabett 2005:165). Although the sample of tools with deep haft cuts is small, almost all are bone points. The deep cuts are almost all in the same direction away from the base. The directionality may suggest intentionality of the cuts, or it could be a byproduct of repeating the same action. Regardless, this pattern further suggests hafting.

In the St. Johns River Basin, fated bone projectile technology is not known for the Archaic Period. The specific function of bone points is unknown, but all evidence supports hafted use. It is likely that the category of hafted bone points actually represents two functional tool types: tools hafted on shafts and tools hafted with handles. The tools with shafts may be self-barbed fishing spears or projectiles used with high intensity (gouges and deep wear). The bone points hafted to handles could account for the very light wear, and may be used in a perforating (awl-like) manner. In this case, it is not probable that tools with handles and tools with long shafts had interchangeable functions. Since experimental work on bone points focuses on breakage and not microwear, further experiments are needed to test functional hypotheses regarding wear on artifacts. Preliminarily, the patterned basal wear suggests points were hafted, but there is not enough evidence to confidently interpret bone points as projectiles.

Antler Points

The interpretation of antler points is less debated than bone points (Ardnt and Newcomer 1986; Knect 1997; Penders 1997). Based on basal socketing, binding evidence, and recovery of antler points in the haft, it is clear that antler points were hafted. The straightened tines and symmetrical profiles of antler point makes them suitable for projectile use. Similar to bone points, antler projectile experiments focus more on fracture than microwear (Ardnt and Newcomer 1986; Knect 1997). The lack of use-wear literature on antler points could simply be due to the problem of natural wear on antlers. Since deer create antler “use-wear,” only striations intrusive into human manufacture can be interpreted as use (Jin and Shipman 2010).

Wary of misinterpreting natural wear, analyses of antler point microwear in this thesis are conservative. Antler points have no patterned locations of wear. Most wear striations are

80 transverse gouges. Gouges are logically consistent with use as a projectile, but transverse wear is not. Future work recording microwear on experimental bone and antler projectiles would be useful for distinguishing points from other tool classes. Preliminarily, patterns recorded in the Archaic sample suggest antler points were used forcefully creating deep striations, but the precise cause of deep wear is unconfirmed.

Bipoints

Bipoints are often interpreted as composite fishhooks (Pokines and Krupa 1997; Russo et al. 1992:99; Walker 2000), but this interpretation is debated (Campana 1989; King 2007). There are several forms of composite fishhooks, so hafting and wear areas would vary according to form. Replication experiments (shooting fish in a barrel) with bipoints produced no striations (Buc 2011:552).

Although the sample was small, bipoints studied in this project have significant relationships with wear in ranges 10-30 mm from one tip. There are also significant relationships with wear midshaft and 50-60 mm from the base. Other archaeological bipoints show similar microwear. Wear patterns on archaeological bipoints in South America usually consisted of random striations midshaft. One end had manufacturing features and transverse marks while the other end had only manufacturing traces and no use-wear (Buc and Loponte 2007). This wear led Buc and Loponte (2007) to a hypothesis that one end and the midsection were hafted. Like the bipoints in South America, wear location recorded in this thesis suggests bipoints were either 1) suspended midshaft or 2) possibly hafted at one tip (“base”). Unlike South American double pointed tools and experimentally used bipoints, most bipoints studied for this work had deep, oblique gouges. Replicated use of bipoints produced no striations whatsoever. Further experimentation is needed on replicated bipoints. The wear location on bipoints is congruent with an interpretation as fishing gorges hafted in the center or composite fishhooks hafted at one end.

Analysis of Microwear by Specific Morphological Form

Microwear varies by tool type, which lends credibility to archaeologically defined types. Evidence presented above informs archaeologists that the classification system is valid, but it does not imply that people in prehistory had any notions of such types. What specific factors of tool shape influenced Archaic peoples to use different tool “types” in different manners?

81 An initial set of chi-squared tests showed that wear location is not independent of the four morphological variables (base form, tip form, shaft form, and cross-section (Appendix B.9). Further tests explored which tool forms are related to wear. Chi-squared tests were performed for all three records of each range when over five objects were represented (Appendix B.10).

Table 6.4: Summary of microwear by morphological form. Note that blanks indicate no relationships are present. A strikethrough indicates a low frequency of that wear type.

WEAR WEAR TIP FORM WEAR LOCATION (mm) DIRECTION INTENSITY

Pointed 0-30 from tip; 40-60 from tip Transverse Very Light Blunt 0-10 from tip; 30-40 from tip Gouges; Very Light; Light Stepped 10-20 from tip; 40-50 from tip Very Light Broken 0-10 from tip; 50-60 from tip Rounded Transverse BASE FORM Natural 10-30 from tip; 30-40 from base Transverse; Very Light; Oblique Light Straight 10-20 from tip; 0-10 from base; 20-40 from base Contracting 0-30 from tip; 0-40 from base Very Light; Light Rounded 0-10 from tip; 10-40 from base Very Light; Light Pointed 30-40 from tip Concave 20-40 from tip; 0-10 from base; Transverse 30-40 from base Expanding 0-10 from tip; 20-30 from tip; 40-50 from tip SHAFT FORM Parallel 0-30 from tip Oblique Very Light Asymmetrical 10-30 from tip; 40-50 from tip Excurvate 0-30 from tip; 10-40 from base Longitudinal Gouges, Deep, Light CROSS-SECTION Round 0-10 from tip Flat 0-20 from tip; 50-60 from tip Light; Medium; Very Light U-shaped triangle 0-10 from tip; 10-40 from base Gouges; Deep; Very Light Plano-convex 10-20 from tip; 50-60 from tip; Very Light 30-40 from base

82 Tip Form and Wear Location

Tip forms were characterized as pointed, rounded, blunt, beveled, stepped, flat, and broken. It is expected that the shape of the tip relates to the manner(s) of tool use. General tests between wear locations and tip forms show significant relationships with most tip shapes. Only beveled tip and flat tip forms are independent of wear location (Appendix B.11). Further statistical tests for each tip shape show that pointed tips have more relationships with specific wear locations than other forms.

Chi-squared tests for independence of pointed tip form and wear locations produce significant results for zones near the tips (Appendix B.12). The relationships are especially pronounced for tip area ranges 0-30 mm. It is likely that this relationship is skewed towards tip zones (rather than haft zones) because of the part of tool preserved. If only a tool tip is preserved, the tip form would be recorded, and wear would be measured from the tip. Despite this inherent problem, results are presented below.

Chi-squared tests reveal that pointed tips have a significant relationship with wear 0-30 mm from the tip. No significant relationships exist between pointed tips and wear zones measured from the bases, but wear 40-60 mm from the tip is significantly related to pointed tip form. The ranges of 40-60 mm from the tip may be equidistant if not closer to the base. It takes continual work to keep a tip sharpened to a point. If the statistical tests are not skewed by part of tool preserved, the results indicate taking such care to sharpen and re-sharpen a pointed tip has payoff because the tool will likely be used within 30 mm from the tip.

Further chi-squared tests of wear location and other tip forms are less significant than results with pointed tips. Rounded tip form and wear types do not have any significant relationships (Appendix B.13), showing that use of tools with rounded tips does not produce concentrations of wear. Tools with rounded tip form may have many uses. Blunt tip form is independent of all zones of wear except 0-10 mm from the tip and 30-40 mm from the tip (Appendix B.14). Using blunt forms to widen existing holes may produce wear 30-40 mm from the tip. Stepped tips have significant relationships with wear patterns 10-30 mm from the tip and 40-50 mm from the tip (Appendix B.15). The wear from 10-30 mm may be associated with the shouldered form. Broken tip form is significantly related to wear at the very tip (0-10 mm) and

83 50-60 mm from the tip (Appendix B.16). The association lends support to the tools having been broken during use, as exerting pressure at the tip could lead to breaking.

Shaft Form and Wear Location

Shaft forms with counts large enough for statistical tests included parallel, converging, excurvate, and asymmetrical. All shaft forms except converging shafts vary significantly with wear location (Appendix B.17). Further statistical tests explored the relationships of wear location and parallel shafts, asymmetrical shafts, and excurvate shafts.

Both parallel and excurvate shafts have a significant relationship with wear 0-30 mm from the tip (Appendix B.18 and B.19). Lack of wear near the base of parallel shafts indicates that parallel shafts are unlikely to be hafted. Excurvate shaft forms show more wear near the base. Excurvate shafts have a relationship with wear in the haft area 10-40 mm from the base. These results suggest excurvate shaft forms are more likely to be hafted. Asymmetrical shaft form has significant relationships with wear in zones 10-60 mm from the tip (Appendix B.20). Asymmetrical shafts are common to splinter tools and other expedient implements. Wear spreading from 10-60 mm from the tip supports multiple uses for such tools.

Base Form and Wear Location

Base form was characterized as natural, straight, contracting, expanding, rounded, pointed, and concave. Chi-squared tests show that almost all base forms vary with wear locations. Only expanding base form is independent of wear location (Appendix B.21). Tools with expanding bases would presumably not be hafted, explaining the lack of wear near the base itself. Perhaps expanded base tools were used for a variety of purposes so no one location on the tool was more frequently used. Expanding bases are common to tools such as awls, pins, and flat weaving tools. Among the three tool types, only pins lack relationships with wear location. Therefore, prehistoric tools with expanding bases have wear more closely aligned with pins than other tool types.

The most frequent base form, natural base form, has relationships with wear from 10-30 mm from the tip and 30-40 mm from the base (Appendix B.22). Natural base form is variable but generally indicates that a bone was not reduced completely and original features remain

84 visible. Wear 30-40 mm from the base is consistent with hafting, and it makes sense that time would not be spent fully reducing a base that was going to be inside a haft.

Wear in zones that may be related to hafting varies significantly with straight bases, rounded bases, contracting bases, and concave bases (Appendix B.23, B.24, B.25, B.26). Haft area wear was independent of pointed base form and expanding base form, which suggests that pointed or expanding base forms are commonly unhafted tools (Appendix B.27 and B.28). This is logical, as expanding bases would be difficult to haft, and pointed bases are needlessly sharp if hafted. Chi-squared test p-values are highly significant for rounded bases and wear 10-40 mm from the base and for contracting bases 0-40 mm from the base. This indicates that rounded and contracting bases were more likely to be hafted (Appendix B.24 and B.25).

Base form and wear near the tip show fewer relationships, but patterns still imply that form and function are connected. Rounded and contracting base forms vary with wear 0-10 mm from the tip and 0-30 mm from the tip, respectively. Both hafted tool forms are used at or very near the tip. Straight bases only have significant relationships with wear 10-20 mm from the tip, and pointed bases only have relationships with wear 30-40 mm from the tip. Concave base form is not independent of wear 20-40 mm from the tip. There is no relationship between non-hafted base forms—pointed and expanding bases—and wear in the first 30 mm from the tip. Meanwhile, hafted base forms—rounded and contracting bases—were used 0-30 mm from the tip. These patterns demonstrate that hafted and unhafted tools were used differently.

Cross-Section and Wear Location

Round, flat, U-shaped triangle, and plano-convex cross-section forms have significant relationships with wear location. U-shaped, oval, and square cross-sections are independent of wear location (Appendix B.29). Further tests were conducted to explore the significant relationships between wear location and cross-section.

Round cross-section only varies significantly with wear 0-10 mm from the tip (Appendix B.30). Flat cross-section form and U-shaped triangular cross-section forms also show relationships with wear 0-10 mm from the tip (Appendix B.31, B.32). U-shaped triangular, flat, and round cross-sectioned tools were used at the very tip, but the nature of this use may have varied. The three cross-section types are wholly different even though the wear patterns are

85 similar. Round cross-sections are common to unhafted tools used only at the very tip, whereas U-shaped triangular and flat cross-sections have other significant wear patterns.

Flat cross-sectioned tools show a pattern of wear at 50-60 mm from the tip, which might be more aptly described if it could have been measured from the tools’ bases. U-shaped triangular cross-section tools have evidence of wear in the haft area (10-40 mm from the base) unlike other cross-section forms (Appendix B.32). Plano-convex cross-sections have wear in haft areas, 50-60 from the tip and 30-40 from the base (Appendix B.33). Tools with U-shaped triangular, plano-convex, and possibly flat cross-sections are more likely to be hafted than other forms.

Metric Measurements and Wear Location

ANOVA tests were used to analyze variance between wear location and five quantitative variables: tip width, diameter, height, maximum width, and minimum width. Wear near the tip is related to several metric measurements. Wear near the base does not have many significant relationships with quantitative variables.

Tip width varies significantly only with wear 10-20 mm from the base (Appendix B.34), as larger tip widths are more likely to have striations in the second 10 mm of the base. Neither diameter nor height nor minimum width shows any relationships with wear near the base (Appendix B.35, B.36, B.37).

Wear near the tip is more related to metric measurements. The wear range 10-20 mm from the tip shows the most significant variation in means. Statistical tests show significant results with four variables: tip width (Appendix B.38), height (Appendix B.39), maximum width (Appendix B.40), and minimum width (Appendix B.41). Minimum width has a relationship with wear 0-10 mm from the tip, as smaller minimum widths are more likely to have wear very near the tip (Appendix B.41). Larger diameters are significantly associated with presence of wear 20- 30 mm from tip (Appendix B.42). Generally, wear 10-20 mm from the tip is more likely in thinner tools, such as those with low maximum widths, low minimum widths, and small heights. Thin tools could be used for piercing, an action that would create striations 10-20 mm from the tip.

86 Using AOV tests, morphological variables were tested against height, diameter, minimum width, maximum width, and tip width. Metric measurements only show significant variation by cross-section. Statistically speaking, cross-section affects minimum width (Appendix B.43), maximum width (Appendix B.44), height (Appendix B.45), and diameter (Appendix B.46). Of all the other morphological and metric variables, the only other significant variability is in maximum width when shaft form is considered (Appendix B.47). All of these relationships can be explained by the inherent connection between the variables. For example, cross-section affects measurements of tool width because cross-section is highly related to level of reduction from original form. Such results present no new information but connect standard measurements with a single, less recorded variable: cross-section.

Wear Direction and Tool Forms

Wear direction can be longitudinal, oblique, transverse, or random. Variance tests show that metric variables such as diameter (F=0.7673, p=0.5479) and tip width (F=0.2976, p=0.8789) do not vary significantly by wear direction. However, Chi-squared tests show that wear direction has significant relationships with morphological shape including shaft form, base form, and tip form (Appendix B.48, Appendix B.49).

Tip form characterizes the working end of a tool. Tests between tip form and direction of wear were run in order to determine if the shape influenced the direction of use. Only pointed and rounded tip forms show a significant relationship with wear direction (Appendix B.50). Tools with rounded or pointed tips have a majority of wear in the transverse direction, and these relationships are significant (rounded X2=7.0052, p=0.008128; pointed X2=16.0145, p=6.286e- 05). Rounded and pointed forms are the two sharpest tips recorded. Their association with transverse wear could mean sharp tools were used in a twisting motion. Alternatively, rounded and pointed forms could be used with another lateral motion, such as incising or burnishing.

Shaft form was also explored further with respect to wear direction. Chi-squared tests indicate that parallel, asymmetrical, and excurvate shaft forms have a significant relationship with wear direction, but converging shafts do not (Appendix B.51). Specifically, parallel shafts have a strong relationship with oblique wear (Appendix B.52) and excurvate shafts have a strong relationship with longitudinal wear (Appendix B.53). These patterns do not lead to specific conclusions about tool use.

87 When the relationship between base form and wear direction was tested, chi-squared results showed that natural, contracting, rounded, and concave forms have significant relationships with wear direction, while straight, expanding, and pointed bases are independent of wear direction (Appendix B.54). Natural, contracting, and rounded bases have more incidences of transverse and oblique wear, and this relationship is significant (Appendix B.55, B.56, B.57). This could suggest the blunt base forms—natural contracting and rounded shapes— are less associated with longitudinal use like stripping bark or burnishing. As described above, blunt base forms show relationships with haft area wear. If both associations hold, hafted tools are not likely to be used with longitudinal force. Concave bases have an especially high occurrence of transverse wear (Appendix B.58), but the association may be falsely magnified by small sample sizes.

Wear Intensity and Tool Form

Wear intensity is classified as a gouge, deep, medium, light, or very light wear. Each object can have up to three types of intensity. To simplify statistical tests, a present/absent category for each depth of wear was added for each artifact. Chi-squared tests reveal that wear intensity is highly related to morphological form by cross-section, base form, tip form, and shaft form (Appendix B.59). AOV tests show that neither tip width (F= 0.7893, p=0.56) nor diameter (F= 0.9269, p=0.4651) vary by wear intensity.

Flat cross-sections, U-shaped triangular cross-sections, and plano-convex cross-sections vary significantly with wear intensity (Appendix B.60). Flat cross-sections have a high incidence of light and medium depth wear. Flat cross-sections have a complete absence of very light wear. This is surprising as flat cross-sections are often associated with weaving, and light impact, soft material work such as weaving is expected to produce very light wear. Alternatively, if weaving leaves light rather than very light striations, the interpretation of flat cross-section tools as fiber-working is supported. Light wear is the most common wear intensity by frequency on flat weaving tools. U-shaped triangular cross-sections have a high frequency of gouges, deep striations, and very light wear. Plano-convex cross-sections have a high incidence of very light wear (Appendix B.61).

Pointed tips, blunt tips, and stepped tips have significant relationships with wear intensity (Appendix B.62). Pointed tips and stepped tips rarely have very light wear. This suggests

88 pointed tips are probably not used to separate fibers or do similarly gentle work. Stepped tips are likely shouldered because of repeated use, possibly piercing or widening to a certain depth. Piercing is forceful and would not create light wear. The paucity of very light wear on tools with stepped tips supports their use as piercers. Blunt tips have a high number of gouges and very low occurrence of light or very light wear, indicating blunt tools were used forcefully.

When tested overall, natural, contracting, and rounded bases showed significant variation with wear intensity (Appendix B.63). The tests are significant because of an underemphasized representation of light or very light wear. Natural and contracting bases have little very light wear, and rounded bases have no very light wear. Natural, contracting, and rounded bases are all good forms for hafting. The lack of association with very light or light wear may indicate hafted tools were used with more force.

Parallel and excurvate shaft forms are significantly associated with wear intensity (Apendix B.64). Like base form, parallel shafts and wear intensity are not independent because of the low occurrence of very light wear. Excurvate shafts have high counts of light wear, deep wear, and gouges. Excurvate shafts appear to be used in different manners.

Wear Frequency and Tool Form

Wear frequency is a measurement of the number of striations. As outlined in Chapter 5, wear frequency was characterized as few (1-2), several (3-4), or many (over 4). Chi-squared tests show no significant relationships between wear frequency and morphological features: cross-section, base form, tip form, or shaft form (Appendix B.65). Wear frequency should indicate amount of use (or stage in use-life). There was no tool type or morphological form that was more frequently used than another.

Polish and Tool Form

Mirroring the lack of association between polish and tool type, statistical tests indicate that location and intensity of polish are not patterned according to tool form. Polish location does not have significant relationships with the any of the four morphological characteristics: cross-section form, tip form, base form, or shaft form (Appendix B.66). Polish intensity is even less related to the morphological variables (Appendix B.67).

89 Evaluation of Significance of Tool Length

Many studies record maximum length or a similar measurement (present study included). This chapter established relationships between types and wear and shape and wear; it is now possible to build on that foundation. Since there is a relationship between tool use and forms, testing tool type with other variables like tool length reveals if tool length is a meaningful measurement for functional interpretations.

Results presented here offer quantitative evidence against functional or typological interpretation based on length (e.g. Webb 1974). Of the 297 tools, 35 percent (n=71) were complete. The full lengths of complete tools (mean maximum length) are normally distributed, with a mean of 112.7 mm (Figure 6.12). An analysis of variance test (ANOVA) shows no significant difference in the lengths of complete awls, pins, weaving tools, and points (Appendix B.68) (Figure 6.13). However, the same ANOVA test including splinter tools does show a significant difference in complete tool length, with splinter tools being shorter than other elongated tool types (Appendix B.68). Complete tool length does not vary significantly by cross-section, tip form, shaft form, or base form (Appendix B.69).

Figure 6.12: Boxplot of complete tool length. Min= 29.8 mm, Median=113.8 mm, Max=207.6 mm.

90

Figure 6.13: Side-by-side boxplot of complete tool mean length by tool type.

The lack of variation between form and length suggests that complete length measurements have little meaning with respect to tool type and morphology for pointed, elongated tools. A complete length between 80 mm and 140 mm is expected for most bone tools, regardless of type. Such uniformity in length may simply be the result of the original bone dimensions. Use-life of individual tools may explain slight length differences. Although maximum length is the most visible morphological variation in collections, it is not a valid way to evaluate functional tool type.

Differences Among Sites

The most obvious difference among sites is simply degree of preservation. Windover has the best preservation, with 74 percent of artifacts having 80-100 percent preserved surfaces. Groves’ Orange Midden also produced well-preserved artifacts, as 64 percent of the collection has 80-100 percent preservation. Artifacts from both excavations at Salt Springs have poor preservation; only 33 percent of the artifacts had 80-100 percent of the surface intact. Unlike the other sites with inundated deposits, Salt Springs is unique because the water is highly saline.

91 The salinity of the water probably led to greater deterioration during drying. These differences may also be due to a lack of conservative materials applied to the Salt Springs collections contrasted with preservatives like Polyethylene Glycol and Rhoplex for the Windover and Groves’ Orange Midden collections.

There are differences among sites according to tool type and morphological characteristics, but differences are small enough not to skew the composite sample toward one site. Groves’ Orange Midden contributes the majority of awls and bone points in the sample. Salt Springs has the largest number of pins. All other sites have awls, bone points, and pins as well, so the distribution is not problematic for generalizations.

Figure 6.14: Stacked barchart of tool types by site. The columns left to right are: 1. Antler point, 2. Awl, 3. Billet, 4. Bipoint, 5.Bone point, 6. Decorated pin, 7. Flaker, 8. Flat weaving tool, 9. Needle, 10. Pin, 11. Splinter tool, 12. Ulna awl.

92 The burial sites, Windover and Gauthier, have different tool type distributions than the midden context sites. Most ulna awls are from Gauthier (n=6) and Windover (n=8). With such a high frequency in burial context, it is possible ulna tools are not awls, but had another purpose that would associate them with the dead. Gauthier and Windover artifacts account for 50 percent and 41 percent of all beveled tips, respectively (Appendix B.70). This is due to the high occurrence of ulna awls, most of which have beveled tips. Gauthier and Windover have no needles, no decorated pins, no flakers, and no splinter tools. Splinter tools may have been expediently used and not associated with any individual, therefore inappropriate for burial goods. Overall, needles and decorated pins are rare in the composite sample, so the lack of those tool classes at the burial sites may be due to small sample size. Windover produced a majority of bipoints and antler points, which may be evidence that these tools were technological staples in the Early Archaic and lost prominence as technology changed.

Distributions of tool part and form vary by site, but most variation is not large enough to skew results. Since Groves’ Orange Midden has more tools than other sites (25 percent of all tools), many aspects of tool morphology are disproportionately represented by Groves’ Orange Midden artifacts. Groves’ Orange Midden has more tool bases than any other site (43 percent of all bases), so it also has the most contracting, round, pointed, and natural bases. Other inter-site differences among tip form (Appendix B.70), cross-section (Appendix B.71), base form (Appendix B.72), and shaft form (Appendix B.73) are negligible.

Temporal Comparisons Within Sites

Cursory tests were run to identify temporal patterns within sites. Chi-squared tests with modified bone type and excavation level show a temporal difference at only one site, Salt Springs (NPS excavation only) (Appendix B.74). Upper excavation levels at Salt Springs produced more modified bone than lowers levels (Appendix B.75). Without a more detailed investigation, no diachronic trends in tool abundance are apparent at Salt Springs. Excavation levels one and four have large amounts of cut bone, which may contribute to the low p-value. No other sites have significant variation in tool type visible by excavation level.

Summary

Wear patterns on 207 tools were investigated to explore relationships between use and morphological form. Overall, most striations are located in the first 30 mm from tool tips. Many

93 striations are also in the first 10 mm from the base. Wear near the tip is interpreted as use-wear, and wear near base is interpreted as haft wear. Use-wear and haft-wear show significant patterns by tool types. Use-wear and haft-wear also vary significantly by specific tool morphology.

Most morphologically defined types have associated functional interpretations, and many of the patterns observed in the archaeological sample are consistent with experimental wear. Awls from the St. Johns River Basin have a significant relationship with wear located near the tip. The awls were most frequently used with moderate force in manners that produced transverse or oblique striations. The same type of wear observed on archaeological awls is present on experimental perforators. Pins examined show no patterns in wear location, wear intensity, or wear direction. The lack of localized wear on pins supports the hypothesis that they were fasteners or hairpins, but the diverse wear intensity suggests pins were either 1) multitools or 2) misidentified. Wear on splinter tools in the sample is also unpatterned. Splinter tools’ expedient manufacture and expedient use may explain the unpatterned wear. Like pins, splinter tools may have had multiple uses prehistorically. Ulna awls have the highest percentage of longitudinal wear as well as the highest percentage of light wear, and they show a relationship with wear at the very tip. Bevel-tipped artifacts studied elsewhere show similar patterns. Flat weaving tools have light and medium wear located at the tip and up the shaft. The location and intensity of wear on flat weaving tools in the sample is consistent with that on experimental weaving tools. Bipoints studied show mostly oblique wear that was localized near one end or midshaft. The interpretation of bipoints as composite fishhooks is plausible based on wear location. But, wear direction and intensity on experimental and archaeological fishhooks does not support the composite fishhook hypothesis. Bone points in the Florida sample show evidence of hafting. The high frequency of gouges and light wear on bone points suggests divergent uses; some points may have been hafted on shafts while others were tools with handles. Antler points from the sample have non-localized, transverse wear. A lack of experimental studies concerning bone and antler projectile striation patterns prevents comparisons between this sample and functional interpretations.

Statistically significant associations between morphological form and wear highlight the characteristics that were considered (consciously or not) as tools were made or chosen for different tasks. Chi-squared tests show significant wear patterns by tool morphology including tip form, shaft form, base form, and cross-section. The following forms show the most evidence

94 of hafting wear: Contracting base form, rounded base form, excurvate shaft form, and U-shaped triangle cross-section. Evidence of haft wear is a statistically significant relationship between the specific tool form and striations in several wear locations near the base. There is an absence of light wear and very light wear on two of the morphological forms associated with haft wear: contracting bases and rounded bases. The other two forms associated with haft wear—excurvate shaft and U-shaped triangle cross-section—have high frequencies of gouges and deep wear. The only other tool morphology with a high frequency of gouges is blunt tip form. Rounded and pointed tips were often used in a transverse direction. While rounded tips show no association with wear location, pointed tips have significant relationships with wear in the first 30 mm from the tip and 40-60 mm from the tip. Chi-squared tests between tool forms and wear locations identified several significant relationships with striations in zones near the very tip. The following morphologies have wear in the first 10 mm from the tip: pointed tips, blunt tips, broken tips, natural bases, contracting bases, rounded bases, expanding bases, parallel shafts, excurvate shafts, round cross-sections, flat cross-sections, and U-shaped triangle cross-sections. Midshaft wear shows significant relationships with pointed tips, stepped tips, broken tips, expanding bases, asymmetrical shafts, flat cross-sections, and plano-convex cross-sections. The most common wear directions are transverse and oblique wear. Transverse wear is especially high on tools with pointed tips, rounded tips, natural bases, or concave bases. Oblique striations are common on tools with a parallel shaft or natural base.

Compared with morphological variables, complete tool length and polish are not as useful to record for functional studies. Polish location and polish intensity did not vary significantly by tool type or by any specific tool shape. Lengths of complete tools did not show significant variation according to tool type or morphology.

Overall, morphology is related to tool function. Different wear patterns exist among different tool types, suggesting morphological types are related to prehistoric use. People in prehistory did not conceive of bone tool typology in the same way archaeologists do, but specific tool form did affect the decisions of tool use.

95 CHAPTER 7: RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS PART II: MANUFACTURE TRACES AND TOOLMAKING Introduction

This chapter details the bone and antler tool chaînes opératoires using archaeological evidence and experimental replication. Overall, it explores patterns in toolmaking. Characteristic microwear reflects manufacture methods on both finished and unfinished tools. Debitage and abandoned preforms make step-by-step reconstruction of tool manufacture possible. Patterns in manufacture processes are consistent among the sites, indicating that a generalized tool-making tradition existed in the St. Johns River Basin during the Archaic. First, the chapter offers a summary of the archaeological sample. Then, it details the step-by-step manufacture process, as illustrated by artifacts and experimental replication. Similarities are emphasized in the manufacture sequences, while differences are highlighted in comparisons between sites.

Overview of Non-Tools

Forty-two percent (n=212) of the 509 objects are not tools but pieces of otherwise modified bone, including antler. By definition, no use-wear is present on non-tools, but manufacture wear was recorded. Thirty-seven percent of non-tools are preforms of bone tools or debitage from bone working (n=78). Cut bone is the most prevalent type of non-tool (n=63). Cuts on bone may be the result of butchering or may be the initial cut to prepare for snapping. Cut bone debitage is the second largest class with 26 percent of all non-tools (n=56). Prehistoric grooving, snapping, and discarding produced cut bone debitage. Other modified bone, including those with striations from shaving or defleshing, make up 19 percent (n=40) of non-tools.

96 Modified Bone by Type

9 Cut bone 13 (n=63, 29.3%) Cut bone debitage n=63 n=31 (n=56, 26.0%) Modified bone (n=40, 18.6%) Antler lateral break (n=31, 14.4%) n=40 Preform (n=13, 6.0%) n=56 Modified bone debitage (n=9, 4.2%)

Figure 7.1: Modified bone types by count. Class names are defined in Chapter 5.

Overview of Manufacture Methods

Cutting and snapping is the most prevalent modification method on both non-tools and tools. This modification involves scoring the bone to make snapping easier and then breaking the bone at the scored cut. Evidence for cutting and snapping is present on 19 percent of all objects (n=99). Cutting and snapping can serve two purposes. Bones with marrow can be cut and snapped to reveal the interior bone (Binford 1981:148-163). Coined in 1953 as the “groove and splinter technique of working antler,” cutting and snapping is an important initial step of bone tool manufacture as well (Clark and Thompson 1953). Cutting and snapping for marrow exposure and tool-making are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Combining the two actions would have saved time and effort.

The second most prevalent modification method is lithic shaving. Shaving is a shaping method in which a stone or shark tooth tool is scraped across a bone’s surface to remove fine curls. Evidence of shaving with stone tools is present on 19 percent of all artifacts (n=95). Shark tooth shaving is on seven percent (n=33) of the collections, and other unidentified shaving is on another seven percent (n=37) of the artifacts. Shaving—whether with a stone tool or a shark tooth—outnumbers abrasion as a secondary reduction method five to one. Only seven

97 percent of artifacts in the sample (n=33) were abraded. Although shaving is present on 165 artifacts and abrasion is present on 33 artifacts, only 12 artifacts total have evidence of both shaving and abrading.

Modification Type 120 100 80 60

Count 40 20 0 Non-Tools All Objects Cut Cut Bored Bored Incised Incised Battered Battered Abraded Abraded Chopped Chopped Splintered Splintered Lithic Shaving Shaving Lithic Cut and Snapped Snapped and Cut Shaving Unidentified Unidentified Shaving Unmodified but Used but Unmodified Shark’s Tooth Shaving Shaving Tooth Shark’s

Figure 7.2: Modification type of non-tools compared to all objects. Note that the category “all objects” includes non-tools and tools.

Metric measurements on non-tools vary but are overall larger than measurements of tools (Table 7.1). Non-tool minimum and maximum widths are about twice that of tools. In fact, the average minimum width of non-tools is larger than the average maximum width of tools. Non- tool heights have a large range but a very close mean and median. The pattern of larger measurements on non-tools makes sense if non-tools were reduced into tools.

Table 7.1: Summary of metric measurements on modified bone (non-tools).

MEASUREMENT MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX n Weight (g) 11.78 5.50 0.20 101.10 211 Maximum Width (mm) 20.63 17.10 4.90 95.30 206 Minimum Width (mm) 10.67 9.20 0.50 27.3 190 Height (mm) 10.46 10.85 2.90 18.5 86

98 Experimental Replication Results

The most important result of replication is simply an understanding of manufacture grounded in personal experience. Replication enhances visualization of preform stages and therefore identification of archaeological fragments as preforms. Experiments illustrate first- hand the production of manufacture traces, instilling confidence in descriptions of artifacts. Many bone tool replication experiments have been done elsewhere (e.g. Griffitts 2006; Newcomer 1977; Olsen 1984; Tyzzer 1958), and the majority of lessons in this thesis echo previous work. The confirmations of other researcher’s replications will be repeated below but do not constitute this project’s main “results.” Rather, incorporation of replication in this chapter will highlight topics not stressed in other research. All topics are relevant only in light of archaeological evidence. Ignored or underemphasized topics include the average length of distal end metapodial debitage, marrow extraction, the straightness of split preform edges, the apparent preference for shaving over abrasion, and the differences between scoring antler versus bone.

Like learning any skill, the most productive lessons of bone tool experimental replication resulted from mistakes. When contrasted with archaeological debitage, it is clear that Archaic toolmakers knew ways to avoid such mistakes. Experimental failures demonstrated what methods simply do not work regardless of experience. Replication experiments also illustrated what methods are so inefficient that they are not tempting to try more than once. Of course, simply proving what works best is not evidence for prehistoric manufacture choices. But, experiential knowledge of what makes bone tool manufacture fail can offer one explanation for the specific choices people made prehistorically.

When comparing replicated tools with Archaic specimens, the greater competence of prehistoric craftsmen is all too obvious. Continuity in prehistoric bone tool manufacture over time (Chapter 2) indicates that Archaic toolmakers did not reinvent technology. Most likely, persons with experience taught budding toolmakers the process. Modern replicators have abstract literature at hand but most lack the foundation of learning a manufacture process— observing an expert at work.

The experimental raw material could have produced 36 tools, but most experiments resulted in abandoned, unrecoverable preforms. This is due partly to ineffectual methods and partly due to low aptitude. Only six complete tools were finally produced experimentally

99 (Figure 7.3). Even those six tools are imperfect when compared to archaeological specimens. Experimental imperfections due to a lack of skill do not hinder archaeological interpretation of prehistoric tools. While affecting the look of the final product, unskilled replication does not reflect differences in tool manufacture techniques. Methodological mistakes made in replicating tools allowed identification of what such mistakes would look like archaeologically. The rarity of methodological mishaps in archaeological collections informed interpretations of Archaic tool production in the study area.

Successful replication passed through preform stages that would be identifiable as culturally modified artifacts. Experimental replication produced debitage similar to Archaic debitage. Replication also created objects invisible at most prehistoric sites. Those objects include bone dust and bone slivers from shaving, as well as useful products like tendons, hooves, and skins. By comparing experimental products and debitage with artifacts, manufacture methods were identified and reconstructed in a seven-stage process.

Figure 7.3: Experimentally replicated bone tools. A) Pin, B) Flat weaving tool (plan view not profile), C) Awl, D) Needle, E) Bone point, F) Bipoint. Wavy edges are due to splitting errors. Variation in bone color is due to wetness and drying methods.

100 Sequence of Bone Tool Manufacture

Archaeological debitage, preforms, and modern replication illustrate the process of bone tool manufacture. The presence or absence of reduction processes at different stages of tool- making provides clues about the specific manufacture sequence. Archaeological evidence from the six sites shows the same processes of manufacture, which points to a uniform bone tool industry in the St. Johns River Basin during the Archaic Period. This should not be overinterpreted, as prehistoric bone tool-making processes are strikingly similar worldwide (Emery 2001; Fehlmann 2010; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2010; Le Dosseur 2010; Savchenko 2010).

The seven-stage process proposed below is an enhancement of previously published bone tool manufacture research. It differs from proposed tool-making processes for the Florida Archaic in that it provides a specific ordering. This is due to sampling scope. Sequencing choices existed during replication experiments. For example, the proximal end of the metapodial can be removed first and the final tool produced is the same. Consistencies in archaeological evidence demonstrated a cultural preference for a specific order of bone tool production methods. The following sequence is proposed:

Stage 1: Remove distal epiphysis Stage 2 (or 3): Low heat-treat bone Stage 3 (or 2): Score preform Stage 4: Split dried preform Stage 5: Lithic shave to shape tool Stage 6: Cut proximal end off tool Stage 7: Finish with polishing or hafting

Other archaeologists have outlined a bone tool manufacture process in the Florida Archaic, most notably Wheeler (1994; Wheeler and McGee 1994) and Penders (1997). Among his other bone tool publications, Wheeler (1992; 1994; Wheeler and Coleman 1996; Wheeler and McGee 1994) published an in-depth study of the Groves’ Orange Midden collection. Penders analyzed the Windover bone and antler tools for his thesis. Both collections were reanalyzed for inclusion in this study. Naturally, the three chaîne opératoire outlines are mostly in agreement. Wheeler identified three steps in the Groves’ Orange Midden debitage: snapping the distal epiphysis; longitudinally scored and snapped bone; and removing proximal end (Wheeler 1994:360). Penders (1997:49) identified six stages: 1) cleaning; 2) preparation; 3) primary core production; 4) blank production; 5) tool manufacture; 6) finishing. Penders also explained

101 choices for substages and incorporated his own experimental replication results (Penders 1997:45-61).

The seven-stages proposed differ from Wheeler and Penders because this project’s sample size enabled more specific descriptions of the order of operations. In some cases, it was possible to make generalized interpretations about the Archaic. In other cases sampling multiple sites enabled specific contrasts between sites. Additionally, manufacture trace tabulation allowed interpretations of methodological preference. Another divergence is the consideration that marrow was cooked and marrow grease was extracted during simmering but after epiphysis removal. Penders (1997) used boiling and steaming in his replication experiments but noted that “soaking is adequate for cleaning osseous material and requires less time expenditure [than boiling]” (Penders 1997:46). He hypothesized that bones were most likely soaked rather than boiled at Windover. It is possible that Windover populations soaked bone and later groups heated bone for improved workability. The nuanced sequence proposed below does not contradict Penders or Wheeler but fills in gaps imposed by single collection constraints.

The seven steps that follow trace the manufacturing process from the first archaeologically visible cut to the finished tool. Raw material choices and acquisition cannot be discussed because the project’s sampling strategy was intentionally skewed away from certain animals and elements (see Chapter 5). The vast majority of elongated pointed tools studied were made from the long, straight deer metapodial. Debitage and preforms reinforce this, so the reduction sequence below focuses on metapodials only. Metatarsals and metacarpals were lumped together as metapodials in this study.

Stage 1: Remove distal epiphysis

After raw material is acquired, the first step of bone tool manufacture is cutting the distal end off of a metapodial. It is always the distal epiphysis removed first. Distal end debitage in the sample shows no secondary reduction evidence (shaving or abrading), while proximal end debitage was already further shaped. Also, proximal end debitage was previously split, while distal portions are intact longitudinally. Replication showed that unless the epiphysis is unfused, it is difficult to snap the condyle apart from the deer’s digits without scoring.

102

Figure 7.4: Stage 1 archaeological evidence: Metapodials with distal epiphysis removed. A) (184.1, 8MR2322 [NPS]); B) (259.6, 8BR246); C) (121.32, 8BR246).

103

Figure 7.5: Stage 1 archaeological evidence: Distal metapodial debitage. A) (262.6, 8VO2601); B) (198.12, 8MR2322 [NPS)]; C) (333.5, 8VO53); D) (861.2, 8VO2601); E) (88.166.2022.1, 8BR193); F) (9.01, 8MR2322 [UF]).

Removing the distal epiphysis begins with cutting or scoring the bone. Archaeologically, this cut covers an average of 65 percent of the bone circumference. Replication experiments tested the effectiveness of different tools for grooving bone (Chapter 5). It is possible to make a deep, straight groove with a flake, a retouched flake, a biface, a burin, or a stationary chert spall. Moving the bone to create the groove was far easier than moving the tool; using the stationary rock was the most efficient method.

Cutting too close to the epiphysis does not prevent tool making; in fact, it lengthens the preform shaft. However, replication experiments proved that if the cut is not far enough from the distal end, the marrow is trapped inside. Trapped marrow is not only lost as food, it delays bone drying. Cutting too far from the distal end wastes shaft length. Patterns in archaeological specimens suggest the appropriate distance from the distal end is approximately 40 mm. The mean maximum length of distal metapodial debitage is 42.7 mm (n=26). The distribution is normal (Figure 7.6), and most metapodials were cut between 35 and 50 mm from the distal end. This suggests there was a “sweet-spot” for removing epiphyses, wherein maximum tool length and marrow extraction are considered. After scoring, the toolmaker snaps the shaft from the distal end. The end is discarded. The marrow is now exposed and can be removed, and the shaft is the Stage 1 preform.

104

Figure 7.6: Distal metapodial debitage distance cut from end. Bars represent debitage count.

Stage 2 (or 3): Low heat-treat bone

Literature frequently asserts or assumes that “cultural alterations on bone usually take place soon after the death of an animal when the bone is still fresh, or green” (Morlan 1984:161). Archaeological evidence from the six sites in this study does not support this. Wet bone fractures helically, producing curved edges (Johnson 1989:433). Although distal end metapodials do have helical fractures, most stage 2 preforms from this study have straight longitudinal fractures. This suggests condyles were removed from fresh bone (possibly for marrow extraction), but bones were not wet during shaft splitting.

Johnson (1989) notes that “dried bone behaves as a more brittle inorganic material” (1989:433). Drying creates microcracks in the bone, allowing bone to fracture more easily and more predictably (Johnson 1989:433). Replication experiments confirm that splitting bone when green results in spiral fractures not straight longitudinal splits. Even when grooved deeply, fractures on wet bones departed from the groove. Such fractures are due to the unavoidable mechanical properties of bone. This exposes inaccurate replication method. Of all

105 longitudinally split artifacts, four exhibited helical fracture errors; however, even those were on long salvageable preforms.

Because of repeated splitting failures during experiments, processes of drying bone were explored. Splitting bone was unsuccessful for tool-making when a spiral fracture caused the split to end midshaft. Such fractures create short preforms with wavy edges, which require extra work to shave down straight. Experimentally, these spiral fractures always happened quickly not after splitting long, straight edges (as seen archaeologically). Although longitudinal spiral fractures did exist in archaeological collections, they were on otherwise unmodified bones. In replication experiments, deer bone was worked in six different levels of freshness: 1) wet: 3-6 days after the deer’s death (kept refrigerated); 2) wet: 9 days after the deer’s death (kept on ice); 3) wet: a month after death (kept frozen); 4) slow heated: simmered (slow boil) 2 hours in water over a fire; 5) heat treated: exposed indirectly to fire and hot coals for two hours; 6) dry: dried for two years after removing marrow and shaping preform.

Figure 7.7: Stage 2 or 3 replication evidence: Failed experimental splitting. This bone was dried for two years and not heat-treated.

Surprisingly, the bone dried for two years fractured helically. Some dried periosteum was still present on the metapodial, which could have protected the surface. However, the periosteum did not prevent drying. Because initial replication with dried bone and fresh bone did not produce preforms like those seen archaeologically, I concluded that Archaic toolmakers were likely using another method of bone preparation.

Low heat-treatment of bone is useful on two counts: improved fracture quality and extraction of bone grease. Splitting simmered bone resulted in much straighter breaks than splitting wet bone, heat-treated bone, or dried bone. Although the conclusions of this work do not agree with Olsen regarding working green bone, Olsen (1984) explains why simmered bone

106 behaved differently than fireside-treated bone. Heated bone experiences increasing hardness up to 200 degrees Fahrenheit (boiling point is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Above 200 degrees, hardness decreases as the heat approaches 800 degrees. The result is increased brittleness (Olsen 1984:45).

Experimental simmering (slow boiling) was done with bones with and without marrow removed. On bones with marrow, simmering released some marrow into the water, creating oily water ready for soup or flavoring other foods. After simmering bones with marrow, actual marrow remained in bones and could still be removed with a stick. The low boil transformed the consistency of the marrow from a raw gelatin state to a cooked mushy state and made further marrow removal difficult. Replication removing marrow with a stick before low boiling never removed 100 percent of marrow. It is likely that Archaic peoples removed most marrow first and then simmered bones for remaining grease. Although it is impossible to extricate simmering for marrow from heat-treating for enhanced fracture properties, documenting thermal alteration in bone may be the first step of explaining the technology of heat-treating stone.

Marrow is a dense source of nutrition and a flavorful food. Marrow inside long bones and bone grease stored in the epiphyses are nutritious food sources (Madrigal and Capaldo 1999:245). Boiling long bones for fatty marrow grease is documented ethnographically and archaeologically (Binford 1978; Pfaffenroth 1999). A modern (therefore smaller than prehistoric) adult white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgninianus) metapodial contains between 35- 65 kilocalories (kcal) of marrow and bone grease. A white-tailed deer tibia has even more return, estimated at over 200 kcal (Madrigal and Capaldo 1999:243). In the interest of comparison, the amount of nutrition in metapodial marrow is roughly equal to an ounce of venison meat. Compiled from USDA National Nutrient Database and two nutrition books, nutritionist Anne Collins estimates 150-190 kcal for 100g (3.5 ounces) of cooked venison or 111 kcal for 100 g (3.5 ounces) of raw Alaskan deer meat (Collins 2011). Especially on a lean animal like deer, fatty bone marrow is comparatively rich.

Boiling or other low temperature thermal alteration could not be identified archaeologically. Since temperatures for steaming would be comparable to simmering (around 200 degrees Fahrenheit) (Semenov 1964:159-160), the methods probably have the same effect on fracture properties. However, steaming bone would not have the added effect of producing

107 greasy marrow water. Both slow boiling and steaming would leave subtle archaeological signatures: different fracture qualities or intentionally steam-curved bone (MacGregor 1985:63- 64; Semenov 1964:159-160). It is likely that burying bone in sand for slower heat-treating or experimenting with oven heating would produce similar effects. All bones heated at low- temperature should not show evidence of burning.

Burned bone can be identified macroscopically if burned over 200 degrees Fahrenheit (Taylor et al. 1995:115). Bone experimentally heated beside a wood fire showed evidence of thermal alteration as the bone changed color and texture. Only 10 percent of the archaeological sample is burned (n=51). No patterns were identified in the burned bones according to tool type, sites, or location of burning. While studying bone tools from South Florida, Mitchell noted the possibility of intentional heat-treatment on bone (Mitchell 1991). It is well established that Middle Archaic people heat-treated stone for better fracture qualities. Experimental and archaeological fracture evidence point to low temperature heat-treatment in the Archaic. Further comparisons of bone fracture patterns between the Early and Middle Archaic may refine this hypothesis. Documenting bone heat-treating could have implications for origins of thermally altering stone.

Stage 3 (or 2): Score preform

Scoring could be done before or after the bones are dried. Archaeologically, preforms in this stage show scoring marks in the vascular groove and on the lateral margins of the metapodial. One specimen has a deep longitudinal cut near the proximal end. Most grooved bone artifacts were split successfully leaving grooving evidence that is not easily illustrated. Figure 7.8 is an abandoned preform with light evidence of deepening the vascular groove, while Figure 7.9 depicts two rare examples of deep grooves left unsplit through manufacture errors. Experimental defleshing and tendon removal also left trace marks, but these were much more superficial than cuts and grooves for splitting.

During replication experiments, bones were heated, simmered, or air-dried both before and after scoring. The goal of the experiments was to determine if scoring and splitting was easier before, after, or during drying. Until the initial groove is established, the burin or other stone tool slipped off mark easily when bone was dry or wet. Slippage made scoring equally unpredictable before or after drying. The hypothesis that scored bones may split predictably

108 during drying is rejected. Air-drying was done during winter, so it is possible that warmer weather causing faster drying would split bones. Further experiments in the summer would better test the hypothesis.

Figure 7.8: Stage 3 or 2 archaeological evidence: Grooved preform for improved longitudinal splitting. Grooving was often just a deepening of the natural vascular groove. This specimen was discarded before it was fully grooved. Note the rare helical fracture. (173.002B, 8MR2322 [NPS]).

Figure 7.9: Stage 3 or 2 archaeological evidence: Micrographs of grooved bone. Left) (173.002, 8MR2322 [NPS]); Right) (190.4, 8MR2322 [NPS]). Note that the grooves are deep but splitting still failed. Artifacts with splitting failures like these were uncommon.

109 Stage 4: Split dried preform

After scoring and drying, the bone is split lengthwise. The precise method is unknown, but replication experiments using indirect percussion on a stone wedge were successful. There is archaeological evidence from Groves’ Orange Midden for chert and antler wedges during the Mount Taylor Period (Purdy 1994:391; Wheeler et al. 2000:148). Wheeler hypothesized wedges were used for woodworking, but experimental replication and research suggests that wedges also could have been used for bone working (d’Errico et al. 2003:260). Archaeologically, most Stage 2 preforms have straight edges along the split and vary in length.

Figure 7.10: Stage 4 archaeological evidence: Bone tool preforms after splitting lengthwise. A) (181.4, 8MR2322 [NPS]); B) (338, 8VO2601); C) (326.1, 8VO2601); D) (95.60.920028.1, 8VO2601); E) (160.54A, 8MR2322 [NPS]); F) (471.5, 8VO53); G) (388.1, 8VO53). Note the rare spiral fracture on B.

110 Stage 5: Lithic shave to shape tool

As stated in the previous section, overall evidence of shaving outnumbers abrasion five to one. This evidence combined with shaving on unfinished tools suggests shaving was usually the method of secondary reduction (also noted in Tyzzer 1936). Artifacts with both shaved and unshaved areas show that the toolmaker held the proximal end and shaved toward the future tool tip (also noted in Semenov 1964:160). A stone tool was most often used, likely a burin or a biface. Abraders or hafted shark teeth were used less frequently. Shaving transforms the U- shaped preform into a more rounded shape. Even U-shaped cross-sections have rounded edges, suggesting some shaping was done even to minimally modified bone tools. In addition to shaping the shaft, the tip was shaved into form during this stage.

Experimental replication proved that abrasion was a much faster and easier reduction method. But abraders wore down faster than lithic tools or shark teeth. Between-site patterns and raw material availability will be explored at the end of this chapter to interpret the surprising preference for shaving over abrasion.

Figure 7.11: Stage 5 archaeological and experimental evidence. Micrographs of characteristic lithic shaving (A,D); shark tooth shaving (B,E); and abrading (C,F). A) (2.02, 8MR2322 [UF]); B) (1020, 8VO2601); C) (361.7, 8VO53); D-F) Experimental replication. Note the consistency between archaeological specimens (top row A-C) and experimental traces (bottom row D-F). Photos A-F are not to equal scale.

111 The low rate of abrading may be simply the result of sequencing. If toolmakers shaved after abrading, shaving traces would obliterate abrasion traces. Perhaps the faster method, abrasion, was used for large scale shaping while lithic shaving was used for finer shaping and retouch. Of the 33 objects with abrasion evidence, 36 percent (n=12) also had evidence of shaving. Of the 165 objects with shaving, only 7 percent (n=12) also had evidence of abrading. This implies abrading was more often used in conjunction with shaving, and shaving was frequently used exclusively. Such a pattern can also be explained by abrasion followed by shaving and obliterating abrading evidence.

Bones may have been presoaked before shaving, but there is not conclusive archaeological evidence for soaking. Replication experimenters agree that presoaked bone is much easier to shave than dry bone (Olsen 1984:90; Penders 1997). According to Semenov, shavings three to four times thicker were taken off when bone was pre-soaked (Semenov 1964:159). Archaic specimens do exhibit deep shaving scars. In fact, both shaving and abrasion scars are deeper on artifacts than on experimental bones (Figure 7.11). The greater strength of prehistoric toolmakers easily accounts for this difference.

Stage 6: Cut proximal end off tool

The original orientation of the bone is preserved in the final tool orientation. The proximal end of the bone becomes the tool base, and the distal end becomes the tool tip. After shaping the bone into tool form, the toolmaker cuts off the proximal end. As Wheeler notes (1994:360), this step is skipped if the tool has an expanding base. The completeness of the debitage indicated that the distal end was always cut first and the proximal end cut last. Proximal end debitage was previously halved or quartered lengthwise, while distal end debitage was intact (Figures 7.12 and 7.5, respectively). After removing the bone’s natural base from the tool, the base is usually shaped further by abrasion or shaving.

112

Figure 7.12: Stage 6 archaeological evidence: Debitage from proximal end of bone at base of tool. A) (23.2, 8VO53); B) (4.2, 8VO53); C) (75.1, 8VO2601); D) (139, 8VO2601); E) (346.1, 8VO2601); F) (376, 8VO2601); G) (353.2, 8VO2601); H) (690.3 8VO2601); I) (348.1, 8VO53); J) (2.02A, 8BR2322 [UF]); K) (33, 8VO2601); L) (490.3, 8VO53).

Stage 7: Finish with polishing or hafting

The final stage of manufacture depends on the intended function of the tool. The tool is finished at Stage 6 if it will be used unhafted and unpolished. Archaeologically, 73 percent (n=217) of finished tools were unpolished. Polish is not only aesthetically pleasing, it provides protection for the bone surface. According to replication experiments and confirmed elsewhere, a polish forms as quickly in as five minutes (Sadek-Koros 1972:371). Tools are sometimes hafted and sometimes bound. Several artifacts exhibited unsmoothed shaving at the haft area but a smoothed shaft, suggesting polishing happened after hafting (through use or intentionally).

113

Figure 7.13: Stage 7 archaeological evidence: Micrograph of binding evidence on tool base. (644.1, 8VO2601).

Methods of Antler Point Manufacture

Making antler points is similar to working other bone. The methods involved are analogous, but the manufacture sequence is less consistent in antler working. Contrasted with the seven linear stages for bone, only four nonlinear antler-working methods were identified. The order of operations varies by toolmaker. This variation is mostly because antler points are very similar in form to natural antler tine tips. Antler point manufacture is unlike bone manufacture where the bone tool form is greatly different from the raw material form. In bone tool production shaping must take place after longitudinal splitting because the sharp splintered edges must be removed. Removal from the antler rack, shaping, boring, and hafting are the only differences that separate antler points from natural antlers. These four differences constitute the four manufacture methods of antler working: Remove distal tine, presoak and shape antler, bore basal socket, and haft antler point.

Remove Distal Tine

Scoring and snapping off the tips of antler tines transforms them into antler point preforms. Thirty-one pieces of antler show evidence of scoring and snapping. As antler is stronger than bone, antler scoring must cover more circumference than bone scoring. Only 31 percent of scored and snapped bone is cut around the entire circumference, while 67 percent of antler was scored in that manner. Penders (1997:49) noted in his replication experiments that

114 antler could not be split unless scored all the way around down to the spongy bone. In my replication experiments, a small antler tine could be snapped only after scoring 100 percent, but it was not necessary to score down to the spongy bone.

Figure 7.14: Antler debitage, scored and snapped full circumference. (270.1, 8MR2322 [NPS]).

Pre-soak and Shape Antler

Antler is a considerably harder material than other bone. Replication experiments showed that like bone, soaking antler makes shaving and scoring easier. The benefit of soaking antler was more noticeable than that of soaking bone. Some assert curved antler tines can be straightened with pressure (Newcomer 1977:293; Penders 1997:48), but replication experiments attempting to straighten soaked antler between cinder blocks were unsuccessful in this project. Since antler points need to be straight for proper projectile function, curved tines were somehow straightened. Shaving may have served this function.

After soaking, antler tines were shaped with abrading or shaving. Artifacts in the sample have more shaving evidence than abrasion (Figure 7.16). The ratio of shaving to abrading on antler is five to two, compared with five to one on bone. The higher frequency of abrading on antler may be related to it being a harder material than other bone. The efficiency of abrading may be more pronounced when working antler.

115

Figure 7.15: Cut and snapped antler debitage with shark tooth shaving. This debitage is evidence of shaving antler before snapping antler. (88.166.1014.1, 8BR193).

Modification Type on Antler 5 4 3 2 Count 1 0 Lithic Shark’s Shaving Abrading shaving tooth unknown shaving

Figure 7.16: Modification type on antler. Only 14 antler artifacts had identifiable manufacture traces. Shaving was evident on 10 artifacts, while abrading was evident on only four.

Bore Basal Socket

The socket on antler projectile points is difficult to bore, and this was sometimes done before preliminary shaping of the antler. An artifact from Salt Springs (Figure 7.17) illustrates

116 an intermediate stage of production of an antler point. The antler tine has been scored and snapped from the beam but is not yet shaped. Bumpy pearls remain on the slightly curved tine. The toolmaker started drilling the socket but left an unfinished shallow and narrow bore. Although the Salt Springs specimen was socketed before the tine was shaped, other debitage shows that points were sometimes shaped before socketing. Sequentially, removing the distal tine tip must happen before boring, but other stages are flexible.

Figure 7.17: Socketed antler point preform with incipient boring and no tine shaping. (28.06, 8MR2322 [UF]).

Bore method is only identifiable on nine of the 22 socketed antler points. Two methods of socketing are present: scooping and rotational drilling. Scooped sockets are bored using a motion in line with the antler tine, while drilled sockets are bored with a twisting motion (Figures 7.18 and 7.19). The Windover antler points are all of the scooped variety (n=4). All antler boring at Salt Springs was rotationally drilled (n=4). Groves’ Orange Midden artifacts show both scooping (n=1) and drilling (n=1). At Groves’ Orange Midden, the scooped point at was slightly older than the drilled point. The sample size is small, but there appears to be a trend over time from scooping to drilling. Bore method on other dated antler point specimens could test this preliminary hypothesis.

117

Figure 7.18: Socketed antler bore manufacture by rotational drilling. Left) (207.11, 8MR2322); Right) (181.3, 8MR2322 [NPS]). Image on right courtesy of Southeastern Archeological Center, National Park Service.

Figure 7.19: Socketed antler bore manufacture by scooping. (36.9.10.57, 8BR246).

Haft antler point

After boring and shaping the antler point, the tool is fitted onto a wooden haft and bound (Figure 7.20). Surface finish on antler points is less smooth than bone points. Manufacture traces are often present on finished antler points (e.g. Figure 7.20). Polish on antler points

118 cannot be attributed to human modification, as polish can also develop naturally when deer use antlers (Currey 2009: Jin and Shipman 2010:92).

Figure 7.20: Evidence of haft binding at base of socketed antler point. Note the shark tooth shaving striations present both beneath binding and on shaft. (432.99, 8BR246).

Antler Lateral Breaks

Preliminary artifact sorting for this project identified a large number of broken antler tips. Lateral breaks on shed antlers rarely occur naturally (Jin and Shipman 2010:98-99). So, snapped antler tips were considered modified throughout this project. The hypothesis that the abundance of snapped antler tips are due to cultural modification was tested. As with other artifacts, measurements such as length, width, height, and weight were recorded. The lengths of antler tines are less varied than the lengths of antler points (smaller range), but the average length is smaller for snapped tips than finished points. The shorter length suggests snapped antler tips were probably not point preforms. Short snapped tips may have been discarded because they were snapped too close to the tip. Given the paucity of Archaic manufacture errors, this is unlikely. Alternatively, antler tine tips may have been used for other purposes such as stone pressure flaking, whether intentionally snapped or naturally broken. Replication experiments illustrated the difficulty of snapping antler without scoring, suggesting that snapping antler without scoring was unlikely. Based on this sample, it is possible to conclude that laterally

119 snapped antler tine tips were not antler point preforms, but they may have had other prehistoric uses.

Figure 7.21: Maximum lengths of antler points and snapped antler tips.

Table 7.2: Maximum length and maximum width of antler points.

MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX n Max Length 67.56 57.6 14.93 142.1 22 Max Width 15.19 6.1 1.9 27.8 22

Table 7.3: Maximum length and maximum width of snapped antler tips.

MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX n Max Length 43.25 41 11.7 89.3 30 Max Width 12.98 10.3 5.9 31.14 30

120 Comparisons of Modification Types Among Sites

Chi-squared tests were performed to determine if there is a relationship between sites and the secondary modification methods of shaving and abrasion. In theory, if secondary modification method was imposed by raw material constraints, there should be congruent differences between modification type by site and abundance of chipped stone, abraders, and shark teeth.

Shark tooth shaving and sites are statistically independent of each other (X2= 12.1573, p= 0.05855) (Figure 7.22). In most collections approximately 5-10 percent of all artifacts exhibited shark tooth shaving. Lake Monroe Outlet Midden did not have any artifacts exhibiting shark tooth shaving, but there were 55 utilized or modified shark teeth at the site (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:7-2). This contradiction at Lake Monroe Outlet Midden suggests a localized cultural preference against the shark tooth shaving of bone.

Percentage of Shark Tooth Shaving by Site Frequency 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Salt Springs (NPS)

Salt Springs (UF)

Blue Spring

Monroe Outlet Midden

Groves Orange Midden

Windover

Gauthier

Figure 7.22: Percent of shark tooth shaving by site. Percent refers to number of objects with evidence of shark tooth shaving at a site over all objects at that site.

121 Overall, lithic shaving varied significantly by site (X2= 20.1372, p= 0.002618). The Groves’ Orange Midden, Gauthier, and Windover collections had over 20 percent of lithic shaving on artifacts (Figure 7.23). Salt Springs and Blue Spring had about 15 percent lithic shaving. Lithic shaving at Lake Monroe Outlet Midden was almost as rare as shark tooth shaving at the site (7%). Lithic shaving does not appear to be related to availability or abundance of stone. Although Windover had only six chipped stone artifacts (Penders 2007:193), there was much evidence of stone tool use on bone (23%); conversely, the Monroe Outlet Midden excavations produced over 15,000 lithic artifacts but stone tool traces are present on only 7 percent of worked bone at the site (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:5-1). Again, this supports shaving method as a localized cultural preference rather than a raw material constraint.

Percentage of Lithic Shaving by Site

Frequency 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Salt Springs (NPS)

Salt Springs (UF)

Blue Spring

Monroe Outlet Midden

Groves Orange Midden

Windover

Gauthier

Figure 7.23: Percent of lithic shaving by site. Percent refers to number of objects with evidence of lithic shaving at a site over all modified bone objects at that site.

Abrading was rarely observed overall but there is significant variation by site (X2= 16.9263, p= 0.009558). Lake Monroe Outlet Midden has the highest frequency of abrading (still only 6%), which complements the lack of shaving in the assemblage (Figure 7.24). Only one

122 sandstone abrader and several unmodified pieces of sandstone were recovered at Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:5-31). When contrasted with the 15,000 chipped stone artifacts (Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001:5-1), it appears that abrading bones was a cultural preference and not constrained by raw material availability. Abrasion evidence was present on up to four percent of the Salt Springs and Groves’ Orange Midden artifacts but on only one percent of the Blue Spring, Windover, and Gauthier collections. Although seemingly minor, these differences are statistically significant. The preference for shaving over abrasion at most sites may be due to localized cultural constructs, or as previously discussed, it may be the result of shaving obliterating the evidence of abrasion.

Percent of Abrading by Site

Frequency 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

Salt Springs (NPS) Salt Springs (UF) Blue Spring Monroe Outlet Midden Groves Orange Midden Windover Gauthier

Figure 7.24: Percent of abrading by site. Percent refers to number of objects with evidence of abrading at a site over all objects at that site.

Comparison of Bone Debitage and Preforms Among Sites

Bone debitage and preforms showed inter-site patterns. Evidence of Stage 1 preform debitage was common among sites, but only Windover (8BR246) and Salt Springs (8MR2322, NPS) have abandoned metapodial shafts (n=2, n=2) with a removed condyle. In contrast, most site assemblages contain distal metapodial debitage. Groves’ Orange Midden (n=11) and Salt

123 Springs have the most discarded epiphyses (n=8, NPS; n=1, UF). The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (n=2) and Gauthier (n=1) collections also have distal metapodial debitage.

Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601) has the most Stage 2 preforms in the form of longitudinally split bones (n=5). Bones split lengthwise (n=2) were also recovered from the NPS excavations at Salt Springs (8MR2322, NPS) and Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53) (n=2). Stage 2 preforms are not represented in the Gauthier, Windover, or Blue Spring assemblages.

Later stage debitage, in the form of cut and snapped preform bases, is most abundant at Groves’ Orange Midden (n=7). The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (n=4) and Salt Springs (UF, n=1) collections also contain late stage debitage in lesser amounts. Blue Spring has only one piece of debitage at all, a discarded cut and snapped decorated base. Sorting through all bone in the Blue Spring (8VO43) collection would likely result in identification of more preforms. The underrepresentation of non-tools at Blue Spring is most likely a sampling error, caused by variation in sorting methods among the sites sampled. The burial sites of Windover and Gauthier have no late stage preforms and debitage.

The lack of late stage preforms and debitage in burials is interesting when contrasted with the Stage 1 evidence. Windover does have two metapodial shafts with a cut condyle, and one distal end of a metapodial was discarded at Gauthier. Inclusion of preforms and debitage in burials could imply a personal connection between the toolmaker and his or her unfinished project. Alternatively, the presence of debitage at Gauthier and “preforms” at Windover could merely be the result of marrow extraction, and not tool making. If that is the case, the cooking debris inclusion in burials is puzzling.

Summary

The patterns observed in archaeological preforms and debitage illustrate the consistent bone tool manufacture chaîne opératoire. My experimental manufacture work informed artifact interpretations as well as hypotheses about production sequences. The bone tool manufacture sequence for the Archaic Period in the St. Johns River Basin was as follows:

124 Stage 1. Remove distal epiphysis Stage 2 (or 3): Low heat-treat bone Stage 3 (or 2): Score preform Stage 4: Split dried preform Stage 5: Lithic shave to shape tool Stage 6: Cut proximal end off tool Stage 7: Finish with polishing or hafting

Antler debitage and preforms do not show a linear sequence, but they display similar production methods as bone working. Antler point manufacture proceeded with the following methods:

-Remove distal tine -Pre-soak and shape antler -Bore basal socket -Haft antler point

Although overall manufacture methods are consistent within the sample, some discrepancies among sites existed. Shaving and abrading patterns from Lake Monroe Outlet Midden and Windover contrast with the frequencies of lithic artifacts at each site, suggesting that secondary reduction strategy reflects a localized cultural preference rather than a raw material constraint. For antler points, the socketing method varies by site. Antler bore methods may have changed over time, from scooping to rotational drilling. Late stage preforms and debitage are most common at Groves’ Orange Midden and notably absent from the burial sites, Windover and Gauthier. Despite minor differences in antler boring and shaving or abrasion preference, the composite Archaic sample showed continuity.

125 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS

Overview and Significance

Before undertaking this project it was necessary to identify several problems in bone tool studies and establish a research plan that overcomes each problem. First, the chosen sample avoids the problem of preservation, as each of the sites has exceptionally preserved bone artifacts. Second, this thesis makes its morphological typology explicit and incorporates classification trends from the literature. Third, it presents the results of microscopic analysis and ties tool types to use patterns. The statistical relationships identified here provide an alternative for researchers who cannot afford time-consuming microwear analysis. To overcome the fourth problem—that archaeological classification systems may not reflect prehistoric choices—this project records and analyzes specific aspects of tool shape. Finally, this thesis fills in a gap in the literature on Florida bone tool manufacture by quantifying patterns from a multi-site sample.

This thesis analyzes use-wear and manufacture traces on 509 artifacts from six Archaic sites in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida. From north to south along the St. Johns, the sites are: Salt Springs (8MR2322), Blue Spring (8VO43), Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Windover (8BR246), and Gauthier (8BR193). The composite sample is examined as a whole to make inferences about bone tool production and use in the Archaic Period of Florida.

Statistically significant relationships between use-wear variation and morphology are identified. The documentation of these relationships leads to a clearer understanding of 1) tool use as it relates to tool type, and 2) tool use as it relates to specific tool shapes. This research provides quantitative data that verify traditional morphological tool typology. When compared with archaeological manufacture evidence, experimental replication informed detailed hypotheses about the bone tool chaîne opératoire. Overall, this thesis identifies more consistencies than differences over time and space in the organization of osseous technology.

This research contributes to an understanding of technological organization, but the implications of this thesis are not limited to studies of technology. In order to make relevant interpretations about past behavior, archaeologists must first understand the artifacts and contexts used as material evidence. Knowing whether a culturally modified piece of bone was used for

126 subsistence or ornamentation is a crucial foundation for behavioral arguments. Like our choices today, the choices people made thousands of years ago about how to create something or how to accomplish a task reflect their culture, values, and personal preferences. This project dissected a single line of evidence—osseous artifacts—in order to better understand the Archaic Period people who lived in the St. Johns River Basin.

Tool Use Conclusions

Existing bone tool classification systems for the study area rely on detailed use-wear analyses of bone tools. Although accurate, use-wear analysis is time-consuming and relies on specialized microwear analysis skills. Statistical evidence between tool use and tool shape will allow future researchers to confidently differentiate between bone tool types based on morphological form.

The first question this thesis answers is “are archaeologically imposed morphological tool “types” functionally relevant?” Based on statistical analysis, the hypothesis that morphological types are unrelated to use-wear is rejected. Wear patterns on 207 tools showed significant relationships with tool type.

Most morphologically defined types have associated functional interpretations, and many of the patterns observed in the archaeological sample are consistent with experimental wear. Awls from the St. Johns River Basin have a significant relationship with wear located near the tip. The awls were most frequently used with moderate force in manners that produced transverse or oblique striations. The same type of wear observed on archaeological awls is present on experimental perforators. Pins examined show no patterns in wear location, wear intensity, or wear direction. The lack of localized wear on pins supports the hypothesis that they were fasteners or hairpins, but the diverse wear intensity suggests pins were either 1) multitools or 2) misidentified. Wear on splinter tools in the sample is also unpatterned. Splinter tools’ expedient manufacture and expedient use may explain the unpatterned wear. Like pins, splinter tools may have had multiple uses prehistorically. Ulna awls have the highest percentage of longitudinal wear as well as the highest percentage of light wear, and they show a relationship with wear at the very tip. Bevel-tipped artifacts studied elsewhere show similar patterns. Flat weaving tools have light and medium wear located at the tip and up the shaft. The location and intensity of wear on flat weaving tools in the sample is consistent with that on experimental

127 weaving tools. Bipoints studied show mostly oblique wear that was localized near one end or midshaft. The interpretation of bipoints as composite fishhooks is plausible based on wear location. But, wear direction and intensity on experimental and archaeological fishhooks does not support the composite fishhook hypothesis. Bone points in the Florida sample show evidence of hafting. The high frequency of gouges and light wear on bone points suggests divergent uses; some points may have been hafted on shafts while others were tools with handles. Antler points from the sample have non-localized, transverse wear. A lack of experimental studies concerning bone and antler projectile striation patterns prevents comparisons between this sample and functional interpretations.

The second question this thesis answers is “what aspects of tool shape influenced prehistoric tool use?” Statistically significant associations between morphological form and wear highlight the characteristics that were considered (consciously or not) as tools were made or chosen for different tasks. Chi-squared tests show significant wear patterns by tool morphology including tip form, shaft form, base form, and cross-section. The following forms show the most evidence of hafting wear: Contracting base form, rounded base form, excurvate shaft form, and U-shaped triangle cross-section. Evidence of haft wear is a statistically significant relationship between the specific tool form and striations in several wear locations near the base. There is an absence of light wear and very light wear on two of the morphological forms associated with haft wear: contracting bases and rounded bases. The other two forms associated with haft wear— excurvate shaft and U-shaped triangle cross-section—have high frequencies of gouges and deep wear. The only other tool morphology with a high frequency of gouges is blunt tip form. Rounded and pointed tips were often used in a transverse direction. While rounded tips show no association with wear location, pointed tips have significant relationships with wear in the first 30 mm from the tip and 40-60 mm from the tip. Chi-squared tests between tool forms and wear locations identified several significant relationships with striations in zones near the very tip. The following morphologies have wear in the first 10 mm from the tip: pointed tips, blunt tips, broken tips, natural bases, contracting bases, rounded bases, expanding bases, parallel shafts, excurvate shafts, round cross-sections, flat cross-sections, and U-shaped triangle cross-sections. Midshaft wear shows significant relationships with pointed tips, stepped tips, broken tips, expanding bases, asymmetrical shafts, flat cross-sections, and plano-convex cross-sections. The most common wear directions are transverse and oblique wear. Transverse wear is especially

128 high on tools with pointed tips, rounded tips, natural bases, or concave bases. Oblique striations are common on tools with a parallel shaft or natural base.

Compared with morphological variables, complete tool length and polish are not as useful to record for functional studies. Polish location and polish intensity did not vary significantly by tool type or by any specific tool shape. Lengths of complete tools did not show significant variation according to tool type or morphology.

In conclusion, this thesis demonstrates that wear patterns vary significantly among different tool types, suggesting archaeological types are related to prehistoric use. People in prehistory did not conceive of bone tool typology in the same way archaeologists do, but specific tool form did affect the decisions of tool use.

Tool Manufacture Conclusions

The third research question this thesis answers is “Did Archaic groups in the St. Johns River Basin have a consistent bone tool production strategy?” Analysis of the six collections showed many similarities in manufacture and a few localized differences. Results support trends in bone tools over time (Chapter 3) and themes in the culture history of the Florida Archaic (Chapter 2). Congruent with archaeological literature from the Paleoindian Period through Contact, the original orientation of the bone is preserved in the final tool orientation. Use of shark teeth for bone tool shaping corroborates Archaic societies’ continued contact with the coast. Since the manufacture sequence is established for the region, this thesis offers details that support the sequence. Contributions include the average length of distal end metapodial debitage, marrow extraction, the straightness of split preform edges, the apparent preference for shaving over abrasion, and the differences between scoring antler versus bone.

Bone Tool Manufacture Sequence

Patterns in archaeological preforms and debitage illustrate the consistent bone tool manufacture chaîne opératoire. Experimental toolmaking informed all artifact interpretations as well as hypotheses about production sequences. A seven-stage methodology is proposed for bone tool manufacture. The bone toolmaking sequence for the Archaic Period in the St. Johns River Basin was as follows:

129 Stage 1. Remove distal epiphysis. Removing the distal epiphysis always began with cutting or scoring the bone. Artifacts show that this cut covered an average of 65 percent of the bone circumference. Patterns in the length of distal end debitage suggests from there was a “sweet-spot” for removing epiphyses at 40 mm, wherein maximum tool length and marrow extraction are considered.

Stage 2 (or 3): Low heat-treat bone. Based on the way heat transforms the mechanical properties of bone, it is hypothesized that Archaic groups heat-treated bone through simmering. Low-temperature heat-treating enhances bone splitting while creating water rich with marrow grease.

Stage 3 (or 2): Score preform. Toolmakers can score the bone preform before or after the bones are dry. Patterned scoring marks illustrates that toolmakers deepened the vascular groove and scored the lateral margins of the metapodial.

Stage 4: Split dried preform. The precise method of splitting remains unknown, but using a stone wedge is plausible. Predominantly long, straight edges in archaeological preforms indicate bone was dry when split and are suggestive of thermal alteration (Stage 2 above).

Stage 5: Lithic shave to shape tool. Archaeological evidence of shaving outnumbered abrasion five to one. Abrading and shaving preferences show significant variation by site. This preference is not linked to raw material availability, suggesting secondary reduction method decisions were cultural and localized.

Stage 6: Cut proximal end off tool. The completeness of the distal versus proximal end debitage indicates that toolmakers always cut the metapodial’s distal end first, and they cut the proximal end last.

Stage 7: Finish with polishing or hafting. The tool is finished at Stage 6 if it will be used unhafted and unpolished. According to this sample, 73 percent (n=217) of finished tools from the Archaic were unpolished.

Antler Point Manufacture Methods

Antler debitage and preforms are less consistent in sequence but display similar production methods as bone working. Archaic antler point manufacture proceeded with the following methods:

130 Remove distal tine. As antler is more difficult to snap than bone, antler scoring must cover more circumference than bone scoring. Only 31 percent of scored and snapped bone was cut around the entire circumference, while 67 percent of antler was scored around the entire circumference.

Pre-soak and shape antler. Toolmakers shaped antler through lithic shaving, shark tooth shaving, or abrading.

Bore basal socket. Toolmakers bored the sockets of Archaic antler points using one of two methods: scooping or drilling. In this sample there is a socketing pattern over time from scooping to drilling.

Haft antler point. After boring and shaping the antler point, toolmakers hafted and bound the antler point.

The proposed manufacture sequences generally agree with previous interpretations of bone tool production in the Florida Archaic. Because this project’s sample size is large and incorporates six sites, more specific descriptions of the order of bone tool manufacture are possible. It is also possible to make hypotheses about change over time and variability in archaeological context.

Future Work

Although this project produced micrographs of most wear at up to 100X magnification, it did not attempt to make specific interpretations of material contacted. This analysis may enrich the conclusions presented above about connections between form and type. Data on materials worked by tool type may show patterns within and among tool forms and tool types.

Experimental and archaeological fracture evidence points to low temperature heat- treatment in the Archaic. Further comparisons of bone fracture patterns between the Early and Middle Archaic may refine this hypothesis. Intentional bone heat-treating before the Middle Archaic could have implications for origins of thermally altering stone, because heat-treating stone began in the Middle Archaic. Although it is impossible to extricate simmering for marrow from heat-treating for enhanced fracture properties, documenting thermal alteration in bone may be the first step of explaining the technology of heat-treating stone.

131 Experimentation with different splitting methods may lead to new hypotheses about prehistoric longitudinal splitting of bone. One such method this work explored is grooving bone and allowing it to split during drying expansion. The experiment was conducted during the winter and was unsuccessful. Repetition of the experiment during Florida’s hot summer may produce different results.

Metatarsals and metacarpals were lumped together as metapodials in this study. Re- examination of all bones identified as deer metapodials (and possibly all identified as large mammal long bone) may document patterns in prehistoric use of front versus hind deer bones. The list of these specimens can be extracted from this project’s database online.

This research presented a preliminary hypothesis that socketed antler point bore method changed over time. Investigation of bore method on other dated antler point specimens will test this hypothesis. Refining and comparing specific radiocarbon dates on the socketed antler points from this sample is also necessary.

Replication tool-use experiments may help identify patterned wear in artifacts. For example, fishing experiments with composite hooks made from replicated bone bipoints would provide comparative microwear. A replication experiment using a bone pin as a hairpin or fastener would demonstrate possible wear patterns for decorative use. Experimentation with bone and antler projectiles is not uncommon, but more observations about microtraces are needed.

The most important contribution of this work for future research is the open-access database online at http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/lib/digcoll/byrd. Other researchers can use this database for further statistical tests. Micrographs organized by site and by field specimen allow others to verify interpretations. Photographs and micrographs also provide comparative images useful to researchers just starting out in worked bone analysis. Hopefully the database will grow as future research accumulates. The online data will be useful in comparing this work with similar projects in Florida, across the Southeast, and perhaps worldwide.

132 APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION FORM

Specimen number: ______Location/Collection: ______

______(mm) max length ______(mm) max width ______(mm) min width ______(mm) height ______(mm) ave. diameter (pins) ______(g) weight n= Tip / Medial / Base Species: ______Element: ______Object Type by Form: ______Type of Modification: ______Wear: ______Polish: ______Degree of wear: Modification 0 1 2 3 4 5 Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Surface 1 2 3 4 5 Shaft Cross-Section: Tip Outline: Shaft Outline: Base Form: pointed parallel round socketed rounded converging square t-topped blunt expanding pointed bifurcated bifurcated excurvate expanding incised broken constricted constricting beveled flat asymmetrical natural spheres stepped stepped flat waisted beveled concave

bi-beveled hollow

133 APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF MICROWEAR

B.1 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and awls. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 20.3642 6.402e-06 10-20 from tip 1 8.271 0.004028 20-30 from tip 1 1.9421 0.1634 30-40 from tip 1 0.1896 0.6632 40-50 from tip 1 2.644 0.1039 50-60 from tip 2 0.1586 0.6905 0-10 from base 1 0.1181 0.7311 10-20 from base 1 0.1181 0.7311 20-30 from base 1 0.0205 0.8862 30-40 from base 1 0.446 0.5042 40-50 from base 1 0.0582 0.8094

B.2 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and pins. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.4934 0.4824 10-20 from tip 1 0.0096 0.9218 20-30 from tip 1 0.0404 0.8407 30-40 from tip 1 0.0064 0.9365 40-50 from tip 1 0.05 0.823 50-60 from tip 1 2.1684 0.1409 0-10 from base 1 0.0065 0.9357 10-20 from base 1 0.0065 0.9357 20-30 from base 1 0.1063 0.7443 30-40 from base 1 1.117 0.2906 40-50 from base 1 0.0689 0.7929

134 B.3 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and flat weaving tools. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 5.4691 0.01936 10-20 from tip 1 0.717 0.3971 20-30 from tip 1 9.344 0.002237 30-40 from tip 1 7.1232 0.00761 40-50 from tip 1 0.2292 0.6321 50-60 from tip 1 2.3456 0.1256 0-10 from base 1 0.4236 0.5151 10-20 from base 1 0.4236 0.5151 20-30 from base 1 0.0076 0.9307 30-40 from base 1 0.1171 0.7322 40-50 from base 1 0.5737 0.4488

B.4 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and ulna awls. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 11.0744 0.0008753 10-20 from tip 1 0.3279 0.5669 20-30 from tip 1 0.0114 0.915 30-40 from tip 1 0.1618 0.6875 40-50 from tip 1 0.1048 0.7461 50-60 from tip 1 1.7568 0.1850 0-10 from base 1 0.2412 0.6234 10-20 from base 1 0.2412 0.6234 20-30 from base 1 0.0042 0.9485 30-40 from base 1 0.036 0.8496 40-50 from base 1 0.3526 0.5526

135 B.5 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and splinter tools. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 1.1113 0.2918 10-20 from tip 1 0.0256 0.8728 20-30 from tip 1 0.1189 0.7302 30-40 from tip 1 3.2568 0.07113 40-50 from tip 1 2.7065 0.09994 50-60 from tip 1 1.0724 0.3004 0-10 from base 1 0.0646 0.7993 10-20 from base 1 0.0646 0.7993 20-30 from base 1 0.0909 0.763 30-40 from base 1 0.0018 0.9658 40-50 from base 1 0.1249 0.7238

B.6 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and bone points. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 1.1884 0.2756 10-20 from tip 1 0.208 0.6483 20-30 from tip 1 0.1217 0.7272 30-40 from tip 1 0.2651 0.6066 40-50 from tip 1 0.1824 0.6693 50-60 from tip 1 0.1059 0.7449 0-10 from base 1 3.5023 0.06129 10-20 from base 1 0.5258 0.4684 20-30 from base 1 47.2079 6.384e-12 30-40 from base 1 15.572 7.942e-05 40-50 from base 1 4.5427 0.03306 50-60 from base 1 4.7867 0.02868 60-70 from base 1 18.2827 1.904e-05

136 B.7 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and bipoints. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.7639 0.3821 10-20 from tip 1 29.3538 6.03e-08 20-30 from tip 1 7.9726 0.004749 30-40 from tip 1 1.4576 0.2273 40-50 from tip 1 1.2349 0.2665 50-60 from tip 1 6.0619 0.01381 0-10 from base 1 1.7387 0.1873 10-20 from base 1 1.7387 0.1873 20-30 from base 1 0.4458 0.5043 30-40 from base 1 0.9062 0.3411 40-50 from base 1 2.1032 0.147 50-60 from base 1 6.0619 0.01381

B.8 Chi-squared tests for relationships between wear locations and antler points. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.0996 0.7523 10-20 from tip 1 0.0105 0.9182 20-30 from tip 1 0.1436 0.7047 30-40 from tip 1 0.0183 0.8925 40-50 from tip 1 0.0034 0.9537 50-60 from tip 1 0.9945 0.3186 0-10 from base 1 3.6859 0.05488 10-20 from base 1 0.0491 0.8246 20-30 from base 1 0.1124 0.7374 30-40 from base 1 0.0057 0.9398 40-50 from base 1 0.1027 0.7486 50-60 from base 1 0.9945 0.3186

137 B.9 Chi-squared tests for relationship between tool morphology and wear. MORPHOLOGY df X2 p<0.05 Base 5929 14012.4 2.2e-16 Tip 4114 7000.812 2.2e-16 Shaft 2178 5084.157 2.2e-16 Cross-Section 4235 7521.68 2.2e-16

B.10 Summary of wear by location by count from tip and base. White indicates five or fewer wear types in this range, so chi-squared tests were not used (except total column). Ranges with ten or fewer records were used with caution. LOCATION (mm) 1 2 3 Total # recorded wear types in range 0-10 from tip 65 30 14 109 10-20 from tip 30 20 14 64 20-30 from tip 18 8 6 22 30-40 from tip 9 5 2 16 40-50 from tip 10 3 5 18 50-60 from tip 3 6 78 87 60-70 from tip 0 0 1 1 70-80 from tip 3 0 1 4 80-90 from tip 0 2 0 2 90-110 from tip 0 0 1 1 0-10 from base 42 4 4 50 10-20 from base 8 6 5 19 20-30 from base 17 8 6 31 30-40 from base 12 9 6 27 40-50 from base 7 0 2 9 50-60 from base 3 3 1 7 60-70 from base 5 0 1 6 100-110 from base 0 2 0 2

138 B.11 Chi-squared tests for relationships between tip forms and wear locations. TIP FORM df X2 p<0.05 Pointed 121 263.9166 1.210e-12 Rounded 121 250.2734 4.927e-11 Blunt 121 180.2706 0.0003859 Beveled 121 103.7845 0.8688 Stepped 121 233.5257 3.690e-09 Flat 121 91.0351 0.9807 Broken 121 187.4984 0.0001013

B.12 Chi-squared tests for relationships between pointed tip form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 40.5569 1.910e-10 10-20 from tip 1 9.6842 4.564e-07 20-30 from tip 1 7.617 0.005782 30-40 from tip 1 0.0038 0.9511 40-50 from tip 1 10.0034 0.001563 50-60 from tip 2 9.713 0.007778 0-10 from base 1 1.1278 0.2882 10-20 from base 1 0.2414 0.6232 20-30 from base 1 2.4772 0.1155 30-40 from base 1 0.6811 0.4092 40-50 from base 1 1.6479 0.1992

139 B.13 Chi-squared tests for relationships between rounded tip form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.3227 0.57 10-20 from tip 1 0.3227 0.57 20-30 from tip 1 1.1474 0.2841 30-40 from tip 1 0.1686 0.6814 40-50 from tip 1 0.3054 0.5805 50-60 from tip 1 1.3326 0.2483 0-10 from base 1 0.3227 0.57 10-20 from base 1 0.3227 0.57 20-30 from base 1 1.1474 0.2841 30-40 from base 1 0.1686 0.6814 40-50 from base 1 0.1709 0.6794

B.14 Chi-squared tests for relationships between blunt tip form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 7.1644 0.007437 10-20 from tip 1 0.6106 0.4346 20-30 from tip 1 1.8244 0.1768 30-40 from tip 1 6.3441 0.01178 40-50 from tip 1 0.4615 0.4969 50-60 from tip 1 0.0221 0.8818 0-10 from base 1 0.0041 0.9491 10-20 from base 1 0.0041 0.9491 20-30 from base 1 0.112 0.7379 30-40 from base 1 0.1357 0.7126 40-50 from base 1 0.0012 0.9722

140 B.15 Chi-squared tests for relationships between stepped tip form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 1.9827 0.1591 10-20 from tip 1 5.5617 0.01836 20-30 from tip 1 14.6385 0.0001302 30-40 from tip 1 0.4774 0.4896 40-50 from tip 1 7.75 0.005371 50-60 from tip 1 1.0582 0.3036 0-10 from base 1 1.9827 0.1591 10-20 from base 1 1.4237 0.2328 20-30 from base 1 1.0582 0.3036 30-40 from base 1 1.0582 0.3036 40-50 from base 1 0.8032 0.3701

B.16 Chi-squared tests for relationships between broken tips and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 12.3749 0.0004351 10-20 from tip 1 3.1434 0.07623 20-30 from tip 1 1.739 0.1873 30-40 from tip 1 1.6057 0.2051 40-50 from tip 1 0.0339 0.8538 50-60 from tip 1 12.5763 0.0003907 0-10 from base 1 4e-04 0.9849 10-20 from base 1 0.0373 0.8468 20-30 from base 1 0.1704 0.6797 30-40 from base 1 1.6057 0.2051 40-50 from base 1 0.0063 0.9367

B.17 Chi-squared tests for relationship between shaft form and wear locations. SHAFT FORM df X2 p<0.05 Parallel 121 152.9037 0.02643 Converging 121 142.3029 0.09034 Asymmetrical 121 205.1429 2.78e-06 Excurvate 121 306.9926 < 2.2e-16

141 B.18 Chi-squared tests for relationship between between parallel shaft form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 21.0665 4.436e-06 10-20 from tip 1 14.821 0.0001182 20-30 from tip 1 4.895 0.02693 30-40 from tip 1 1.5919 0.2070 40-50 from tip 1 0.0039 0.95 50-60 from tip 1 1.5919 0.2070 0-10 from base 1 0.0287 0.8654 10-20 from base 1 0.3393 0.5602 20-30 from base 1 0.3393 0.5602 30-40 from base 1 0.1561 0.6928 40-50 from base 1 0.8023 0.3704

B.19 Chi-squared tests for relationship between excurvate shaft form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 20.0032 7.731e-06 10-20 from tip 1 6.1813 0.01291 20-30 from tip 1 0.6824 0.4088 30-40 from tip 1 0.0286 0.8657 40-50 from tip 1 0.0085 0.9267 50-60 from tip 1 0.2219 0.6376 0-10 from base 1 0.0654 0.7982 10-20 from base 1 20.0032 7.731e-06 20-30 from base 1 3.9677 0.04638 30-40 from base 1 7.8704 0.005025 40-50 from base 1 0.1259 0.7227

142 B.20 Chi-squared tests for relationship between asymmetrical shaft form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 2.0875 0.1485 10-20 from tip 1 5.8951 0.01518 20-30 from tip 1 7.0167 0.008075 30-40 from tip 1 0.0377 0.8461 40-50 from tip 1 4.8222 0.02810 50-60 from tip 1 25.8958 2.381e-06 0-10 from base 1 0.1683 0.6816 10-20 from base 1 0.0585 0.8088 20-30 from base 1 0.4801 0.4884 30-40 from base 1 0.5132 0.4738 40-50 from base 1 1e-04 0.9941

B.21 Chi-squared tests for relationship between general base form and wear locations. BASE FORM df X2 p<0.05 Natural 121 236.9194 1.574e-09 Straight 121 279.1133 1.627e-14 Contracting 121 410.1865 2.2e-16 Expanding 121 120.5313 0.4949 Rounded 121 403.1321 2.2e-16 Pointed 121 331.6622 2.2e-16 Concave 121 372.983 2.2e-16

143 B.22 Chi-squared tests for relationships between natural base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 2.876 0.08991 10-20 from tip 1 8.8012 0.003010 20-30 from tip 1 9.3534 0.002226 30-40 from tip 1 3.6567 0.05585 40-50 from tip 1 0.0053 0.942 50-60 from tip 1 1.9445 0.3782 0-10 from base 1 0.052 0.8197 10-20 from base 1 1.4505 0.2285 20-30 from base 1 1.4949 0.2215 30-40 from base 1 4.3324 0.03739 40-50 from base 1 0.1669 0.6829

B.23 Chi-squared tests for relationships between straight base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 1.8062 0.1790 10-20 from tip 1 4.5633 0.03266 20-30 from tip 1 0.1781 0.673 30-40 from tip 1 1.8413 0.1748 40-50 from tip 1 0.0185 0.8918 50-60 from tip 1 0.1931 0.908 0-10 from base 1 56.634 5.25e-14 10-20 from base 1 2.3346 0.1265 20-30 from base 1 29.4218 5.822e-08 30-40 from base 1 13.6629 0.0002187 40-50 from base 1 0.0161 0.8991

144 B.24 Chi-squared tests for relationships between rounded base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p=0.05 0-10 from tip 1 6.5007 0.01078 10-20 from tip 1 2.3047 0.1290 20-30 from tip 1 0.9095 0.3403 30-40 from tip 1 0.3877 0.5335 40-50 from tip 1 0.2928 0.5884 50-60 from tip 1 0.0744 0.9635 0-10 from base 1 0.5122 0.4742 10-20 from base 1 28.8235 7.928e-08 20-30 from base 1 24.7939 6.38e-07 30-40 from base 1 25.1409 5.329e-07 40-50 from base 1 0.6791 0.4099

B.25 Chi-squared tests for relationships between contracting base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p< 0.05 0-10 from tip 1 9.2209 0.002393 10-20 from tip 1 4.4043 0.03585 20-30 from tip 1 10.7529 0.001041 30-40 from tip 1 2.1533 0.1423 40-50 from tip 1 1.162 0.2811 50-60 from tip 1 1.162 0.2811 0-10 from base 1 4.2647 0.03891 10-20 from base 1 4.2647 0.03891 20-30 from base 1 0.5911 0.001041 30-40 from base 1 12.6298 0.0003796 40-50 from base 1 2.1533 0.1423

145 B.26 Chi-squared tests for relationships between concave base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.7686 0.3807 10-20 from tip 1 0.6805 0.4094 20-30 from tip 1 7.9932 0.004695 30-40 from tip 1 18.4505 1.744e-05 40-50 from tip 1 1.2388 0.2657 50-60 from tip 1 2.5996 0.1069 0-10 from base 1 4.3324 0.03739 10-20 from base 1 2.5996 0.1069 20-30 from base 1 2.5996 0.1069 30-40 from base 1 18.4505 1.744e-05 40-50 from base 1 2.109 0.1464

B.27 Chi-squared tests for relationships between pointed base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p< 0.05 0-10 from tip 1 1.7605 0.1846 10-20 from tip 1 1.8413 0.1748 20-30 from tip 1 0.1001 0.7518 30-40 from tip 1 11.4321 0.0007219 40-50 from tip 1 0.5887 0.4429 50-60 from tip 1 3.7646 0.05235 0-10 from base 1 0.9076 0.3408 10-20 from base 1 0.9076 0.3408 20-30 from base 1 0.1286 0.7199 30-40 from base 1 0.3877 0.5335 40-50 from base 1 1.1428 0.2851

146 B.28 Chi-squared tests for relationships between expanding base form and wear locations. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p< 0.05 0-10 from tip 1 3.9329 0.04735 10-20 from tip 1 0.1964 0.6577 20-30 from tip 1 7.5854 0.005884 30-40 from tip 1 3.3316 0.06796 40-50 from tip 1 5.0348 0.02484 50-60 from tip 1 1.9317 0.1646 0-10 from base 1 1.2466 0.2642 10-20 from base 1 0.8473 0.3573 20-30 from base 1 0.5911 0.442 30-40 from base 1 0.5911 0.442 40-50 from base 1 3.3316 0.06796

B.29 Chi-squared tests for relationships between cross-section and overall wear locations. CROSS-SECTION df X2 p<0.05 Round 121 152.4839 0.02788 Oval 121 141.9749 0.09346 Square 121 113.1502 0.6818 Flat 121 198.8057 1.064e-5 U-shaped 121 142.5382 0.08815 U-shaped triangle 121 260.2362 3.34e-12 Plano-convex 121 623.1701 2.2e-16

147 B.30 Chi-squared tests for relationship between round cross-section and locations of wear. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 9.3684 0.002208 10-20 from tip 1 1.1375 0.2862 20-30 from tip 1 0.2598 0.6103 30-40 from tip 1 0.0059 0.9386 40-50 from tip 1 0.0143 0.905 50-60 from tip 2 3.3244 0.1897 0-10 from base 1 0.0879 0.7669 10-20 from base 1 1.2156 0.2702 20-30 from base 1 0.0879 0.7669 30-40 from base 1 0.0397 0.842 40-50 from base 1 0.2982 0.585

B.31 Chi-squared tests for relationship between flat cross-section and locations of wear. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 5.3907 0.02024 10-20 from tip 1 6.9024 0.008608 20-30 from tip 1 2.7799 0.09545 30-40 from tip 1 0.7541 0.3852 40-50 from tip 1 0.5279 0.4675 50-60 from tip 1 10.8073 0.0045 0-10 from base 1 0.0579 0.8099 10-20 from base 1 0.0579 0.8099 20-30 from base 1 0.7201 0.3961 30-40 from base 1 0.7541 0.3852 40-50 from base 1 0.0196 0.8887

148 B.32 Chi-squared tests for relationship between U-shaped triangular cross-section and locations of wear. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 4.1021 0.04283 10-20 from tip 1 1.0385 0.3082 20-30 from tip 1 0.1636 0.6858 30-40 from tip 1 0.3529 0.5525 40-50 from tip 1 2.2224 0.1360 50-60 from tip 1 1.3226 0.2501 0-10 from base 1 0.5659 0.4519 10-20 from base 1 14.563 0.0001355 20-30 from base 1 20 5.095e-06 30-40 from base 1 14.9714 0.0001092 40-50 from base 1 0.8735 0.35

B.33 Chi-squared tests for relationship between plano-convex cross-section and locations of wear. LOCATION (mm) df X2 p<0.05 0-10 from tip 1 0.1022 0.7492 10-20 from tip 1 7.8744 0.005014 20-30 from tip 1 3.6976 0.05449 30-40 from tip 1 0.0187 0.8913 40-50 from tip 1 0.0035 0.9525 50-60 from tip 1 9.4544 0.008851 0-10 from base 1 0.0498 0.8234 10-20 from base 1 0.1916 0.6616 20-30 from base 1 0.1114 0.7386 30-40 from base 1 16.865 4.014e-05 40-50 from base 1 0.1037 0.7475

149 B.34 Analysis of Variance (AOV) between tip width and wear locations measured from base. LOCATION (mm) df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value p(>F) 0-10 from base 1 0.95 0.95 0.1955 0.6594 10-20 from base 1 1.08E-05 1.08E-05 2.22E-06 0.998815 20-30 from base 1 3.89 3.89 0.7966 0.374306 30-40 from base 1 7.17 7.17 1.4703 0.228248 40-50 from base 1 0.39 0.39 0.0807 0.776915 60-70 from base 1 4.47E-03 4.47E-03 0.0009 0.975925 2nd 10-20 from base 1 0.81 0.81 0.1668 0.683865 2nd 20-30 from base 1 1.17 1.17 0.2402 0.625202 2nd 30-40 from base 1 5.01 5.01 1.0264 0.313524 2nd 50-60 from base 1 3.37 3.37 0.6908 0.407946 3rd 0-10 from base 1 0.27 0.27 0.056 0.813417 3rd 10-20 from base 1 42.03 42.03 8.6149 0.004163 3rd 20-30 from base 1 7.51 7.51 1.5392 0.217728 3rd 40-50 from base 1 19.11 19.11 3.9166 0.050647 Residuals 97 473.21 4.88

B.35 AOV between diameter and wear locations measured from base. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 0-10 from base 1 0.44 0.44 0.0758 0.7834 10-20 from base 1 0.001646 0.001646 0.0003 0.9865 20-30 from base 1 13.01 13.01 2.2539 0.1351 30-40 from base 1 13.16 13.16 2.2795 0.1329 40-50 from base 1 2.41 2.41 0.4167 0.5195 60-70 from base 1 4.47 4.47 0.7749 0.3799 2nd 10-20 from base 1 4.34 4.34 0.7513 0.3873 2nd 20-30 from base 1 5.06 5.06 0.8758 0.3507 2nd 30-40 from base 1 2.3 2.3 0.3975 0.5292 2nd 50-60 from base 1 4.98 4.98 0.8625 0.3543 2nd 100-110 from base 1 0.06 0.06 0.0105 0.9186 3rd 0-10 from base 1 8.13 8.13 1.4074 0.2371 3rd 10-20 from base 1 0.04 0.04 0.0061 0.9376 3rd 20-30 from base 1 4.62 4.62 0.7993 0.3726 Residuals 173 998.96 5.77

150 B.36 AOV between height and wear locations measured from base. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 0-10 from base 1 63.3 63.3 2.1514 0.14434 10-20 from base 1 27.8 27.8 0.9436 0.33278 20-30 from base 1 17 17 0.5765 0.44876 30-40 from base 1 55 55 1.8705 0.17328 40-50 from base 1 4 4 0.1347 0.71404 60-70 from base 1 0.9 0.9 0.0308 0.86099 2nd 20-30 from base 1 73.1 73.1 2.4841 0.11692 2nd 30-40 from base 1 103.2 103.2 3.5079 0.06285 2nd 50-60 from base 1 6 6 0.2032 0.65273 2nd 100-110 from base 1 13.9 13.9 0.4717 0.49316 3rd 0-10 from base 1 23.9 23.9 0.8132 0.36848 Residuals 165 4855.6 29.4

B.37 AOV between minimum width and wear locations measured from base. LOCATION (mm) df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value p(>F) 0-10 from base 1 6.8 6.8 0.184 0.6682 10-20 from base 1 1.7 1.7 0.0463 0.8298 20-30 from base 1 41.9 41.9 1.1415 0.286 30-40 from base 1 71 71 1.9345 0.1651 40-50 from base 1 0.1 0.1 0.0022 0.9627 60-70 from base 1 24.3 24.3 0.6614 0.4166 2nd 10-20 from base 1 28.9 28.9 0.7879 0.3753 2nd 20-30 from base 1 14.1 14.1 0.3831 0.5363 2nd 30-40 from base 1 9.1 9.1 0.2477 0.619 2nd 50-60 from base 1 2.9 2.9 0.079 0.7788 2nd 100-110 from base 1 21 21 0.5732 0.4495 3rd 0-10 from base 1 89.1 89.1 2.4297 0.1199 3rd 10-20 from base 1 3.5 3.5 0.0967 0.756 3rd 20-30 from base 1 26 26 0.7092 0.4002 2ns 40-50 from base 1 8.8 8.8 0.2403 0.6243 Residuals 369 13537.5 36.7

151 B.38 AOV between tip widths and wear measured from the tip. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 10-20 from tip 1 1.79 1.79 0.3557 0.55229 20-30 from tip 1 12.56 12.56 2.4989 0.11715 30-40 from tip 1 14.29 14.29 2.8426 0.09498 40-50 from tip 1 0.23 0.23 0.0452 0.83204 50-60 from tip 1 3.44 3.44 0.6853 0.40977 2nd 0-10 from tip 1 12.75 12.75 2.5369 0.11444 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 11.19 11.19 2.2263 0.13889 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 5.93E-06 5.93E-06 1.18E-06 0.99914 2nd 30-40 from tip 1 1.21 1.21 0.2401 0.62524 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 5.67 5.67 1.1278 0.29085 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 1.65 1.65 0.3283 0.56799 2nd 40-50 from tip 1 7.16 7.16 1.4247 0.23551 2nd 50-60 from tip 1 0.41 0.41 0.0813 0.77611 Residuals 98 492.56 5.03

B.39 AOV between height and wear measured from the tip LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 10-20 from tip 1 166.2 166.2 5.6278 0.01884 20-30 from tip 1 3.9 3.9 0.133 0.71582 30-40 from tip 1 1.3 1.3 0.0424 0.83713 40-50 from tip 1 82 82 2.7766 0.09756 50-60 from tip 1 0.3 0.3 0.0103 0.91944 2nd 0-10 from tip 1 55.7 55.7 1.8853 0.17161 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 24.1 24.1 0.8169 0.36742 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 2.6 2.6 0.0891 0.76573 2nd 30-40 from tip 1 33.3 33.3 1.1275 0.28988 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 18.3 18.3 0.6191 0.43251 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 10.6 10.6 0.3584 0.55025 2nd 40-50 from tip 1 1 1 0.0338 0.85435 Residuals 164 4844.4 29.5

152 B.40 AOV between maximum width and wear measured from the tip. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 10-20 from tip 1 565 565 4.202 0.04093 20-30 from tip 1 26 26 0.195 0.65903 30-40 from tip 1 41 41 0.3059 0.58048 40-50 from tip 1 78 78 0.5796 0.44685 50-60 from tip 1 38 38 0.281 0.59632 2nd 0-10 from tip 1 178 178 1.3219 0.25083 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 458 458 3.4051 0.06562 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 55 55 0.409 0.52279 2nd 30-40 from tip 1 19 19 0.144 0.70453 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 279 279 2.0781 0.15009 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 11 11 0.0818 0.77505 2nd 40-50 from tip 1 61 61 0.455 0.50029 2nd 50-60 from tip 1 6 6 0.046 0.83021 Residuals 473 63601 134

B.41 AOV between minimum width and wear measured from the tip. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 10-20 from tip 1 356 356 10.4369 0.001346 20-30 from tip 1 125.8 125.8 3.6897 0.055517 30-40 from tip 1 112 112 3.2831 0.070806 40-50 from tip 1 98.4 98.4 2.8838 0.090311 50-60 from tip 1 54.2 54.2 1.5892 0.208237 2nd 0-10 from tip 1 248.4 248.4 7.2835 0.007277 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 160.6 160.6 4.7096 0.030628 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 10.3 10.3 0.3011 0.583552 2nd 30-40 from tip 1 7.8 7.8 0.2274 0.633715 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 0.4 0.4 0.012 0.91286 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 25.1 25.1 0.7353 0.391716 2nd 40-50 from tip 1 20.4 20.4 0.5967 0.440317 2nd 50-60 from tip 1 13.2 13.2 0.387 0.534255 Residuals 371 12654.2 34.1

153 B.42 AOV between diameter and wear measured from the tip. LOCATION (mm) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) 10-20 from tip 1 3.43 3.43 0.5963 0.44103 20-30 from tip 1 33.28 33.28 5.7802 0.01726 30-40 from tip 1 12.85 12.85 2.2313 0.13705 40-50 from tip 1 0.09 0.09 0.0164 0.89836 50-60 from tip 1 1.54 1.54 0.2677 0.60553 2nd 0-10 from tip 1 7.38 7.38 1.2814 0.2592 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 2.63E-06 2.63E-06 4.57E-07 0.99946 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 0.4 0.4 0.0703 0.79116 2nd 30-40 from tip 1 0.23 0.23 0.0404 0.84093 2nd 10-20 from tip 1 0.01 0.01 0.0009 0.97619 2nd 20-30 from tip 1 0.02 0.02 0.0042 0.94851 2nd 40-50 from tip 1 0.93 0.93 0.1611 0.68862 2nd 50-60 from tip 1 0.02 0.02 0.0029 0.95724 Residuals 174 1001.78 5.76

B.43 AOV between cross-section form and minimum width. Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Cross-section 29 4262.5 147 5.4217 1.33e-15 Residuals 355 9624.1 27.1

B.44 AOV between cross-section form and maximum width. Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Cross-section 34 16902 497 4.6315 9.00E-15 Residuals 452 48515 107

B.45 AOV between cross-section form and height. Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Cross-section 22 1833.5 83.3 3.7635 5.82E-07 Residuals 154 3410.2 22.1

154 B.46 AOV between cross-section form and diameter. Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Cross-Section 30 501.23 16.71 4.678 7.80E-11 Residuals 157 560.73 3.57

B.47 AOV between shaft form and maximum width. Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Shaft 17 19791 1164 11.967 < 2.2e-16 Residuals 469 45626 97

B.48 Chi-squared test for relationship between wear direction and morphological form. MORPHOLOGY df X2 p<0.05 Shaft form 72 127.2503 6.48e-05 Base form 196 257.2453 0.002169 Tip Form 136 248.7524 1.251e-08 Cross-Section Form 140 197.3575 0.001015

B.49 Chi-squared tests for relationship between wear direction and cross-section. Although an initial chi-squared test showed a relationship between wear direction and cross-section type, no specific relationship was significant. CROSS-SECTION df X2 p<0.05 Round 4 4.5842 0.3327 Flat 4 1.4298 0.839 Oval 4 4.1562 0.3853 U-shaped 4 3.8073 0.4327 U-shaped triangular 4 3.2627 0.5149 Plano-convex 8 8.007 0.4328 Square 4 3.8941 0.4205

155 B.50 Chi-squared test for relationship between tip form and wear direction. TIP FORM df X2 p<0.05 Pointed 4 39.9665 4.398e-08 Rounded 4 13.1739 0.01046 Blunt 4 2.29 0.6826 Beveled 4 3.1595 0.5315 Stepped 4 8.8012 0.06627 Flat 4 4.2127 0.378 Broken 4 6.5705 0.1604

B.51 Chi-squared tests for a relationship between wear direction and shaft form. SHAFT FORM df X2 p<0.05 Parallel 4 74.4 2.669e-15 Converging 4 5.4763 0.2418 Asymmetrical 4 10.923 0.02744 Excurvate 4 10.8994 0.02772

B.52 Chi-squared test for relationship between parallel shaft form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION X2 p<0.05 Transverse 40.7863 1.698e-10 Oblique 48.0802 4.091e-12 Longitudinal 19.4513 1.032e-05

B.53 Chi-squared test for relationship between excurvate shaft form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION X2 p<0.05 Transverse 12.8322 0.0003407 Oblique 24.4884 7.476e-07

156 B.54 Chi-squared tests for relationship between wear direction and base form. BASE FORM df X2 p<0.05 Natural 4 27.1535 1.851e-05 Straight 4 5.6522 0.2267 Contracting 4 19.9659 0.0005072 Expanding 4 2.3814 0.666 Rounded 4 17.0467 0.001893 Pointed 4 5.2657 0.2611 Concave 4 36.4028 2.391e-07

B.55 Chi-squared tests for relationship between natural base form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION df X2 p<0.05 Transverse 1 29.0724 6.972e-08 Oblique 1 10.6711 0.001088 Longitudinal 1 0.6292 0.4277

B.56 Chi-squared tests for relationship between contracting base form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION df X2 p<0.05 Transverse 1 11.2759 0.0007852 Oblique 1 27.0435 1.989e-07 Longitudinal 1 0.9313 0.3345

B.57 Chi-squared tests for relationships between rounded base form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION df X2 p<0.05 Transverse 1 7.0024 0.00814 Oblique 1 6.9993 0.008154 Longitudinal 1 0.4395 0.5074

B.58 Chi-squared tests for relationships between concave base form and wear direction. WEAR DIRECTION df X2 p<0.05 Transverse 1 4.3064 0.03797 Oblique 1 2.6626 0.1027 Longitudinal 1 0.1729 0.6775

157 B.59 Chi-squared tests for relationships between morphology and wear intensity. MORPHOLOGY df X2 p<0.05 Cross-Section 175 297.0653 2.357e-08 Base Form 245 327.9661 0.0003106 Tip Form 170 284.1099 9.353e-08 Shaft Form 90 182.8089 2.747e-08 Tool Type 85 198.2859 4.823e-11

B.60 Chi-squared test for relationship between wear intensity and cross-section type. CROSS-SECTION df X2 p<0.05 Round 5 7.2798 0.2006 Flat 5 17.7766 0.00324 Oval 5 6.0798 0.2985 U-shaped 5 9.1078 0.1048 U-shaped triangular 5 47.471 4.554e-09 Plano-convex 5 14.5711 0.01236 Square 5 3.8266 0.5746

B.61 Frequencies of wear intensity for flat, U-shaped, and plano-convex cross-sections. Percents refer to number of tools by cross-section exhibiting that type of wear over total number of tools for that cross-section type with wear recorded. CROSS-SECTION Gouge Deep Medium Light Very Light Flat 4.7% 14% 16% 19.5% 0% U-shaped triangular 31.4% 25.8% 15.1% 12.6% 28.6% Plano-convex 11.6% 6.5% 6.6% 5.7% 14.3%

B.62 Chi-squared test for relationship between tip form and wear intensity. TIP FORM df X2 p<0.05 Pointed 5 25.8065 9.729e-05 Rounded 5 6.558 0.2556 Blunt 5 20.3776 0.001061 Beveled 5 9.8315 0.08015 Stepped 5 14.4853 0.01280 Flat 5 10.5488 0.0611 Broken 5 9.5505 0.08902

158 B.63 Chi-squared test for relationship between base form and wear intensity. BASE FORM df X2 p<0.05 Natural 5 13.3248 0.02052 Straight 5 2.6452 0.7545 Contracting 5 21.7986 0.0005718 Expanding 5 2.9263 0.7113 Rounded 5 12.3496 0.0303 Pointed 5 8.1208 0.1497 Concave 5 7.4722 0.1878

B.64 Chi-squared test for relationship between shaft form and wear intensity. SHAFT FORM df X2 p<0.05 Parallel 5 53.2738 2.955e-10 Converging 5 4.3638 0.4983 Asymmetrical 5 5.4462 0.3639 Excurvate 5 23.5209 0.0002683

B.65 Chi-squared tests for relationships between morphological features and wear frequency. MORPHOLOGY df X2 p<0.05 Cross-Section 46 60.1762 0.0783 Base Form 48 31.7527 0.966 Tip Form 32 31.5561 0.4889 Shaft Form 26 28.6689 0.3264 Tool Type 32 37.9047 0.2179

B.66 Chi-squared test for relationship between polish location and morphological characteristics. MORPHOLOGY df X2 p<0.05 Cross-section Form 276 250.85 0.5264 Tip Form 276 237.1019 0.3599 Base Form 276 156.2569 0.5908 Shaft Form 276 109.3965 0.6299

159 B.67 Chi-squared test for relationship between polish and object type. POLISH df X2 p<0.05 Polish Location 276 294.4881 0.2124 Polish Intensity 96 91.7039 0.6051

B.68 ANOVA test among mean lengths of complete tools by type, including awls, pins, weaving tools, and points. The second test includes splinter tools. df Sum Sq Mean Sq F-value Pr(>F) Bone Tool Types 5 12379 2476 1.8924 0.1161 Residuals 42 54949 1308 Bone Tool Types Including 6 24274 4046 3.3306 0.008003 Splinter Tools Residuals 48 58304 1215

B.69 ANOVA test for complete tool length and cross-section, tip, shaft, and base forms. MORPHOLOGY df Sum Sq Mean Sq F-value Pr (>F)

Tool Cross-Section 20 29072 1454 0.9341 0.5497 Tool Cross-Section Residuals 54 84034 1556 NA NA Tool Tip Form 17 21235 1249 0.775 0.7127 Tool Tip Form Residuals 57 91871 1612 NA NA Tool Shaft Form 15 33133 2209 1.6296 0.09323 Tool Shaft Form Residuals 59 79974 1355 NA NA Tool Base Form 30 39468 1316 0.7861 0.7538 Tool Base Form Residuals 44 73638 1674 NA NA

B.70 Tip form representation by site. All numbers are percents. Percent indicates number of objects with tip form type at a site over total number of tools with specified tip form. SITE Pointed Rounded Blunt Broken Beveled Stepped Flat Blue Spring 6.8 9.8 8.8 6.3 8.3 9.1 0.0 Gauthier 6.8 3.3 0.0 9.4 50.0 0.0 0.0 Groves’ Orange 31.8 19.7 20.6 28.1 0.0 9.1 33.3 Monroe Outlet 14.8 18.0 17.6 6.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 Salt Springs NPS 15.9 23.0 32.4 18.8 0.0 18.2 22.2 Salt Springs UF 5.7 11.5 11.8 18.8 0.0 36.4 11.1 Windover 17.0 14.8 8.8 12.5 41.7 9.1 33.3

160 B.71 Cross-section representation by site. All numbers are percents. Percent indicates number of objects with cross-section type at a site over total number of tools with specified cross-section. Square U-Shaped U-Shaped Flat Oval Round Plano- SITE Triangle Convex Blue Spring 4.3 11.3 6.5 14.0 10.4 11.3 13.6 Gauthier 0.0 1.9 1.9 23.3 14.6 3.8 4.5 Groves’ Orange 26.1 39.6 29.6 20.9 10.4 22.6 27.3 Monroe Outlet 4.3 7.5 16.7 7.0 18.8 12.8 27.3 Salt Springs NPS 34.8 22.6 30.6 16.3 18.8 27.1 18.2 Salt Springs UF 13.0 5.7 9.3 18.6 12.5 12.0 9.1 Windover 17.4 11.3 5.6 14.0 14.6 10.5 0.0

B.72 Base form representation by site. All numbers are percents. Percent indicates number of objects with base form at a site over total number of tools with specified base form. SITE Natural Straight Pointed Round Expanding Contracting Blue Spring 3.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 4.8 Gauthier 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 Groves’ Orange 36.3 29.0 44.4 50.0 20.0 61.9 Monroe Outlet 15.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 20.0 9.5 Salt Springs NPS 5.0 19.4 11.1 16.7 6.7 9.5 Salt Springs UF 10.0 3.2 22.2 8.3 20.0 0.0 Windover 18.8 29.0 22.2 25.0 6.7 14.3

B.73 Shaft form representation by site. All numbers are percents. Percent indicates number of objects with shaft form type at a site over total number of tools with specified shaft form. SITE Parallel Converging Asymmetrical Excurvate Blue Spring 15.2 5.7 8.3 4.5 Gauthier 5.3 10.0 11.1 0.0 Groves’ Orange 31.6 24.3 22.2 27.3 Monroe Outlet 12.3 12.9 8.3 4.5 Salt Springs NPS 19.9 24.3 16.7 18.2 Salt Springs UF 9.9 8.6 5.6 9.1 Windover 5.3 12.9 27.8 36.4

161 B.74 Tool type and levels by site. Gauthier was excluded because not much provenience information was recorded. Windover was excluded because SITE df X2 p<0.05 Salt Springs (NPS) 360 563.5524 3.486e-11 Salt Springs (UF) 80 88.1423 0.2497 Blue Spring 91 114.125 0.05095 Monroe Outlet 168 152.9135 0.7917 Groves’ Orange 364 337.1559 0.8403

B.75 Salt Springs modified bone type by level. TOOL TYPE LV 1 LV 2 LV 3 LV 4 LV 5 LV 6 LV 7 LV 8 LV 9 antler point 2 1 1 awl 1 1 1 billet 1 1 1 bone point 2 1 1 1 2 1 cut bone 10 3 1 12 1 1 1 cut bone debitage 3 2 3 5 flat weaving tool 1 lateral break 2 2 3 2 modified bone 4 4 3 1 1 modified bone debitage 2 pin 1 3 4 2 3 1 preform 1 splinter tool 1 ulna awl 1

162 REFERENCES

Adovasio, J.M., R.L. Andrews, D.C. Hyland, and J.S. Illingworth 2001 Perishable Industries From the Windover Bog: An Unexpected Window Into the Florida Archaic. North American Archaeologist 22:1-90.

Amick, D.S., and P.J. Carr 1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 41-56. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ammerman, A.J., and M.W. Feldman 1974 On the "Making" of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. American Antiquity 39:610-616.

Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Occupations in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262–286.

Anderson, D.G., L.D. O’Steen, and K.E. Sassaman 1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Janus Research 2001 Phase III Mitigative Excavation at the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), Volusia County, Florida. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Florida Department of Transportation, District Five. Federal Aid Number: NH-4-2(174)79; State Project Numbers: 75280-1488, 77160-1439, 79110-1403; Work Program Item Numbers: 5147257, 5148838, 5149520. Copies available from Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Crawfordville.

Ascher, R. 1961 Experimental Archeology. American Anthropologist 63:793-816.

Ashley, K.H. 2005 Towards an Interpretation of Shields Mound (8DU12) and the Mill Cove Complex. Florida Anthropologist 58:288-300.

Aten, L. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen’s 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. Florida Anthropologist 52:131-200.

163 Bader, A.T. 1992 An Analysis of Bone and Antler Tool Use Patterns from the Kentucky Air National Guard Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Bamforth, D.B. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56:216-234.

Barondess, D.A. and Kidder, T.R. 1981 A Proposed Bone Tool Classification: A Case Study From Southeast Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 89-112.

Bar-Yosef, O., and P. Van Peer 2009 The Chaine Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 50:103.

Becker, C. 2001 Bone Points – No Longer a Mystery? Evidence from the Slavic Urban Fortification of Berlin-Spandau. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 129-148. BAR International Series 937. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Binford, L.R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Buc, N., and D. Loponte 2007 Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples From the Pampa Region, South America. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.143-157. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Buc, N. 2011 Experimental Series and Use-Wear in Bone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:546-557.

Campana, D.V. 1989 Nautfian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. BAR International Series 494. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

164 Carr, P.J. 1994 The Organization of Technology: Impact and Potential. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P.J. Carr, pp. 1-8. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Carter, B., and J. Gifford 2002 Origins and Technofunctional Analysis of Early Archaic Bone Tools From the Southeast United States. Manuscript on file. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahasse.

Choyke, A.M., and L. Bartosiewicz (editors) 2001 Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Choyke, A.M., and J. Schibler 2007 Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective: Research in Central Europe. . In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.51-65. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Choyke, A.M. 1997 The Bone Tool Manufacturing Continuum. Anthropozoologica 25:65-72.

Clark, J.G.D., and M.W. Thompson 1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working Reindeer and Red Deer Antler in Upper Paleolithic and Early Mesolithic Europe. Archivo De Prehistoria Levantina 4:57- 65.

Collins, A. 2011 Calories in Venison (Deer Meat). Electronic document, http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-venison.htm, accessed March 4, 2011.

Coughlin, S.P. 1996 A Technical Analysis of Modified Bone From the Widows Creek Site (1JA305), Alabama. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Curmlin-Pedersen, O. 1995 Experimental Archaeology and Ships—Bridging the arts and the sciences. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24:303-306.

Currey, J.D., T. Landete-Castillejos, J. Estevez, F. Ceacero, A .Olguin, A. Garcia, and L. Gallego 2009 The Mechanical Properties of Red Deer Antler Bone When Used in Fighting. Journal of Experimental Biology 212:3985.

165

Daniel, I.R., Jr. 1996 Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 84-91. University Of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

David, E. 2007 Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th-8th Millennium BC). In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.35-50. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. d'Errico, F., and L. Backwell 2009 Assessing the Function of Early Hominin Bone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1764-1773. d’Errico, F., M. Julien, D. Liolios, M. Vanhaeren, and D. Baffier 2003 Many Awls in our Argument. Bone Tool Manufacture and Use in the Châtelperronian and Aurignacian Levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, stratigraphies, and cultural implications, edited by J. Zilhão, pp. 247-270. Istituto Portuguès de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Doran, G.H. 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of An Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Dunbar, J.S., and S.D. Webb. 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools From Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 331-353. University Of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Emery, K.F. 2001 The Economics of Bone Artifact Production in the Ancient Maya Lowlands. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 73-84. BAR International Series 937. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2009 Perspectives on Ancient Maya Bone Crafting From a Classic Period Bone Artifact Manufacturing Assemblage. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:458-470.

166 Fehlmann, D. 2010 Worked Bone, Tooth and Antler Objects From the Early Neolithic Site of Asparn/Zaya-Schletz (Lower Austria). In Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. Edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 31-40. BAR International Series 2136. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Francis, V. 2002 Twenty Interesting Points: An Analysis of Bone Artefacts From Platypus Rockshelter. QAR 13:63-70.

Gates St-Pierre, C. 2007 Bone Awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.107-118. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Gates St-Pierre, C. and R.B. Walker (editors) 2007 Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Geneste, J.-M. 1989 Economie des resources lithiques dans le Moustérien du sud-ouest de la France. In L’homme de Néandertal, edited by M. Otte, pp.75–97. Universite de Liége, Belgium.

Gifford, E.W. 1940 Californian Bone Artifacts. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gilliland, M.S. 1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Goggin, J.M. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Griffitts, J.L. 2006 Bone Tools and Technological Choice: Change and Stability on the Northern Plains (North Dakota). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuscon.

Guthrie, D. 1983 Osseous Projectile Points: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design Among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples, Animals and Archaeology. In Hunters and Their Prey, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 274-294. BAR International Series 163. Oxbow, Oxford.

167 Hallén, Y. 1994 The Use of Bone and Antler at Foshigarry and Bac Mhic Connain, Two Iron Age Sites on North Uist, Western Isles. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 124:189-231.

Hemmings, C.A. 2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent-Wide Cultural Adaptation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Jahn, O.L., and R.P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 31:1-85.

Jefferies, R.W. 1997 Middle Archaic Bone Pins: Evidence of Mid-Holocene Regional-Scale Social Groups in the Southern Midwest. American Antiquity 62:464-487.

Jin, J.J.H., and P. Shipman 2010 Documenting Natural Wear on Antlers: A First Step in Identifying Use-Wear on Purported Antler Tools. Quaternary International 211:91-102.

Jones, C., and R. Carr 1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones Part II: Excavations of An Archaic Cemetery in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 51:81-89.

Johnson, E. 1989 Human-Modified Bones From Early Southern Plains Sites. In Bone Modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, pp. 431-471. Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono.

Keeley, L.H. 1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies: A Critical Review. World Archaeology 5:323-336.

Kidder, A.V. 1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. Yale University Press, New Haven.

King, S. 2007 What’s the Point? A Morphological Study of Small Bone Points from Nuu-Chah- Nulth, Vancouver Island, B.C. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser, Burnaby, B.C.

Kipp, R., and A. Benson 2011 Viviparus Georgianus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1047, accessed March 4, 2011.

Lahren, L., and R. Bonnichsen 1974 Bone Foreshafts From a Clovis Burial in Southwestern Montana. Science 186:147-50.

168 Legrand-Pineau, A, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn (editors) 2010 Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Legrand, A., and I. Sidera 2007 Methods, Means, and Results When Studying European Bone Industries. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp. 67-80. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

LeMoine, G.M. 2001 Skeletal Technology in Context: An Optimistic Overview. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 1- 8. BAR International Series 937. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 1997 Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR International Series 679. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 1994 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools From the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity 59:316-334.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993 [1964] Gesture and Speech. Translated by A.B. Berger. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Le Dosseur, G. 2010 The Neolithization in Southern Levant: Impact of Animal Herding on the Exploitation of Bone Materials, From Reticence to Adoption of Domestic Herds. In Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. Edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 17-30. BAR International Series 2136. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

MacGregor, A. 1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory & Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

McGee, R.M. and R.J. Wheeler 1994 Stratigraphic Excavations at Groves’ Orange Midden, Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida: Methodology and Results. Florida Anthropologist 47:333-349.

Madrigal, T.C., and S.D. Capaldo 1999 White-Tailed Deer Marrow Yields and Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:241-249.

169 Maeir, A.M., H.J. Greenfield, J. Lev-Tov, and L.K. Horwitz 2009 Macro- and Microscopic Aspects of Bone Tool Manufacture and Technology in the Levantine Iron Age: A 9th Century BCE Workshop from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. In Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant, edited by S.A. Rosen and V. Roux, pp. 41-68. De Boccard, Paris.

Mansur-Franchomme, M.E. 1983 Scanning Electron Microscopy of Dry Hide Working Tools: The Role of Abrasives and Humidity in Microwear Polish Formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:223- 230.

Maples, W.R. 1987 Analysis of Skeletal Remains Recovered at the Gauthier Site, Brevard County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, no. 31. Florida State Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Milanich, J.T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolombian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, J.T., and C.H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Miller, J.J. 1998 An Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchell, S. 1991 An Analysis of Surface Wear and Morphological Variation in Relation to Possible Function: The Bone Points of the Caloosahatchee Region. Unpublished Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Moore, C.R., and C.W. Schmidt 2009 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Organic Technologies: A Review and Analysis. North American Archaeologist 30:57-86.

Morlan, R.E. 1984 Toward the Definition of Criteria for the Recognition of Artificial Bone Alterations. Quaternary Research 22:160-171.

Moreno-Garcia, M., C.M. Pimenta, A.P. Pando, and P.M.L. Aldana 2010 Archaeological Evidence of Pre-Industrial Worked Bone Activity in 18th Century Seville, Spain. In Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. Edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 183-190. BAR International Series 2136. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

170 Mowers, B., and W.B. Williams 1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 25:1-20.

Nelson, M.C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:57- 100.

Newcomer, M. 1977 Experiments in Upper Paleolithic Bone Work. Colloques Internationaux de C.N.R.S. No. 578: Methodologie applique a l’industrie de l’os prehistorique, pp. 293-302. Editions du Center National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

Newsom, L. 2002 The Paleoethnobotany of the Archaic Mortuary Pond. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by G. Doran, pp. 191-210. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

O’Donoughue, J.M., K.E. Sassaman, M.E. Blessing, J.B. Talcott, and J.C. Byrd 2011 Archaeological Investigations at Salt Springs (8MR2322), Marion County, Florida. Technical Report 12. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Olsen, S.L. 2007 Bone Artifacts and their Importance to Archaeology. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp. 175-182. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 1984 Analytical Approaches to the Manufacture and Use of Bone Artifacts in Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University of London.

Penders, T.E. 2005 Bone, Antler, Tooth, and Shell Artifacts from the Shields Mound Site (8DU12). Florida Anthropologist 58:239-254. 1997 A Study of Form and Function of the Bone and Antler Artifacts from the Windover Archaeological Site (8BR246), Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahasee.

Pfaffenroth, J. 2009 Late Prehistoric Bone Marrow Extraction: A Case Study in Western Wisconsin. Unpublished Senior Thesis, Department of Sociology and Archaeology, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse.

Pokines, J. T. and M. Krupa 1997 Self-barbed antler spearpoints and evidence of fishing in the Late Upper Paleolithic of Cantabrian Spain. In Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 241-262. Plenum Publishing, New York.

171 Purdy, B.A. 1994 Excavations in Water-Saturated Deposits at Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida: An Overview. Florida Anthropologist 47:326-332. 1987 Investigations at Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), An Archaeological Wetsite in Volusia County, Florida: An Overview and Chronology. Florida Anthropologist 40:4-12. 1973 The Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Bone Points in the State of Florida. Florida Anthropologist 26:143-152.

Rabbett, R.J. 2005 The Early Exploitation of Southeast Asian Mangroves: Bone Technology from Caves and Open Sites. Asian Perspectives 44:154-179.

Richardson, S.B., and M. Pohl 1984 The Bone Tool Industry From the Granada Site. In Archeology and History of the Granada Site. Excavations at the Grenada Site, Vol.1, edited by J.W. Griffin, S.B. Richardson, M. Pohl, C.D. McMurray, C.M. Scarry, S.K. Fish, E.S. Wing, L.J. Loucks, M.K. Welch, pp. 83-170, Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Miami.

Richter, M. and D. Dettloff 2002 Experiments in Hide-Brain Tanning with a Comparative Analysis of Stone and Bone Tools. Electronic document, murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/2002/richter- dettloff.pdf., accessed May 15, 2010.

Rots, V. 2008 Hafting and Raw Materials from Animals: Guide to the Identification of Hafting Traces on Stone Tools. Anthropozoologica 43:43-66.

Russo, M. 2009 Salt Springs, Florida, a Middle Archaic Drowned Shoreline. Manuscript on file. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahasse. 1996 Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the Mid- Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, M., and G. Heide 2001 Shell Rings of the Southeast US. Antiquity 75:491-492.

Russo, M., B.A. Purdy, L.A. Newsom, and R.M. McGee 1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central East Florida: Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601). Southeastern Archaeology 2:95-108.

Sadek-Kooros, H. 1972 Primitive Bone Fracturing: A Method of Research. American Antiquity 37:369-382.

172 Sassaman, K.E. 2003 St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2000-2001: Blue Spring and Hontoon Island State Parks. Technical Report 4. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2002a New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery From the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. Florida Anthropologist 56:5-13. 2002b Woodland Ceramic Beginnings. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and R.C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 398-420. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Savchenko, S. 2010 Experiments on Manufacturing Techniques of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Slotted Bone Projectile Points From Eastern Urals. In Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. Edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 141-148. BAR International Series 2136. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Scheinsohn, V. 2010 Down to the Bone: Tracking Prehistoric Bone Technology in Southern Patagonia. In Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature. Edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 1-6. BAR International Series 2136. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Schuldenrein, J. 1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid-Holocene Landscape History of the Greater Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 3-27. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Sellet, F. 1993 Chaine Opératoire; The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic Technology 18:106-12.

Semenov, S.A. 1964 [1957] Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M.W. Thompson. Cory, Adams & Mackay, London.

Shott, M. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51.

173 Sidera, I. 2005 Technical Data, Typological Data: A Comparison. In From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth-Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Edited by H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C. Batey, L. Lougas, pp. 81- 90. Tallin, Estonia.

Sigler-Eisenberg, B. 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Florida State Museum Miscellaneous Project and Report Series No. 27. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Skibo, J.M., M.B. Schiffer, and K.C. Reid 1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122-146.

Ste. Claire, D. 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. Florida Anthropologist 43:189-197.

Styles B.W., and W.E. Klippel 1996 Mid-Holocene Faunal Exploitation in the Southeastern United States. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 115-133. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Taylor, R.E., P.E. Hare, and T.D. Whitk 1995 Geochemical Criteria for Thermal Alteration of Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:115-l 19.

Thulman, D.K. 2006 A Reconstruction of Paleoindian Social Organization in North Central Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Tuross, N., M.L. Fogel, L. Newsom, and G.H. Doran 1994 Subsistence in the Florida Archaic: The Stable-Isotope and Archaeobotanical Evidence From the Windover Site. American Antiquity 288-303.

Tyzzer, E.E. 1958 An Experimental Study of the Manufacture of Articles of Bone and Antler. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 19:37-40. 1936 The "Simple Bone Point" of the Shell-Heaps of the Northeastern Algonkian Area and Its Probable Significance. American Antiquity 1:261-279.

174 Unger-Hamilton, R. 1988 Method in Microwear Analysis: Prehistoric Sickles and Other Stone Tools From Arjoune, Syria. BAR International Series 435. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

van der Schalie, H., and P.W. Parmalee 1960 Animal Remains From the Etowah Site, Mound C, Bartow County, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 13:37-54.

van Gijn, A. 2007 The Use of Bone and Antler Tools: Two Examples From the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coastal Zone. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.81-92. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Villa, P., and F. d'Errico 2001 Bone and Ivory Points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41:69-112.

Walker, K.J. 2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts and Fish Remains From Coastal Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19:24-45.

Walker, R.B. 2007 A Diachronic Study of Pre-And Post-Contact Antler, Bone and Shell Artifacts From New York State. In Bones As Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St- Pierre and C.W. Walker, pp.119-31. BAR International Series 1622. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Watts, W.A., E.C. Grimm, and T.C. Hussey 1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 28-40. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Webb, W.S. 1974 [1946] Indian Knoll. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Wheeler, R.J. 2004 Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). Florida Anthropologist 57:133-158. 1997 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D. 1763. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo- Indian Through Archaic. Florida Anthropologist 47:47-60. 1992 Time, Space and Aesthetics: Decorated Bone Artifacts from Florida. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropoogy, University of Florida, Gainesville.

175 Wheeler, R.J. and Coleman, W.F. 1996 Ornamental Bone Carving of Southern Florida: Some late styles and their associations. Florida Anthropologist 49:49-64.

Wheeler, R.J, and R. McGee 1994 Report of Preliminary Zoarchaeological Analysis: Groves' Orange Midden. Florida Anthropologist 47:393-403.

Wheeler, R.J., J.J. Miller, R.M. McGee, D. Ruhl, B. Swann, and M. Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes From Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68:533- 551.

Wheeler, R.J., F.L. Newman, and R.M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County, with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. Florida Anthropologist 53:132-157.

Worthington, B. 2009 Faunal Analysis of Vertebrate Remains Recovered from EU 16 and EU 17 at Salt Springs (8MR2322). Manuscript on file. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahasse.

176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Julie Byrd earned a B.A. in Anthropology and Studio Art from Wake Forest University in 2005. Following college, she worked as an archaeological field technician for cultural resource management firms in South Carolina, California and Indiana. She has also excavated with academic teams in Florida, Denmark, and France. In 2007 and 2008 she worked in Indiana state government, doing web design and historical research. In the fall of 2008, Julie began the M.A. program at Florida State University. She currently works for the National Park Service at the Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. Julie enjoys the outdoors, especially in Florida. She likes running, mountain biking, porch sitting, sailing, and photography.

177