An Artifact of Human Behavior? Paleoindian Endscraper Breakage In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PERRONE, ALYSSA R., M.A., MAY 2020 ANTHROPOLOGY AN ARTIFACT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR? PALEOINDIAN ENDSCRAPER BREAKAGE IN MIDWESTERN AND GREAT LAKES NORTH AMERICA (67 pp.) Thesis Advisor: Metin I. Eren Endscrapers, comprising the most abundant tool class at Eastern North American Paleoindian sites, are flaked stone specimens predominately used for scraping hides. They are broken in high frequencies at Paleoindian sites, a pattern that has been attributed to Paleoindian use. However, previous experimental and ethnographic research on endscrapers suggests they are difficult to break. We present a series of replication experiments assessing the amount of force required for endscraper breakage, as well as the amount of force generated during human use. We also analyze which morphometric variable best predicts the breakage force. Our results demonstrate that human use comes nowhere close to breakage force, which is best predicted by endscraper thickness. Finally, we examine an actual Paleoindian endscraper assemblage, concluding that humans were not the cause of breakage. Taphonomic factors such as modern plowing, or trampling, are a much better potential explanation for the high breakage frequencies present Paleoindian sites. AN ARTIFACT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR? PALEOINDIAN ENDSCRAPER BREAKAGE IN MIDWESTERN AND GREAT LAKES NORTH AMERICA A Thesis Submitted To Kent State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Alyssa R. Perrone May 2020 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published material Thesis written by Alyssa R. Perrone B.A., University of Akron, 2018 M.A., Kent State University, 2020 Approved by ___________________________________, Advisor Metin I. Eren, Ph.D. ___________________________________, Chair, Department of Anthropology Mary Ann Raghanti, Ph.D. ___________________________________, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences James L. Blank Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iv LIST OF FIGURES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vi LIST OF TABLES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------viii CHAPTERS I. INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ASSUMPTIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 TOOL USE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 SPURS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 HEAT TREATMENT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR---------------------------------------------------------------------10 MICROWEAR--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 ALLOMETRY--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 MORPHOMETRICS, RESHARPENING, CURATION, AND DISCARD---------------13 GOAL OF THE STUDY--------------------------------------------------------------------------16 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS--------------------------------------------------------18 ENDSCRAPER ASSEMBLAGE FOR INSTRON BREAKAGE---------------------------18 INTRON BREAKAGE----------------------------------------------------------------------------19 HAFTED ENDSCRAPER ASSEMBLAGE----------------------------------------------------20 UNHAFTED ENDSCRAPER TESTING-------------------------------------------------------21 RECORDED FORCE------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 HAFTED ENDSCRAPER HUMAN TRIALS-------------------------------------------------23 RECORDED FORCE------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CASE STUDY: PALEO CROSSING, OHIO-----------------24 METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENDSCRAPER MORPHOMETRICS AND FORCE AT BREAKAGE---------------------------------------26 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS------------------------------------------------------------27 III. RESULTS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------28 WHAT FORCES ARE REQUIRED TO BREAK A FLAKED STONE ENDSCRAPER AND HOW DO HUMAN FORCES COMPARE?--------------------------------------------28 iv WHICH VARIABLES INFLUENCE EASE OF BREAKAGE?----------------------------28 CASE STUDY: BROKEN ENDSCRAPERS FROM PALEO CROSSING, OHIO------29 FORCE MEASUREMENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------30 FORCES FOR UNHAFTED ENDSCRAPERS------------------------------------------------30 FORCES FOR HAFTED ENDSCRAPERS----------------------------------------------------30 IV. DISCUSSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------32 CONCLUSION----------------------------------------------------------------------------37 REFERENCES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------39 LIST OF FIGURES v Figure 1. Paleoindian Flaked Stone Endscrapers Knapped on Wyandotte Chert from Paleo Crossing, Ohio-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Figure 2. Replica Endscrapers on Texas Georgetown Chert-------------------------------------------51 Figure 3. Instron Universal Materials Tester (Model 5967) Set Up----------------------------------52 Figure 4. A Sample of 11 Replica Endscrapers----------------------------------------------------------53 Figure 5. Human Trials of M.W. Scraping---------------------------------------------------------------54 Figure 6. Bivariate Plots of Log–Transformed Length (top left), Width (top right), Thickness (bottom left), and Mass (bottom right) With Force, With an OLS Best-Fit Line.------------------55 LIST OF TABLES vi Table 1. Data Collected on the Replica Endscrapers Used in the Breakage Tests and Human Trials-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56 Table 2. Force (N) Data from the Endscraper Breakage Using the Instron, From Human Scraping, and Human Attempts at Breakage-------------------------------------------------------------57 Table 3. Results of Ordinary Least Squares Analyses Log-Transformed Variables and Force---58 Acknowledgements vii First, I would like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Metin I. Eren, Dr. Michelle R. Bebber, Dr. Linda B. Spurlock, and Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy. I very much appreciate all of your help and support through this process and during my time at Kent State. I would also like to thank my coauthors Michael Wilson, Michelle R. Bebber, Metin I. Eren, Michael Fisch, and Briggs Buchanan. Without your help and contributions this would not have come to fruition. Thank you all for making this master’s thesis possible. Second, I wish to thank my father and mother, Patsy Perrone and Lisa Perrone, and my sister Sondra Perrone. Their unwavering love and support gave me the ability to pursue my ambitions, whether it be as a musician or as an archaeologist. In me they instilled an unfailing work ethic, persistence, faith, and bravery; without these I would have given up entirely. Thank you for everything. Next, I wish to thank my master’s advisor Dr. Metin I. Eren for not only being a solid north arrow for the duration of my master’s program, but also for being a persistent positive influence. His expertise, advice, and open friendliness have been invaluable to me as a student, a colleague, and as a person. Had I not had the opportunity to learn from him I would not be the archaeologist I am today. I am extremely thankful I was allowed to be his student. I would also like to thank my undergraduate advisor Dr. Michael J. Shott of the University of Akron for being the first to introduce me to stone tool research, and for encouraging me as an archaeologist. He has been an endless wealth of knowledge, and his enthusiasm, kindness, and willingness to guide me were an invaluable experience. I am equally thankful I was allowed to be his student. It has truly been a joy and a privilege to be able to work viii with two such admirable people, and to learn from two such accomplished archaeologists and stone tool experts. Finally, I want to thank the rest of my professors, friends, and colleagues from both the University of Akron and Kent State University. It is a rarity and a privilege that there are too many of you to list individually. Without all of you I would not have received such a paramount education, had such a wonderful experience, or become the person or professional I am today. You were all an endless source of support, laughs, love, and help. Your solidarity, willingness to listen, praise for mine and each other’s success has been welcoming and eased much of the stress. I look forward to continuing to be great friends and colleagues for many years. ix Chapter 1: Introduction Endscrapers are found at Upper Paleolithic sites almost everywhere in Europe, the Middle East, and North America. In fact, flaked stone endscrapers are often the most abundant tool class at Paleoindian sites in Late Pleistocene Eastern North America (Comstock 2011; Eren 2013; Gingerich 2019; cf. Fitting et al. 1966) (FIGURE 1). The study of these artifacts by archaeologists has shed much light on Paleoindian tool curation, use-life, maintenance, and transport