Geospatial Analysis of Late Paleoindan Hi-Lo Points in Ontario and New York: Testing Expectations of the Settling in Hypothesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LATE PALEOINDAN HI-LO POINTS IN ONTARIO AND NEW YORK: TESTING EXPECTATIONS OF THE SETTLING IN HYPOTHESIS A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada (c) Copyright by Liam Richard Browne 2015 Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program May 2016 ABSTRACT Geospatial Analysis of Late Paleoindian Hi-Lo Points in Ontario and New York: Testing Expectations of the Settling In Hypothesis Liam Richard Browne This thesis analyzes variability in a sample (n=302) of late Paleoindian Hi-Lo points from Ontario and New York. Biface variability is recorded using landmark geometric morphometrics. Raw material data is used to assess Hi-Lo toolstone usage patterns and the impact of raw material constraints on manufacture. Statistical analyses are used to assess patterning of variability in space. Spatial results are interpreted using cultural transmission theory in terms of their implications for the geographic scale of social learning among Hi-Lo knappers. Results of the spatial analyses are related to theory about hunter-gatherer social networks in order to understand the effects of hypothesized settling in processes on late Paleoindian knappers. Results indicate random spatial patterning of Hi-Lo variability. The absence of spatial autocorrelation for Hi-Lo size indicates that settling in processes were not sufficiently pronounced during the late Paleoindian period to manifest as inter-regional variability within the Hi-Lo type. Keywords: Ontario Archaeology, New York Archaeology, Hi-Lo, Late Paleoindian, Settling In, Biface Variability, Geometric Morphometrics, Cultural Transmission Theory, Raw Material Usage, Mobility, Early Holocene ii Acknowledgments I first like to thank my supervisor Dr. James Conolly for the project idea, as well as his guidance and support during this research. I would also like to acknowledge the important editorial contributions of my committee members, Dr. Laure Dubreuil, William Fox and Dr. Chris Ellis. In particular I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Brian Deller, William Fox and Steven Timmermans to support my research. Each went above and beyond the call of duty to help me seek out lesser known Hi-Lo points throughout Ontario. I am also grateful to Robert von Bitter and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for providing a site records form detailing known Hi-Lo finds in Ontario. This served as my initial guide to the world of Ontario Hi-Lo points. Without the help of these individuals my search for Hi-Lo may never have gotten off the ground. I would also like to thank Dan Long and Fred Moerschfelder for taking the time to share their knowledge of Ontario cherts with me. Michael Martyniuk for assisting with point illustrations and Ramsay MacFie for accompanying me on a number of late night Hi-Lo road trips. This research made use of archaeological data that were obtained from collections held by a variety of institutions, consulting archaeology firms and private individuals. I am greatly indebted to those who enabled access to collections or took the time to pass along relevant archaeological reports as I tracked down old references. I am grateful to following entities and individuals who facilitated access to collections: Archaeological Research Associates (Andrea Carswell and Paul Racher), Archaeological Services Inc. (Caitlin Coleman), Clarington Museums (Charles Taws), D.R. Poulton and Associates (Dana Poulton), Fisher Archaeological Services (Jacqueline Fisher), Golder Associates (Jamie Davidson), the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (Dr. Robert Pearce), the Museum of Ontario Archaeology (Joan Kannigan), Northeastern iii Archaeological Associates (Dr. Lawrence Jackson), the Port Colbourne Museum (Stephanie Baswick), the Port Perry Museum, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, the Royal Ontario Museum (April Hawkins), Sustainable Archaeology – London (Dr. Rhonda Bathurst and Kyra Westby), Timmins-Martelle Heritage Consultants (Dr. Holly Martelle, Dr. Peter Timmins and Nicole Brandon), the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Margie Kennedy), Western University (Dr. Chris Ellis) and York North Archaeological Services (Gordon and Patricia Dibb). I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of all the private individuals who enabled the use of private artifact collections in this study, whether by directly providing access to collections or by making arrangements to facilitate access. In many cases, these people were gracious enough to invite me into their home and share with me their ideas, knowledge and passion for archaeology. The following individuals are sincerely thanked for their contributions to this study: Richard Baskey, Dr. Brian Deller, Douglas Dennis, Ilse Kraemer, Laura Lee, Dr. Roger Lorhman, Dan Long, Fred Moerschfelder, Scott Oliver, Steve Timmermans and Robert Titmus. Monetary support for this research was provided by the Trent University Archaeological Research Centre (TUARC) and a Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship - Master’s provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Finally I would like to thank my parents, Richard and Nancy for their support. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents v List of Figures x List of Tables xii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1 Introduction and Research Goals 1 1.2 Hi-Lo Polythetic Typological Definition 2 1.3 The Settling in Hypothesis and the Ontario Archaeological Record 3 1.4 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Settling in Hypothesis 4 1.5 Thesis Organization 5 Chapter 2: The Paleoindian Occupation of Southern Ontario 7 2 Introduction 7 2.1 Development of Paleoindian Research in Ontario 8 2.2 The Fluted Point Tradition and the Dating of Ontario’s 9 Paleoindian Biface Sequence 2.2.A Early Paleoindian 10 2.2.B Late Paleoindian 13 2.3 The Ontario Paleoindian Biface Sequence 13 2.4 The Hi-Lo Phase 15 2.4.A Type Description 16 2.4.B Hi-Lo Subtypes 17 2.4.C Hi-Lo Raw Material Usage Patterns in Ontario 19 2.4.D Distribution and Excavated Sites 23 2.5 Great Lakes Paleoindian Technology 24 v 2.6 Raw Materials Common in Ontario Paleoindian Assemblages 25 2.7 Early Paleoindian Raw Material Usage Patterns in Ontario 27 2.7.A Gainey Phase 27 2.7.B Parkhill Phase 28 2.7.C Crowfield Phase 29 2.8 Late Paleoindian Raw Material Usage Patterns in Ontario (Excluding Hi-Lo) 30 2.8.A Holcombe Phase 30 2.8.B Madina Phase 30 2.9 Paleoindian Mobility 31 2.9.A The High Technology Forager Model 32 2.9.B Northeastern Paleoindian Mobility and Caribou Predation 34 2.9.C Early Paleoindian Raw Material Procurement and Mobility 34 2.9.D Ontario Early Paleoindian Mobility and Caribou Predation 39 2.10 Implications of the Settling In Hypothesis for Late Paleoindian 40 Mobility and Raw Material Procurement 2.10.A Late Paleoindian Mobility and Caribou Predation 41 2.10.B Late Paleoindian Mobility and Raw Material Procurement 42 Chapter 3: Cultural Transmission Theory and Cultural Change 44 3 Explaining Biface Variability 44 3.1 Risk 45 3.2 Prey Availability 47 3.3 Mobility and Raw Material Management 49 3.4 Cultural Transmission Theory 51 3.4.A Modes of Transmission 51 3.4.B Guided Variation and Common Descent 52 3.4.C Reconstructing Heritable Continuity through 52 Archaeological Phylogenetic 3.5 Drift and Cultural Change 53 3.5.A Copying Error as a Source of Drift 54 vi 3.5.B Innovation Causing Drift 54 3.5.C Drift and Effective Population Size 55 3.6 Hypotheses 57 3.7 Selection (Risk/Function) 57 3.7.A Innovation as a Response to Risk 58 3.8 Drift: Accumulated Copying Error and Innovation in an 60 Unbounded Learning System 3.8.A Inherent Synchronous Design Variation 61 3.8.B Geographic Regionalization of Variation in an Internally 62 Bounded Learning System 3.9 Design Variation Driven by Raw Material Constraints 64 Chapter 4: Methods and Sample Composition 65 4 Quantitative Assessment of Shape and Size 65 4.1 Multivariate Morphometrics 66 4.2 Geometric Morphometrics 67 4.2.A Landmark Classification 68 4.3 Collection and Analysis of Metric Data 69 4.3.A 2015 Hi-Lo Sample and the Expanded 2015 Hi-Lo Sample 70 4.3.B Implications of Non-Projectile Functional Modifications of 76 Form for Sample Selection 4.4 2015 Hi-Lo Sample Provenience 77 4.5 Maximum Thickness 78 4.6 Weight 78 4.7 Raw Material Identification 78 4.8 Landmark Placement for Geometric Morphometric Analysis 79 of Hi-Lo Bifaces 4.9 Metric Variables 81 4.10 Character State Analysis 83 vii Chapter 5: Results and Analysis 88 5 Results and Analysis 88 5.1 Type Description 88 5.2 Ontario and Western New York Hi-Lo Distribution 89 5.2.A Possible Occurrences of Hi-Lo in Eastern Ontario 90 5.2.B Western New York Hi-Lo Distribution 91 5.3 Raw Material Identification and Distribution 92 5.4 Regional Raw Material Analysis 97 5.5 Metric Variable Analysis 102 5.5.A Variable Correlation 104 5.6 Effects of Raw Material on Hi-Lo Design 105 5.6.A Coefficients of Variation for Variables by Raw Material 106 5.6.B Mann-Whitney U Test Analysis 112 5.7 External Coefficient of Variation Comparison 116 5.8 Principal Components Analysis 118 5.9 Whole Point PCA 120 5.9.A PC1 Whole Point 122 5.9.B PC2 Whole Point 124 5.9.C PC3 Whole Point 125 5.10 Hi-Lo Base PCA 126 5.10.A PC1 Base 128 5.10.B PC2 Base 129 5.10.C PC3 Base 130 5.11 Spatial Patterning in Hi-Lo Variability 132 5.12 Moran’s Index 132 5.12.A Results 133 5.13 Mantel Correlogram 134 5.13.A Results 135 5.14