(45PI1276) in Edgewood, Washington
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Spring 2015 Determination of Site Functionality and Subsistence Patterns at the Bray Archaeological Site (45PI1276) in Edgewood, Washington David J. Sheldon Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Sheldon, David J., "Determination of Site Functionality and Subsistence Patterns at the Bray Archaeological Site (45PI1276) in Edgewood, Washington" (2015). All Master's Theses. 179. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/179 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DETERMINATION OF SITE FUNCTIONALITY AND SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS AT THE BRAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (45PI1276) IN EDGEWOOD, WASHINGTON. ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Resource Management ____________________________________ by David Sheldon May 2015 137 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of David Sheldon Candidate for the degree of Master of Science APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. Steven Hackenberger, Committee Chair ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. Patrick McCutcheon ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. James Chatters ______________ __________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies 137 ABSTRACT DETERMINATION OF SITE FUNCTIONALITY AND SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS AT THE BRAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (45PI1276) IN EDGEWOOD, WASHINGTON by David Sheldon May 2015 Resource intensification, or the logistical approach to the mass capture and extension of food resources through storage, is first evident for marine resources of the Northwest Coast during the Locarno Beach Phase (LBP) (ca. 3,500 BP to ca. 2,400 BP). Plant resource intensification is evident by 4,000 BP within the interior of the Pacific Northwest, but until recently there has been little evidence to support early intensification of plant use in the Puget Sound during the LBP. Test excavations conducted as part of a damage assessment of the Bray Site indicated that the site may contain the earliest known evidence for intensive plant processing in the lower Puget Sound (ca. 3,000 BP). This finding is supported by analyses of materials previously recovered from the Bray Site by an amateur archaeologist in the 1990's. Analyses are conducted for five assemblage dimensions: pit features, fire- modified rock (FMR), macrobotanical, lithic tools, and lithic debitage. The Bray Site results are compared to evidence for plant resource intensification from sites in the 137 Willamette Valley of western Oregon and the Calispell Valley of northeastern Washington. These comparisons show that Bray Site assemblage dimensions fall within the range of variation observed for other sites with evidence for plant intensification. Thus, the Bray Site does indeed contain the earliest documented evidence of plant resource intensification in the Puget Sound (ca. 3,000 BP). 137 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to my committee chair, Dr. Steven Hackenberger and committee members Dr. Patrick McCutcheon and Dr. James Chatters for their guidance and feedback through this research. Bruce Gustafson provided me with valuable input on his original excavation notes and feature interpretations. Marc Fairbanks and Sean Stcherbinine generously donated their time to create several of the maps and figures used in this thesis. James Brown, Sydney Hanson, and Patrick Rennacker assisted greatly in the preparation of macrobotanical samples for analysis. I would also like to thank coworkers, friends, and family who nudged me into graduate school and for their support and pep talks as I navigated through it. It would not have been possible without them. 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Problem .................................................................................................................1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................5 Significance...........................................................................................................6 II STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................8 Physical Setting .....................................................................................................8 Culture and History .............................................................................................12 III LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................15 Bray Site Background .........................................................................................15 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................23 Pacific Northwest Coast Regional Chronology ..................................................33 Interregional Comparisons of Specialized Plant Processing Sites ......................36 Error! Reference source not found. .............. 45Error! Bookmark not defined. Summary of Comparative Sites ..........................................................................47 IV METHOD ..............................................................................................................49 Artifact Inventory................................................................................................49 Feature Analysis..................................................................................................49 Fire-Modified Rock Analysis .............................................................................50 Macrobotanical Analysis ....................................................................................55 Lithic Analysis ....................................................................................................55 V TECHNIQUE .........................................................................................................60 Artifact Inventory................................................................................................60 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page Feature Analysis..................................................................................................60 Fire-Modified Rock Analysis .............................................................................63 Macrobotanical Analysis ....................................................................................68 Lithic Analysis ....................................................................................................70 VI RESULTS ..............................................................................................................88 Artifact Inventory................................................................................................88 Feature Analysis..................................................................................................88 Fire-Modified Rock Analysis .........................................................................9494 Macrobotanical Analysis ..................................................................................100 Lithic Analysis ..................................................................................................103 Summary of Results ..........................................................................................128 VII INTERPRETATIONS AND COMPARISONS ..................................................132 Thoms (1989:428) drew several conclusions about the artifact assemblages of camas processing sites compared to residential sites in the Calispell Valley. The Bray Site can be compared on these criteria: 1. FMR densities are comparable at camas processing sites compared to residential sites, however non-feature FMR from camas sites are usually carbon stained whereas FMR from residential sites usually are not. 2. The overall density of non-feature tools, cores, and debitage at camas processing sites are lower than at residential sites. 3. Despite the low density of stone tools at camas processing sites, a wide variety of tool types are observed, including those indicative of hunting related activities. 137 4. Groundstone tools, namely pestles, are among the least common tools identified at camas processing sites. 5. Large expedient tools (i.e. cobble and flake tools, FMR tools, and tabular knives) composed of coarse-grained materials (e.g. SGR) are proportionately more common at camas processing sites than at residential sites. Feature Comparison In order to compare the Bray Site feature assemblage to those of plant processing site types it was necessary to identify the variation of feature assemblages at plant processing sites through an extensive literature review. Thoms (1989) noted that one of ...........................................................................................................................134