Florida State University Libraries

)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV

2019 The Lithic Analysis of an Early Floridian Archaeological Site in the Wacissa River Eric Calvin Vinh Jones

Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

THE LITHIC ANALYSIS OF AN EARLY FLORIDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IN THE

WACISSA RIVER

ERIC JONES

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded: Spring, 2019

The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Eric Jones defended on March 29, 2019. Signatures are on file with the Honors Program office.

Dr. Jessi Halligan Thesis Director

Dr. Seth Young Outside Committee Member

Dr. Jayur Mehta Committee Member i

Abstract

The Middle Paleoindian period of the North American Southeast is a problematic area in

American archaeology. The lack of well preserved sites, dateable materials, and the frequent discovery of artifacts out-of-context are all part of why this is such a poorly understood period.

The Ryan-Harley site is one of the few undisturbed Middle Paleoindian sites in Florida and

represents the remnants of a campsite inhabited by the Suwannee, a cultural group belonging to

this Paleoindian period, therefore making its study and analysis of the utmost importance.

This thesis presents the mass analysis of stone flakes and tools excavated in 2017 from a

discrete geologic layer at the Ryan-Harley site. This was completed in order to achieve a better

understanding of what types of tool production were taking place at the site, how that can

provide information regarding site function and human behaviors, and to support the findings of

past excavations conducted at the site.

The systematic analysis of the attributes and characteristics of 344 lithic artifacts showed

97% of the assemblage consisted of flake debitage, composed primarily of small biface thinning

flakes. Ten tools were also recovered, including multiple flake tools, scrapers, and a late-stage

biface combination tool. These findings represent late-stage tool reduction of local raw materials

at a small campsite occupation. This is in accordance with the conclusions of previous

excavations and provides a comparable study for future lithic analyses of Middle Paleoindian

sites in Florida.

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the time and resources of multiple groups and individuals. My sincerest thanks to the following: Ryan and Harley Means, the

Center for the Study of the First Americans, Dr. Michael Waters, Morgan Smith, Adam Burke, the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, the Suwannee River Water Management

District, the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area, the FSU Archaeological Field School of 2017, and the FSU Department of Anthropology.

To all those with whom I have had the honor and pleasure to work with during this project – thank you. I am indebted to the members of my Thesis Committee, who have helped me complete this and have provided valuable feedback and discussion. I am especially grateful for Dr. Jessi Halligan, my advisor and director of the thesis committee. As my teacher and mentor, she has stimulated and inspired my interests in this field of study beyond measure and has taught me more than I could ever give her credit for here. Thank you for your time, great conversations, and never-ending encouragement. I would also not be where I am without Analise

Hollingshead, my graduate mentor and friend. With her constant hospitality and willingness to aid me in any capacity I have been taught so much. I am grateful for all she has done for me and for her patience and kindness over the past couple of years.

I would like to thank my family, whose love and excitement is with me in everything I

do. Their motivation and encouragement were, and continue to be, invaluable. I also wish to

thank my incredible partner, Jazmin. Her unwavering support and endless patience were

instrumental in this journey and through the many stressful and difficult times. Thank you for always being there for me. iii

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract i

Acknowledgments ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

Chapter I Introduction 1

Significance of Research 1 Research Questions and Organization of Thesis 2

Chapter II Background 4

Chapter III Methodology 10

Artifact Collection 12 Lithic Analysis 12 Flake Analyses 15 Flake Tool Analysis 19 Biface and Core Analysis 22 Microscopy 26

Chapter IV Results 30

Flake Debitage Results 30 Tool Results 39 Microscopic Analysis 46

Chapter V Discussion 49

Lithic Analysis 49 Tool Analysis 52 Site Function Analysis 53

Chapter VI Conclusions and Future Research 59

Concluding Remarks 59 Future Research 59

References Cited 62

Appendix I 71

Appendix II 75

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: The location of the Ryan-Harley site in Jefferson County, Florida 5

Figure 2. The diagnostic Suwannee points recovered from previous excavations 8

Figure 3. Profile of the 2017 Ryan-Harley Excavation 11

Figure 4. Site map of island and the three units excavated in the summer of 2017 by FSU SCUBA divers 12

Figure 5. Microscopic view of diagnostic miliolid (center) found in Suwannee chert 28

Figure 6. Classification of debitage by flake type 30

Figure 7. Classification of flake debitage by platform type 32

Figure 8. Classification of broken and fragmented flakes by portion 33

Figure 9. Classification of flake debitage by termination 33

Figure 10. The distribution of complete flake lengths in one centimeter increments 36

Figure 11. Weight distribution of complete flakes in one gram increments 36

Figure 12. Length to width ratio of complete flakes 37

Figure 13. Weight distributions based on all biface thinning and edge retouch flakes 37

Figure 14. Ratio of thickness to weight for biface thinning and edge retouch flakes 38

Figure 15. Composite image of the ten tools identified in the lithic analysis: (a) flake tool, (b) late stage biface/scraper, (c) early stage biface, (d) flake tool, (e) scraper, (f) core, (g) scraper, (h) flake tool, (i) flake tool, (j) flake tool/scraper 43

Figure 16. Percentage distribution of the raw material types of the Ryan-Harley assemblage 46

Figure 17. A diagnostic Miliolid foraminifera found in Suwannee chert 48

Figure 18. A V-shaped Dictyoconus diagnostic of Suwannee chert 48

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Lithic Analysis Characteristics and Attributes of Debitage 14

Table 2. Lithic Analysis Characteristics and Attributes of Flake Tools 20

Table 3. Lithic Analysis Characteristics and Attributes of Bifaces and Cores 23

Table 4. Classification of flake debitage by technological type 31

Table 5. Flake debitage by percent of cortex 34

Table 6. Tool attributes and characteristics by category 41

Table 7. Biface and core attributes and characteristics by category 42

Table 8. Values used in Simpson’s diversity index of technological artifact type 44

Table 9. Values used in Shannon’s diversity index of technological flake type 44

Table 10. Values used in Simpson’s diversity index of Ryan-Harley artifacts 45

Table 11. Data used to construct a Fisher Exact Test 45

Table 12. Chi-Square Test Values 45

Chapter I

Introduction

Significance of Research

The rise of lithic debitage as a viable medium through which to analyze prehistoric stone technology and human behavior only began within the last half century. It was once referred to and neglected as prehistoric trash and debris, but has since become an integral part of the analyses of lithic materials from archaeological sites. Arguably one of the most common artifacts found at sites worldwide, the variability and complexity of lithic debitage is what makes it such an important artifact to analyze in order to understand the processes that account for its complexity (Andrefsky 2001, 2005, 2007; Collins 2008; Eerkens et al. 2007; Goodyear 1979;

Kelly 1988; Pevny et al. 2012; Williams and Andrefsky 2011). Defined as the by-product flakes and chips removed by percussion or pressure from an objective piece, debitage provides researchers with a look into the technological and social aspects of stone tool production. This thesis discusses lithic analyses that involved the study of flake debitage and stone tools from a

Florida Paleoindian site and the behavioral patterns that can be interpreted from such analyses.

As stone artifacts, the lithic materials of archaeological sites are the most likely to

preserve and withstand the tests of time in many global conditions. This is what makes lithics such a common part of the artifact assemblages at archaeological sites. In the Southeast region of

North America, there is a heavy preservation bias that favors lithic materials, usually leaving

Paleoindian sites absent of organics that would be useful in the analysis of these prehistoric peoples (Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007; Halligan in press, 2012; Stojanowski et al. 2002; Stone et al. 1990). The artifact assemblages at the submerged Ryan-Harley site (8JE1004) are the 2 remnants of a Middle Paleoindian occupation in the Wacissa River that contains a valuable assortment of lithic artifacts that present evidence of the Suwannee culture complex. This paper is a discussion of a full lithic analysis completed on the most recent stone artifact assemblage recovered from Ryan-Harley.

The Ryan-Harley site is significant because it is the only archaeological site in the

American Southeast where diagnostic Suwannee material has been recovered in situ through extensive excavations. Dunbar and others (2005) suggest this site represents a Suwannee campsite post-dating the Clovis period (13,250-12,800 cal BP) based on Suwannee point morphology and relative dating methods. The analysis of the most recently recovered lithic

materials from three 1x1 meter excavation units provides further evidence of the Suwannee

occupation at Ryan-Harley and opens another window into the stone tool production and

behaviors of its inhabitants in a region where Paleoindian studies have recently become more defined.

Research Questions and Organization of Thesis

Three research questions were proposed at the beginning of this study: (1) what types of lithic manufacturing was taking place at the site, (2) what behavioral patterns can be derived

from this lithic analysis, and (3) do the results of this analysis support what previous conclusions

have been made about the Ryan-Harley site?

Through mass lithic analysis, the interpretation of what tools were being manufactured or

recycled could be achieved. The apparent presence or absence of formal or informal tools

indicates other activities happened at the site and allowed for the analyses of site functionality

and mobility strategies (Andrefsky 2005; Daniel and Wisenbaker 2017; Kelly 1988). The lithic

materials analyzed as a part of this assemblage are from the same cultural layer that Dunbar and 3 others (2005) previously excavated, so it was likely my research would reach similar conclusions.

This thesis presents the research of the Ryan-Harley lithic analysis in six chapters.

Chapter II describes Ryan-Harley, the conclusions of past excavations conducted at the site, and the most recent excavations that provided the lithic assemblage for this analysis. Chapter III provides in depth descriptions of the methods used to examine the flake debitage and tools recovered from the site. Chapter IV discusses the results of the lithic analysis, highlighting important aspects of our findings. Chapter V describes the interpretations of the results from the previous chapter, discussing residency models and site function analyses as it pertains to Ryan-

Harley. Chapter VI provides concluding remarks and potential directions of future research. 4

Chapter II

Background

The richness of Florida’s Paleoindian record has only been recognized in recent decades, and has since provided archaeologists a glimpse into the complex groups that once inhabited the

Southeast United States (Anderson 1990; Anderson and Sassaman 2012; Anderson et al. 2015;

Daniel and Wisenbaker, 2017; Dunbar et al. 2005; Dunbar and Vojnovsky 2007; Halligan in press, 2012; Smallwood 2012; Thulman 2009, 2012). While characterized by a unique and vast

Paleoindian record, the poor preservation and destruction of sites in the region are a common result of the changes made by the shifting climate and landscapes since the late Pleistocene.

Weathering and erosion has resulted in the general absence of datable organic material culture, and has rendered many of Florida’s discovered Paleoindian stone artifacts out of primary contexts and unable to be accurately dated (Halligan in press, 2012). This lack of accurate radiocarbon dates and in situ sites are among the many challenges archaeologists face in Florida when approaching the Paleoindian record of the Southeast.

Located in a spring-fed stream channel along the Wacissa River in the southern edge of

Jefferson County in North Florida, the submerged Ryan-Harley site (8JE1004) has provided researchers with a representation of a post-Clovis, Suwannee-point campsite (Dunbar et al. 2005;

Figure 1). It is unique in that it is the first Middle Paleoindian site where diagnostic Suwannee material has been recovered in situ with a large assemblage of faunal remains. Relative dating techniques based on stratigraphy and diagnostic artifact seriation has described Suwannee-age sites with a time frame ranging from ca. 10,900 14C cal BP to 10,500 14C cal BP (Balsillie et al.

2006). 5

Figure 1: The location of the Ryan-Harley site in Jefferson County, Florida.

Due to its undisturbed context, the Ryan-Harley site provides a specialized view into some aspects of the Suwannee point-makers’ lives. The large magnitude of faunal remains found at the site presented an opportunity for analyses of Middle Paleoindian subsistence and diet in

the North Florida region. The presence of several extinct fauna, such as horse and tapir, could

indicate that Pleistocene fauna survived in the Southeast past the Allerød/Younger Dryas

boundary ca 11,000 cal BP, unlike their southwestern counterparts (Dunbar et al. 2005; Dunbar

and Vojnovsky 2007; Balsillie et al. 2006; Pevny et al. 2018). Unfortunately, these remains are

most often leached of datable collagen, representing the most frustrating issue of Middle

Paleoindian sites in Florida (and therefore of Ryan-Harley) – the utter lack of absolute dates to

definitively date cultural materials (Balsillie et al. 2006; Halligan 2012).

This lack of dated material results in a serious theoretical concern regarding the true

identification of where Middle Paleoindian sites are in the chronological sequence of Florida’s 6 earliest inhabitants. Much of the literature on Middle Paleoindian sites state that Suwannee points are related to Clovis, which is rooted in the identification of similar traits in lithic reduction and toolkits between the two cultures. With these characteristics, Suwannee has been considered to represent a regionalized descendant population in an area where Pleistocene fauna survived longer (Basillie et al 2006; Dunbar and Vojnovsky 2007; Dunbar et al. 2005; Pevny et al. 2018). However, Suwannee could potentially be even older than it is currently thought and is perhaps contemporary with Clovis or even older (Anderson et al. 2015; Stanford 1991).

Paleoindian sites in Florida tend to show occupations that are localized around a resource rich area, focusing on nearby resources such as lithic raw materials, but even more so on dependable and potable water sources. During the terminal Pleistocene, inhabitants of Florida’s interior were presented with a xeric environment which would have made areas dry enough to motivate human groups to concentrate their occupations around or close to locales with reliable water sources (Pevny et al. 2018; Thulman 2009). This Oasis Model highlights the tendency of

Paleoindian sites to be concentrated around these terminal Pleistocene watering holes. These locations would also serve as excellent areas for food procurement, as local game would be drawn to the available water sources and provide Paleoindian peoples with dependable and expectable food and water resources. This provides researchers with an idea of where in Florida there might be concentrations of Paleoindian sites, so long as there is reliable landscape and environmental reconstructions that allow for greater potential in discovering these past surface water locations (Thulman 2009). These hypotheses grant archaeologists the ability to ask who the first Floridians were and how they lived, and how sites like Ryan-Harley are preserved or destroyed. It is in order to answer questions like these that the Ryan-Harley site must be researched and carefully studied. 7

After its discovery by Ryan and Harley Means in 1996, subsequent excavations in 1999 and 2015 found the site to be a baseline for the comparison of faunal and cultural remains to other Paleoindian sites in Florida (Dunbar and Vojnovsky 2007). The past excavations yielded a toolkit that includes a variety of scrapers, flake tools, and displaced diagnostic Suwannee points

(Figure 2), but one that is also hard to distinguish because the most reputable sites have not provided proper stratigraphic separation of Suwannee and other cultural materials, like the Bolen complex. This is seen at the Harney Flats site (8HI507), where Suwannee and Bolen materials are found in nearly the same stratigraphic levels at a Paleoindian base camp. What is seen in the

Ryan-Harley toolkit is a complete absence of the hafted unifacial and bifacial tools that are found in the Bolen and Dalton assemblages (Dunbar et al. 2005). This makes the Suwannee toolkit distinct among these other documented complexes and is why the Ryan-Harley lithic assemblages are unique. Unlike the Bolen toolkit, the Suwannee point assemblages at Ryan-

Harley do share some features found in Clovis assemblages (Dunbar et al. 2005). These similarities were identified by Dunbar and others (2005) as the occasional fluting, variation in size, and overshot flaking of uniface tools. With these apparent in the Ryan-Harley assemblage, and the similar morphological traits between the Suwannee and Clovis points, it is reasonable to suggest that Suwannee reflects a Middle Paleoindian toolkit that evolved from that of the Clovis complex.

The results of the past lithic analyses at the Ryan-Harley site concluded that tool production and maintenance occurred, and the concentrations of diagnostic artifacts and debitage reveal Ryan-Harley to be a campsite where a long enough occupation required its inhabitants to use a variety of tools and exploit the local fauna (Dunbar et al. 2005). After geoarchaeological analyses, it was evident that no post-depositional reworking of stable sections of the site 8 occurred, allowing Ryan-Harley to be classified as not only a Paleoindian campsite, but as one in an undisturbed context as well (Balsillie et al. 2005, 2006). The results from the excavations by

Dunbar and others (2005) present data that show how valuable of an archaeological site Ryan-

Harley is, and provides a foundation for future southeastern Paleoindian studies of Suwannee culture.

Figure 2. The diagnostic Suwannee points recovered from previous excavations.

In an effort to gather more data on Ryan-Harley and its Paleoindian inhabitants, the FSU archaeological field school returned to the site in 2017 to expand upon the previous excavations.

These excavations at Ryan-Harley had three main research goals: (1) to obtain absolute dates within the Suwannee assemblage at the site, and (2) to describe how Suwannee people were 9 utilizing the Ryan-Harley site in order to (3) expand the understanding of the Suwannee culture in the Southeast. The research presented in this paper is focused upon the latter two goals through an analysis of the lithic assemblage from the three 1x1 meter units the 2017 field school excavated. The literature on the lithic analyses of Suwannee materials is rare, due to its uncommon appearance in situ and at only some reputable sites, therefore making this research a relevant addition to the understanding of one of the Southeast’s Middle Paleoindian cultures.

As one of the most common artifact types found at archaeological sites, the analysis of

lithic debitage from the assemblage found at Ryan-Harley can provide a wealth of knowledge

when inferring upon the behavioral patterns and lifeways of the site’s past inhabitants. The value

of debitage analysis became increasingly important in the last 30 to 40 years, having gained

traction once its potential as an interpretive tool for examining prehistoric human technology,

economy, and organization was realized (Andrefsky 2001:6). Researchers are still refining and

adapting the ways in which lithic debitage is analyzed in order to make these higher level

inferences and theories of human behavior. As stone artifacts are the most likely to preserve, it is

imperative that as much information be derived from them as possible. By examining the entire

assemblage of debitage from the Ryan-Harley site by uniform criteria, the most popular form of

debitage analyses can be conducted, known as aggregate, or mass, analysis (Andrefsky 2001:7,

2007). This is the aim for analyzing the lithic assemblage recovered by the FSU field school at

Ryan-Harley, and for which this paper is being written.

CHAPTER III

Methodology

Artifact Collection

The three Ryan-Harley units were excavated by SCUBA divers in controlled 5 cm levels from May to June in 2017. These submerged units were located against the modern stream bank

(Figure 3). The observed artifacts were plotted in place, and the team used laser control points to determine Northing, Easting, and elevation (Figure 4). The strike (compass orientation) and dip

(angle of the artifact against the matrix) were also recorded by the excavators. All of the sediments that were removed from the units were screened through nested 1/4" and 1/16” screens on the surface via floating screen deck. The artifacts were then slowly dried post-fieldwork and all relevant excavation data were entered into Microsoft Excel sheets allowing for virtual reconstruction of the site in a GIS. 11

Figure 3. Profile of the 2017 Ryan-Harley Excavation

Figure 4. Site map of island and the three units excavated in the summer of 2017 by FSU

SCUBA divers.

Lithic Analysis

From January 2018 to March 2018, I conducted macroscopic analyses of the excavated stone artifacts under the direction of my graduate mentor, Analise Hollingshead. The systematic analyses of the lithic artifacts were performed in order to address our research questions: (1) what types of lithic manufacturing were taking place at the site, and (2) what behavioral patterns of Suwannee point-makers can be derived from debitage analysis in an effort to (3) further confirm what previous excavations have concluded. These laboratory analyses were all conducted in the Florida State University Anthropology Department building. Our research identified flakes and flake tools, recording values for a total of 21 and 20 attributes and 13 characteristics respectively (Tables 1, 2, and 3). For this debitage analysis an attribute is defined as “a measureable characteristic of an artifact or specimen, such as length, color, or weight”

(Andrefsky 2005:252). A “characteristic” will be considered any other value or description that is not an attribute, such as the debitage classification or flake portion of the artifact. A conscious effort was made during the analyses of the Ryan-Harley material to keep consistent the attribute definitions, characteristics, and data recording methods throughout the study and to be consistent with previous lithic analyses conducted at Ryan-Harley and other North Florida sites (Burke

2014; Halligan 2012). This will allow datasets to be compatible with one another through different projects and be valuable for future research. This chapter will contain in depth discussions of what was recorded and how, as a good foundation of knowledge about these were an important aspect of the lithic analysis as a whole.

In order to address the research questions of this study, each artifact was coded and recorded for the following attributes and characteristics based upon the morphological and technological classifications and guidelines determined by Andrefsky (2005): length, width, thickness, weight, bulb and midpoint thickness, application load, material color, technological class, platform type, platform width and thickness, debitage class, flake portion, termination type, percent of cortex, raw material type, burning, polish, retouch, and eraillure scars. Those classified as flake tools were separated and defined using several different attributes and characteristics including: tool blank, hafting wear, number of edges, edge shape, retouch face and type, edge angle, and the total and worked edge length. Bifaces and cores that were identified were separated further to analyze the following: estimated completeness, missing portions, biface stage, planview shape, base type, cross-section type, dominate flaking type, end 14 thinning, edge angles of side one and two, core type, and number of flake scars (Halligan 2012).

See Appendix I for the full coding sheets used during the analysis.

Table 1. Lithic analysis characteristics and attributes of debitage.

Attribute/Characteristic Descriptions/Attributes/Characteristics Length (mm) Measured relative to maximum dimensions Width (mm) Measured perpendicular to length Thickness (mm) Measured at the thickest point of specimen Weight (g) Measured on digital scale Bulb Thickness (mm) Measured at the bulb of percussion Midpoint Thickness (mm) Measured at the center of the specimen Debris/Shatter, Flake fragment, Broken flake, Debitage Classification Complete flake Flake Portion Proximal, Medial, Distal Biface Thinning Flake, Retouched Scraper Technological Class Flake, Bipolar Flake, Platform Preparation Flake, Pressure/Edge Retouch Flake Cortical, Flat, Complex/Multifacet, Platform Type Abraded/Ground Platform Width (mm) Measured relative to maximum dimensions Platform Thickness (mm) Measured perpendicular to platform width The difference between bulb thickness and Application Load (mm) midpoint thickness is the relative bulb size Termination Type Feather, Step, Hinge, Plunging/Overshot In relation to Dorsal Surface: 0%, .1-10%, 11- Cortex Percentage 49%, 50-90%, 91-100% Suwannee, St. Marks, Coastal Plains, Raw Material Type Quartzite, Other (Unidentifiable macroscopically) Burnt None, Present Use-wear analytics not as identifiable Polish/Rounding macroscopically Will signify modification post detachment, Retouch therefore representing tool use Eraillure Scar None, Present Rock Color Assigned with a Munsell Color Charts

Using digital calipers the length, width, and thickness were measured to the nearest .01

millimeter. Length was measured relative to the maximum dimensions of the artifact, and width

was measured perpendicular to length at the widest point (Andrefsky 2005:99). Thickness was 15 measured at the thickest point, most typically at the bulb of percussion if one was present

(Andrefsky 2005:101). The weights of all samples were recorded using a digital scale and rounded to the nearest .01 gram (Andrefsky 2005:104-106).

Flake Analyses

Debitage classification is an important aspect of this study, and is divided into four categories to classify flakes under: shatter, flake fragment, broken flake, and complete flake.

Shatter is a catchall term that includes all flakes that could not be identified as a flake fragment, broken, or complete flake. Samples classified as shatter are typically small unintentional detachments during lithic reduction processes, and are missing identifiable characteristics of flakes such as distinct dorsal and ventral surfaces and striking platforms. Flake fragments are flakes missing their striking platform. Broken flakes are the opposite, as their platform is present, but the termination is missing. Complete flakes are unbroken and not fragmented, containing all the necessary parts of a flake to analyze it. The flake portion classification is therefore inherently associated with flake fragments and broken flakes, as it deals with what part of the flake a sample is. The proximal section of a flake contains the striking platform, therefore always classified as a broken flake. The medial classification is for flakes missing both a striking platform and a termination, while the distal portion of a flake is always reflected by the termination of a flake opposite the striking platform. These two portion types are always flake fragments as the striking platform is missing on both occasions.

Technological classifications are a popular method of lithic debitage analyses, referring to a typology that separates the samples into groups based on some characteristic(s) of the stone tool technology (Andrefsky 2005:120). Biface thinning flakes are usually marked by a complex striking platform with some degree of lip and contain multiple dorsal scars (Andrefsky 2005; 16

Burke 2014; Halligan 2012). Retouched scraper flakes are generally small with small, flat striking platforms (Andrefsky 2005:125; Shott 1995:64). Bipolar flakes typically have no bulb of percussion and show evidence of application load on areas opposite of each other with the appearance of compression rings (Andrefsky 2005:124-125). Platform preparation flakes can have a dorsal surface of varying morphology and a distinct, flattened ventral surface, signifying the manufacturer’s want of a prepared core. Pressure/edge retouch flakes are produced through pressure flaking, resulting in small retouch flakes with, sometimes distinctly curved, flat or complex platforms.

Platform data analysis is useful in determining reduction techniques and stages, but can come in an extreme variety. After the identification of the striking platform, width and thickness were measured according to Andrefsky’s (2005:Figure 5.5) guidelines. Platform width was measured as the distance across the striking platform from corner to corner, and the length was perpendicular to that width (Andrefsky 2005:94). Andrefsky (2005) notes several striking platform attributes that can be used to define a simple typology that incorporates this large scale variety of different types. This typology can then be supplemented with the length and width of the platform to generate more meaningful analyses of lithic reduction stages. There are four platform types that samples can be grouped under: cortical, flat, complex, and abraded

(Andrefsky 2005:94-97). Cortical platforms are those that are simply composed of or contain the unmodified cortex of the original surface. Flat platforms are smooth flat surfaces that usually articulate with the dorsal surface at an angle approaching 75°-90°. Complex platforms are those with multiple flake scars and a relatively rounded surface, and abraded platforms are complex platforms that have undergone additional smoothing as a result of abrasion or rubbing. 17

In many cases the striking platform is accompanied by a raised hump on the ventral surface, located just below the platform. This hump, known as the bulb of percussion, can be extremely variable in morphology, and can be significant in determining the angle of applied force and the type of hammer used to remove the flake. Application load typologies aid researchers hoping to classify these flakes derived from lithic reduction strategies involving hard-hammer percussion, soft-hammer percussion, or pressure flaking. By recording the difference between the thickness at the bulb of percussion and the midpoint of the flake, one can obtain the relative bulb size (Andrefsky 2005:119). This would be considered the application load, where larger values are indicative of hard-hammer percussion and smaller values are evidence of soft-hammer percussion.

The termination typology is divided into four classes: feather, step, hinge, and overshot

(Andrefsky 2005:Figure 2.8). The feather termination is characterized by a smooth tapered distal portion that “feathers” out upon detachment. When a flake snaps during detachment, causing the distal portion to be relatively flat and abrupt, it is a considered a step termination. The hinge termination is when the force of the impact causes the distal portion to be slightly angled and rounded, a result of the force of impact rolling away from the objective piece and not fully across the core surface (Andrefsky 2005:20). A plunging termination is found when the force of impact rolls towards the objective piece and travels farther down, creating a slightly hook-shaped termination.

Another way of analyzing where in the reduction stage a tool or nontool was removed is determining the cortex percentage, as the cortex is the first to be removed. Cortex can vary depending on how chemical and physical weathering has affected the stone surface, and its percentage (according to the area it covered on the dorsal surface) was recorded in a five rank 18 system: 0%, 0.1-10%, 11-49%, 50-90%, and greater than 90%. The raw material type of an artifact is a tremendously important aspect of stone tool manufacturing, and can provide a window into the behaviors of stone tool users across time. The materials in this lithic assembly were all made of chert, and the type was cross referenced with photos of diagnostic cherts of multiple types found in this region of the North American southeast: Suwannee, St. Marks,

Coastal Plains, quartzite, and other (unidentifiable macroscopically).

Burnt flakes show evidence of more intensive heat treatment, typically discernible through the appearance of surface cracks, called crazing, and circular concave scars on the surface caused by the differential expansion and contraction of the material, known as a pot lid

(Andrefsky 2005:260). Polish and rounding on flakes are signs of use, caused by the grounding of the tool margins or dorsal ridges (Andrefsky 2005:171). Retouch on a flake edge is a sign of reworking the edge to make it sharper or thinner, signified by retouch scraper or edge retouch flakes. Since this is a sign of post-detachment modifications, it is therefore likely a flake tool that was used to carry out some form of activity. Erailure scars are another way of identifying the striking platform (or where it may have been if crushed) and bulb of percussion, as these are small concave scars from a chip or flake located on the ventral surface below the platform and on the bulb. It is the product of the original impact of flake removal, and while not always apparent, it becomes a good identifier of other attributes and characteristics of the flake.

By using the Munsell Rock Color Charts each sample was given a general rock color.

This was not an extremely crucial aspect of the analysis being conducted but allowed for a look into the patterns of staining and rock colors of the lithic assemblage. The color of the ventral side of the flakes typically showcased the interior of the core or original material it was struck from, and could aid in providing very general means of identifying material type. If the majority of the 19 sample was stained a particular color, it would be assigned a color closest to that staining. This should be accompanied by other analytical techniques, but for the purpose of this analysis served as a way of identifying an overall trend in the color of the samples.

Flake Tool Analyses

Flakes identified as flake tools were separated into a separate category with a total of nine different attributes and characteristics recorded (Table 2). These artifacts would have already been measured for length, width, thickness, and weight. Rock color, cortex percent, raw material type, burning, polish, and eraillure scar presence were also recorded for these samples. Using a separate code sheet, the following attributes and characteristics were measured: tool blank, hafting wear, number of edges worked, retouched edge shape, retouch face and type, edge angle, total edge length, and worked edge length.

Table 2. Lithic analysis characteristics and attributes of flake tools.

Attribute/Characteristic Descriptions/Attributes/Characteristics Length (mm) Measured relative to maximum dimensions Width (mm) Measured perpendicular to length Thickness (mm) Measured at the thickest point of specimen Weight (g) Measured on digital scale Indeterminate, Core reduction flake, Blade, Tool Blank Biface thinning flake, Cortical spall None evident, Dulling/Polishing along edge, Hafting Wear Crushing/Polishing along dorsal ridges, Abrupt change in edge wear Number of Edges Worked Number of worked edges in total Indeterminate, Pointed, Straight, Concave, Retouched Edge Shape Convex Indeterminate, Unifacial, Bi-marginal, Edge, Retouch Face Alternating Indeterminate, Nibbling, Scaly with feathered Retouch Type terminations, Stepped Edge Angle <30°, 30°-60°, >60° Measured length of specimen edge that the Total Edge Length (mm) worked edge is located on Worked Edge Length (mm) Measured length of worked edge only In relation to Dorsal Surface: 0%, .1-10%, 11- Cortex Percentage 49%, 50-90%, 91-100% Suwannee, St. Marks, Coastal Plains, Raw Material Type Quartzite, Other (unidentifiable macroscopically) Burnt None, Present Use-wear analytics not as identifiable Polish/Rounding macroscopically Eraillure Scar None, Present Rock Color Assigned with Munsell Rock Color Charts

The tool blank refers to the type of flake it was when detached from its core. The origin

of the tool blank could provide information on the shape of the flake tool and even the attributes

that relate to tool function (Andrefsky 2005:162). The hafting wear involves aspects of tools that were fitted into a socket or notch on a haft. The descriptions here provide different ways a tool could be worked in order to properly fit into a haft and the effects that has on the tool itself in 21 terms of polishing, edge reworking, or other abrupt changes in edge wear. The number of edges worked is simply defined as such, and recorded as however many edges were modified. From

this identification of the worked edge, the subsequent analyses must involve each worked edge

specifically. Retouched edge shape provides details on the overall morphological shape of the

edge being worked, and is described as pointed, straight, concave, or convex. The face(s) of

retouch on a flake is described as unifacial, bi-marginal, edge (i.e. burin), and alternating. An

edge’s retouch face is unifacial if it occurs only on the ventral or dorsal surface. Bi-marginal is retouch happening on both surfaces of an edge in the same location, and alternating is bimarginal retouch but separated on the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The edge retouch face distinction is noticeable with burins and burin spalls, as the worked edge is populated by small flaking concentrated toward a pointed margin that was used for chiseling. Due to retouch type being so variable, its identification was limited to a small number of descriptors. We recognized them as either nibbled, scaly, or stepped. Nibbling is retouch that is primarily in a marginal line with flake scars ending with feathered terminations. Scaly retouch also had feathered terminations but flake scars were extended slightly away from the edge and intersecting one another. The stepped retouch consisted predominately of flake scars along the edge that

terminated with step fractures. These are considered to be proxies for intensity of use and

retouch, with nibbling representative of lightest use and stepped indicative of intensive use or use

on hard surfaces (Andrefsky 2005:174).

The edge angle is determined on a basis of gross shape, and is recorded in three states:

angles less than 30°, angles between 30° and 60°, and angles greater than 60° (Andrefsky

2005:172). This measurement of edge angle is also considered a proxy for function and intensity

of use, but is difficult to capture and replicate, therefore it is necessary to be scored in a classified 22 continuum (Andrefsky 2005:175-176; Kuhn 1990). The total edge length is measured in millimeters along the maximum linear distance of the edge of the flake tool with retouch occurring on it. To take into account any curved or sinuous edges, this attribute is measured with a string, followed by measuring the string length that matched up with the tool edge. Similarly, the worked edge length is measured in the same way with a string, except the string is only contoured along the actual worked edge of a flake tool.

Biface and Core Analysis

Bifaces are tools that have undergone extensive modification, having flakes removed from both sides, called faces, which meet at one edge around the margins of the artifact. Bifaces can serve several purposes depending on the task at hand, be it as a core (a source of usable flakes), or as chopping and cutting tools (Andrefky 2005:178-179; Kelly 1988). The analyses done for the bifaces and core found in this Ryan-Harley assemblage were measured according to

12 additional attributes and characteristics: estimated completeness, missing portions, biface stage, planview shape, base type, cross-section type, dominate flaking type, end thinning, edge angles of side one and two, core type, and number of core flake scars (Table 3). This coding system has been used in lithic analyses before and is used here in order to keep the data comparable and compatible (Halligan 2012).

Table 3. Lithic analysis characteristics and attributes of bifaces and cores.

Attribute/Characteristic Descriptions/Attributes/Characteristics Length (mm) Measured relative to maximum dimensions Width (mm) Measured perpendicular to length Thickness (mm) Measured at the thickest point of specimen Weight (g) Measured on digital scale Indeterminate, 100%, 75-99%, 50-74%, 25- Estimated Completeness 49%, 1-25% None, Base, Tip, Base/mid, Tip/mid, Missing Portions Indeterminate Early, Middle, Late, Point, Fragment, Core, Biface Stage Chopper, Adze Circular, Lanceolate, Ovoid, Straight, Planview Shape Triangular, Corner-notched, Side-notched, Random Concave, Ovoid, Rounded, Square, Corner- Base Type notched, Side-notched Cross-Section Type Bi-convex, Bi-plano, Plano-convex, Diamond Indeterminate, Edge only, To midline, Past Dominate Flaking Type midline, Some overshots, Random End Thinned None, Present Edge Angle Side One Less than 30°. 30°-60°, more than 60° Edge Angle Side Two Less than 30°. 30°-60°, more than 60° Multidirectional random, Bifacial, Core Type Unidirectional, Conical, Wedge-shaped Core Flake Scars One, Two, Three, Four, Five or more Cortex Present None, One face, Both faces Suwannee, St. Marks, Coastal Plains, Raw Material Type Quartzite, Unidentifiable Macroscopically Burnt None, Present Use-wear analytics not as identifiable Polish/Rounding macroscopically Will signify modification post flaking, Retouch therefore reflecting use life Rock Color Assigned with a Munsell Rock Color Charts

Estimated completeness of a biface is recorded as a percent in a five state system: 100%,

75-99%, 50-74%, 25-49%, and 1-25%. Missing sections of the tool are recorded depending on the absence of the tip or base, or if the majority of the medial portion is absent along with the tip 24 or base, that was recorded as well. The stage of the biface was determined by estimated completeness, resulting in early, middle, late, or point stages, or if broken it was a fragmented biface. If none of the formerly mentioned identifiers were appropriate, then the stage of a biface was also determined by its use as a core, a chopper, or an adze, the only categories encountered in this dataset (Halligan 2012).

The planview shape was the overall outline that the stage of the biface has, resulting in multiple distinctions: circular, lanceolate, ovoid, straight, triangular, corner-notched, side- notched, or random (Halligan 2012). Biface bases are crucial to their identification and have an important role in determining what culture complex its producer was a part of. Bases can be variously shaped, including concave, ovoid, rounded, square, corner-notched, and side-notched.

The morphology of the cross-section of a biface was also recorded, resulting in the identification of four types: bi-convex, bi-plano, plano-convex, and diamond shaped (Halligan 2012).

Dominate flaking type reveals the reduction processes the artifact has undergone, and are recorded as indeterminate, edge flaking only, flaking to (or past) the tool midline, overshots, and random assortments of flaking. End thinning appears in later stage bifaces, and usually around the base of said biface. This can reflect the type of percussion used to detach the flakes, the stage at which it was, and is often considered diagnostic of Paleoindian reduction strategies (Collins

2008). Edge angles were measured on both sides of the biface in the same three state scale used for flake tools.

Cores reflect the end product of a sequence of tool preparation, reduction of flakes, and the continued preparation and reduction of tools (Andrefsky 2005:144). Cores that are identified are assigned a typology involving the both the general reduction technique used on them and the overall shape if significant enough. These include multidirectional random flaking, bifacial 25 flaking, unidirectional flaking, or if the core is primarily conical or wedge-shaped. The number of flake scars on the core itself was also scored, going up to a distinction of five or more scars. It is important to keep track of and analyze the detached pieces (or what those detached pieces may have been) from a core because its morphology represents the last stage of usage, and is pertinent for understanding the course of core reduction (Andrefsky 2005:144).

A method of statistical analysis was used during this study that involved artifact diversity

indices. While mostly utilized in ecological studies, Simpson’s and Shannon’s Diversity Indices

can also allow us to quantify the diversity of an archaeological site. The formulas for these

indices are as follows:

Simpson’s Diversity Index:

( 1) D = ( 1) Shannon’s Diversity Index and Evenness:

H= - [ ln( )]

= Richness is considered the number of artifacts per assemblage. The more artifact types

found at a site, the ‘richer’ the assemblage is. Evenness measures the relative frequency of the

different artifact types making up the richness of a site. Simpson’s Index (D) measures the

diversity of an area, taking both richness and evenness into account. It reveals what the

probability is that a species, or in this case an artifact, be randomly selected from a sample. In

Simpson’s Index, n is the total number of artifacts of a certain classification (such as biface

thinning flake or a flake tool), and N is the total number of artifacts in the assemblage. When 26 subtracting D from 1, increased diversity is represented by a higher number closer to 1.

Shannon’s index measures diversity as well, but also calculates evenness separately. In this

index, H represents the diversity, where pi is the percent of number of artifact type in relation to

the total assemblage. Hmax is the maximum diversity possible, and is calculated by taking the

natural log of the number of artifact types. Similar to Simpson’s, the evenness results are then

expressed by subtracting E from 1 so that a high diversity is represented by the higher numerical

value. Using these two methods, we can measure the diversity and richness of sites such as

Ryan-Harley in an effort to compare the artifact assemblage to assemblages from other sites.

Microscopy

While very broad macroscopic analyses were completed during the initial analysis to

determine chert provenance, it was later revisited in an effort to reaffirm the raw material origins.

This was completed through the analyses of chert microfossils with the use of an illuminated

10X hand lens and a Carson 60X-120X handheld microscope. Guidelines set by Upchurch and

others (2008) provide standards of raw material analyses of Florida cherts, utilizing the quarry

cluster method of analysis and showing that the presence of particular foraminifera microfossils

can reveal the locality of the limestone formation the chert sample was initially from. These

fossils are variable in these quarries, but if one can recognize the diagnostic foraminifera of

particular chert outcrops, then the location of the raw material origins can be identified with

increased accuracy. An issue encountered with this assemblage is that the process of silicification

has a significant effect on the toolstone, making the identification of diagnostic fossils a difficult

and sometimes nearly impossible procedure. Not only this, but as the quarry cluster method has

proven affective in determining chert origins from separate clusters (Austin et al. 2010), defining

chert provenance from within quarries is a difficult task. Therefore, the separation of the 27 following chert types in this analysis is not a simple endeavor, due to their formations in similar areas and as replacements of the same parent material, Suwannee Limestone (Upchurch et al.

2008).

There are many species of foraminifera in Florida’s carbonate rocks, but diagnostic foraminiferal families that characterize specific formations are fewer in number. For the purposes of this study, an attempt to identify any of the groups associated with Suwannee, St.

Marks, and Coastal Plains cherts was made. Suwannee Limestone cherts usually contain a variety of small fossils, but the most diagnostic are the foraminiferal species belonging to the

Family Miliolidae (Austin 1997; Upchurch et al. 2008). Miliolids are identified by their chambered tests that surround a central axis (Figure 5). Another species characteristic of

Suwannee cherts belong to the genus Dictyoconus, preserved as V-shaped fossils in the matrix

(Austin 1997).

The literature describing St. Marks chert leaves some to be desired in terms of detailed fabric and fossil descriptions of the materials in Wakulla and Leon counties (Austin et al. 2010;

Endonino 2007; Scott 1992; Upchurch et al. 2008). In most cases, the St. Marks Formation is referenced in association with the Tampa Formation because of its similarity in texture and paleontology (Upchurch et al. 2008). The Family Peneroplidae is diagnostic of Tampa cherts, and therefore species such as Peneroplis, Archaias, and Sorites would be good identifiers of St.

Marks chert. Samples thought to potentially be St. Marks chert were given extra attention and compared to photographs of large diagnostic St. Marks chert samples. The clear separation of St.

Marks chert was challenging due to its location in the same Wacissa Quarry Cluster as Suwannee cherts (Austin et al. 2010), therefore the true representation of St. Marks cherts in this assemblage may be deflated as some may have been identified as Suwannee. 28

For this analysis, the Coastal Plains chert that was identified were materials from quarries southward in the Wacissa Quarry Cluster. To classify these flakes, they were compared to a multitude of chert samples from the 8PI66 site, a coastal lithic workshop located in Pinellas

County near Safety Harbor, Florida, on the basis of chert fabric and fossil inclusions. These

cherts are similar to Suwannee, but tend to be more fine-grained and lighter grey in color. Upon

identification of these cherts, the sample’s raw material type was assigned according to the code

sheet used in the lithic analysis.

60X

Figure 5. Microscopic view of diagnostic Miliolid (center) found in Suwannee chert.

The methods detailed in this chapter provide a way to conduct mass analyses of lithic debitage assemblages. In this study we rely heavily on the typological analysis of debitage, a large advantage of which allows for the immediate inferences and interpretations of behaviors from the recognition of a particular flake or tool (Andrefsky 2001:6). This idea that a certain type of flake could contain significant behavioral information is crucial to this analysis and will allow for the further understanding of lithic manufacturing processes by the inhabitants of the Ryan-

Harley site.

Chapter IV

Results

A full analysis was performed on a total of 345 lithic artifacts recovered from three excavation units at the Ryan-Harley site using the methodologies described in Chapter III. The lithic analysis of each artifact provided a means of detecting the technological trends, reduction methods, and behavioral characteristics of the Suwannee point-makers that inhabited the site. In order to address the main research questions of what lithic reduction strategies and behavioral patterns were occurring at the site, the debitage was described according to the attributes and characteristics listed in the previous chapter. This chapter will review the results of the lithic analysis, focusing on the attributes and characteristics considered most valuable to this study.

Flake Debitage Results

Debitage Class 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Debris/Shatter Flake Fragment Broken Flake Complete Flake

Figure 6. Classification of debitage by flake type.

This study identified 334 stone flakes, representing 97% of the lithic materials analyzed in the Ryan-Harley assemblage. A typology of four classes was used to differentiate the flake debitage (Figure 6). Complete flakes made up 46.41 % of the collection and fragmented flakes represent 26.05%, while the remaining 27.54 % consists of broken flakes or shatter. This assemblage of flakes was then divided further by a technological typology, consisting of six classes (Table 4). Biface thinning flakes dominate the collection by nearly two-thirds with 208 identified samples, while the final one-third is primarily represented by edge retouch flakes and flakes with indeterminate technological classes due to their status as shatter, or they are too broken for identification. Retouched scraper, bipolar, and platform preparation flakes compose just over 1% of the identified flakes by technological class.

Table 4. Classification of flake debitage by technological type.

Technological Type Count Percent Biface Thinning Flake 208 62.27% Retouched Scraper Flake 1 0.30% Bipolar Flake 2 0.60% Platform Preparation Flake 2 0.60% Pressure/Edge Retouch Flake 57 17.07% Indeterminate 64 19.16% Total 334 100%

Platform Type 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Figure 7. Classification of flake debitage by platform type.

Cortical and abraded platforms were the least common in this assemblage, as flat striking platforms appeared the most, taking up over one-third of the assemblage (Figure 7). Complex platforms were identified on 23.05% of the samples, and missing platforms consist of the remaining one-third as a result of unidentifiable crushed platforms or missing proximal portions of flake fragments. Of the flakes that were broken or fragmented, a majority of them had identifiable proximal or distal portions (Figure 8). Medial portions of flakes were least common with only 10.07% of the identified flake portions classified as such.

Flake Portion 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Proximal Medial Distal

Figure 8. Classification of broken and fragmented flakes by portion.

Termination of Complete Flakes 140

120

100

0 Feathered Step Hinge Overshot

Figure 9. Classification of flake debitage by termination.

Flake terminations were divided into four categories, and were identifiable on complete flakes and those determined to be distal fragments. As displayed by Figure 9, feather terminations were the most commonly distinguished by a large margin, consisting of 83.23% of the identified terminations of complete flakes. Hinge terminations consisted of 13.54% and 34 overshot terminations were nearly absent in this assemblage, representing less than one percent of flakes with recognizable terminations. Step terminations are not representative of complete flakes, as those with steps signify fragmented flakes.

The amount of cortex found in flake debitage can be an indicator for stages of lithic reduction. The cortex percentages recorded from this assemblage show that two-thirds of the lithic artifacts were contained no cortex, while 24.55% had less than 10% cortex associated with them. Only 9.28% of the remaining flakes have more than 10% cortex (Table 5).

Table 5. Flake debitage by percent of cortex.

Percent of Cortex Count Percent 0% 221 66.17% .1-10% 82 24.55% 11-49% 26 7.78% 50-90% 5 1.50% > 90% 0 0% Total 334 100%

Notable size distributions of the debitage are found in the lengths and weights of

complete flakes. Because fragmented and broken flakes do not represent the whole of an artifact,

they are not considered in the results of these attributes. As seen in Figures 10 and 11, there is a

skewed distribution of lengths and weights in regards to complete flakes. 51.61% of complete

flakes are less than two centimeters in length, and when compared to their weight distribution,

these small flakes are among those that weigh the least. 55.48% of these complete flakes weigh less than one gram. When the ratio of length to width is measured, there is a clear distinction of complete flakes that are nearly the same length as they are wide, if not longer (Figure 12). The distribution of weights in regards to technological type also shows a skewed dataset of very light flakes (Figure 13). Biface thinning flakes that are less than a gram make up 47.12% of their entire category, and all flakes classified as edge retouch weigh under 0.5 grams. The skewed 35 dataset as a result of weight is also apparent when the ratio of flake thickness is recorded, showing that biface thinning flakes have less of a disparity between their weight and thickness

than edge retouch flakes due to them generally being thicker and consequentially thicker (Figure

14). In contrast, there is a large difference with edge retouch flakes, due to many of them being

so extremely light in relation to their thicknesses.

Length Distribution of Complete Flakes 90

0 < 1.99 2.0-2.99 3.0-3.99 4.0-4.99 5.0-5.99 6.0-6.99 7.0-7.99 8.0-8.99 9.0-9.99 10-10.99 Length (cm)

Figure 10. The distribution of complete flake lengths in one centimeter increments.

Weight Distribution of Complete Flakes 90

0 0.01-0.99 1.0-1.99 2.0-2.99 3.0-3.99 4.0-4.99 > 5.0 Weight (g)

Figure 11. Weight distribution of complete flakes in one gram increments. 37

Length/Width Ratio of Complete Flakes 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 < 0.59 0.6-0.79 0.8-0.99 1.0-1.29 1.3-1.49 1.5-1.69 1.7-1.89 1.9-1.99 2.0-2.29 Length/Width Ratio

Figure 12. Length to width ratio of complete flakes.

Weight Distributions of Biface Thinning and Edge Retouch Flakes 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01-0.49 0.5-0.99 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0-4.49 4.5-4.99 > 5.0 Weight (g)

Biface Thinning Pressure/Edge Retouch

Figure 13. Weight distributions based on all biface thinning and edge retouch flakes. 38

Thickness/Weight Ratios of Biface Thinning and Edge Retouch Flakes 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Biface Thinning Pressure/Edge Retouch

Figure 14. Ratio of thickness to weight for biface thinning and edge retouch flakes. 39

Tool Results

Ten tools were recorded in this analysis, representing 3% of the entire lithic assemblage

(Tables 6 and 7; Figure 15). While late stage tools were found, a majority of them can be classified as expedient flake tools. Nearly half of them are utilized flakes (Figure 15e, d, h, i), and there are also two flake scrapers (Figure 15a, g), two combination tools (Figure 15b, j), an early stage biface (Figure 15c), and a core (Figure 15f). Flake tools are objective pieces that have undergone modification to some extent since their production from a tool blank (Andrefsky

2005:79). They are nonbifacial and have localized retouch edges, occurring on only one, or both, face(s) of the tool. Scrapers are tools with a steep retouch edge, where a typical edge angle between 60° and 90° is common. One of the combination tools was classified as a flake tool and scraper due to its expedient nature and multiple worked edges, in which one had a clear angle greater than 60°. The other combination tool represented a late stage biface, but had localized retouch flakes providing evidence of its use as a scraper. Of the seven flake tools not classified as a biface or core there were six originating from a biface thinning flake and one from a core reduction flake. Six were also identified to have evidence of unifacial retouch and the combination tool had evidence of alternating retouch. Additionally, no hafting wear was identified on any of them. Had there been evidence of hafting, there would usually be signs of grinding and polishing on the edges and dorsal ridges of a flake tool (Andrefsky 2005:169). The type of retouch identified was limited to two kinds: nibbling occurred on five of them, and scaly retouch was on the other two.

Two biface fragments were recorded. A late stage biface was from 50-74% on the completeness scale and only 1-25% of the early stage biface remained in the assemblage. The most obvious missing portion of the late stage biface was the tip, while the medial section and 40 base were slightly more recognizable. It had a lanceolate planview shape with a concave base and bi-plano cross-section shape. It contained no cortex and had edge angles between 30° and

60° consistent along the margins of the tool. The early stage biface was classified as indeterminate in regards to what it was missing because of its early stage of manufacturing. Its planview shape was classified as random due to, again, its early stage of production. It has a plano-convex cross-section shape with an indeterminate base type, and contained cortex on one face. Both bifaces had random flaking types, as no type was particularly dominate over the other, and neither showed signs of end thinning.

The core was classified under the multidirectional core typology and showed signs of five significant core flake scars, while other scars were randomly distributed elsewhere on the surface. As a core, this tool was likely discarded at the end of its effective use life and must have therefore been larger at one time, but confirming this would require extensive efforts involving the discovery and refitting of flakes detached from this core.

Table 6. Tool attributes and characteristics by category (BTF = Biface Thinning Flake; CR =

Core Reduction).

Category Artifacts Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Tool Type Scraper Scraper Tool Tool Tool Tool Tool/Scraper FS 13349-1 13349-3 13351-141 13371-132 13351-40 13349-21 13351-18 Number Length 52.01 41.82 48.89 88.33 54.11 64.35 87.79 (cm) Width 48.88 47.35 21.82 60.58 62.35 54.59 70.56 (cm) Thickness 4.72 5.55 4.28 10.62 21.77 24.46 16.73 (cm) Weight 8.91 7.38 4.17 46.65 60.77 83.26 85.79 (g) Tool BTF BTF BTF BTF BTF CR BTF Blank Hafting None None None None None None None Wear Edges 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Worked Shape of Retouched Convex Concave Convex Concave Convex Convex Convex Edge Retouch Unifacial Unifacial Unifacial Unifacial Unifacial Unifacial Alternating Face Retouch Scaly Nibbling Nibbling Nibbling Scaly Nibbling Nibbling Type Edge < 30° 30°-60° < 30° 30°-60° > 60° > 60° 30°-60° Angle Total Edge 41.73 49.12 59.97 42..95 83.12 59.10 104.08/ Length Worked Edge 28.10 9.79 22.90 23.90 83.12 39.82 104.08/ Length Cortex 0% 0% 0% 0.1-10% 0% 11-49% 0% Percent Raw Material Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee Type

Table 7. Biface and core attributes and characteristics by category

Category Artifact Late Stage Tool Type Early Stage Biface Core Biface/Scraper FS Number 13351-96 13349-37 13349-34 Length 70.71 71.50 47.88 Width 44.41 35.87 35.10 Thickness 18.26 9.38 24.64 Weight 38.74 27.21 46.50 Estimated 1-25% 50-74% - Completeness Missing Portion Indeterminate Tip - Biface Stage Early Late - Planview Shape Random Lanceolate - Base Type Indeterminate Concave - Cross-Section Plano-Convex Bi-Plano - Shape Dominate Flaking Random Random - Type End Thinned None None - Cortex Present One face None One Face Core Type Multidirectional/Random - Multidirectional/Random Core Flake Scars 3 2 5 Edge Angle Side 1 - 30°-60° - Edge Angle Side 2 - 30°-60° - Raw Material Type Suwannee Suwannee Suwannee

flake tool, (i) flake tool, (j) flake tool/scraper. 44

For the statistical analyses of diversity within the assemblage, the indices provided some interesting results after using the formulas mentioned in Chapter IV. The calculations of artifact diversity by technological type at the Ryan-Harley site using Simpson’s index is 0.57 and

Shannon’s index resulted in a diversity of 1.14 and an evenness of 0.53 (Tables 8 and 9). When calculating these indices for the diversity of the assemblage of just flakes and tool categories at

Ryan-Harley, an expected low value of 0.057 with the Simpson index was unsurprising seeing

how flakes consist of 97% of the assemblage (Table 10).

Table 8. Values used in Simpson’s diversity index of technological artifact type.

Artifact Type Number (n) n(n-1) Biface Thinning Flake 208 43,056 Retouched Scraper Flake 1 0 Bipolar Flake 2 2 Platform Preparation Flake 2 2 Pressure/Edge Retouch Flake 57 3,192 Indeterminate 64 4,032 Combination Tool 2 2 Scrapers 2 2 Flake Tools 4 12 Biface 1 0 Core 1 0

Table 9. Values used in Shannon’s diversity index of technological flake type.

Artifact Type Pi ln(pi) pi*ln(pi) Biface Thinning Flake 0.604651163 -0.503103578 -0.304202163 Retouched Scraper Flake 0.002906977 -5.840641657 -0.016978609 Bipolar Flake 0.005813953 -5.147494477 -0.029927293 Platform Preparation Flake 0.005813953 -5.147494477 -0.029927293 Pressure/Edge Retouch Flake 0.165697674 -1.79759039 -0.297856547 Indeterminate 0.186046512 -1.681758574 -0.312885316 Combination Tool 0.005813953 -5.147494477 -0.029927293 Scrapers 0.005813953 -5.147494477 -0.029927293 Flake Tools 0.011627907 -4.454347296 -0.051794736 Biface 0.002906977 -5.840641657 -0.016978609 Core 0.002906977 -5.840641657 -0.016978609

Table 10. Values used in Simpson’s diversity index of Ryan-Harley artifacts.

Artifact Number (n) n(n-1) Flakes 334 111222 Tools 10 90

Table 11. Data used to construct a Fisher Exact Test.

Site Flakes Tools Marginal Row Totals Ryan-Harley 334 10 344 Harney Flats 79750 1094 80844 Marginal Column Totals 80084 1104 81188 (Grand Total)

Table 12. Chi-Square Test Values.

Flakes Tools

Actual Values:

Ryan-Harley 344 10 Harney Flats 79750 1094 Expected Values

Ryan-Harley 349.187 4.81312 Harney Flats 79744.8 1099.19 Chi-Square Values

Ryan-Harley 0.0770467 5.58965 Harney Flats 0.000337372 0.024476 Chi-Square = 5.69151

Degrees of Freedom = 1

P = 0.017042

Microscopic Analysis

Raw Material Type 4.49% 0.3% 0.3%

Suwannee St. Marks Coastal Plains

95.21%

Figure 16. Percentage distribution of the raw material types of the Ryan-Harley assemblage.

The lithic raw material analysis revealed this assemblage to be dominated by Suwannee

chert, representing 95.21% of the debitage. The identified Coastal Plains cherts consist of 4.49%

of the assemblage, followed by the .3% that was identified to be St. Marks (Figure 16). All tools

were made of the local Suwannee chert, and most of the flakes representing different raw

materials were classified as biface thinning flakes. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the

total number of St. Marks chert is potentially deflated due to the difficulty in determining the

differences between St. Marks and Suwannee cherts. When first analyzing the assemblage in the

spring of 2018, the raw material type was assigned somewhat recklessly by using comparisons of

chert types via photograph, and there was enough diagnostic Suwannee material to compare 47 those chert types within the same assemblage. Due to this, the artifacts classified differently from

Suwannee were reexamined, as were some Suwannee samples noted for future review during the initial analysis. Since the first lithic analysis of this assemblage I have wanted to revisit these

samples in an effort to determine the raw material type with a heightened confidence. This led to

the reclassification of artifacts by their raw material type, and while it has shown perhaps an

even more localized form of toolstone procurement and use, the specimens reanalyzed are

identified under increased accuracy.

Of the originally classified Coastal Plains cherts, nearly 25% of them were reclassified as

Suwannee chert with the presence of the diagnostic characteristics defined by Upchurch and

others (2005; Austin 1997), such as the presence of Miliolids and genus Dictyoconus. The flakes

determined to be St. Marks chert from the original analysis was extremely small in number. This

reclassification made that amount decrease by reclassifying some of that material as Suwannee

chert. Viewing the artifacts chosen for reevaluation through both an illuminated 10X hand lens

and a 60X handheld microscope aided tremendously in the recognition of fossiliferous fabrics,

especially in the Suwannee material. Species in the Family Miliolidae (Figure 17) and the genus

Dictyoconus (Figure 18) in a grainstone fabric were diagnostic of the Suwannee cherts (Austin

1997), and used to reassign raw material types within the assemblage.

60X

Figure 17. A diagnostic Miliolid foraminifera found in Suwannee chert.

60X

Figure 18. A V-shaped Dictyoconus diagnostic of Suwannee chert. 49

Chapter V

Discussion

Lithic Analysis

The analysis of the Ryan-Harley lithic materials has revealed an artifact assemblage that reflects tool maintenance took place at the site. When considering tool production and use through flake debitage, it is important to recognize the distinctions between what is considered a formal tool and informal, or expedient, tool. The difference between the two is seen primarily in the amount of effort used in their production. A formal tool is a manufactured tool that has an extended uselife over the course of multiple resharpening episodes, or can be produced in a single episode of production from raw material to finished product (Andrefsky 2005). Tools of this type take greater amounts of effort to produce, have flexibility, can be rejuvenated, and can be redesigned for different functions without much hardship (Goodyear 1979:4; Kelly 1988).

Informal tools are manufactured expediently with not much standardization in form, and are made for a task, then usually discarded afterwards. Unlike formal tools, which are considered to be made with characteristics of advance preparation, transportability, and anticipated use, informal tools can be characterized as situational gear in response to specific conditions (Binford

1979). Due to these tools being manufactured expediently with an unstandardized design, the general trend seen in the process is one of wastefulness in regards to lithic raw materials.

Aggregate debitage analysis by typology provides a way for the lithics at a site to be grouped together under certain criteria for comparison within an assemblage. When analyzing the technological class of the debitage at Ryan-Harley, biface thinning flakes are the dominate type of flaking occurring here suggesting formal tool making processes and/or use. This is 50 supported by the dominance in the flat platform type, which indicates more care and effort was expended in tool production (Andrefsky 2005). This proposes formal tool production as well, whereas an assemblage without as many biface thinning flakes and flat platforms relative to

other flake and platform types suggests informal tool production and use.

The feathered terminations of biface thinning flakes also provide information on the

people knapping them. Feather terminations represent continuations of flake propagation

(Andrefsky 2005:29), and are therefore desired among Paleoindian tool-makers in hopes to

create surfaces that allow for continual and efficient reductions (Nolan et al. 2007; Shelley

1990). Step and hinge terminations are troublesome for tool-makers in that these create

inefficient surfaces for reduction and therefore unwanted. These terminations can be used as a

proxy for measuring the skill of the tool-maker, where more feather terminations found in the

debitage reflects more experienced knappers. Feather terminations make up 83% of the complete

flakes in the Ryan-Harley assemblage, and account for 41 out of the 48 distal ends of flake

fragments analyzed. Another note to make about the terminations evident in this assemblage is

the small amount of overshot flakes. This type of termination is most regularly associated with

Clovis technologies, thus making the 1.6% of overshot terminations in the Ryan-Harley materials

unsurprising (Straus et al. 2005).

An indicator of the level of tool production occurring at the Ryan-Harley site is in the percent of cortex that make up the flakes of this assemblage. The amount of cortex evident in an

assemblage reflects the degree of reduction stages of tools and nontools (Andrefsky 2005:103).

The assumption made here is that the cortex will be the first to be removed in tool production or

core reduction, and as flakes are removed the cortex will have to be detached before any of the

interior can be. Although this can be dependent on the amount of cortex on the initial piece, the 51 type of reduction, and the kind of artifact being produced, when the amount of debitage without cortex is analyzed alongside technological and platform types, more evidence for later stages of tool manufacturing is apparent in this assemblage.

An interesting interpretation can be made of the Ryan-Harley site by analyzing the ratio of complete flakes with broken or fragmented flakes. This type of research has the potential to reveal more about how Paleoindian peoples may have interacted with their unwanted materials, and provide analogs for artifact distributions in relation to living spaces at sites like this. Lithic trampling studies have shown a correlation between the degree of trampling at a site, the type of raw materials being trampled, and the substrate they are being trampled on (McBrearty et al.

1998; Neilson 1991; Pryor 1988; Weitzel et al. 2013).These experimental studies are used to determine what Weitzel and others (2013) call the Trampling Fragmentation Potential (TFP). In these studies it is determined that the relationship between the artifact’s area and thickness plays a role in determining TFP, and even more significant is the substrate the artifacts are located upon. It was found that in unconsolidated permeable substrates, such as loose, dry sand, artifacts seemed to remain undamaged and move more vertically than artifacts trampled on a loamy substrate, where material breakage was more common and vertical displacement was only a fifth

of what it was on the sand (McBrearty et al. 1998). While not to be used as an analog for

trampling studies done at every site, it shows that the relationship between these are significant

factors in determining how lithic material wastes can be affected by trampling. Further study is

needed involving the distribution of artifacts in relation to their size to see a better picture of this

at Ryan-Harley. However, it is not unreasonable to think that the lithic materials were disposed

of or manufactured away from the main living area of the campsite immediately after

manufacture, resulting in the large amount of complete flakes, or perhaps that the sandy substrate 52 the inhabitants were living on was loose enough to protect many of the flakes as they were walked over.

Tool Analysis

When observing the tools in the Ryan-Harley assemblage, it is apparent that most of discarded tools were of the informal tool variety, while the debitage suggests formal tool maintenance. The variety in morphological traits and small amount of standard retouch on a majority of the tools found in this assemblage supports the use of informal tools to carry out variable tasks on this site. The most compelling are the two combination tools that were identified (Figure 15b, j). The flake tool/scraper combination (Figure 15j) is apparent in the two retouched edges of differing edge angles. Along one edge is an alternating unimarginal type of retouch, with an edge angle nearing 30° or 40°. This is what signifies its use as a flake tool to perhaps cut or slice something. The second edge identified this tool as a scraper because the retouched edge angle is over 60°. This combination goes to show the nature of an informal tool at Ryan-Harley, where the tool-maker was using it for one task but then encountered a situation

where the other tool function would be more beneficial or efficient, then proceeded to

manufacture an edge for that specific purpose.

The most intriguing tool in this assemblage is the late-stage biface/scraper combination

(Figure 15b). Researchers think formal tools are produced via extended effort to make a tool that

will have a long uselife and is suitable for future situations (Andrefsky 2005; Kelly 1988). The appearance of a late-stage biface shows that the producer had spent more time and energy

crafting it than they would an informal tool. The shift from producing a biface to retouching an

edge for use as a scraper is significant in that the tool-maker was on course to make a formal tool

having expended the extra effort to do so, but then encountered a situation that made the 53 individual prefer its function as an informal tool. It is important to note that here the scraper is identified as an informal tool because it is missing the elements that might classify it as a formal tool (i.e. signs of hafting), and seems to have been reworked expediently. This also reveals that raw material wasting was not much of a concern for the inhabitants of Ryan-Harley, as they could afford to stop production of a late stage biface that took them time to make, to switch its use as a tool meant for eventual discard.

Site Function Analysis

The tools in this assemblage also allow for the interpretation of broader site behaviors.

The trend from formal tool use to informal tool use reflects shifts from mobile to sedentary populations (Andrefsky 2005:227). Parry and Kelly (1987) made strong cases for this relationship, recording data from four areas of North America: Mesoamerica, Plains, Southwest, and Eastern Woodlands. They worked along the assumption that tools requiring more effort in production would likely be associated with mobile groups, while tools requiring less effort to produce were related to sedentary groups (Andrefsky 2005). This is a fair assumption, as mobile groups need to prepare their toolkits with items with flexibility, having spent time making them in anticipation for situations to occur in the future. Sedentary groups would not need to prepare tools as thoroughly as mobile groups because they are staying in one place for an extended amount of time and can produce expedient tools for whenever the occasion rises that they need them. The data Parry and Kelly (1987) compiled show this relationship of shifting usages of formal tools to expedient tools in areas of North America known to have shifted from mobile to sedentary strategies.

The assemblage of lithic debitage at Ryan-Harley shows that formal tool manufacturing was the primary form of tool production occurring at the site. The tremendous amount of retouch 54 in the form of biface thinning flakes reflects this, and in comparison to the small number of expedient tools in the assemblage, it would be fair to assume that this occupation was inhabited by a small mobile group. If it were larger, it would be expected to find an increased number of tools and tool types, but this is not what the data from Ryan-Harley suggest. This interpretation of this Ryan-Harley assemblage representing a small mobile group of hunters is in line with the conclusions made by Dunbar and others (2005) as they had identified a large amount of faunal remains of both terrestrial and aqueous species in their analyses of the site, interpreting it as a

Suwannee campsite.

The behaviors at this campsite can be analyzed further by recognizing the raw materials the inhabitants used. A hypothesis considered of Paleoindians is the preference of homogenous microcrystalline chert over larger coarse-grained or heterogeneous chert (Goodyear 1983). The assemblage at Ryan-Harley speaks to the contrary because not all the lithic material from the site conforms to that hypothesis (Dunbar et al. 2005). Several of the flake tools and scrapers recovered from the site are cherts that are far from the homogenous microcrystalline materials

preferred in areas elsewhere in North America. The raw material data collected in this study

matches what has been found in previous excavations with the assemblage being made primarily

out of Suwannee chert. These analyses reflect a dependence on locally-available resources as the

Ryan-Harley inhabitants occupied the site.

The way that Paleoindian hunter-gatherers interacted with and exploited their

surrounding environment and resources has a lot to do with their strategies as foragers or

collectors. With his characterization of hunter-gatherers into these two classes, Binford (1980)

has contributed the most to the way researchers understand the nature of prehistoric site

functions. After ethnoarchaeological analyses of modern hunter-gatherers, Binford (1980) 55 defined foragers and collectors based on the type of mobility each practiced, residential and logistical. Residential mobility involved the movement of an entire group from one place to another over time, such as seasonally, and logistical mobility was defined as the movement of small task-oriented groups of people who move to and from a residential location (Binford

1980). Foragers were defined as highly residential groups, while collectors were highly logistical movers with low residential movements. It is important to not view these typologies strictly, but to understand they are a way to characterize a broad variety of hunter-gatherer residential patterns (Andrefsky 2005). Andrefsky (2005) demonstrates that by working backwards with these models, one can use artifact types to assess site functions of hunter-gatherer residences.

Based on the findings of Chatters (1987), who used the hunter-gatherer models proposed by Binford to evaluate sites in the Pacific Northwest, the diversity of tools can be a way of interpreting site functions of hunter-gatherers. This comes from the activities and expected use of tools at base and resident camps in comparison to those of small field camps. Base camps would reflect the residential mobility model, which means they would be occupying an area as a large group for an extended amount of time, requiring the need for multiple tools for a wide range of activities to be completed. Tool assemblages in base camps would be expected to be high in diversity, reflecting multifunctional and generalized assemblages to reduce residential transportation costs (Andrefsky 2005). In contrast, field camps represent the logistical mobility model, where the tool diversity should be lower because of the limited range of resources they are designed to process and acquire, and how much time they occupy a single site.

These models of residency can be used to interpret site functions of sites in Florida. To compare with that of Ryan-Harley, a residential base camp in central Florida will be discussed.

Mentioned in Chapter II of this paper, the Harney Flats site (8HI507) is located northeast of 56

Tampa, Florida in Hillsborough County and was discovered during the construction of the I-75 corridor 40 years ago. This well known site is an interesting comparison to Ryan-Harley because they both have a Suwannee component, but while Harney Flats’ Suwannee layer is contacted by a Bolen component in nearly the same stratigraphic levels, Ryan-Harley has no contamination from other culture complexes. Using Harney Flats, one can see the differences between large

Florida Paleoindian residential base camps and small specialized field camps.

As mentioned before, the diversity of artifacts at a site eludes to the occupation length and size of the operations taking place at a site. By analyzing a site’s artifact richness and diversity, one can make these interpretations based on statistical reasoning. In the case of Ryan-

Harley, the diversity indices that were calculated fall neatly into a middle ground of sorts, but nonetheless show that a high diversity of artifacts is not what is seen in this assemblage. After running the same tests on the assemblages at Harney Flats, the results made sense of what would be seen with a larger and longer occupied site. The Simpson’s diversity index of tools at Harney

Flats was 0.86, symbolizing a high diversity according to the index. This can be contrasted with

Ryan-Harley’s tool diversity index of 0.64, in which a lower diversity can be interpreted from this. A Fisher Exact Test was ran using the flake and tool data from Ryan-Harley and Harney

Flats (Table 11), along with a Chi-Square Test (Table 12) with one degree of freedom, to

determine if the difference in distribution of these artifacts between the two sites are significant

and not due to random chance. Where the result is significant at p < 0.05, the Fisher statistic

value was 0.0295, and the Chi Square value came out as 0.017. These suggest statistically that the differences in the assemblages are significant.

The location of Harney Flats in the Tampa Bay area provided the occupants of this multicomponent site with a wide range of resources. Abundant flora and fauna with the access to 57 readily available lithic raw materials made this an excellent environment to spend extended amounts of time at. Daniel and Wisenbaker (2017) report that the formal tools found in the assemblage were low in diversity and rather generalized. However, the expedient tool use showed greater variety even though they were functionally equivalent to the formal tools. This matches with what has been discussed, in that the inhabitants produced expedient tools for immediate tasks at the site, while the formal tools were likely manufactured for long-term use and were generalized in preparation for the different situations they could be reworked for.

The local procurement of abundant raw materials allowed the inhabitants of Harney Flats to conduct increased tool production over tool recycling, as revealed by the excavated debitage assemblages (Daniel and Wisenbaker 2017). This is another example of debitage analyses showing how Paleoindians were producing their tools, as the residents were not pressured to recycle their formal tools for multiple jobs, but able to save their formal tools for later travel and potential recycling while the use of expedient tools were for immediate base camp tasks. Due to the large size and the structure of the site, in accordance with the lithic assemblage, Harney Flats is an excellent example of a residential base camp that designated separate areas for living space and activities like tool production (Daniel and Wisenbaker 2017). Based on Binford’s (1980) classification, Ryan-Harley represents a small task-oriented field camp due to the site’s low archaeological “visibility” and limited toolkit. With these examples an inverse relationship can be seen between artifact diversity and site type in that as mobility of a group increases, artifact diversity decreases. The increased sedentism at Harney Flats is reflected in the higher diversity of tools, while at the site of a more mobile group, such as Ryan-Harley, there is a decrease in tool diversity in the assemblage. 58

Interesting comparison can be made between the Ryan-Harley and Harney Flats assemblages in regards to the flake debitage at the sites. When further along the process of tool reduction, it is likely that the amount of cortex in the assemblage will reflect that and appear less or be completely absent in most of the assemblage. 79,750 flakes were recovered from the

Harney Flats site, but 80% of that assemblage contained no cortex (Daniel and Wisenbaker

2017:124). The Ryan-Harley assemblage shows that 66% of the flake debitage also contained no cortex. These majorities suggest that initial or early-stage reduction took place elsewhere, likely at the local quarries from which they obtain their materials, followed by the transport of their material to the site for further reduction. When analyzing the weight distributions of Ryan-

Harley, this notion of late-stage reduction and retouch is evident in the skewed amount of flake debitage less than 0.5 grams. Biface thinning and edge retouch flakes are 80% of the entire flake assemblage, with 100% of the edge retouch flakes existing solely in this weight category. The

large amount of flakes represented in this small weight category speaks to the overall small size

of the flake, reflecting late-stage tool production. If it were early-stage reduction happening at

Ryan-Harley, much larger and heavy debitage would be seen. These results are consistent with

that of the inhabitants of Harney Flats, in that inhabitants are conducting primary reduction at

quarry sites, and then transporting their materials to the site for further tool manufacturing. 59

Chapter VI

Conclusions and Future Research

Concluding Remarks

The occupation at Ryan-Harley represents the remains of a small hunter-gatherer group, focused on the local resources in the area just as the Harney Flats occupants did, even though they are considerably different sites in terms of function and size. The lithic assemblage at Ryan-

Harley provides a glimpse into the lifeways of a task-oriented group in Binford’s (1980) collector model, with the lithic analyses showing a focus on late-stage formal tool manufacturing and the use of expedient tools for specific task-related purposes. The lithic analyses of this assemblage is in concordance with the conclusions of past excavations by Dunbar and others

(2005), with similar trends in raw material type, tool production, and site function. This lithic analysis has served to provide further evidence of a Suwannee-age campsite, and provides a comparable study for future sites and analyses.

Future Research

The connections drawn between what the lithic analyses of these sites reveal in terms of

Paleoindian lifeways show that Florida Paleoindians are likely to use a localized settlement pattern, where access to locally-specific resources is preferred, instead of the common generalized-foraging, highly mobile strategies seen in other regions of North America (Anderson

1990; Pevny et al. 2018; Smallwood 2012; Thulman 2009). This speaks to the uniqueness of the

Paleoindian record of Florida and why efforts to further the research of this period in the region should be pursued. The methods and results of this lithic analysis can also be used to provide directions for future research as it pertains to lithic analyses of Florida Paleoindian sites. 60

The systematic analyses of lithic debitage should continue to be pursued in ways that will include compatible and comprehensive techniques that allow for the analyses of archaeological sites like Ryan-Harley to be compared and contrasted to others in the southeast. The aggregate analysis of debitage will be instrumental moving forward as these methodologies are refined so that archaeologists may interpret the technological and social implications that can be derived from lithic assemblages of debitage and tools. The quarry cluster method of chert provenance in

Florida has been affective when analyzing the lithic raw materials at sites from which they are not local.

The appearance of nonlocal cherts at sites is identifiable using methods presented by

Austin and others (2010), but when trying to determine the origins of various cherts formed in large quarry clusters, the ability to determine provenance suffers. The extensive physical and chemical analyses of cherts, like those of St. Marks and Coastal Plains, will no doubt improve how raw material origins can be identified between and hopefully within local areas such as the

Wacissa Quarry Cluster. Achieving reliable dates that represent Middle Paleoindian sites in

Florida will also be a tremendous leap in the study of these past peoples. Repeated attempts to date the Ryan-Harley site have failed, but if another Middle Paleoindian component were found in dateable contexts, this would allow other sites with diagnostic materials to be properly dated, such as Ryan-Harley. This would begin to provide a richer understanding of post-Clovis lifeways, presumably spanning the time of megafaunal extinctions (Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007;

Halligan et al. 2016).

North Florida has become a hotbed for Paleoindian research, and as such will continue to provide archaeologists with unique sites and situations that will contribute to the future discovery, excavation, and analysis of Paleoindian sites. This thesis has provided a lithic analysis 61 of one of these sites that is certainly not the last of its kind to be discovered. With consistency in the way that lithic assemblages are examined, the understanding of Paleoindian lifeways will continue to expand and future research can further our knowledge of past human behavior in

Florida.

References Cited

Anderson, David G.

1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View From The

Southeastern United States. Research in Economic Archaeology 5:163-216.

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman

2012 Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity.

The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Anderson, David G., Ashley M. Smallwood, and D. Shane Miller

2015 Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and

Future Directions, PaleoAmerica, 1:1, 7-51

Andrefsky, William.

2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).

Cambridge University Press.

2007 The application and misapplication of mass analysis in lithic

debitage studies. The Journal of Archaeological Science 34:392-402.

Austin, Robert J.

1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use in South-Central Florida. PhD Dissertation,

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 63

Austin, Robert J., Sam B. Upchurch, James S. Dunbar, Richard W. Estabrook, Jon C. Endonino, and Adam Burke.

2010 The Quarry Cluster Approach to Chert Provenance Studies, with Examples from

Florida. 71st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Greenville,

South Carolina.

Balsillie, James H., Guy H. Means, and James S. Dunbar

2005 Geoarchaeological Consideration of the Ryan-Harley Site (8JE1004) in the Wacissa

River, Northern Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of National History 45(4):541-

562.

2006 The Ryan/Harley Site: Sedimentology of an Inundated Paleoindian Site in North

Florida. Geoarchaeology, 21 (4): 363-391.

Binford, Lewis R.

1979 Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of

Anthropological Research 35:255-273.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and

Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20.

Burke, Adam M.

2014 The Wayne's Sink Site (IJE1508/8TA280): A PXRF Analysis of Lithic Materials from

a Submerged Quarry in the Aucilla River, Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of

Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania.

Chatters, James C.

1987 Hunter-gatherer adaptations and assemblage structure. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 6:336-375.

Collins, Sophie

2008 Experimental investigations into edge performance and its implication for stone artifact

reduction modeling. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2164-2170.

Daniel, Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker

2017 [1987] Harney Flats: A Florida Paleoindian Site. University of Florida Press,

Gainesville.

Dunbar, James S. and Pamela K. Vojnovsky

2007 Early Floridians and Late Megamammals: Some Technological and Dietary Evidence

from Four North Florida Paleoindian Sites. In Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in

North America, edited by Renee B. Walker and Boyce N. Driskell, pp. 167-202. University

of Nebraska Press.

Dunbar, James S., C. A. Hemmings, Pamela K. Vojnovski, S. D. Webb, and William Stanton

2005 The Ryan/Harley Site 8Je1004: A Suwannee Point Site In The Wacissa River, North

Florida. Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, editors Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T.

Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 81-96. Center for the Study of the

First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Michael D. Glascock, Craig E. Skinner, and Sharon

A.Waechter

2007 Reduction Strategies and Geochemical Characterization of Lithic Assemblages: A

Comparison of Three Case Studies from Western North America.

Endonino, Jon C.

2007 A Reevaluation of the Gainesville, Ocala, and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters. The

Florida Anthropologist 60(2-3):77-96.

Goodyear, Albert C.

1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-Indian

Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series 127

Halligan, Jessi J.

in press What Does the Future Hold for First Floridian Studies? In Early Floridians: New

Directions in the Search for and Interpretation of Florida’s Earliest Inhabitants, edited by

D. K. Thulman and E. G. Garrison. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 66

2012 Geoarchaeological Investigations Into Paleoindian Adaptations on the Aucilla River,

Northwest Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas

A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Kelly, Robert L.

1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734.

Kuhn, Steven L.

1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological

Science 17:585-593.

Mcbrearty, Sally, Laura Bishop, Thomas Plummer, Robert Dewar and Nicholas Conard.

1998 Tools Underfoot: Human Trampling as an Agent of Lithic Artifact Edge Modification.

American Antiquity 63(1):108-129.

Neilson, Axel E.

1991 Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity

56(3):483-503.

Nolan, Kevin C., Mark F. Seeman, and James L. Theler.

2007 A Quantitative Analysis of Skill and Efficiency: Hopewell Blade Production at the

Turner Workshop, Hamilton County, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology

32(2):297-329.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly

1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology,

ed. J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow, pp. 285-304.

Pevny, Charlotte, Brian Ostahowski, William P. Barse, and R. Christopher Goodwin

2012 Archaeological Data Recovery at North Perry Quarry Site, 8TA452- A Late Woodland

Quarry in Taylor County for Florida. Prepared for Florida Gas Transmission Company,

LLC.

2018 Ancestor-Descendant Relationships in the Early Holocene. In In the Eastern Fluted

Point Tradition: Volume II, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, pp. 213-239. University of Utah

Press, Salt Lake.

Scott, Thomas M.

1992 A Geological Overview of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Open File Report No.

50:1-78.

Shelly, Phillip H.

1990 Variation in Lithic Assemblages: An Experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology

17(2):187-193.

Shott, Michael J.

1995 How much is a scraper? Curation, use rates, and the formation of scraper assemblages.

Lithic Technologies. 20:53-72.

Smallwood, Ashley M.

2012 Clovis Technology and Settlement in the American Southeast: Using Biface Analysis to

Evaluate Dispersal Models. American Antiquity 77(4):689-713.

Smith, Morgan F.

2018 An Update on Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Ryan-Harley Site (8JE1004),

Wacissa River, Florida. Presentated at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for

American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Speer, Charles A.

2016 A comparison of instrumental techniques at differentiating outcrops of Edwards Plateau

chert at the local scale. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 389–393.

Straus, Lawrence G., David J. Meltzer and Ted Goebel.

2005 Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis ‘connection’. World Archaeology

37(4):507-532.

Stanford, Dennis

1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: an Introductory Perspective. In Clovis: Origins and

Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-14. Center for the Study

of the First Americans, Corvallis, OR.

Stojanowski, Christopher M., Ryan M Seidemann, and Glen H. Doran.

2002 Differential Skeletal Preservation at Windover Pond: Causes and Consequences.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119:15-26.

Stone, Tammy T., David N. Dickel, and Glen H. Doran.

1990 The Preservation and Conservation of Waterlogged Bone from the Windover Site,

Florida: A Comparison of Methods. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(2):177-186.

Thulman, David K.

2009 Freshwater availability as the constraining factor in the Middle Paleoindian occupation

of North-Central Florida. Geoarchaeology 24(3):243-276.

2012 Paleoindian occupation along the St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 65(1-

2):77-83.

Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels

2008 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Tampa: Department of

Geology, University of South Florida.

Weitzel, Celeste, Karen Borrazzo, Antonio Ceraso, and Catalina Balirán

2013 Trampling Fragmentation Potential of Lithic Artifacts: An Experimental Approach.

Intersecciones en Antropología 15(1):97-110.

Williams, Justin P. and William Andrefsky Jr.

2011 Debitage Variability Among Multiple Flint Knappers. Journal of Archaeological

Science 38:865-872.

Appendix I: Coding Sheets

Flake Coding Sheet

Technological Class Termination Biface Thinning Flake 1 Feather 1 Retouched Scraper Flake 2 Step 2 Bipolar Flake 3 Hinge 3 Platform Preparation Flake 4 Plunging/Overshot 4 Pressure/Edge Retouch Flake 5 Other 6 Cortex None 0 Platform Data 0.1%-10% 1 Cortical 1 11%-49% 2 Flat 2 50%-90% 3 Complex/Multifacet 3 >90% 4 Abraded/Ground 4 Raw Material Type Debitage Classification Suwannee 1 Debris/Shatter 1 St. Marks 2 Flake Fragment 2 Coastal Plains 3 Broken Flake 3 Quartzite 4 Complete Flake 4 Other 5

Flake Portion Proximal 1 Medial 2 Distal 3

Flake Tool Coding Sheet

Variables to Score by Artifact Variables to Score by Edge

Tool Blank Retouched Edge Shape 1. Indeterminate flake 1. Indeterminate 2. Core reduction flake 2. Pointed 3. Blade 3. Straight 4. Biface thinning flake 4. Concave 5. Cortical spall 5. Convex

Hafting Wear Retouched Face 1. None Evident 1. Indeterminate 2. Dulling or polishing along edge 2. Unimarginal 3. Crushing or polishing along dorsal ridges 3. Bimarginal, 4. Abrupt change in edge wear 4. Edge 5. Alternating Worked Edges 1: 1 Retouch Type 2: 2 1. Indeterminate 2. Nibbling 3. Scaly 4. Stepped

Edge Angle 1. < 30° 2. 30°-60° 3. > 60°

Total Edge Length (mm)

Worked Edge Length (mm)

Biface Coding Sheet

Estimated Completeness Cross Section Shape 0: indeterminate 1: bi-convex 1: 100% 2: bi-plano 2: 75-99% 3: plano-convex 3: 50-74% 4: diamond 4: 25-49% 5: 1-25% Edge Angle Side 1 and 2 1. < 30° Missing Portion 2. 30°-60° 0: none 3. > 60° 1: base 2: tip Dominate Flaking Type 3: base/mid 0: indeterminate 4: tip/mid 1. edge only 5. indeterminate 2. to midline 3. past midline Biface Stage 4. some overshots 1: early 5. random 2: middle 3: late End Thinned 4: point 0. none 5: fragment 1. present 6: core 7: chopper Cortex Present 8: adze 0: none 1: one face Planview Shape 2: both faces 1: circular 2: lanceolate Core Type 3: ovoid 1: multidirectional random 4: straight 2. bifacial 5: triangular 3. unidirectional 6: corner-notched 4. conical 7: side-notched 5. wedge-shaped 8. random Core Flake Scars Base Type 1: 1 1: concave 2: 2 2: ovoid 3: 3 3: rounded 4: 4 4: square 5: 5+ 5: corner-notched 6: side-notched 75

Appendix II: Data Tables Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13334 2a 4.1 1 31.5131.38 4.88 - - - 2 9.3 1.61 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13334 2b 1.34 1 28.5818.1 2.94 - - - 3 2.83 1.05 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13334 2c 1.66 1 19.7 21.44 4.04 3.7 3.62 0.08 2 3.41 1.75 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13335 2a 1.78 1 17.124.87 4.7 - - - 2 2.29 1.88 4 - 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 13335 2b 2.99 1 32.7827.87 3.84 ------2 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 13347 1 0.07 5 7.469.22 1.4 - - - 2 2.28 0.68 3 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 2 0.25 1 10.4417.34 1.82 ------2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 3 1.36 1 19.1 16.8 5.25 1.45 4.36 -2.91 2 1.01 1.09 4 - 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13348 4 8.68 1 58.7 29.4 4.67 3.45 4.58 -1.13 3 10.17 9.9 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 6 4.77 1 39.5927.63 6.62 6.14 5.11 1.03 2 11.71 3.7 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 8 2.71 1 24.5224.42 5.82 5.97 4.33 1.64 2 14.19 5.19 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13348 9 0.09 1 13.3 9.13 1.18 0.89 0.86 0.03 2 2.05 0.67 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 10 1.73 6 20.4619.2 4.88 3.16 - - 3 8.88 2.96 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 11 6.39 - 44.3325.7 8.51 ------2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 12 0.72 21.0716.94 2.97 1.7 2.94 -1.24 3 2.39 0.97 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 13 0.05 5 9.05 5.96 1.24 0.92 1.1 -0.18 3 3.48 0.55 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 14 0.09 - 13.739.3 1.59 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 16 0.04 - 7.19 5.2 1.24 1.08 - - 3 7.21 0.83 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 18 0.22 5 12.629.74 2.17 2.16 - - 3 3.71 1.09 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 19 0.04 1 7.585.81 0.79 0.73 - - 4 7.17 0.41 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 20 2.3 1 22.1525.46 5.53 5.71 3.75 1.96 3 11.25 3.68 4 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 13348 21 0.92 1 19.0620.41 2.3 2.28 1.51 0.77 3 9.34 1.45 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13348 22 0.9 1 11.8519.27 4.37 ------2 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13348 23 0.06 5 11.595.73 1.19 - - - 3 3.1 0.55 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 2 1.05 1 20.3616.02 4.55 4.57 4.46 0.11 3 7.84 2.38 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 50.03 - 6.695.67 0.96 ------2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 6 0.03 - 5.855.22 1.19 1.04 - - 3 1.82 0.85 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 70.09 - 9.326.24 3.41 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 8 13.53 1 38.65 32.27 11.69 11.52 11.69 -0.17 2 19.94 8.53 4 - 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 9 0.38 1 16.0613.33 2.63 0.31 2.57 -2.26 2 3.49 0.31 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 11 0.03 1 5.89 5 1.05 0.78 0.84 -0.06 2 2.48 0.71 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 12 0.5 1 14.77 8.92 4.37 4.27 3.85 0.42 2 14.05 3.48 4 - 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 13 5.09 1 43.9329.22 5.87 3.96 5.5 -1.54 2 7.25 2.48 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 14 0.65 - 20.3211.73 3.25 ------2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 crazed flake; same stain so burnt before inundated 13349 18 1.5 1 28.0512.54 7.44 6.84 4.46 2.38 2 10.8 6.3 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 19 0.02 5 6.36 5.64 1.26 1.2 1.23 -0.03 4 5.56 0.34 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 22 2.64 1 26.34 23.25 3.83 4.55 3.63 0.92 3 15.44 3.75 3 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 13349 24 2.29 1 23.14 16.12 5.59 5.11 5.13 -0.02 2 17.95 4.32 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 13349 28 0.02 5 7.18 5.13 0.84 0.59 0.84 -0.25 3 3.3 0.52 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 30 0.01 5 5.214.39 0.7 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 31 0.05 5 8.64 7.28 1.91 2.05 0.86 1.19 2 7.32 1.26 4 - - 0 3 0 0 0 1 13349 33 0.02 5 5.835.37 0.92 ------2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13349 35 1.7 1 29 18.04 5.02 3.52 4.24 -0.72 1 4.82 4.51 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13349 36 4.01 1 24.3822.71 8.34 ------2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 38 4.78 1 36.2 30.34 6.07 6.02 5.98 0.04 2 5.52 1.44 4 - 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 13349 39 1.26 1 20.3618.35 3.54 3.48 3.61 -0.13 2 3.55 1.4 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 40 0.08 5 12.388.13 1.42 - - - 4 4.15 0.51 4 - 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 definitely ground platform 13349 45 9.97 1 35.91 24.01 12.94 2.89 10.13 -7.24 3 12.96 0.8 4 - 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 46 18.33 1 46.55 56.82 12.49 7.99 12.31 -4.32 2 17.62 7.65 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13349 48 0.8 1 26.1816.29 2.42 1.85 2.13 -0.28 3 3.99 1.08 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 49 0.68 1 18.5912.05 4.02 4.27 3.25 1.02 2 3.96 1.98 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 very degraded chert 13349 51 0.49 1 20.6415.01 2.8 2.18 2.31 -0.13 2 6.07 2.24 4 - 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 13349 53 7.91 1 37.5226.04 13.71 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 56 3.13 1 39.3720.64 5.02 - - - 3 2.77 1.12 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13349 57 0.4 1 14.912.383.06 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 58 0.01 5 3.32 4.78 0.56 0.68 0.54 0.14 2 3.31 0.48 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 59 0.5 1 21.9114.92 2.1 ------2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 61 0.02 5 8.434.39 0.94 - - - 2 1.22 0.58 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13349 62 0.68 1 10.86 20.49 3.99 3.52 3.63 -0.11 3 5.66 0.95 3 1 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13349 64 0.63 1 18.2814.64 3.47 3.4 2.58 0.82 2 4.34 1.6 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 67 0.06 1 12 6.6 1.2 0.92 0.84 0.08 2 4.06 0.7 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 68 1.2 1 26.2913.09 6.04 ------2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 crazed, stained after burnt 13349 69 0.07 1 15.45.65 1.28 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13349 70 0.01 6 8.91 5.17 1.08 - - - 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 found loose on tray 13349 43a 2.43 1 27.0620.49 4.4 4.58 3.36 1.22 2 23.79 4.17 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 really degraded chert 13349 43b 0.19 6 13.448.34 1.48 ------2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 4 11.7 1 43.07 36.03 9.58 5.87 7.21 -1.34 2 14.98 4.85 4 - 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 13351 5 - - 6.163.431.18 ------1 - - - 1 0 0 0 0 13351 9 8.13 6 43.0319.36 11.15 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 10 0.41 1 19.8110.85 3.91 3.11 1.45 1.66 1 - 3.81 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 12 1.74 1 20.6719.94 6.53 6.43 2.76 2 2 2.7 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 15 1.27 1 23.9719.6 4.53 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 21 0.74 1 17.42 15.03 2.68 2.01 2.15 -0.14 4 9.48 1.41 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 22 0.92 3 25 14.57 3.8 2.58 2.67 -0.09 3 3.5 1.51 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 26 0.14 1 10.25 7.21 2.68 1.94 2.68 -0.74 4 4.17 1.2 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 27 1.58 1 24.35 16.16 5.09 2.63 3.54 -0.91 2 3.77 1.31 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 29 0.32 6 12.8810.82 3.32 ------1 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 30 1.02 1 22.6417.28 2.56 1.4 2.44 -1.04 3 2.71 0.92 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 clear staining 13351 31 0.36 1 12.7913.48 2.92 2 2.38 -0.38 2 2.41 1.54 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 39 0.53 1 18.7416.92 1.96 1.33 1.79 -0.46 3 2.5 0.72 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 41 2.52 1 35.75 27.11 5.22 2.25 2.74 -0.49 2 5.81 2.14 3 1 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 43 6.68 1 43.3332.83 5.45 4.24 3.9 0.34 3 8.9 1.78 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 44 1.15 1 26.07 19.75 3.03 1.43 2.69 -1.26 2 7.43 1.17 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 47 0.98 1 26.0615.73 4.72 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 50 3.38 1 27.17 21.73 7.09 3.47 5.61 -2.14 3 13.6 3.68 4 - 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 58 0.14 1 10.5510.35 1.25 1.07 1.04 0.03 2 6.59 1.06 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 60 0.7 1 16.7614.79 4.4 2.39 2.04 0.35 2 4.83 1.69 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 61 0.7 6 14.2310.77 3.86 ------1 - - 1 1 1 0 0 0 crazed, red stain under cortex 13351 64 11.9 1 56.61 33.2 6.36 5.14 6.99 -1.85 3 12.66 4.37 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 65 0.46 1 5 13.01 2.85 1.37 2.29 -0.92 4 12.95 0.65 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 68 0.25 4 15.06 7.64 2.94 2.42 1.84 0.58 2 5.42 2.39 4 - 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 noticable blade removals on dorsal surface 13351 73 1.27 1 16.1126.21 4.77 4.4 3.49 0.91 2 13.3 4.79 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 74 2.41 1 29 26.96 3.3 2.73 2.95 -0.22 2 13.6 2.45 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 lots of inclusions 13351 75 0.11 6 11.118.4 1.83 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 77 0.48 1 22.7613.76 1.79 1.47 1.33 0.14 3 3.79 1.61 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 78 1.49 1 38.8621.06 3.41 1.88 2.1 -0.22 3 2.66 1.05 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 80 1.08 1 24.9317.34 4.09 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 82 1.6 6 23.7218.32 6.5 ------1 - - 0 1 1 0 0 0 multiple potlids 13351 91 4.23 1 35.1 26.52 6.02 4.89 3.24 1.65 2 22.92 3.26 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 92 0.29 6 12.68.62 3.21 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 93 12.42 1 64.52 32.31 9.7 9.91 4.99 4.92 2 25.42 11.01 4 - 1 2 2 0 0 0 13351 95 11.53 6 39.8522.31 16.34 ------1 - - 0 3 0 0 0 0 13351 98 3.46 1 31.8225.92 4.14 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 99 2.81 1 36.3626.33 3.25 1.88 2.83 -0.95 2 3.8 1.66 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 missing portion of platform 13351 103 0.52 1 26.5517.33 1.56 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 106 82.65 1 104.65 64.72 20.16 15.57 15.94 -0.37 3 44.24 11.74 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 107 2.63 1 26.24 25.04 5.43 3.24 4.01 -0.77 3 14.95 2.18 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 1 13351 108 5.33 6 36.9628.93 5.77 ------1 2 - 2 1 0 0 0 0 broken middle portion of flake Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13351 109 2.37 1 35.2 16.21 4.14 3.63 5.29 -1.66 4 4.56 2.18 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 110 0.43 6 14.5511.58 3.96 3.85 1.79 2.06 4 5.92 3.89 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 119 0.14 1 12.05 8.17 1.86 1.84 1.66 0.18 2 8.17 1.88 4 - 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 13351 122 0.81 1 22.01 15.06 2.98 3.08 1.96 1.12 2 21.52 2.09 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 124 0.49 1 25.58 15.52 1.89 1.63 1.67 -0.04 3 6.33 1.38 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 125 9.55 1 32.17 48.61 9.55 2.94 10.09 -7.15 3 6.2 2.61 4 - 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 13351 132 0.62 1 19.4512.82 2.7 - - - 3 2.8 1.07 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 135 0.26 1 13.4818.01 1.25 1.05 0.99 0.06 2 4.71 0.69 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 136 6.66 1 38 30.37 8.6 7.68 8 -0.32 2 12.23 9.8 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 137 0.72 6 23.6914.08 3.21 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 140 0.09 1 8.43 7.64 1.87 1.68 1.04 0.64 2 4.98 1.43 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 142 3.35 6 39.3223.3 5.06 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 143 1.52 1 19.61 22.85 4.94 1.13 4.25 -3.12 2 5.92 1.33 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 144 0.59 1 14.0815.07 3.08 ------2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 point ear 13351 147 0.08 6 9.195.5 1.24 ------2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 148 0.58 1 16.4915.95 2.64 2.18 1.77 0.41 2 10.45 1.35 4 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 possible polish along dorsal ridges 13351 149 8.4 6 42.9337.89 8.36 4.26 4.75 -0.49 2 12.9 2.19 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 151 1.25 1 23.7416.34 5.12 5.4 2.82 2.58 2 10.53 5.51 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 154 0.33 1 16 9.622.42 ------1 - - 030 0 0 0 13351 156 0.28 1 10.0614.32 2.48 - - - 1 3.11 1.46 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 162 0.46 1 17.57 13.16 2.16 1.79 1.86 -0.07 3 7.16 1.07 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 163 1.01 1 17.3 20.29 3.45 2.88 2.78 0.1 3 7.68 2.17 3 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 polish along dorsal ridges 13351 164 0.49 6 16.8511.18 3.57 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 165 2.09 1 36.7916.17 5.66 5.41 2.39 3.02 2 10.9 3.41 4 - 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 13351 166 0.34 1 16.2410.82 2.24 1.32 2.12 -0.8 3 6.06 1.17 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 167 1.33 1 26.88 17.03 4.27 3.52 3.79 -0.27 2 7.34 3.19 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 168 1.11 1 20.02 14.94 4.39 3.32 4.29 -0.97 3 7.75 2.41 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 169 0.41 1 14.5510.32 3.03 1.47 2.93 -1.46 2 4.94 1.86 3 1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 slightly burnt, clear pot lid on dorsal surface 13351 170 0.55 1 15.5910.59 4.13 3.95 2.57 1.38 - - - 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 171 0.49 1 18.73 10.71 2.87 1.45 2.01 -0.56 2 8.59 1.45 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 172 0.13 1 10.7110.49 2.04 1.99 1.45 0.54 3 4.55 2.33 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 173 0.03 1 6.55 7.97 0.77 0.88 0.58 0.3 3 2.45 0.97 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 19a 19.7 1 57.7 48.31 10.3 6.78 9.29 -2.51 2 15.97 4.86 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 13351 19b 0.58 1 22.3515.01 2.16 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 34a 0.76 4 16.71 13.13 4.28 1.79 4.05 -2.26 4 2.92 0.81 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13351 37a 2.58 6 28.91 17.05 7.41 2.94 4.67 -1.73 2 6.89 3.26 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 37b 0.79 1 25.0418.37 3.05 2.4 1.55 0.85 2 7.35 2.54 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 37c 0.51 1 12.19 13.9 4.32 3.92 2.23 1.69 2 14.15 4.24 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 46a 0.15 1 13.54 9.07 1.49 1.45 1.48 -0.03 3 1.77 0.86 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 46b 0.13 1 9.289.24 1.42 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13351 8a 7.66 6 30.8922.19 10.97 ------1 - - 2 1 0 0 0 0 13351 8b 0.28 2 15.99.51 2.32 - - - 2 9.23 1.62 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13352 30.14 1 12.569.13 2.11 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 6 2.93 1 22.6 19.99 8.09 6.88 5.43 1.45 2 7.98 1.88 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 10 0.17 1 8.91 10.24 2.38 1.78 2.11 -0.33 2 2.18 0.87 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 11 0.03 5 5.834.3 1.79 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13352 12 0.02 5 3.286.36 1.35 1.31 - - 3 4.14 0.97 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 13 0.04 1 7.087.56 1.11 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 17 0.7 6 9.8426.992.41 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 18 0.29 1 8.12 11.6 3.45 2.92 2.43 0.49 1 9.64 2.74 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13352 23 1.2 1 19.57 17.9 6.14 4.76 2.26 2.5 3 15.42 5.12 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 25 0.03 5 5.48.57 1.35 - - - 2 6.46 0.87 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13352 26 4.85 1 32.5430.98 7.41 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 rounding on distal end 13352 28 16.54 1 40.23 37.9 13.28 12.89 9.49 3.4 2 17.13 11.3 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 ventral lighter color, dorsal darker color Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13352 30 0.08 5 6.69 9.91 1.13 0.96 0.99 -0.03 2 5.07 1 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 32 13.27 1 37.26 39.18 9.49 9.79 7.72 2.07 2 26.6 9.51 1 - 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 33 29.21 1 67.2343.68 17.09 - - - 3 16.13 4.48 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 41 0.59 1 14.4919.06 2.87 ------2 2 - 0 3 0 0 0 0 13352 42 0.28 1 9.84 12.57 2.25 2.17 2.2 -0.03 3 7.38 2.03 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13352 21a 0.11 6 10.716.29 1.92 ------1 - - 2 1 0 0 0 0 13352 21b 0.12 6 9.718.59 1.31 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13353 1 4.87 1 32.2739.27 7.42 6.11 5.55 0.56 3 - - 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13353 2 1.96 1 31.3315.88 4.86 4.67 2.78 1.89 1 11.73 4.63 1 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13353 3 2.75 6 18.7122.73 8.82 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13353 4 0.76 1 15.0816.74 3.6 2.25 2.97 -0.72 2 6.26 1.72 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13354 9 3.84 1 29.9123.18 7.7 - - - 2 5.34 4.74 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13354 16 2.28 1 21.8821.19 9.42 - - - 2 9.22 7.38 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13354 17 4.74 1 31.7127.49 9.53 1.9 6.58 -4.68 2 9.61 1.36 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13354 19 6.39 1 35.0229.92 7.87 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13357 1 2.12 1 25.2826.57 4.2 2.84 2.96 -0.12 2 10.18 2.55 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13357 3 21.84 1 51.7470.26 8.35 - - - 3 12.78 2.49 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 really huge eraillure scar; broke middle of platform off 13366 1 0.05 1 5.99 7.41 1.65 1.58 1.13 0.45 2 3.51 0.8 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13366 2 0.01 6 2.725.22 0.92 - - - 2 3.7 0.81 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13366 3 0.01 3 5.51 5.21 1.1 0.87 0.7 0.17 3 4.28 0.65 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13367 10.03 5 5.096.13 1 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13367 30.03 6 5.165.01 1.43 ------1 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13367 40.01 5 4.046.65 0.82 ------2 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13367 50.05 5 5.574.11 3.21 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13367 7 0.06 5 7.22 9.56 1.6 0.78 1.48 -0.7 3 3.81 0.86 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13367 11 0.01 1 4.43 2.36 0.9 0.85 0.35 0.5 1 1.37 0.8 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13367 15 0.14 6 9.586.82 3.58 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 10.02 6 5.327.92 0.73 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 2 0.03 5 5.037.22 1.47 - - - 2 3.56 0.98 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 4 0.05 5 8.53 6.55 1.31 1.3 0.82 0.48 2 6.35 1.2 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 5 0.01 5 4.35 4.46 1.09 1.12 0.42 0.7 1 3.61 0.87 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 7 0.1 5 8.09 6.06 2.09 1.83 1.42 0.41 2 4.36 1.66 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 9 0.01 5 5.23 6.84 1.05 0.95 0.77 0.18 2 4.83 0.84 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 13 0.08 6 6.633.87 3.89 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 18 0.02 6 5.25 3.5 1.48 ------1 - - 0 1 0 1 0 0 smooth shatter 13369 19 0.05 5 3.78 5.66 1.63 1.33 1.08 0.25 2 5.53 1.35 4 - 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 20 0.02 5 ------3 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 broken in bag, refit together to get basic classification 13369 21 0.03 5 4.755.91 1.77 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 23 0.02 5 6.84 6.61 1.54 1.09 0.93 0.16 2 4.26 0.79 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 26 0.04 6 7.573.3 1.51 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 27 0.04 5 5.94 6.93 1.05 0.83 0.96 -0.13 1 1.7 0.8 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 29 0.06 5 10.12 5.91 1.11 0.56 0.83 -0.27 3 4.86 0.6 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 33 0.03 5 6.914.04 1.25 - - - 3 1.8 0.44 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 34 0.01 6 4.094.15 1.08 ------1 - 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 40 0.05 5 6.638.43 1.2 - - - 2 3.9 1.15 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13369 41 0.08 1 8.21 6.97 1.35 1.24 1.57 -0.33 3 5.78 0.68 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 42 2.05 1 22.25 25.26 5.35 1.95 4.59 -2.64 3 6.95 2.02 4 - 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 45 0.05 6 7.197.74 1.36 - - - 3 4.43 0.92 4 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 13369 46 0.1 1 11.5510.13 1.25 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 47 0.01 5 6.1 4.88 0.92 0.47 0.4 0.07 3 4.2 0.38 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 51 0.12 1 9.039.25 2.85 - - - 2 7.12 3.24 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 54 2.36 1 28.08 21.11 5.55 2.48 4.46 -1.98 1 11.67 2.08 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 very grainy 13369 56 0.22 1 15.9213.21 1.8 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 57 0.08 1 8.697.46 2.19 - - - 2 5.85 1.83 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13369 59 0.06 5 5.289.91 1.6 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 61 0.43 1 19.2213.02 2.02 1.71 1.28 0.43 2 7.3 1.27 3 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 ground along dorsal ridges 13369 65 0.17 6 9.08 7.34 5.36 1.99 3.93 -1.94 2 2.97 1.77 4 - 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 66 0.64 6 27.2316.71 2.11 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 67 0.79 1 19.4118.63 2.85 2.14 1.45 0.69 3 14.3 2.13 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 70 0.17 6 16.546.4 2.1 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 71 1.67 1 18.5521.01 6.81 4.13 4.7 -0.57 2 6.3 3.64 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 75 0.15 6 9.495.64 4.61 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 76 0.18 5 9.2811.16 1.7 - - - 2 2.6 1.07 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13369 77 0.11 1 5.9310.78 1.78 ------2 2 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13369 78 0.2 6 13.284.78 4.3 ------1 - - 3 1 0 0 0 0 13369 79 0.95 1 15.7518.24 4.05 - - - 3 2.96 1.68 3 1 - 0 3 0 0 0 0 13369 80 1.25 1 28.38 15.9 3.79 3.1 3.19 -0.09 2 4.67 2.28 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13370 1 0.78 1 21.7913.25 2.89 - - - 1 4.82 1.3 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13370 2 7.06 1 31.1437.21 9.91 - - - 1 19.47 8.83 4 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 13370 3 1.57 1 26.0524.37 2.18 2.07 1.99 0.08 2 14.15 2.15 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13370 4 0.51 1 12.8513.13 3.45 2.88 3.14 -0.26 2 7.77 2.74 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13370 5 0.25 6 14.3816.27 1.69 ------2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13370 60.14 6 7.8311.91 1.79 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13370 7 1.86 1 35.1322.65 3.23 3.2 3.14 0.06 2 5.76 2.36 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 4 0.5 1 18.2711.26 2.7 - - - 2 8.92 1.82 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 9 0.01 5 4.37 3.15 0.75 0.54 0.67 -0.13 2 2.75 0.53 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 16 0.16 1 13.6 9.98 1.91 1.89 1.41 0.48 2 2.01 1.06 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 19 0.03 5 4.195.75 1.75 1.21 - - 3 4.79 1.11 3 1 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 20 0.08 5 6.42 6.8 1.74 1.05 - - 1 5.75 0.87 3 1 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 23 0.07 6 79.771.44 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 28 0.14 1 8.38 8.34 3.35 3.09 1.13 1.96 2 7.14 3.03 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 29 0.01 6 9.862.56 1.11 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 31 0.01 5 3.56 5.55 0.7 0.53 0.52 0.01 3 2.32 0.42 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 32 0.01 5 3.15 6 0.97 0.7 0.52 0.18 2 3.16 0.7 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 34 0.01 5 3.74 5.04 1.24 1.13 0.95 0.18 3 4.61 1.04 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 37 0.2 6 13.6312.57 1.96 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 39 0.15 6 5.5415.35 2.13 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 40 0.01 6 5.846 0.98 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 potlid 13371 50 0.86 1 29.7115.26 3.13 - - - 2 4.92 1.25 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 51 0.14 5 11.417.43 2.23 ------1 - - 0 3 0 0 0 0 13371 52 1.11 6 25.1214.57 4.09 ------1 - - 1 1 1 0 0 0 13371 53 0.11 5 8.795.72 2.67 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 54 0.14 1 11.05 7.37 2.09 1.27 1.59 -0.32 3 4.82 1.12 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 65 0.09 1 12.658.13 1.31 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 66 0.03 5 9.44 6.98 0.86 0.72 0.73 -0.01 3 1.72 0.45 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 eraillure on dorsal 13371 72 0.42 1 17.4113.49 2.79 2.12 1.91 0.21 1 6.35 1.48 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13371 75 8.01 1 30.4835.69 8.91 - - - 3 4.12 2.3 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 76 0.28 1 12.8710.27 2.12 1.3 2.14 -0.84 3 3.56 1.19 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 77 0.09 6 7.073.81 4.74 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 78 1.33 1 18.4719.32 6.12 4.28 3.63 0.65 1 13.9 4.09 4 - 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 13371 81 1.53 1 26.3620.36 4.47 - - - 2 3.81 1.16 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 85 0.13 5 8.89.52 2.28 - - - 2 5.42 1.36 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 86 2.82 1 25.95 26.96 8.71 3.18 4.33 -1.15 1 9.77 1.99 4 - 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 13371 87 0.3 1 14.1213.18 2.5 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 88 0.25 1 13.0514.42 2.01 - - - 3 7.12 1.63 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 89 0.07 5 5.53 9 1.83 1.46 1.79 -0.33 2 4.31 1.64 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 93 0.72 1 20.4819.5 2.98 ------2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 97 1.33 1 23.8420.72 2.66 - - - 2 3.11 0.72 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13371 101 1.26 1 23.2619.47 3.34 3.3 2.47 0.83 2 4.07 1.22 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 103 0.64 1 10.9320.84 3.49 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 105 1.87 1 16.1832.97 3.55 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 107 5.42 1 27.8 32.08 11.01 7.58 5.93 1.65 2 26.94 7.04 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 111 6.08 1 52.5124.44 5.53 5.51 4.67 0.84 3 7.55 1.68 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 112 0.34 1 9.5113.24 2.74 - - - 3 6.43 0.99 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 113 0.93 6 15.7213.59 5.09 ------1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 117 0.06 5 8.5 7.25 1.26 0.99 1.12 -0.13 2 3.68 0.78 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 118 0.02 5 4.646.21 1.25 - - - 3 2.36 1.15 3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 120 0.14 5 7.86 10.35 1.94 1.97 1.63 0.34 3 6.35 1.24 4 - 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13371 122 1.01 1 25.23 12.48 4.86 2.83 3.51 -0.68 2 6.13 1.78 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 126 5.33 1 26.4820.12 5.01 4.84 4.19 0.65 2 6.86 3.52 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 128 7.59 1 42.2 32.86 10.37 3.25 5.61 -2.36 3 8.92 2.8 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13371 130 0.12 1 8.9410.7 1.2 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 135 0.46 1 18.02 14.6 2.02 1.97 1.52 0.45 2 2.56 1.57 4 - 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 13371 136 0.21 1 10.6614.43 1.52 1.58 1.22 0.36 3 2.96 1.2 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 137 0.11 5 10.8 9.3 1.42 0.45 1.33 -0.88 2 1.19 0.44 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 138 0.11 5 8.1913.06 1.27 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13371 139 0.11 1 8.2210.24 1.85 ------2 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13373 1 0.88 1 17.0623.76 3.79 2.79 1.79 1 2 5.72 1.47 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13373 2 0.73 6 19.7721.77 5.07 ------1 - 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 13373 3 2.02 1 12.63 22 8.83 ------2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 possible biface section 13373 4 2.93 1 23.5428.02 5.55 5.84 2.95 2.89 2 25.26 5.72 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13373 5 3.36 1 27.5927.39 6.37 - - - 2 1.74 2.73 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13373 6 3.14 1 31.7 35.07 4.12 3.25 2.78 0.47 2 7.87 3.65 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 13375 1 0.44 1 12.816.99 2.57 - - - 2 2.34 0.81 4 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 3 4.88 1 60.6526.47 4.22 2.37 3.5 -1.13 3 4.54 1.66 4 - 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 13376 5 3.27 1 29.8728.25 8.52 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 7 2.01 1 25.0826.01 4.83 - - - 3 7.28 1.71 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 eraillure popped out where bulb of percussion would be 13376 8 13.34 6 40.5423.61 15.38 - - - 3 10.4 6.78 1 - - 1 1 0 0 0 0 13376 13 5.47 1 35.36 26.74 6.42 3.05 6.73 -3.68 2 10.27 2.17 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 16 4.37 1 34.92 37.61 4.64 3.31 3.73 -0.42 3 12.44 3.84 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 18 4.64 1 29.8827.99 6.78 - - - 2 18.09 3.87 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 13376 19 0.15 6 9.618.63 2.79 ------1 - - 2 1 0 0 0 0 13376 21 1.73 1 23.28 22.69 3.82 1.87 3.8 -1.93 2 19.92 1.01 4 - 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 13376 22 0.34 1 12.5311.8 2.32 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 23 0.21 6 6.7616.57 1.9 ------2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13376 24 0.7 1 21.8 10.88 3.93 3.68 2.51 1.17 2 8.16 4.53 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13376 27 0.6 1 22.7627.45 3.02 1.46 - - 3 5.66 1.1 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 13376 28 1.31 1 27.76 22.8 2.96 2.63 2.76 -0.13 3 5.04 1.81 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 13376 30 0.47 1 14.7815.55 2.24 1.71 - - 3 5.73 1.32 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 13376 32 0.34 1 14.5615.43 1.96 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 34 0.16 6 11.797.33 2.06 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 35 0.41 5 13.3516.03 2.34 ------3 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 36 0.09 5 6.0110.07 1.72 - - - 2 4.83 1.47 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 15a 0.23 1 10 11.543.42 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13376 15b 0.04 5 7.565.24 1.14 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13377 1 4.62 1 48.1327.01 4.28 - - - 2 16.37 2.37 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13378 1 1.52 1 25.9 22.28 2.82 2.22 1.5 0.72 2 17.38 2.15 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13378 21.25 6 24.229.65 8.91 ------1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13391 1 0.21 1 15.8912.71 1.81 - - - 2 3.14 1.58 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13391 4 3.24 1 21.0533.26 6.76 2.5 - - 2 13.91 1.96 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13391 7 0.01 5 5.49 5.35 0.89 0.85 0.66 0.19 3 4 0.8 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Raw FS Sub FS Technological Max Max Max Bulb Midpoint Application Platform Platform Platform Debitage Flake Termination Cortex Polish & Eraillure Weight Material Burnt Retouch Lab Comments number number Class Length Width Thickness Thickness Thickness Load Value Data Width Thickness Class Portion Type % Rounding Scar Type 13391 10 0.97 1 17.75 16.26 5.14 2.66 4.22 -1.56 2 11.57 2.55 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13391 11 0.51 1 24.4312.46 3.06 - - - 2 1.42 0.74 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13391 12 1.12 1 10.2620.53 8.4 7.79 - - 2 20.23 8.08 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13394 1 1.86 1 22.0420.52 5.05 ------2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13394 2 0.69 6 16.4612.03 6.19 ------1 - - 2 1 0 0 0 0 13394 4 2.37 1 25.2427.31 2.85 3.67 2.47 1.2 2 12.41 3.6 4 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13394 5 3.62 1 32.2722.68 9.38 - - - 2 4.23 2.35 4 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13394 7 0.12 5 7.65 9.62 1.69 1.14 1.7 -0.56 4 6.92 0.94 1 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13397 1 5.2 1 26.2123.44 9.68 - - - 2 4.97 3.08 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13397 3 0.42 6 15.9214.36 3.15 ------1 - - 0 1 0 0 0 0 13398 6 2.39 1 23.2222.07 5.2 3.45 4.75 -1.3 3 19.49 4.02 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Raw FS Sub FS Rock Max Max Max Tool Hafting # of Edges Retouched Retouch Retouch Edge Total Edge Worked Cortex Polish/ Eraillure Tool Type Weight Material Burnt Lab Comments number number Color Length Width Thickness Blank Wear Worked Edge Shape Face Type Angle Length Edge Length % Rounding Scar Type 13349 1 scraper N5 8.91 52.01 40.88 4.72 4 1 1 5 2 3 1 41.73 28.1 0 1 0 0 0 13349 3 flake tool 5Y 8/1 7.38 41.82 47.35 5.55 4 1 1 4 2 2 2 49.12 9.79 0 1 0 0 0 13349 21 scraper N5 83.26 64.35 54.59 24.46 2 1 1 5 2 2 3 59.1 39.82 2 1 0 0 0 13351 18 flake tool/ scraper 5Y 7/2 85.79 87.82 70.46 16.73 4 1 1 5 5 2 2 104.08 104.08 0 1 0 0 0 13351 40 flake tool N5 60.77 54.11 62.35 21.77 4 1 1 5 2 3 3 83.12 83.12 0 1 0 0 0 nibbling is also apparent 13351 141 flake tool N6 4.17 48.89 21.82 4.28 4 1 1 5 2 2 1 59.97 22.9 0 1 0 0 0 13371 132 flake tool 5Y 4/1 46.65 88.33 60.58 10.62 4 1 1 4 2 2 2 42.95 23.9 1 1 0 0 0 Sub FS Rock Max Max Max Estimated Missing Biface Planview Base Cross-Section Dominate End Cortex Core Core Flake Raw Material Edge Angle Edge Angle Polish/ Lab FS number Description Weight Burnt number Color Length Width Thickness Completeness Portions Stage Shape Type Shape Flaking Type Thinned Present Type Scars Type Side 1 Side 2 Rounding Comments 13349 34 core N5 46.5 47.68 35.1 24.64 ------115 1 - -00 flat topped core 13349 37 late stage biface/scraper N5 27.21 71.5 35.87 9.38 323211 500-2 1 2 200 13351 96 early stage biface 5Y 8/1 38.74 70.71 44.41 18.26 551802 50113 1 - -00