An Artifact of Human Behavior? Paleoindian Endscraper Breakage In

Home , Human evolution, Hunting hypothesis, Paleo Crossing Site, Scraper (archaeology), Uniface

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

Alyssa R. Perrone

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

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

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

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.

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 (Andrews et al. 2015; Ellis and Deller 1988; Eren 2011, 2013; Eren and Andrews 2013;

Eren and Buchanan 2018; Gingerich 2019; Morrow 1997; Shott and Seeman 2015,2017).

Generally, endscrapers are small, almost bullet-like specimens that are predominantly flaked unifacially on a stone flake’s dorsal face. Endscrapers are easily identified by the retouch on their distal end (or distal bit) and they can take on a variety of shapes and sizes. They usually have parallel to proximally converging lateral edges, ventral basal thinning, and are between one half and one and a half centimeters thick; they are also referred to as “trainguloid endscrapers” (Ellis

1988). These proximal edges may or may not experience retouch, but the working “bit” on the distal end does and is usually the widest portion of the tool giving it the “trianguloid” shape

(Ellis 1988).

The robust sample sizes of endscrapers at Late Pleistocene sites has also allowed archaeologists to understand and infer aspects of Paleoindian behavior beyond the tools themselves, such as camp activities, resource procurement, subsistence, assemblage diversity, and mobility patterns (Loebel 2013; Miller 2013; Comstock 2011; Eren et al. 2012; Loebel 2013;

Miller 2013; Shott 1997). There has been a great deal of research conducted on Paleoindian endscrapers already. Much of this work includes: microwear, allometry, geometric- morphometrics, reduction, reuse, and discard patterns. All of which have yielded a good framework for understanding why endscrapers were invented, how they were used, and what they were used for. This evidence shows the working bits of these tools were largely used for scraping hides, although other types of materials were also worked including plants, bone, and wood (Eren et al. 2018; Loebel 2013; Miller 2013). Sometimes endscrapers exhibit minor amounts of invasive flaking on their proximal portion’s ventral face, which is often interpreted as attempts to thin the original flake’s bulb of percussion (Rule and Evans 1985). Multiple lines of evidence suggest Paleoindian endscrapers were regularly resharpened (e.g. Eren 2013; Gingerich

2019; Loebel 2013; Shott 1993) and morphological, statistical, and microwear assessments support the hypothesis that they were regularly hafted into a handle (Elli 2004: 65; Ellis and

Deller 2000; Eren 2012; Jackson 1998; Lothrop 1988; MacDonald 1985; Rule and Evans 1985;

Shott 1993, 1995; Storck 1997; Tomenchuk 1997). Paleoindian endscraper’s can possess stems and notches, which may have aided in hafting, or spurs, which would have diversified their functionality beyond scraping into uses such as engraving, hole-punching, or tattooing (Eren et al. 2013).

Whether an endscraper is broken or not is one attribute that is frequently reported in the

Paleoindian literature (e.g. Cox 1985; Ellis and Deller 2000; Eren 2005; Eren and Redmond

2011; Grimes and Grimes 1985; Iceland 2013; Jackson 1998; Lancashire 2001; MacDonald

1985; Shott 1993; Spiess and Mosher 1992; Wortner and Ellis 1993). One reason for reporting the state of fragmentation, beyond mere thoroughness of reporting, is that endscrapers are often broken in high percentages relative to non-broken specimens. For example, Lancashire’s

(2000:29-32) highly selective sample of 192 endscrapers from 15 Paleoindian Great Lakes sites

– which was substantially biased toward the collection of complete specimens – still possessed

28 broken endscrapers (14.6%). Likewise, Eren et al. (2005) report that from a sample of 208 unifacial tools from Paleo Crossing, Ohio – the majority of which are endscrapers - 138 are fragments (66%) while only 70 (34%) are complete (but see section 2.6 below). At Shawnee-

Minisink, Pennsylvania, Gingerich (2013) reports 216 endscrapers recovered from all excavations to date – 70 complete (32.4%), and 146 broken (67.6%). Lothrop (1988:283) reports that only 53 endscrapers of 80 were “whole” enough for the measurements of length, suggesting that 27 (33.8%) were broken. In one final example, MacDonald (1968:90) reports that 425

(26.8%) of 1,587 Debert endscrapers “were too fragmentary to assign to a specific type [of endscraper]”. As such, this already high percentage of broken specimens would be higher if it included endscrapers that were broken but still could be assigned to a type.

There is good reason, however, to query the hypothesis that endscraper breakage is regularly occurring during Paleoindian scraping. Seeman et al. (2013:424) note that “even relatively thin bits in the 6 mm range are nearly impossible to break during normal use,” citing the microwear experiments of Brink (1978:129), who found comparisons between his intact experimental specimens and their broken archaeological counterparts confusing:

The tool using experiments did not help solve the puzzle of why so many of the

prehistoric specimens were transversely snapped just proximal of the distal ends.

None of the experimental tools experienced similar breakage. It is impossible to say

whether or not the prehistoric specimens were broken while in their handles or at some

other time.

Similarly, in Bohush’s (2013) hide-scraping experiments using 12 replica endscrapers modeled a those after from the Nobles Pond Clovis site, none broke during several rounds of scraping activities.

Another reason to doubt the “use hypothesis” for endscraper breakage comes from the ethnographic record. In her study of the indigenous Gamo lithic practitioners and hide-scrapers of southern Ethiopia, Weedman-Arthur (2018:163) documented a substantially smaller breakage percentage than is common for Paleoindian endscraper assemblages. She writes that among the leatherworkers she studied, lithic practitioners broke approximately 4.8 percent of their chert and obsidian tools (Weedman 2002:739; Weedman-Arthur 2018:163, emphasis added). Of this 4.8 percent, Weedman-Arthur (2018:164) only describes one instance in which a scraper broke during scraping:

…I observed a competent knapper prepare three zucano handles with six hidescrapers to

process a highland hide. In one of the hafts, he took out a hidescraper that his cousin, also

a competent level knapper, had used and hafted. He used his cousin’s hidescraper,

rehafting the tool so that it had a longer exposed length. He began scraping the hide with

one hidescraper, but soon turned the haft and began using the cousin’s hidescraper. After

about one hundred scrapes, the rehafted hidescraper, which was poorly hafted, snapped

and in the process cut his finger.

We must do better than drawing untested conclusions. Basing important archaeological and behavioral interpretations on, albeit very logical assumptions, has proven that this type of misinformation can be very easily perpetuated in the literature without definitive proof (Eren et al 2019). Therefore, attributing our ideas of what Paleoindian behavior should be is a dubiously useful approach. These people cannot speak for themselves, and our assumptions can lead us down the slippery slope of believing what makes sense to us now, would have made sense to these people in the past.

Until now, archaeologists thought they understood why endscrapers break, but it is important to go back to the beginning and really ask: what is the cause of high Paleoindian endscraper breakage? As previously stated, the default hypothesis proposed is that endscrapers were predominantly being broken during use (Ellis and Deller 2000:106). To examine this, our research question is simple: how much force is required to break flaked stone endscraper to break?

Since these implements are a part of the standard Paleoindian tool kit, their presence at archaeological sites helps us outline where on the landscape these people lived, when they got there, when they moved, and their mobility strategies across the continent. To understand this behavior, we first need to understand the regional context. However, there is difficulty understanding why and how Paleoindian endscrapers break, and what the cause of the breakage is. Often, they are found broken in situ, and it is unclear whether they were broken during use then discarded, or if they are broken from post-depositional taphonomic processes such as plows or other modern farming equipment. One often repeated hypothesis suggests that endscrapers are predominately broken during use by Paleoindians, because hafted endscrapers would have experienced a substantial amount of loading, sufficient enough for fracture (Iceland 2013;

Lancashire 2001; MacDonald 1985; Shott 1993, 1995). Indeed, Ellis and Deller (2000:106) not only suggest that endscraper breakage should occur during use, but when it should occur during a tools use-life, stating that “…snapping should occur more often when the tools are early in their use-life when they are relatively long. As they become shorter, less leverage can be applied on the scrapper and a much greater amount of force is necessary to snap them.”

1.2 Assumptions:

From the context of archaeological sites, we can understand exactly how opinions on Paleoindian endscrapers were formed. Interpretations of past behavior are not always easy to make and because of this, there have been many assumptions made about endscrapers that are unsupported; these assumptions involving intended use, spur presence, and (not-oft considered) heat treatment.

In this section we discuss the assumptions about Paleoindian endscrapers and what often goes unacknowledged about them.

Tool Use:

Since previous claims assume endscraper breakage occurs during use, many other explanations have been given for the interaction with the tool as a result. The logical extension of this premise creates a secondary assumption that scraping hide is the only use for these implements.

Therefore it may come as a surprise to learn that microwear analysis (Loebel 2013; Miller 2014;

Seigel 1984) showed Paleoindians were also using these tools on plant material, bone, antler, wood, and were often reused as side scrapers once removed from the haft (Shott 1997; 2015;

2017). Archaeologists have long thought once a scraper was exhausted in the haft there would be an attempt to resharpen it, but it would ultimately be discarded. Lateral striations on lateral edge angles of endscrapers, shown by high resolution magnification (Loebel 2013; Miller 2014), indicate that when they were no longer useful in a haft they were recycled as side scrapers (Shott

1997; 2015; 2017).

The assumption that hafted endscrapers would be discarded if they could no longer be used for hide-scraping at the distal end instead of reallocated for other tasks, is unsupported as no testing has been used to examine this theory. There are different types of scrapers that were designed, curated, resharpened, and recycled for other purposes, but to assume that hidescrapers have some sort of exclusivity to a single task is presumptive, but also is heavily implied in much of the archaeological literature (Loebel 2013; Miller 2014; Seigel 1984; Shott 1997; Shott 2015;

Shott 2017; Ellis 200; Ellis 2004).

Spurs:

A second assumption is one posed by Weedman-Arthur (2002; 2018) by expanding her ethnographic research (see above). She conducted this research in Ethiopia, focusing specifically on endscraper use, breakage, and incidental spurs in several villages where she directly observed endscraper manufacture, use, retouch, breakage, and discard. She has reported witnessing spurred endscrapers made of both chert and obsidian being broken at similar rates during

hidescraping when used by inexperienced workers; haft design being the primary culprits of this result. This has yet to be retested experimentally to see if spurs play a role in differential scraper breakage between chert and obsidian material. However, there are several differences in interactions with endscrapers. These interactions include: hide-working, hafting, material, and attitude towards spurs. All of these variables would affect the results seen in Ethiopia. These would not necessarily be comparable to North American Paleoindian endscrapers or their interaction with them. To say endscraper behavior in Ethiopia in the twenty first century would be the same as endscraper behavior of ice age Paleoindians in 11,000 BP is too presumptive.

Weedman-Arthur (2002; 2018) also had a great advantage by being able to ask the tool users direct questions about the tools being examined; this is something we cannot do when examining data sets from ice age colonizers.

In response to Weedman-Arthur (2002; 2018), Eren (2013) examined the intent or incidental nature of spurs on endscrapers. He studied 563 unbroken tools and 629 tool fragments from the Paleocrossing site. His results reflect from using resharpening proxies, breakage rates, and statistical analyses and showed that the presence of spurs on endscrapers was indeed a mixture of intent via retouch and created incidentally via resharpening or accident (Eren 2013).

So, although Weedmen-Arthur proved that spurs do occur unintentionally from a lack of skill or by accident, the overarching assumption that these results mean all spurs are incidental is not supported.

Heat Treatment:

Another consideration that deserves to be mentioned, but was not specifically examined in this study, is the difference in the amount of force that causes breakage of endscrapers that were heat- treated vs. those that were not. Evidence suggests heat treatment would have enough of an effect on stone materials to cause less force to be required for fracture. However, this was not considered in this experiment.

1.3 What We Know So Far:

Microwear:

Microwear has been a key feature of Paleoindian scrapers, especially in discerning whether they were hafted. Chris Ellis (1988; 1992), Michael Shott (1997; 2015; 2017), Metin Eren (2012;

2013), Thomas Loebel (2013), Logan Miller (2014), among others have used microwear analyses, diversity analyses, and form analyses to determine that Paleoindian endscrapers were intended to be hafted.

Loebel (2013), Miller (2014), and Siegel (1984) demonstrated that Paleoindian endscrapers are predominantly used for hide-scraping during the tanning process. Endscrapers are common in the Clovis and Parkhill records in North America – sites like Paleo-Crossing, and

Thedford II are good examples. Endscrapers are also found at Folsom sites in the Plains and the

Rocky Mountains, and in other Paleoindian complexes. Microwear has also demonstrated that endscrapers were resharpened, but because of this, evidence of use-wear is sometimes erased

before scrapers are discarded in a final attempt to salvage them (Loebel 2013; Miller 2014;

Seeman 2013; Shott 1997; 2015; 2017).

Microwear performed by Loebel (2013) was extremely important because it confirmed endscrapers were being hafted. This was shown using a high-powered magnification approach at

50 to 500x magnification (Loebel 2013), and it demonstrated variability in polishes from the use of different materials – sometimes simultaneously (Loebel 2013). These polishes were used to show how endscrapers were used based on edge damage, fractures, and linear striations indicative of contact materials (Loebel 2013). In total, 181 endscrapers, both whole and fragmented, were examined from four sites (Gainey, Hawk’s Nest, Nobels Pond, and Shawnee-

Minisink); of these 170 were suitable for usewear analysis (Loebel 2013). Evidence of hafting was observed because the focus of the study was on the distal and lateral edges of the implements. However, there were multiple contact material residues found on the endscrapers in addition to haft polish (Loebel 2013).

Miller (2014) also performed microwear analysis on endscrapers. He documented different types of microwear patterns and polishes consistent with hidescraping, as well as plant material, woodwork, bone, and antler. Microwear evidence also suggests that bone, antler, and wood processing occurred on the lateral edges like a side scraper after the implement was removed from the haft (Miller 2014). In addition, after examining a collection of unifacial tools found from the Paleocrossing Clovis site in Ohio, Miller found different types of wear patterns unique to the type of material being scraped, as well as striations showing the direction in which the tools were being scraped in (2014). Paleocrossing endscrapers, like the experimental replicas used in this study, were made from blades, and are the only sample from the Great Lakes region

manufactured this way (Miller 2014). A total of 77 blades and 141 endscrapers were recovered from this site (Miller 2014).

Miller describes a pilot microwear study conducted by Eren and Redmond (2011) showing hide and plant wear marks on 10 implements from Paleocrossing (Miller 2014). Using both high and low-resolution magnification, they found haft wear in addition to hide and plant wear (Miller 2014). Haft wear presents as small patches of bright spots, with flat polish, and no striations; this is caused by contact with the haft or grit between the haft and the tool (Miller

2014). This wear pattern is significantly different from hidescraping wear, which is a polish that is dull and greasy, and striations in the polish run perpendicular to the working edge indicating the transverse direction of movement during use (Miller 2014). Plant wear is a smooth fluid polish with comet-tailed striation marks. Some of these scrapers were used for multiple purposes, creating a combination of hide and plant wear patterns, with plant wear occurring on the lateral edges (Miller 2014). This implies that the scrapers used in plant processing were used after being removed from their haft (Miller 2014).

Allometry:

Additionally, allometric analyses support resharpening evidence (Andrews 2015; Eren and

Andrews 2013; Eren 2015). For example, large Clovis endscrapers can be wide and flat, and smaller Clovis endscrapers can be round. This is consistent with a pattern of large, broad flakes and blades being resharpened to small nub-like pieces. However, resharpening trajectories were not uniform across Paleoindian North America. Allometry analyses by Andrews (2015),

demonstrates that post-Clovis Paleoindian cultures did not resharpen their unifacial stone tools to the same extent as their Clovis ancestors. Andrews (2015) data shows there is a significant size and shape relationship to resharpening trajectories.

Longevity was a property Clovis foragers valued because much of the continent’s landscape was unknown to them, and no one knew when raw material would be discovered again

(Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2015). To illustrate this, three allometric patterns were used: 1) larger tools had flatter, less spherical shapes than smaller tools, 2) longevity was less important to post-Clovis foragers, creating a less significant relationship between size, shape, and retouch, 3) large tools are rounder than smaller tools, and less often resharpened or recycled (Andrews 2015). These patterns show less concern with design and longevity in post-

Clovis forager tool populations (Andrews 2015). Post-Clovis foragers knew their landscapes well and they knew where to find more materials, therefore if tools were exhausted or broken, they were discarded, and new ones were made (Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2015).

This would prevent unnecessary energy expenditure on tool making and curation (Andrews

2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2015).

Morphometrics, Resharpening, Curation, and Discard:

Over the last several years archaeologists have gained insight into how colonization, morphometrics, and resharpening work together. Geometric-morphometrics can be used to examine the overall shape of an implement that in turn allows us to potentially understand flintknapping goals, and their intent. With morphometrics, much like with allometry, we can

understand how resharpening utilized the maximum potential of the material available for stone tools. We already know that Paleoindians were prioritizing a logistical, collecting system

(Binford 1980), while also taking advantage of the longevity and functional flexibility in the larger flatter blanks (Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2015; Eren 2004; Eren 2005;

Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren 2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2016; Eren 2018; Eren 2019).

This also pertains to endscrapers even though they were sometimes made from prismatic blades or block-cores (Andrews 2015; Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015; Eren

2018; Seeman 2013). Overall, the goal of any tool, core, or flake blank, was to provide the most resharpening episodes possible, while not sacrificing a workable edge angle (Andrews 2015;

Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015; Eren 2018).

Resharpening, curation, and discard of Paleoindian unifacial stone tools have always been assumed to be one of the main culprits of certain interactions with these stone implements.

It has been thought that continuous use and resharpening episodes would have ultimately erased use-wear, allowing Paleoindians to curate and recycle their tools and continually reuse them, but it would also lead to the exhaustion of the implement (Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017;

Seemen 2013). We have found that although retouch and resharpening does get rid of some use- wear evidence, it does not totally eliminate it (Loebel 2013; Miller 2014; Siegel 1984; Ellis

1992; 1988).

It has also long been presumed that distance from outcrop locations plays a role in the size of the endscrapers found at archaeological sites (Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017;

Seeman 2013). Because Paleoindians were highly mobile, moving through the landscape rapidly, and using base camps as staging areas to gear up for the next move, resharpening episodes

happening enroute were playing a role in the small sizes of these tools (Shott 1997; Shott 2015;

Shott 2017; Seeman 2013; Eren 2013; Eren 2015).

However, we have found this to not to be the case. In a study conducted by Eren and

Buchanan (2018) several chert types were geo-sourced to their outcrop locations, then the distance from those outcrops to the archaeological sites where artifacts were discovered were compared (Eren and Buchanan 2018). There was no consistent relationship between the distance from an outcrop and resharpening trajectories (Eren and Buchanan 2018). Sites that were further from outcrops sometimes had less resharpening, sites that were closer from outcrops had more resharpening, or vice versa, and some sites had no statistical difference comparatively despite distance (Eren and Buchanan 2018).

Previously, it was thought that since these outcrops were so far from where these base camps were located, the distance would cause more resharpening episodes while traveling (Eren and Buchanan 2018). After conducting geometric-morphometrics and statistical analyses, they found some of the sites that were closer to their outcrops had smaller endscrapers, and some of the sites farther from their outcrops had no statistical difference in sizes despite the distance

(Eren and Buchanan 2018). This was opposite of what was anticipated, leading to the conclusion that resharpening episodes did not influence the size of endscrapers (Eren and Buchanan 2018).

We do not know what factors determine endscraper size as they must behavioral in nature, therefore untestable (Eren and Buchanan 2018).

From a morphometric standpoint, durability over sharpness was a priority in the lateral edges of Paleoindian endscrapers (Rule 1985). Since landscape learning was a goal, it was important for these tools to not only remain reliable, but to retain material for modification and curation (Rule 1985; Morrow 1997; Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017; Eren 2013; Eren 2015).

By making endscrapers from larger, wider, and relatively thin blanks (or breaking blades this way), resharpening can occur and the tool will still have enough edge angle for a long use-life

(Andrews 2015; Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015). Only when a tool has been resharpened to the point where its thickness is no longer proportional to its width, will the edge angle steepness become too great to retouch, and the tool can be discarded (Andrews

2015; Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015). This is especially important for hafted implements, but because of microwear previously discussed, there is evidence that these ‘exhausted for the haft’ endscrapers were recycled into side scrapers (Siegel 1984; Loebel

2013; Miller 2014).

These studies show that functional flexibility, longevity, resharpening, and curation are actively considered by Paleoindians for their endscrapers (Andrews 2015; Eren 2008; Eren 2012;

Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015; Eren 2018; Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017; Seeman

2013). Since there was landscape unfamiliarity, it would have been important for these endscrapers to last as long as possible for Paleoindian survivability to be higher (Andrews 2015;

Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015; Eren 2018). Geometric- morphometrics helps us understand resharpening statistically, and to understand how it was being used while these people moved across a complex and unknown landscape (Andrews 2015;

Eren 2008; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2013b; Eren 2015; Eren 2018).

1.4 Goal of the Study:

From this information in the literature, the goal of this study was to understand the amount of force required to break flaked unifacial stone tools. From this examination, and because of the assumptions previouisly made, there is a need to attempt to clarify our conclusions. Knowing how much force it takes to break an endscraper can do this.

There is current uncertainty regarding the “use hypothesis” to explain high Paleoindian endscraper breakage frequencies in the archaeological record. Here we present a series of machine and human replication experiments (Eren et al. 2016), morphometric analyses, and investigations to test the hypothesis’ validity. Specifically, using an Instron Universal Materials

Tester (Model 5967) we first document the required force necessary to break a large sample of replica Paleoindian endscrapers of different sizes. We then compare these forces to those generated by a strong human participant (M.W.) using hafted endscrapers in both scraping tasks and intentional breakage. Next, we analyze which morphometric variable can be used to best predict the force required to break an endscraper. This is done so the data from the replicas will be comparable to the specimens from the archaeological record. Finally, using the data from breakage, human trials, and the morphometric analysis, we conduct a case study that examines whether the large numbers of broken endscrapers from the Paleocrossing Clovis site were likely broken by human use.

Our results ultimately show that it takes more force than a human can exert to break an endscraper, whether hafted or unhafted. From this, we can surmise breakage during use was not the reason for tool discard. It is more likely that exhaustion was the culprit for the discard, and that the breakage we see occurring in the record was caused by post-taphonomic processes such as plows, trampling, and other modern farming equipment.

Chapter 2:

Materials and Methods:

2.1 Endscraper Assemblage for Instron Breakage:

In this experiment we used 73 unhafted replica endscrapers, all of which were knapped by Dr.

Metin I. Eren. These replicas were made from Texas Georgetown Chert, a silicious, flaw-free toolstone (FIGURE 2) modeled after the Paleoindian endscrapers found at the Paleocrossing site in Ohio. The replica endscrapers were knapped on blades to model the production method of endscrapers found at Paleocrossing. They were produced with a soft sandstone hammerstone.

From these blanks, endscrapers were shaped into form via soft hammer percussion retouch. The endscraper specimens were generally “trianguloid” in plain-view and “accessory free”, i.e. without spurs or notches. Our goal of our endscraper production was to create a large range of sizes for two things: understand the varying amount of force required to break endscrapers of different sizes, and to replicate the same size variation that is found in the archaeological collection from Paleocrossing. The results were specimens that differed in length, width, thickness, and mass, all of which were documented before breakage. However, although not the intended goal of the endscraper replication, overall, the experimental assemblage was still consistent with Paleoindian endscraper morphometrics (TABLE 1). For instance, Eren and

Andrews (2013:172,180) document the mean thicknesses of unifacial tool assemblages from seven Paleoindian sites in the Great Lakes region: Arc unifacial tool mean thickness = 7.72 mm

(n = 135); Butler mean thickness = 9.53 mm (n = 63); Gainey mean thickness = 9.75 mm (n =

31); Leavitt mean thickness = 8.87 mm (n = 33); Paleo Crossing mean thickness = 7.44 mm (n =

160); Potts mean thickness = 8.63 mm (n = 41); Udora mean thickness = 8.32 mm (n = 97). The mean thickness of the experimental replica endscraper assemblage investigated here is 9.16 mm.

All endscrapers data is available in Data S1.

There were 11 hafted replica endscrapers; half were hafted by my colleague Michael

Wilson of Kent State University and the other half were hafted by me. The 11 hafted replica endscrapers were also measured for length, width, mass, and thickness; however, thickness was only recorded at 50% at the highest point of the midsection.

The 73 unhafted replica endscrapers were all measured for length, width, mass, and thickness. Thickness measurements for these were taken at 25, 50, and 75 percent; 25% was measured at the basal end, 50% was measured at the highest point of the midsection, and 75% was measured at the distal end across the endscraper.

2.2 Instron Breakage:

In order to understand how much force is required to break endscrapers of different sizes, we used an Instron Universal Materials Tester (Model 5967) which recorded peak force at breakage

(in Newtons) for all 73 specimens (FIGURE 3). An adjustable angle machinist vise was placed on top of, and affixed to, the force plate. Endscrapers, wrapped in leather on the proximal end, were then clutched in the vice. The first 15 endscraper specimens were broken at an angle of 45

degrees. Since we wished to avoid distal bit crunching and instead focus on snapping, we adjusted the remaining 58 endscrapers to an angle of 60 degrees before breakage.

2.3 Hafted Endscraper Assemblage:

Eleven more endscrapers of a variety of sizes were produced by M.I.E. for the purposes of human trials (TABLE 1). These specimens were then hafted by two of us (A.P. and M.W.) on

25.40 mm (one inch) seasoned poplar wood dowel rods. All dowel rods were cut to 228.60 mm

(nine inches) in length. Once cut, they were individually tapered to accommodate the various endscraper sizes. Next, we used a coping saw to cut a “U” shaped socket into the distal ends of the dowel rods to which the endscrapers were inserted. Then, we heated thermoplastic mastic to a temperature of 155.5°C (312°F) in a glass beaker on a hot plate. While we waited for the mastic to melt, using an open flame, we heated the distal end of the socket and dowel rod to harden the wood. We also heated each endscraper over the flame so the bond between the stone and mastic would be stronger and more cohesive. Once the mastic in the beaker was viscous, we used popsicle sticks to coat the distal end of the dowel rod, the socket, and the endscrapers. Each endscraper was inserted into its socket while both the stone and the mastic were hot. The socket hafts covered about 50% of each endscraper. After each socketed endscraper was complete, they were left to set and harden overnight. Once set and hard, we cut off uneven bumps from the mastic, and wrapped 38mm (an inch and a half) of synthetic sinew binding around the hafted area. When the sinew was wrapped and secure around the socket, the final step was to expose the whole implement to the open flame again to allow the mastic to partially resoften and melt into

the sinew. This helped seal holes and cracks between the chert and socket, reduce bubbles, and to even out bumps. All implements were left to set and harden overnight. The final specimens can be viewed in FIGURE 4, and all data is available in Data S1.

2.4 Unhafted Endscraper Testing:

To test how much force it takes to break unhafted endscrapers, we used the Instron Materials

Tester (Model 5967) and mounted all 73 unhafted endscrapers in the vice previously mentioned.

A metal block of steel was secured between the two top grips of the Instron and positioned directly above the mounted endscrapers. We also placed two wooden blocks above the steel block so it would not be displaced when force was applied. Once the Instron was set to begin compression, the steel block slowly pressed down on the distal edge of the endscraper. The vice and Instron set up for the unhafted endscraper testing was created by Dr. Michael Fisch of the

College of Aeronautics and Engineering at Kent State University.

Originally testing began with 76 unhafted endscrapers, but three specimens (13, 21, and

61) broke in the vice before testing began and were thus excluded from the sample. The specimens were divided into two sample groups: 1-35 was the first sample, and 36-73 was the second sample. We drew a line on the ventral side of specimens 1-35 where they were mounted in the vice grips to see the location of the breakage. Endscrapers 1-16 were mounted in the vice at a 45-degree angle, and endscrapers 17-73 were mounted in the vice at a 60-degree angle. This change was adjusted to achieve a snapping breakage rather than crush or flake removal. This

change, however, did not affect thinner endscrapers - they snapped regardless of the difference in edge angle.

Specimen 15 had the maximum force recorded for a flake removal, but no force was recorded for breakage. Specimen 51 took four tries to break in half to record the force. Specimen

27 broke and the force was recorded, but we didn’t draw a line on the ventral side of the scraper marking where it was mounted in the vice. We recorded the amount of force it took to break this specimen, but we cannot definitively confirm if it broke above or below the vice grips. However, it is safe to say it broke below the vice grips, as every single specimen in the first sample broke below that line. Specimen 17 took two attempts to break to record the force, and specimens 44,

46, 62, 63, 66, and 74 all broke during testing but did not snap. All force measurements were recorded in Newtons and converted to pounds. All specimens in the second sample group (36-

73) also broke at the basal ends of the endscrapers during testing like the first sample group (1-

35).

Recorded Force:

Overall, the minimum force recorded to break an unhafted endscraper was 178.63 N, which equals 40.16 pounds of force. The maximum force recorded to break an unhafted endscraper was

6,549.82 N, which equals 1,472.46 pounds. The average force recorded was 1,142.22 N, which equals 256.78 pounds. This means for a person to break the thickest endscrapers in our unhafted sample, a person would have to exert more than 1,472 pounds of force to break an unhafted endscraper. Since our replica specimens are comparable to the archaeological collection of

endscrapers from Paleocrossing, we conclude that these measurements are comparable predictive forces that would have been required of Paleoindians to break their own specimens.

2.5 Hafted Endscraper Human Trials:

In order to understand how much force a human can generate during scraping and intentional attempts at breakage, we again used an Instron Universal Materials Tester (Model 5967) to record peak force at breakage (N). This was done two ways. For the first portion of testing, we secured a thick piece of leather on the Instron’s force plate, and had the (by far and away) strongest of us (M.W.) use each of the hafted endscrapers to scrape the leather for 20 seconds as if scraping the hide clean (FIGURE 5). An ethnographically documented hand position and scraping motion was used: the distal end of the endscraper facing down and the handle held in a fist while “pressing down and dragging across a surface, creating transverse loadings and compressive stress on the haft in particular”, creating an even and continuous force (Barham

2013). Throughout the 20 seconds of continuous scraping, the Instron recorded the maximum measurement for force that was exerted upon each hafted endscraper.

For the second portion of testing, the same 11 hafted endscrapers and the same hide were used, but this time we (M.W.) intentionally tried to break them. M.W. used the same ethnographic hand position as before, and then applied as much force as he could for 20 seconds.

The Instron recorded the maximum force (N) exerted upon each implement but none of the 11 implements broke during this testing regardless of the size variation.

Recorded Force:

For the scraping tests, the minimum force recorded was 67.16 N, which equals 15.09 pounds.

The maximum force recorded for scraping was 89.61 N, which equals 20.14 pounds. The average force recorded was 74.76 N, which equals 16.80 pounds.

While attempting to break the endscrapers, the minimum force recorded was 208.51 N, which equals 46.87 pounds of force. The maximum force recorded was 264.37 N, which equals

59.43 pounds. The average force recorded was 234.27 N, which equals 52.66 pounds. No breakage occurred.

These measurements imply that in order to break the thickest endscrapers in the sample,

(which are comparable to the average thicknesses from the Paleocrossing site) a person would have to exert >60 pounds upon the implement during use. However, since the maximum amount of force exerted when the implements were used during testing does not exceed 20 pounds of force, the likelihood of a person exceeding 60 pounds of force during use is low. Therefore, breakage of hafted endscrapers by Paleoindians was unlikely to have occurred during use or otherwise.

2.6 An Archaeological Case Study: Paleo Crossing, Ohio:

After determining which morphometric variables – mass, length, width, or thickness – best predict the amount of force required to break an endscraper, we used the resulting regression

models to predict the amounts of force required to break endscrapers from an actual archaeological Paleoindian endscraper assemblage comprised of both complete and broken endscrapers. We then compared the predicted amounts of force to the forces generated during the human trials to assess whether, or how many, of the archaeological endscrapers could have been broken during use.

The chosen Paleoindian endscraper assemblage was that of Paleo Crossing, Ohio

(FIGURE 1). Paleo Crossing is currently one of the best-described Paleoindian sites in North

America (Barrish 1995; Brose 1994; Boulanger et al. 2015; Eren 2005, 2006, 2010; Eren and

Kollecker 2004; Eren and Redmond 2011; Eren et al. 2004, 2005, 2018a, 2018b; Miller 2013,

2014; Morgan et al. 2015; Tankersley and Holland 1994), and recent re-excavations of the site over the 2016, 2017, and 2018 field seasons are currently being analyzed and written up. For our study, during Spring 2019 A.P. and M.I.E. collected mass, length, width, and thickness data on all of the complete (n=134) and broken (n=92) endscrapers curated at the Cleveland Museum of

Natural History (total n = 226, 59.3% complete, 40.7% broken). We note that the percentages of complete and broken specimens reported here are different than those reported by Eren et al.

(2005, reported in the introduction above) for two reasons. The first, the Eren et al. (2005) study was a sample of the entire curated collection, and thus the counts differ between that study and the present one.

The second, and more pertinent, reason the percentages of complete and broken specimens reported here differ from those reported by Eren et al. (2005) is because we did not include proximal sections of probable endscrapers that were missing their distal bits. In other words, the present study includes only specimens that could be visually confirmed as endscrapers, that is, complete specimens and distal endscraper portions possessing the working

“bit”. No specimens “inferred” to be endscrapers were included in the present study.

Nonetheless, the broken endscrapers comprise a high percentage of the total Paleo Crossing endscraper assemblage.

2.7 Methods for Assessing the Relationship Between Endscraper Morphometrics and Force at

Breakage:

We used an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) approach to model the relationship between each of the measured morphometric variables (length, width, thickness, and mass) and force measured by the Instron at the instant of endscraper failure. By using this approach, we eliminated variables that had nonsignificant slopes and thus little predictive power. We then selected the single variable with the highest predictive power (highest r2 value) for use in further analyses.

The OLS models to select the most significant morphometric variable to predict force for the endscrapers from Paleo Crossing. As shown in the results section below, this variable was thickness. We then entered the archaeological measurements of thickness into the regression equation and derived predicted force measures.

All recorded data from the Paleo Crossing endscrapers are available in Data S1.

2.8 Important Considerations:

It is important to note that the scraping portion of the testing was in no way intended to be an actualistic representation of typical Paleoindian use of endscrapers on hide. Typical hide scraping activity would require endscrapers be used for long durations of time, be used repeatedly, experience many resharpening episodes, and experience various amounts of force from person to person over its use-life. This portion of the experimentation is not our main focus or question, but this could be tested in the future. For our purposes, we needed to define a threshold of force exerted upon the hafted endscrapers that were within the parameters of human ability. We needed to see if the maximum force exerted by a human was enough for them to break them during use or be able to compare the human maximum force measurements to the

Instron maximum force measurements when they were broken by the Instron.

Chapter 3:

Results:

3.1 What forces are required to break a flaked stone endscraper and how do human forces compare?

On average, our tests indicated that a flaked stone endscraper requires 1,142.22 N (n=73) (256.78 pounds) to break (TABLE 2). The minimum force achieved in our experimental endscraper breakage tests was 178.63 N (40.15 pounds), while the maximum was 6,549.82 N (1472.45 pounds). The average force exerted on a hafted endscraper during human scraping was 74.76 N

(n=11) (16.80 pounds), with a minimum of 67.16 N (15.09 pounds) and a maximum of 89.61

(20.14 pounds) (TABLE 2). Attempts by a human to break the hafted endscrapers resulted in an average force of 234.27 N (n=11) (52.66 pounds), with a minimum 208.51 N (46.87 pounds) and a maximum of 264.37 N (59.43 pounds) (TABLE 2). However, all attempts by a human participant to break the hafted endscrapers failed – none of the 11 hafted endscrapers were broken.

3.2 Which variables influence ease of breakage?

We carried out OLS analysis for each of the variables—mass, length, width, and thickness—to derive the relationship with force. We log-transformed all of the variables because they were skewed, and because we were interested in defining the allometric relationship between them.

Comparison of the OLS results indicates that the thickness of endscrapers has the steepest significant slope and explains the most variation in the dataset (TABLE 3; FIGURE 6).

3.3 Case Study: Broken Endscrapers from Paleo Crossing, Ohio:

We measured 226 endscrapers from the Paleo Crossing site; 134 were complete and unbroken, and 92 were broken. We used the OLS regression equation modeled for thickness and generated predicted force values for each of the unbroken and broken endscrapers from Paleo Crossing. We statistically compared the force associated with the unbroken and broken specimens. The results indicate that the predicted force required to break the unbroken versus the broken endscrapers is statistically the same (Mann-Whitney U=5276.5, z=1.84, p=0.066).

The highest predicted force estimated for the Paleo Crossing assemblage is nearly 2000

Newtons (1961.2N; 440.89 pounds) with a mean of 779N (175 pounds) (731-827N 95% CI). In contrast, the forces recorded for the human trails while making scraping motions ranges from 67-

90N (15-20 pounds) with a mean of 75N (16 pounds), and for the human trails with the subject applying maximum amount of force the range was 209-264N (46-59 pounds) with a mean of

234N (52 pounds). Thus, the force generated by the human trails is significantly lower than the mean force predicted to break the Paleo Crossing endscrapers.

3.4 Force Measurements:

As previously stated…

Forces for Unhafted Endscrapers:

The minimum force recorded to break an unhafted endscraper was 178.63 N, which equals 40.16 pounds of force. The maximum force recorded to break an unhafted endscraper was 6,549.82 N, which equals 1,472.46 pounds. The average force recorded was 1,142.22 N, which equals 256.78 pounds.

To break the thickest scrapers from our unhafted sample (which are comparable to the average thickness in implements from the Paleocrossing site) a person would have to exert more than 1,472 pounds of force during use.

Forces for Hafted Endscrapers:

For the scraping tests on the hafted endscrapers, the minimum force recorded was 67.16 N, which equals 15.09 pounds. The maximum force recorded for scraping was 89.61 N, which equals 20.14 pounds. The average force recorded was 74.76 N, which equals 16.80 pounds.

The minimum force recorded for attempting to break hafted endscraper was 208.51 N, which equals 46.87 pounds of force. The maximum force recorded for attempting to break a

hafted endscraper was 264.37 N, which equals 59.43 pounds. The average force recorded was

234.27 N, which equals 52.66 pounds.

To break the thickest scrapers from our hafted sample (which are comparable to the average thickness in implements from the Paleocrossing site) a person would have to exert more than 60 pounds of force during use. The maximum amount of force that was exerted when the implements were used in testing did not exceed 20 pounds of force. If the maximum amount of force exerted by a human during use was 20 pounds of force, then it would be unlikely a person would exceed 60 pounds of force required to break the implement during use.

Chapter 4:

Discussion and Conclusion:

Endscraper breakage has long been assumed to be a predominate result of past behavior:

Paleoindians snapping the flaked, hafted stone components of their scraping tools during functional use (Ellis and Deller 2000; Iceland 2013; Lancashire 2001; MacDonald 1985; Shott

1993, 1995). Previous experimental and ethnographic research have provided good reason to question this conclusion (Bohush 2013; Brink 1978; Weedman-Arthur 2018). Here, via experimental archaeology, we directly tested whether the high Paleoindian endscraper breakage frequency in the archaeological record was a result of use. We first recorded the amount of force necessary to break replica endscrapers of varying sizes. We did this in two ways: first we measured maximum force required to break scrapers while being used on hide for scraping, then we measured the maximum force while purposely trying to break the endscrapers. For the scraping measurement a strong human participant does not come close to the necessary forces required to break an endscraper. And even when that human participant tried to intentionally break hafted endscrapers, he could not – again, the necessary force cannot be generated. Next, we show that scraper thickness is the best morphometric variable to predict the necessary force for breakage.

Finally, an OLS analysis for a linear regression was used on the data collected. Our variables: mass, length, width, and thickness were log transformed because of skew and to define the allometric relationships among variables. Considering the endscraper thicknesses and predicted force required for their breakage from our results, it is reasonable that these force magnitudes cannot be attributed to actual Paleoindian use, as our data suggest that humans could not have generated the necessary force to break them during use. Although, considering some endscrapers can be thin and small, we do concede that it is possible for an endscraper or two could sporadically break from Paleoindian use – as Weedman-Arthur (2018) documented ethnographically. For example, our thinnest hafted endscraper was 4.58 (mm), and it’s recorded maximum force was 241.15N (54.21 pounds) when attempting to break it. Exerting 54.21 pounds is certainly within the realm of human ability. Our thinnest unhafted endscraper was 4.4

(mm), and it’s recorded maximum force was 194.11N (43.63 pounds), which is also within the realm of human capacity. We also must acknowledge that we do not know if repeated use over time creates any kind of weaknesses in the chert, so we cannot state that it is impossible for scrapers of these sizes, or smaller and thinner ones, cannot be broken by people. We mention this because to completely rule out these considerations would be negligent, and potentially just as presumptuous as assuming all scrapers break during use.

But our results, when taken together, strongly suggest that the high frequencies of

Paleoindian endscraper breakage found in the archaeological record cannot be reasonably attributed to human agency. In short, even though it is unsafe to state that endscrapers were never

(or could never) be broken by people, it is highly unlikely that they were. Paleoindians were highly mobile hunter-gatherers whose goal was landscape learning (Andrews 2015; Eren and

Andrews 2013; Eren 2004; Eren 2005; Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren 2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013;

Eren 2015; Eren 2016; Eren 2018) we know the conservation of their tools was a priority, and to make tools that could yield as many resharpening episodes as possible before exhaustion

(Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2004; Eren 2005; Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren

2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2015; Eren 2016; Eren 2018; Seeman 2013; Shott 1993; Shott

1995; Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017). This alone makes a good case for the lack of endscraper breakage during use; Paleoindians would not have spent valuable time, energy, and material making tools that could be easily broken during use when their survival depended directly on their function and reliability. Such practices would be quite inefficient. Careful consideration of tool design and dependability [i.e. functional flexibility and longevity (Eren

2004; Eren 2005; Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren 2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2015; Eren

2016; Eren 2018)] can be seen in Clovis points, the Paleoindian mobile tool kit, prepared pre- form flake blanks, caching behavior, and in resharpening trajectories, especially when all of this is examined between base camps (Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2004; Eren

2005; Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren 2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013;Eren 2015; Eren 2016; Eren

2018; Seeman 2013; Shott 1993; Shott 1995; Shott 1997; Shott 2015; Shott 2017). Endscrapers would need to be just as intentionally designed and conserved as Clovis points, and we do not see this trend reverse until the onset of Folsom points when landscape familiarity was established

(Andrews 2015; Eren and Andrews 2013; Eren 2004; Eren 2005; Eren 2006; Eren 2010; Eren

2011; Eren 2012; Eren 2013; Eren 2015; Eren 2016; Eren 2018).

So, what is driving high Paleoindian endscraper breakage frequencies? One possibility many archaeologists might jump to is resharpening. Indeed, although Seeman et al. (2013:424) asserted that they do not believe endscrapers would break during normal use – which is exactly what our results support here – “the same cannot be said about percussion resharpening, where

significant bending forces are sometimes generated.” We have no doubt, on occasion, that

Paleoindians might have broken their endscrapers during the process of resharpening. Indeed,

Weedman-Arthur (2018:129) has documented such an occurrence ethnographically when a hideworker “stopped to sharpen the new hidescraper, he broke it.” However, we are skeptical that – beyond the odd mistake (e.g. Bohush 2013; Iceland 2013) – Paleoindian knappers accidentally broke their endscrapers in the frequencies we see in the archaeological record.

This is because Weedman-Arthur’s (2018) ethnographically documented endscraper breakage rate of 4.8% includes both infrequent breakage from use and the intermittent breakage from resharpening. Although ethnographic data are not a direct test of the archaeological past

(Eren et al. 2013; Hardy 2009; McCall 2012), they can serve as a useful comparative benchmark.

In this case, we doubt, although cannot prove, that Paleoindians would have been more error- prone than Gamo hideworkers in their resharpening practices – at least not in terms of the high breakage frequencies present in the archaeological record. Considering that Weedman-Arthur’s breakage rate of 4.8% (which is already small) combines infrequent breakage from use and the intermittent breakage from resharpening, we can assume that this percentage would be even smaller if it were divided to isolate any one of these variables. This makes less of a case for the frequency of breakage in the archaeological record matching past behavior (Arthur 2018;

Weedman 2002). If present day Gamo hide workers cannot break their endscrapers the rate seen in the archaeological record, then it is unlikely Paleoindians would have exceeded that of the

Gamo to match the arcaheological record.

Another reason we are skeptical that Paleoindians did not break their endscrapers during resharpening – or from use, for that matter – involves the relationship between thickness and predicted force. Above (section 3.2), we demonstrated that thickness and the force required to

break an endscraper are highly correlated. It is therefore interesting that Weedman-Arthur (2002,

2018) documented that the 4.8% of scrapers broken during human use or resharpening were significantly thinner than those that were not broken. In other words, although endscraper breakage by humans is infrequent, humans are more likely to break thinner ones. We thus compared the thickness of the broken Paleoindian endscrapers from Paleo Crossing to that of the complete specimens. The results showed no significant difference (Mann-Whitney U=5276.5, z=1.84, p=0.066). Unlike a human, whatever is breaking Paleo Crossing’s endscrapers in such high frequencies is doing so indiscriminately: endscraper thickness does not seem to matter.

Indeed, the thickest broken Paleo Crossing scraper is 11.95 mm, which equates to a predicted force of 1713.11 N – more than 22 times the average scraping force, and more than 7 times the average breakage attempt force of our human participant.

When considering the discussion above and our results, we suggest that the high

Paleoindian endscraper breakage frequency in the archaeological record is likely due to lithic taphonomic factors (e.g. Dibble et al. 1997; Eren et al. 2011; Hiscock 1985; White 1979). Lithic taphonomy encompasses the processes affecting the appearance and context of lithic artifacts subsequent to their cultural use lives (Eren et al. 2011:202). What kind of lithic taphonomic processes could be potentially causing endscraper breakage? One might be modern farming and development. A majority of Paleoindian sites in Eastern North America, such as Paleo Crossing, are “plowzone sites” – located in presently, or previously, plowed fields – or areas where modern-day people work (e.g. Brose 1994; Carr et al. 2013; Deller and Ellis 1992; Ellis and

Deller 2000; Gingerich 2013b; Gramly 1999; Gramly and Summers 1986; Jackson 1996; Loebel

2009; Lothrop 1988; Sanders 1990; Shott 1993; Simons et al. 1984; Storck 1979; 1997;

Tankersley et al. 1997).

First, a plow or other heavy machinery may be crunching and snapping endscrapers with such force that a specimen’s thickness would not matter. Or second, plowing and exposing artifacts to the surface would allow large farm animals to trample artifacts, causing endscraper breakage. Trampling is an experimentally well-documented lithic taphonomic factor that has been shown to cause lithic artifact breakage indiscriminately (e.g. Eren et al. 2010; McBrearty et al. 1998; McPherron et al. 2014; Nielsen 1991). And trampling may explain the breakage of endscrapers at Paleoindian sites that are not plow-zone sites, but deeply buried, such as Shawnee

Minisink (Gingerich 2013a) as the tools would be pressed into deeper strata from the weight of the animal. However, in this latter case, the artifact trampling would have occurred in the past before the site itself was buried.

Conclusion:

To be clear, at the moment we cannot robustly support lithic taphonomy as the causal factor of

Paleoindian endscraper breakage in Eastern North America. However, taphonomic factors seem like a good potential explanation for the archaeological endscraper breakage frequencies, especially given that our results do not support the role of prehistoric human functional behavior contributing to breakage. Lithic analysts would do well to question the behavioral or cultural relevance of Eastern Paleoindian endscraper breakage patterns in their interpretations of the archaeological record, and instead consider high breakage frequencies to be an indicator of site disturbance, past or present.

In a now classic paper formally discussing and analyzing style and function in flaked stone endscrapers, Meltzer (1981:325) states “…I would argue that there have been relatively few attempts by lithic analysts to go beyond the obvious recognition of stylistic and functional variability to an empirical analysis of variability in particular tool classes.” We would argue that an analogous statement can be made with regard to tool production, use, and discard: there have been relatively few attempts by lithic analysts to go beyond what makes “intuitive” sense to an experimental analysis of how particular tools actually work or are produced (see also Surovell

2009). At this latter statement, the reader may initially bristle, especially given the large number of experiments over the past two decades (Eren et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2018). However, we emphasize the word “relatively” because, despite the recent growth and increasing maturity of experimental archaeology, there needs to be much more experimental work done relative to the number of untested assumptions and assertions present in the literature. This is particularly important because our experiment is the first to test this assumption. When discussing past behavior, the only way conclusions can be wholly agreed upon is for more testing to be done by more archaeologists. Whether these results concur with ours or not is not the issue. But more testing would increase the “sample size” of results, and then finally allow such hypotheses to be considered as the most likely to be supported by evidence.

Indeed, the presumption that has been made by lithic analysts for several decades--, that endscrapers were broken during use—is not supported by the research reported here. The archaeological literature is rife with such assumptions about tool production and use, all of which need to be tested, re-tested, and re-tested again (Eren et al. 2016). Such a large amount of experimental testing speaks to a fundamental shift in the way archaeology is currently conducted; one in which experimental archaeology is no longer supplemental to our

understanding of prehistoric technology and culture, but is instead the predominant approach to further the understanding of prehistoric artifacts, people, and culture (Eren and Bebber 2019;

Magnani et al. 2019; Surovell et al. 2017).

References:

Andrews, B. N., E. J. Knell, and M. I. Eren. 2015. The three lives of a uniface. Journal of

Archaeological Science 54:228-236.

Arthur, K. W. 2018. The Lives of Stone Tools: Crafting the Status, Skill, and Identity of

Flintknappers. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Barham, L. 2013. From Hand to Handle: The First Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Barrish, B. L. 1995. The Paleo Crossing Site: Fluted Point Typology and Chronology.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, U.S.A.

Bohush, T. J. 2013. The Reduction of Experimental Paleoindian Trianguloid End Scrapers.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, U.S.A.

Boulanger, M. T., B. Buchanan, M. J. O'Brien, B. G. Redmond, M. D. Glascock, and M. I. Eren.

2015. Neutron activation analysis of 12,900-year-old stone artifacts confirms 450–510+

km Clovis tool-stone acquisition at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Northeast Ohio, USA.

Journal of Archaeological Science 53:550-558.

Brink, J. W. 1978. An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.

Brose, D. S. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo Crossing site, a Paleoindian

Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of America: Archaeological

Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by W. Dancey, 61-76.

Columbus, Ohio Archaeological Council.

Carr, K. W., J. M. Adovasio, and F. J. Vento. 2013. A report on the 2008 field investigations at

the Shoop Site (36DA20). In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, Volume 2, edited by J.

Gingerich, 75-103. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press.

Comstock, A. R. 2011. A Morphological Analysis of End Scrapers at Nobles Pond (33ST357), a

Gainey Phase Paleoindian Site in Northeast Ohio. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Kent State

University, Kent, Ohio, U.S.A.

Cox, S. L. 1986. A re-analysis of the Shoop site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14:101-

170.

Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis. 1992. Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian site in the Ausable River

Watershed of Southwestern Ontario (No. 24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Museum.

Dibble, H., P. Chase, S. McPherron, and A. Tuffreau. 1997. Testing the reality of a “living floor”

with archaeological data. American Antiquity 62:629-651.

Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller. 1988. Some distinctive Paleo-Indian tool types from the lower

Great Lakes region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13:111-158.

Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller. 2000. An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parkhill, Ontario (No. 159).

Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Ellis, C. 2004. Hi-Lo: an early lithic complex in the Great Lakes region. In The Late Palaeo-

Indian Great Lakes Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene

and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, 57-83.

Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper, 165.

Eren, M. I., B. Redmond B., and M. Kollecker. 2004. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) fluted

point assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:38-39.

Eren, M. I., and M. Kollecker. 2004. Data on the post-Paleoindian projectile point assemblage

from the Paleo Crossing Site (33-ME-274). Ohio Archaeologist 54:10-11.

Eren, M. I., B. Redmond, and M. Kollecker. 2005. Unifacial stone tool analyses from the Paleo

Crossing Site (33-ME-274), Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:43-45.

Eren, M. I. 2005. Northeastern North American Paleoindian Uniface Types: Techno-Typological

Analyses of Unifacial Stone Tools from Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio. Unpublished

Honors Thesis, Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Eren, M. I. 2006. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) non-projectile point biface assemblage.

Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:95-97.

Eren, M. I. 2010. Anvil reduction at the Early Paleoindian site of Paleo Crossing (33ME274),

Northeast Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27:75-77.

Eren, M. I., A. Durant, C. Neudorf, M. Haslam, C. Shipton, J. Bora, R. Korisettar, and M.

Petraglia. 2010. Experimental examination of animal trampling effects on artifact

movement in dry and water saturated substrates: a test case from South India. Journal of

Archaeological Science 37:3010-3021.

Eren, M. I. 2011. Behavioral Adaptations of Late Pleistocene Human Colonizers in the North

American Lower Great Lakes Region. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Southern

Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

Eren, M. I., A. Boehm, B. Morgan, R. Anderson, and B. Andrews. 2011. Flaked stone

taphonomy: a controlled experimental study of the effects of sediment consolidation on

flake edge morphology. Journal of Taphonomy 9:201-217.

Eren, M. I., and B. Redmond. 2011. Clovis blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Medina

County, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173-194.

Eren, M. I., A. Chao, W. Hwang, R. Colwell. 2012 Estimating the richness of a population when

the maximum number of classes is fixed: a nonparametric solution to an archaeological

problem. PLoS ONE 7(5):e34179.

Eren, M. I. 2012. Were unifacial tools regularly hafted by Clovis foragers in the North American

Lower Great Lakes region? An empirical test of edge class richness and attribute

frequency among distal, proximal, and lateral tool-sections. Journal of Ohio Archaeology

2:1-15.

Eren, M. I. 2013. The technology of stone age colonization: an empirical, regional-scale

examination of Clovis unifacial stone tool reduction, allometry, and edge angle from the

North American Lower Great Lakes region. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:2101-

2112.

Eren, M. I., and B. N. Andrews. 2013. Were bifaces used as mobile cores by Clovis foragers in

the North American Lower Great Lakes region? An archaeological test of

experimentally-derived quantitative predictions. American Antiquity 78:166-180.

Eren, M. I., T. Jennings, and A. Smallwood. 2013. Were Paleoindian unifacial stone tool ‘spurs’

intended accessories or incidental accidents? PLoS ONE 8(11):e78419.

Eren, M.I., B. Buchanan, and M.J. O’Brien. 2015. Social Learning and Technological Evolution

During the Clovis Colonization of the New World. Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 80.

pp. 159-170.

Eren, M. I., S. Lycett, R. Patten, B. Buchanan, J. Pargeter, M. O’Brien. 2016. Test, model, and

method validation: the role of experimental stone artifact replication in hypothesis-driven

archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology 8:103-136.

Eren, M.I., and B. Buchanan. 2018. A formal test of the effect of distance to stone source on

Great Lakes Clovis unifacial tool form. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, Volume

2, edited by J. Gingerich, 359-366. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Eren, M. I., B. Redmond, G. Miller, B. Buchanan, M. Boulanger, B. Morgan, M. O’Brien.

2018a. The Paleo Crossing Site (33ME274): A Clovis Site in Northeastern Ohio. In In the

Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, Volume 2, edited by J. Gingerich, 187-212. Salt Lake

City, University of Utah Press.

Eren, M. I., B. Buchanan, B. Redmond, J. Feathers, B. Andrews. 2018. Thermoluminescence

(TL) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating of two burned Clovis

Wyandotte chert lithic specimens from Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio, U.S.A. Lithic

Technology 43:18-25.

Eren, M. I., and M. R. Bebber. 2019. The Cerutti Mastodon site and experimental archaeology's

quiet coming of age. Antiquity 93:796-797.

Eren, M.I., M.R. Bebber, J.D. Norris, A. Perrone, A. Rutkoski, M. Wilson, M.A. Raghanti. 2019.

Experimental Replication Shows Knives Manufactured from Frozen Human Feces Do

Not Work. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 27. 102002.

Fitting, J. E., J. DeVisscher, J., and J. W. Edward. 1966. The Paleo-Indian Occupation of the

Holcombe Beach. Anthropological Papers No. 27. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan.

Gingerich, J. A. 2013a. Fifty years of discovery at Plenge: Rethinking the importance of New

Jersey’s largest Paleoindian site. In In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J.

Gingerich, 75-103. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press.

Gingerich, J. A. 2013b. Revisiting the Shawnee-Minisink Site. In In the Eastern Fluted Point

Tradition, Volume 2, edited by J. Gingerich, 218-256. Salt Lake City, University of Utah

Press.

Gingerich, J. A. 2019. Patterns of End Scraper Reduction and Discard: A Case Study from the

Paleoindian Record of Eastern North America. PaleoAmerica 5:262-275.

Gramly, R. M., and G. L. Summers. 1986. Nobles Pond: a fluted point site in northeastern Ohio.

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 11:97-123.

Gramly, R. M. 1999. The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press.

Grimes, J. R., and B. G. Grimes. 1985. Flakeshavers: morphometric, functional and life-cycle

analyses of a Paleoindian unifacial tool class. Archaeology of Eastern North America

13:35-57.

Hardy, B. 2009. Understanding stone tool function: methods and examples from the Aurignacian

Levels at Hohle Fels. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fu ̈r Urgeschichte

18:109–121.

Hiscock, P. 1985. The need for a taphonomic perspective in stone artefact analysis. Queensland

Archaeological Research 2:82-95.

Iceland, H. 2013. Refining Paleo-Indian lithic technology at Shawnee-Minisink via an artifact

refitting study. North American Archaeologist 34:237-267.

Jackson, L. J. 1996. Murphy: An Early Palaeo-Indian Gainey Phase Site in Southwestern

Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 62:10-38.

Jackson, L. J. 1998. The Sandy Ridge and Halstead Paleo-Indian Sites: Unifacial Tool Use and

Gainey Phase Definition in South-Central Ontario. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan

Museum of Anthropology.

Lancashire, S. 2001. Early Palaeoindian Trianguloid Endscrapers: An Analysis. Unpublished

Master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Lin, S. C., Z. Rezek, and H. Dibble. 2018. Experimental design and experimental inference in

stone artifact archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25:663-688.

Loebel, T. J. 2009. Withington (47Gt158): A Clovis/Gainey Campsite in Grant County,

Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34:223-248.

Loebel, T. J. 2013. Endscrapers, use-wear, and early Paleoindians in Eastern North America. In

In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. Gingerich, 315-330. Salt Lake City,

University of Utah Press.

Lothrop, J. C. 1988. The organization of Paleoindian lithic technology at the Potts site.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton,

Binghamton, New York, U.S.A.

MacDonald, G. F. 1968. Debert: A Palaeo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia (No. 16). Queen's

Printer.

MacDonald, G. F. 1985. Debert: A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. Persimmon Press.

Magnani, M., D. Grindle, S. Loomis, A. Kim, V. Egbers, J. Clindaniel, A. Hartford, E. Johnson,

S. Weber, and W. Campbell. 2019. Experimental futures in archaeology. Antiquity

93:808-810.

McBrearty, S., L. Bishop, T. Plummer, R. Dewar, and N. Conard. 1998. Tools underfoot: human

trampling as an agent of lithic artifact edge modification. American Antiquity 63: 108-

129.

McCall, G. 2012. Ethnoarchaeology and the organization of lithic technology. Journal of

Archaeological Research 20:157–203.

McPherron, S. P., D. R. Braun, T. Dogandžić, W. Archer, D. Desta, and S. Lin. 2014. An

experimental assessment of the influences on edge damage to lithic artifacts: a

consideration of edge angle, substrate grain size, raw material properties, and exposed

face. Journal of Archaeological Science 49:70-82.

Meltzer, D.J. 1981. A Study of Style and Function in a Class of Tools. Journal of Field

Arcaheology. Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 313-326.

Miller, G. L. 2013. Illuminating activities at Paleo Crossing (33ME274) through microwear

analysis. Lithic Technology 38:97-108.

Miller, G. L. 2014. Lithic microwear analysis as a means to infer production of perishable

technology: a case from the Great Lakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 49:292-301.

Morgan, B., M. I. Eren, N. Khreisheh, G. Hill, and B. Bradley. 2015. Clovis bipolar lithic

reduction at Paleo Crossing, Ohio: a reinterpretation based on the examination of

experimental replications. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by T.

Jennings and A. Smallwood, 121-143. College Station: Texas A&M Press.

Morrow, J. E. 1997. End scraper morphology and use-life: an approach for studying Paleoindian

lithic technology and mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70-85.

Nielsen, A. E. 1991. Trampling the archaeological record: an experimental study. American

Antiquity 56:483-503.

Rule, P., and J. Evans. 1985. The relationship of morphological variation to hafting techniques

among Paleoindian endscrapers at the Shawnee Minisink site. In Shawnee Minisink: A

Stratified Paleoindian–Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania,

edited by C. McNett, 211-220. Academic Press.

Sanders, T. N. 1990. Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in

Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press.

Seeman, M. F., T. J. Loebel, A. Comstock, and G. L. Summers. 2013. Working with Wilmsen:

Paleoindian end scraper design and use at Nobles Pond. American Antiquity 78:407-432.

Shott, M. 1993. The Leavitt site: a Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan

(Vol. 25). Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan.

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

assemblages. Lithic Technology 20:53-72.

Shott, M. J. 1997. Activity and formation as sources of variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian

assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22:197-236.

Shott, M. J., and M. F. Seeman. 2015. Curation and recycling: Estimating Paleoindian

endscraper curation rates at Nobles Pond, Ohio, USA. Quaternary International 361:319-

331.

Shott, M. J., and M. F. Seeman. 2017. Use and multifactorial reconciliation of uniface reduction

measures: A pilot study at the Nobles Pond Paleoindian site. American Antiquity 82:723-

741.

Siegel, P.E. 1984. Fucntional Variability Within an Assemblage of Endscrapers. Lithic

Technology. Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 35-51.

Siegel, P.E. 1986. More on Functional Variability Within an Assemblage of Endscrapers: A

Reply to Hayden and Bamforth. Lithic Technology. Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 71-77.

Simons, D. B., M. J. Shott, and H. T. Wright. 1984.. The Gainey site: variability in a Great Lakes

Paleo-indian assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:266-279.

Spiess, A. E., and J. Mosher. 1994. Hedden: a Paleoindian site on the Kennebunk plains. Maine

Archaeological Society Bulletin 34:25-54.

Storck, P. L. 1979. A Report on the Banting and Hussey sites: Two Paleo-indian Campsites in

Simcoe County, Southern Ontario. Musée National de l'Homme. Collection Mercure.

Commission Archéologique du Canada. Publications d'Archéologie. Dossier Ottawa,

(93), 1-100.

Storck, P. L. 1997. The Fisher Site: Archaeological, Geological, and Paleobotanical Studies at

an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Southern Ontario, Canada (No. 30). Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Museum.

Surovell, T. A., J. Toohey, A. Myers, J. LaBelle, J. Ahern, and B. Reisig. 2017. The end of

archaeological discovery. American Antiquity 82:288-300.

Tankersley, K. B., and J. D. Holland. 1994. Lithic procurement patterns at the Paleo Crossing

site, Medina County, Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:61-63.

Tankersley, K. B., S. Vanderlaan, J. D. Holland, and S. Bland. 1997. Geochronology of the arc

site: a Paleoindian habitation in the Great Lakes Region. Archaeology of Eastern North

America 25:31-44.

Weedman, K. J. 2002. On the spur of the moment: effects of age and experience on hafted stone

scraper morphology. American Antiquity 67:731-744.

White, J. 1979. Sequencing in-site taphonomic processes: the lesson of the Eaton Briquets.

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4:209-220.

Wortner, S., and C. J. Ellis. 1993. The Snary Early Paleo-Indian Site. Kewa 93:3-15.

Thickness Mass (g) Length (mm) Width (mm) (mm) Mean 12.90 41.02 25.13 9.17 Standard 9.54 13.08 5.94 3.05 deviation Minimum 2.00 18.43 14.96 4.40 Endscrapers Quartile 1 6.00 30.62 21.42 6.87 for Instron Median 10.00 39.38 23.62 8.82 breakage Quartile 3 18.00 51.10 27.69 10.85 (n=73) Maximum 57.00 88.37 48.75 17.34 Range 55.00 69.94 33.79 12.94 Inter-quartile 12.00 20.48 6.28 3.98 range Mean 10.72 40.77 22.66 9.15 Standard 4.78 4.36 3.96 2.77 deviation Hafted Minimum 3.00 32.84 15.72 4.58 endscrapers Quartile 1 7.50 38.64 20.48 7.73 for human Median 10.00 40.86 21.64 8.38 trials Quartile 3 13.00 44.04 24.12 11.54 (n=11) Maximum 20.00 48.17 29.64 13.52 Range 17.00 15.33 13.92 8.94 Inter-quartile 5.50 5.39 3.64 3.81 range

Human Endscraper Human attempts to Instron scraping (N) break (without breakage (N) success) (N) Mean 1141.2 74.8 234.3

Standard 1001.0 6.9 16.5 deviation

Minimum 178.6 67.2 208.5 Quartile 1 462.2 69.9 220.6 Median 951.4 72.3 228.7

Quartile 3 1431.9 77.0 243.9 Maximum 6549.8 89.6 264.4 Range 6371.2 22.5 55.9

Inter-quartile 969.6 7.1 23.3 range

Variable Slope Intercept r2 p Mass(ln) 0.58 5.39 0.23 <0.000 Length(ln) -0.03 6.82 <0.00 0.934 Width(ln) 1.77 1.06 0.25 <0.000 Thickness(ln) 1.88 2.68 0.60 <0.000