Determining the Mobility of Old Women's Phase People on the Southern Alberta Plains As Evidenced by Lithic Assemblages

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2016-02-03 Determining the Mobility of Old Women's Phase People on the Southern Alberta Plains as Evidenced by Lithic Assemblages

Krahulic, Tobi

Krahulic, T. (2016). Determining the Mobility of Old Women's Phase People on the Southern Alberta Plains as Evidenced by Lithic Assemblages (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25610 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2822 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Determining the Mobility of Old Women’s Phase People on the Southern Alberta Plains as

Evidenced by Lithic Assemblages

Tobi L. Krahulic

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ARCHAEOLOGY

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JANUARY, 2016

The mobility of Old Women’s phase people on the southern Alberta Plains will be explored in this research through the analysis of lithic assemblages. Due to a paucity of research concerning mobility and its influence on lithic assemblages in this region, multiple theories regarding how mobility affects the organization of technology will be explored. This strengthens any inferences regarding mobility by using multiple lines of evidence, as well as evaluates the theories efficacy in this region against each other. It was found that the use of tool form, patterns in the tools and debitage, and intersite variability provided consistent interpretations regarding the mobility of past inhabitants of the Plains. It was also found that distance-decay theory could be used to suggest a directionality of movement within a minimal seasonal round. Therefore, it is apparent that the organization of technology is a viable method for understanding mobility on the southern Alberta Plains.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Brian Kooyman. Without his expertise, guidance, and support this thesis would not have been possible. I greatly appreciate the amount of time that he dedicated to reading and improving my “opus.” I am especially thankful for the time and insightful conversations that he provided concerning the development and appearance of usewear in general, and on petrified wood specifically. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Dale Walde and Dr. Lisa Hughes, for their insight and constructive criticism which helped improve my thesis.

A special thanks must be given to Kristine Fedyniak and the Royal Alberta Museum for providing me with the archaeological collections that were researched for this thesis. I know it was not easy to track down all of the specific artifacts I needed from these assemblages and without Kristine’s patience and dedication to her job, this research would have been impossible.

A number of other individuals contributed to the successful completion of this thesis. As such, I would like to thank Eugene Gryba for providing me with experimental tools made from chert and petrified wood. I doubt that I would have had any petrified wood experimental tools if it was not for his skilled flint knapping. I would also like to thank Eugene for providing me with his insight and experiments regarding the heat treatment of petrified wood. I have no doubt that had he not provided this information, the heat treatment of petrified wood within my archaeological assemblages would have been missed, and my interpretation of the usewear data would have been affected. I would also like to thank Tyler Murchie, who aided me in constructing experimental tools made of chert. Knowing my flint knapping abilities, I am certain that without his help the majority of my experimental tools would have been unmodified flakes.

A special thanks must be given to Steven Simpson, who, being a fellow usewear analyst, was

iii always willing to help with the many various intricacies of usewear analysis, including, but not limited to, computer programs, hafting materials, books that I was too poor to afford, and insightful conversation.

Lithic sourcing for this thesis would not have been nearly as successful without the aid of multiple individuals. As such, my sincerest thanks must be given to Michael Turney, who not only provided me with his bibliography of lithic sources found in Alberta, but also did his best to teach me how to flintknap and supplied me with traditional hafting materials. I must also thank the archaeologists of Lifeways of Canada, Inc. who took time out of their busy day to provide me with the less well-known lithic samples that can show up in Alberta archaeological sites. I would also like to specifically thank Jason Roe, who generously answered my (many) questions concerning Paskapoo Silicified Limestone.

I would like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the

Government of Alberta, and the Friends of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, who provided the financial support that made this research possible.

Finally, this thesis would not have been successful without the support of my family and friends. Thank you to my parents, Kathy and Glenn, and my siblings for the frequent free meals and company when I needed to take a break. A very special thank you must go to my spouse,

Landon, not only for supporting me through the lows and celebrating with me during the highs, but for being ever ready to offer advice or a fresh perspective which aided me immensely on this journey.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... ix List of Appendix Figures ...... xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: The Old Women’s Phase ...... 8 Alberta Prehistory/Precontact ...... 9 Old Women’s Phase and the Contact Period Blackfoot ...... 12 Mobility and the Seasonal Round ...... 14 Summary ...... 20

Chapter 3: Sites Overview ...... 21 Environmental Context ...... 21 DkPi-2: The Highway 2/3 Junction Site ...... 23 DjPm-126: The Castle Forks Buffalo Jump ...... 31 DjPm-36: The Snyder Farm Locality ...... 38 Summary ...... 45

Chapter 4: Lithic Remains and Mobility ...... 46 Source Provenance ...... 46 Mobility ...... 47 Organization of Technology...... 49 Tool Form ...... 50 Mobility and Patterns in Tools and Debitage ...... 71 Intersite Variability ...... 81 Distance-Decay and the Seasonal Round ...... 82 Summary ...... 90

Chapter 5: Usewear Theory ...... 92 Manufacturing Traces ...... 95 Post-Depositional Surface Modification (PDSM) ...... 97 Bias in Representation ...... 99 Blind Tests...... 101 The Multivariate Approach ...... 115 Summary ...... 119

Chapter 6: Methodology ...... 120 Usewear ...... 120 Lithic Analysis ...... 142 Summary ...... 152

Chapter 7: Lithic Analysis ...... 153 Lithic Material Identification ...... 153 Quality of Local vs. Non-Local Toolstones ...... 157 The Problem of Paskapoo Silicified Limestone ...... 158 Lithic Trends at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36 ...... 163 Summary ...... 195

Chapter 8: Usewear Analysis ...... 199 DkPi-2 ...... 200 DjPm-126 ...... 202 DjPm-36 ...... 203 Summary ...... 203

Chapter 9: Discussion ...... 205 Tools: Maintainable or Reliable? ...... 205 Patterns in Tools and Debitage...... 225 Site Type ...... 242 Distance-Decay and the Seasonal Round ...... 256 Comparison to the Contact Period Seasonal Round...... 270 Summary ...... 272

Chapter 10: Conclusion...... 274

References Cited ...... 281

Appendix I: Toolstone Descriptions ...... 298 Cherts and Chalcedonies ...... 298 Sedimentary Materials...... 304 Igneous Materials ...... 308 Miscellaneous Material ...... 310 Various Local and Non-Local Materials ...... 313

Appendix II: Usewear Data Sheets ...... 314 Experimental Tool Data Sheets ...... 314 DkPi-2 Data Sheets ...... 328 DjPm-126 Data Sheets ...... 354 DjPm-36 Data Sheet ...... 358

Appendix III: Usewear Interpretations ...... 359 DkPi-2 Tools ...... 359 DjPm-126 Tools ...... 424 DjPm-36 ...... 433

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Results of Four Blind Tests using the Institute of Archaeology Scoring System...... 118

Table 2. Usewear Experiments...... 128

Table 3. Cherts and Chalcedonies Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 154

Table 4. Sedimentary Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 154

Table 5. Igneous Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 155

Table 6. Other Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 155

Table 7. Average Distance from Source...... 160

Table 8. Late Stage Flakes as a Percentage of the Entire Assemblage ...... 161

Table 9. Total Counts for Debitage, Tools, and Cores at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36. .... 163

Table 10. Total Weight in Grams for Debitage, Tools, and Cores at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and

DjPm-36...... 163

Table 11. DkPi-2: Usewear Interpretation Summary...... 200

Table 12. DjPm-126: Usewear Interpretation Summary...... 202

Table 13. DjPm-36: Usewear Summary...... 203

Table 14. DkPi-2 Cores...... 212

Table 15. DjPm-126 Cores ...... 216

Table 16. Lithic Source Distance from DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 216

Table 18. DkPi-2 Usewear...... 224

Table 18. DjPm-126 Usewear...... 224

Table 19. DjPm-36 Usewear...... 225

Table 20. Proportions of Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone within Flake Stages and Formal Tools.

...... 227

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the Old Women’s phase ...... 11

Figure 2. Location of DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36...... 26

Figure 3. Petrified wood from the first heat-treatment experiment ...... 122

Figure 4. Usewear Data Sheet ...... 130

Figure 5. Flake Typology Based on Attributes of Reduction Stage ...... 148

Figure 6. Lithic material source locations...... 156

Figure 7. Paskapoo silicified limestone from DjPm-36 organized by typology ...... 159

Figure 8. Silcrete from DjPm-36 organized by Typology ...... 160

Figure 9. DkPi-2: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance ...... 164

Figure 10. DkPi-2: Local material debitage organized by lithic material ...... 165

Figure 11. DkPi-2: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material ...... 165

Figure 12. DkPi-2: Local material organized by typology ...... 166

Figure 13. DkPi-2: Non-local material orgnaized by typology ...... 166

Figure 14. DkPi-2: Tools organized by lithic material provencance ...... 168

Figure 15. DkPi-2: Local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 168

Figure 16. DkPi-2: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 169

Figure 17. DkPi-2: Local material sorted by tool type ...... 169

Figure 18. DkPi-2: Non-local material organized by tool type...... 170

Figure 19. DkPi-2: Cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material provenance ...... 170

Figure 20. DkPi-2: Non-local material cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material ...... 171

Figure 21. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material...... 172

Figure 22. DkPi-2: Hafted Biface Retouch Index values organized by lithic material...... 173

Figure 23. DkPi-2: Unifacial Index of Inasiveness values organized by lithic material...... 174

Figure 24. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of

Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material...... 176

Figure 25. DkPi-2: a) Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index and Unifacial Index of

Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance; b) Index of

Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance...... 176

Figure 26. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values combined and organized by lithic material...... 177

Figure 27. DjPm-126: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance ...... 178

Figure 28. DjPm-126: Local material debitage organized by lithic material ...... 179

Figure 29. DjPm-126: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material...... 179

Figure 30. DjPm-126: Local materials organized by typology...... 180

Figure 31. DjPm-126: Non-local materials organized by typology ...... 180

Figure 32. DjPm-126: Tools organized by lithic material provenance ...... 182

Figure 33. DjPm-126: Local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 182

Figure 34. DjPm-126: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 183

Figure 35. DjPm-126: Non-local material organized by tool type ...... 183

Figure 36. DjPm-126: Local material organized by tool type ...... 184

Figure 37. DjPm-126: Cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material provenance ...... 184

Figure 38. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material ...... 185

Figure 39. DjPm-126: Hafted Biface Retouch Index values organized by lithic material...... 185

Figure 40. DjPm-126: Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material ..... 186

Figure 41. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material ...... 187

Figure 42. DjPm-126: a) Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial

Index of Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance; b) Index of

Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance...... 187

Figure 43. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values combined and organized by lithic material...... 188

Figure 44. DjPm-36: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance ...... 189

Figure 45. DjPm-36: Local material debitage organized by lithic material ...... 189

Figure 46. DjPm-36: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material ...... 190

Figure 47. DjPm-36: Local materials organized by typology...... 190

Figure 48. DjPm-36: Non-local materials organized by typology ...... 191

Figure 49. DjPm-36: Tools organized by lithic material provenance ...... 192

Figure 50. DjPm-36: Local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 192

Figure 51. DjPm-36: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material ...... 193

Figure 52. DjPm-36: Local material organized by tool type...... 193

Figure 53. DjPm-36: Non-local material organized by tool type...... 194

Figure 54. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material...... 194

Figure 55. DjPm-36: Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material...... 195

Figure 56. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material...... 197

Figure 57. DjPm-36: a) Index of Invasiveness, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance; b) Index of Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance...... 197

Figure 58. DkPi-2: Worked materials as a percent of used edges...... 202

Figure 59. DkPi-2: Tools organized by type...... 207

Figure 60. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of

Invasiveness values combined for all tools...... 208

Figure 61. DkPi-2: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type ...... 211

Figure 62. DjPm-126: Tools organized by type...... 213

Figure 63. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined for all tools...... 214

Figure 64. DjPm-126: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type . 215

Figure 65. DjPm-36: Tools organized by type...... 217

Figure 66. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined for all tools...... 218

Figure 67. DjPm-36: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type ... 219

Figure 68. DkPi-2: Lithic Assemblage Typological Composition...... 227

Figure 69. DkPi-2: Lithic assemblage organized by lithic material provenance ...... 227

Figure 70. DjPm-126: Lithic Assemblage Typological Composition...... 232

Figure 71. DjPm-126: Lithic assemblage organized by lithic material provenance ...... 233

Figure 72. DjPm36: Assemblage typological composition...... 239

Figure 73. DjPm36: Lithic assemblage organized by material provenance ...... 239

Figure 74. DkPi-2: Lithic source areas organized by typology ...... 260

xii

Figure 75. DkPi-2: Southern lithic materials organized by typology ...... 260

Figure 76. DkPi-2: Western lithic materials organized by typology ...... 261

Figure 77. DjPm-126: Lithic source areas organized by typology ...... 265

Figure 78. DjPm-126: Southern lithic materials organized by typology ...... 265

Figure 79. DjPm-126: Lithic source areas organized by typology...... 267

Figure 80. DjPm-36: Southern lithic materials organized by typology ...... 268

Figure 81. DjPm-36: Western lithic materials organized by typology ...... 268

xiii

List of Appendix Figures

Figure 1. Tool DkPi-2 4264 ...... 359

Figure 2. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4264 Edge 1 ...... 360

Figure 3. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4264 Edge 2 ...... 361

Figure 4. Tool DkPi-2 4273 ...... 361

Figure 5. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 1 ...... 362

Figure 6. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 2 ...... 363

Figure 7. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 3 ...... 364

Figure 8. Tool DkPi-2 4277 ...... 364

Figure 9. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4277 ...... 365

Figure 10. Tool DkPi-2 4290 ...... 365

Figure 11. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4290 Edge 1 ...... 366

Figure 12. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4290 Edge 2: ...... 367

Figure 13. Tool DkPi-2 4295 ...... 368

Figure 14. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4295 ...... 369

Figure 15. Tool DkPi-2 4298 ...... 369

Figure 16. Photograph Tool DkPi-2 4298...... 370

Figure 17. Tool DkPi-2 4300 ...... 371

Figure 18. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4300 Edge 1 ...... 372

Figure 19. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4300 Edge 2 ...... 374

Figure 20. Tool DkPi-2 4302 ...... 375

Figure 21. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4302 Edge 1 ...... 376

Figure 22. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4302 Edge 2 ...... 377

xiv

Figure 23. Tool DkPi-2 4305 ...... 378

Figure 24. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4305 Edge 1 ...... 379

Figure 25. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4305 Edge 2 ...... 380

Figure 26. Tool DkPi-2 4306...... 380

Figure 27. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4306...... 381

Figure 28. Tool DkPi-2 4307 ...... 381

Figure 29. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4307 Edge 1 ...... 382

Figure 30. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4307 Edge 2 ...... 383

Figure 31. Tool DkPi-2 4328 ...... 384

Figure 32. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4328 ...... 385

Figure 33. Tool DkPi-2 4561 ...... 385

Figure 34. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4561 ...... 386

Figure 35. Tool DkPi-2 4575 ...... 386

Figure 36. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4575...... 387

Figure 37. Tool DkPi-2 4576 ...... 388

Figure 38. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4576 ...... 389

Figure 39. Tool DkPi-2 4577 ...... 389

Figure 40. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4577 ...... 390

Figure 41. Tool DkPi-2 4667...... 391

Figure 42. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4667 ...... 393

Figure 43. Tool DkPi-2 4669 ...... 394

Figure 44. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4669 ...... 395

Figure 45. Tool DkPi-2 4680 ...... 395

Figure 46. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4680 ...... 396

Figure 47. Tool DkPi-2 4681 ...... 397

Figure 48. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4681 ...... 398

Figure 49. Tool DkPi-2 4695 ...... 398

Figure 50. Photograph Tool DkPi-2 4695...... 399

Figure 51. Tool DkPi-2 210775 ...... 399

Figure 52. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 210775 ...... 400

Figure 53. Tool DkPi-2 212569...... 401

Figure 54. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 212569:...... 402

Figure 55. Tool DkPi-2 214096 ...... 402

Figure 56. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 214096 Edge 1 ...... 403

Figure 57. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 214096 Edge 2 ...... 404

Figure 58. Tool DkPi-2 217076 ...... 404

Figure 59. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217076 Edge 1 ...... 405

Figure 60. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217076 Edge 2 ...... 406

Figure 61. Tool DkPi-2 217077 ...... 407

Figure 62. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217077 Edge 1 ...... 408

Figure 63. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217077 Edge 2 ...... 409

Figure 64. Tool DkPi-2 217078 ...... 409

Figure 65. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 1 ...... 410

Figure 66. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 2 ...... 411

Figure 67. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 3 ...... 412

Figure 68. Tool DkPi-2 217139 ...... 412

xvi

Figure 69. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217139 ...... 413

Figure 70. Tool DkPi-2 217270a ...... 414

Figure 71. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217270a Edge 1 ...... 415

Figure 72. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217270a Edge 2...... 416

Figure 73. Tool DkPi-2 217270b ...... 417

Figure 74. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217270b ...... 418

Figure 75. Tool DkPi-2 218316 ...... 418

Figure 76. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 218316 ...... 420

Figure 77. Tool DkPi-2 219773 ...... 421

Figure 78. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 219773 ...... 423

Figure 79. Tool DjPm-126 23137 ...... 424

Figure 80. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23137...... 425

Figure 81. Tool DjPm-126 23189 ...... 426

Figure 82. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23189 Edge 1 ...... 427

Figure 83. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23189 Edge 2 ...... 428

Figure 84. Tool DjPm-126 23263 ...... 428

Figure 85. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23263 Edge 1...... 429

Figure 86. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23263 Edge 2 ...... 430

Figure 87. Tool DjPm-126 23348 ...... 431

Figure 88. Photograph of Tool DjPm-126 23348 ...... 432

Figure 89. Tool DjPm-36 9067 ...... 433

Figure 90. Photograph of Tool DjPm-36 9067 ...... 434

xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The mobility of human groups, which includes how often people move and who moves

(i.e., individuals or the entire group), has long been of interest to archaeologists. This is because mobility can have a large impact on many aspects of culture and society, including political and social organization (Beardsley et al. 1956; Kelly 1992; Kent 1992). However, much of the research conducted on the southern Alberta Plains has been concerned with large-scale settlement patterns, rather than small-scale mobility (e.g., Amundsen-Meyer 2014; Brumley and

Dau 1988; Morgan 1979; Peck 2001; Vickers 1991). This is unfortunate since an understanding of the degree of mobility of ancient hunter-gatherers can also lend credence to theories of larger settlement patterns (Kelly 1983). Therefore, this research seeks to gain insight into the mobility of hunter-gatherer groups on the southern Alberta Plains.

This will be accomplished through the analysis of lithic assemblages, which have successfully been used to study the mobility of ancient peoples around the world, including

North America (e.g., Andrefsky 1991; Bamforth and Becker 2000; Boldurian 1991; Carr 1994;

Eerkens et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2003; Odell 1994a, 1994b). In addition, lithic materials have excellent archaeological preservation, allowing for great flexibility when choosing sites to study.

It was decided that, due to time constraints, these lithic assemblages would be selected from sites that have already been excavated by Cultural Resource Management (CRM) companies.

It was also decided that since the study of mobility using lithic assemblages has yet to be applied to the southern Alberta Plains, that sites selected for analysis should be limited to those from the Old Women’s phase. This is because the Old Women’s phase refers to the period of time directly before the Protocontact period, allowing one to explore the movement of pedestrian people on the Plains while still ensuring optimal preservation of archaeological material. This is

1 important since it allows one to compare the lithic evidence against the evidence provided by the larger archaeological assemblage in order to explore the efficacy of these theories in this region.

In addition, it is believed that the Old Women’s phase people may be the ancestors of the modern-day Blackfoot, which allows for the use of oral history and ethnographic accounts to help guide the research.

With these factors in mind, three sites from the Oldman River valley, an area well- documented by CRM companies, were selected for analysis: DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

These sites were selected for their overlapping dates (approximately 500 BP to 400 BP), proximity to each other, assignation as camp sites, good preservation, and the presence of seasonality indicators that placed them in the winter/spring season. Choosing three sites that appear quite similar archaeologically was important for ensuring that the sites could be examined for intersite variability (see below) and to examine if their lithic assemblages reflect similar degrees of mobility. If they do not reflect similar degrees of mobility, it may suggest that different mobility strategies were being used in different years or at different times in the winter/spring season, or that the use of lithic remains as indicators of mobility may not be possible in this region, especially if the lithic data do not reflect the degree of mobility suggested by the larger archaeological assemblage.

The primary focus for this research is the organization of technology, which is believed to be strongly correlated with hunter-gatherer land-use patterns (e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Binford

1979, 1980; Bleed 1986; Kelly 1988; Torrence 1983). This is due to the fact that there is often no relation between the location of lithic resources and the resources that tools are used to extract, resulting in tools needing to be adapted to solve these temporal and spatial differences between resources (Kelly 1988). However, they must do so in the face of restrictions on weight and the

2 fact that tool needs cannot always be anticipated; therefore, mobility dictates both tool needs and access to raw material. Thus, how a group uses their lithic tools (and the corresponding lithic debitage this creates) will reflect the different adaptations necessary for different mobility strategies.

Binford’s (1980) theory of residential vs. logistical mobility is used to conceptualize the degree of mobility that can be determined from the lithic assemblages. Residential mobile groups are recognized as having a high degree of mobility, where the entire group moves as a unit as it maps on to resources. Logistical mobility, on the other hand, is seen as more sedentary, where movement is primarily limited to a small number of people composing a task group that is tied to a larger, relatively sedentary base camp.

In order to understand the organization of technology and how it relates to the mobility of the inhabitants of these three sites, multiple theories and methods will be used. This is necessary because not only do many of these theories intertwine and support each other, but they can also be compared to each other in order to test their efficacy in this region. This is especially important since it is uncertain if these theories are universally applicable to all regions, and only some, or possibly none, may aid in eliciting an understanding of the mobility of past peoples on the southern Alberta Plains.

One theory that will be used will be the recognition of reliable vs. maintainable tools

(Bleed 1986), in which reliable tools are often associated with more logistically organized groups while maintainable tools are used by residentially mobile groups. These tools types can be determined in various ways which include: aspects of tool morphology; tool diversity; the intensity of retouch on tools, which can be elucidated through various indices that measure the invasiveness of retouch (i.e., Andrefsky 2006; Clarkson 2002; Kuhn 1990); evidence of hafting;

3 and the degree of tool flexibility and versatility (Shott 1986), which will be investigated by conducting usewear analysis.

Another theory relates to the patterns present in the tools and debitage at a site. It is believed that since the sites created by residential and logistical hunter-gatherers have different uses and different occupation spans, these differences will be reflected in their lithic assemblages

(e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1990; Bamforth and Becker 2000; Binford 1980; Carr 1994). In order to understand these patterns and how they relate to mobility, it will be necessary to analyse: flake typology as it relates to reduction stage (Magne 1985); lithic material source locations and their distance from the sites; toolstone quality; the use-life of tools which will be elucidated by the use of invasiveness indices, as well as their form in the case of utilized flakes; and the diversity of tool types as recognized by their form and usewear.

The third theory that will be used is the degree of intersite variability (Binford 1980).

This theory states that more sedentary groups create more functionally distinct sites, since their task groups are conducting specific, large-scale resource extraction tasks at some distance from the residential base camp which result in high archaeological visibility (Binford 1980).

Residentially mobile groups, on the other hand, forage in the area immediately surrounding the base camp, and these areas where resources are extracted lack archaeological visibility since they often undertake only small-scale extraction and are only occupied for a very short period of time

(Binford 1980). Therefore, residentially mobile groups do not create a large number of functionally distinct site types, but rather a series of base camps across the landscape. This theory ties together information gleaned from the types of tools present at a site (reliable vs. maintainable) and the patterns in tools and debitage. This is because together, these theories can assess if a site was occupied for a long period vs. a short period of time, and whether its purpose

4 was as a more multifunctional base camp or if it was used as a single-purpose site related to an extraction task. The greater archaeological assemblage can also be used to help determine specific site types, and therefore the degree of variability between them.

Within this research, the site type will first be suggested based only on the lithic assemblage, which will then be compared to what the site type is believed to be based on the complete archaeological assemblage. This will allow the research to test the efficacy of these theories.

The fourth theory employed uses distance and decay relationships (Clark 1979) to understand the directionality of movement of past people as they conducted their seasonal round.

This theory requires an analysis of flake typology as it relates to reduction stages (Magne 1985) and lithic sourcing. This theory varies from the previous three in that it does not attempt to determine the degree of mobility (i.e., logistical vs. residential), but rather it attempts to view movement on a larger scale, as well as providing an idea of the minimal territory in which a group moved.

These theories have all been used to determine the extent of hunter-gatherer mobility in various regions around the world, but they have yet to be applied to the southern Alberta Plains.

This research aims to apply these various theories to this study area in order to assess Old

Women’s phase groups’ mobility, as well as to test each theory’s ability to accurately predict mobility in this region.

This thesis is designed to provide context for the research, through a description of the theories and methodologies used, and what conclusions can be drawn from them regarding the mobility of Old Women’s phase people. As such, Chapter 2 provides a brief synopsis of the history of human occupation in Alberta, followed by a more in depth discussion of the Old

Women’s phase and what defines it. A detailed account of the overlap between cultural aspects of the Old Women’s phase and Blackfoot culture is then given, suggesting that the Old Women’s phase people were the ancestors of the Blackfoot. Due to this possible cultural continuity, a description of the Blackfoot seasonal round at the time of contact is provided, since it may inform the research and possibly add another line of evidence to the theory that the Blackfoot are the descendants of Old Women’s phase people.

Chapter 3 provides a brief description of the environmental context of the research area, and a detailed description of the archaeology of DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Chapter 4 fully defines the theories discussed and how they can be used to understand mobility.

Chapter 5 is devoted to the theory behind usewear analysis. This includes the origins of usewear analysis, possible biasing factors such as post-depositional damage and hardness of the worked material, as well as a description of the various approaches to usewear analysis and their success in blind tests. Finally, the theoretical approach that is used in this research, the multivariate approach (Grace 1988; Grace et al. 1988), is discussed in depth.

Chapter 6 discusses the methods that were used in the research for both the usewear and lithic analysis. The usewear methodology includes a description of the experimental program, how the tools were prepared for analysis, what data was collected and how it was interpreted.

The lithic analysis methodology addresses how toolstone was sourced, how flakes were organized into typological classes and how those classes relate to reduction stages, and how the retouch intensity on tools was determined using the Index of Invasiveness (Clarkson 2002), the

Hafted Biface Retouch Index (Andrefsky 2006), and the Unifacial Index of Invasiveness (Kuhn

1990).

Chapter 7 provides a description of the lithic sources found in the collection, which includes both their appearance and where their quarries are located. A summary of the general trends seen in the debitage and tools is then provided for each of the sites.

Chapter 8 provides a summary of the results of the usewear analysis. This summary includes the inferred motion of use, the inferred hardness of the worked material, the most likely worked material (when possible), and a description of the tool’s most probable function. A brief description of how each of these inferences were made is also provided.

Chapter 9 discusses the results of the usewear and lithic analysis in terms of the theories discussed in Chapter 4. It is in this chapter where conclusions regarding the mobility of the Old

Women’s phase people who inhabited the three research sites is made.

Chapter 10 provides a summary of the conclusions drawn in Chapter 9. Each theory is also discussed, along with its corresponding methods, in terms of how well it performed in allowing one to draw mobility conclusions and how consistent its results were in comparison to the other theories. Finally, a brief discussion of future directions for this research is provided.

Chapter 2: The Old Women’s Phase

The term “Old Women’s” phase was coined by Reeves (1969) in reference to post-Besant cultural materials within southern Alberta. The name suggests a relation to post-Besant components at the Old Women’s Buffalo Jump (Forbis 1962), a site excavated in the late 1950s, located around 90 km south of Calgary. The post-Besant Late Precontact cultural components of this site contained many small projectile points associated with burned and unburned bone

(Forbis 1962). Forbis (1962:96-103) created a typology and seriation of these Late Precontact projectile points, classifying them into seven distinct stylistic varieties (Washita, Pekisko,

Paskapoo, Nanton, Lewis, Irvine, and High River). As a result of this early typology and the use of the term “Old Women’s” to identify similar cultural components in other sites in Alberta, the

Old Women’s Buffalo Jump has come to be seen as a “type site” for the phase (Walde et al.

1995).

Although Reeves coined the term, he did not provide a clear description of the Old

Women’s phase until 1980:

Old Woman’s [sic] Phase is characterized by ceramics, emphasizes local Plains or

Montana lithics to large measure, and has a technology characterized by the extensive use

of split pebble techniques to produce blanks for end scrapers, points, pieces esquilles, and

burin-like spalls. There is also extensive use made of petrified wood. Projectile point styles

are micro-stylistically discrete, particularly those representative of the close of Prehistoric

times (Washita) [Reeves 1983:19, quoting Reeves 1980:88].

The Old Women’s phase has two temporal expressions. Its early expression (ca. 1200 BP to 600 BP) has a geographic distribution that encompasses south-central and southwestern

Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and possibly northern Montana, while its later expression (ca.

600 BP to the Contact Period) has a slightly more circumscribed distribution in southwestern

Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and north-central Montana (Meyer 1988; Peck 2001; Peck and

Ives 2001; Vickers 1994; Walde et al. 1995) (Figure 1).

Alberta Prehistory/Precontact

Although this research focuses on the Old Women’s phase, a brief description of precontact Alberta history is necessary to put it in context. The most widely accepted precontact cultural sequence for the southern Alberta Plains is that developed by Reeves (1969, 1970), adapted from Mulloy’s (1958) chronological classification system developed for the

Northwestern Plains. Reeves (1969, 1970) divides the precontact cultural sequence into three periods based on projectile point forms: the Early, Middle, and Late Prehistoric. Although

Reeves terms these periods “Prehistoric,” they will henceforth be referred to as “Precontact” in order to avoid any implication that there was no true history on the plains before European contact. The Early Precontact (11 500 BP to 7500 BP) is identified by the presence of large projectile point dart systems, designed for use as spear points used for throwing or stabbing

(Reeves 1970:18; Vickers 1986:12). The Middle Precontact Period (7500 BP to 1750/1250 BP) is defined by the presence of medium sized, side-notched, corner-notched, or stemmed projectile points which are presumed to be used with a spear thrower (atlatl) (Reeves 1970:19; Vickers

1986:12). The Late Precontact Period (1750/1250 BP to 250 BP) begins with the introduction of small notched or triangular projectile points designed for use with the bow and arrow (Reeves

1970:19). This is the Period in which the Old Women’s phase begins, starting as early as 1400

BP (Reeves 1978), although more commonly believed to start ca. 1200 BP, and lasting up until the Protocontact or as late as the Contact Period. The Protocontact Period (250 BP to 76 BP) is an additional phase that is recognized as part of the precontact cultural sequence and is characterized by the addition of European trade goods to Late Precontact material culture

(Vickers 1986:13). Sites and components are further classified into complexes or phases which

Reeves defines thusly:

The following sequence is divided either in to complexes when the relationship is unclear

between the sequent assemblages, or into phases when the relationships are discernible

between the serial assemblages. The latter are linked by cultural traditions. Projectile point

types are the primary identifying criterion for the complexes or phases [Reeves 1969:19].

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the Old Women’s phase (adapted from Peck and Ives 2001: Figures 10 and 11).

Old Women’s Phase and the Contact Period Blackfoot

It has long been theorized among Plains archaeologists that the people of the Old

Women’s phase are the antecedents to the contact period Blackfoot. For example, Forbis

(1962:61) assigned a tentative relation between the Blackfoot and the Old Women’s Buffalo

Jump due to its appearance in Blackfoot mythology, where it is believed to be the place of the first marriage ceremony between men and women. Reeves (1983:20) suggested that his model of the Old Women’s phase represented the precontact Blackfoot and Gros Ventre, and further believed that with more research, the Old Women’s phase could be regionally and temporally segregated into variants that represented specific tribal constituents. Byrne (1973:515-529) also attempted to determine the ethnic identity of the Old Women’s phase using linguistic, oral tradition, and historic accounts, concluding that the Saskatchewan Basin Complex: Late Variant pottery most likely corresponded with the contact period Blackfoot. In addition, Magne

(1987:220-232), along with various contributors, created maps that outlined the geographic distribution of known native groups between AD 1700 to AD 1850 in which the Blackfoot distribution closely overlaps that of the later expression of the Old Women’s phase. It is important to understand the possible connection between the contact period Blackfoot and the precontact Old Women’s phase since historic and ethnographic information, especially concerning the Blackfoot, has often been used to illuminate various aspects of Old Women’s phase culture, including seasonal round and mobility; as such, many researchers have attempted to elucidate and secure the elusive Blackfoot/Old Women’s phase connection.

Brumley and Dau (1988:53–54) use ethnographic and archaeological evidence of medicine wheels on the Plains to link the Blackfoot with their construction and distribution.

They note that the contact period Blackfoot were the only people to construct medicine wheel

12 structures that were burial lodges and memorials to great warriors, citing the Ellis site medicine wheel as an example of this type. Such medicine wheel types are restricted to the Plains of central and southern Alberta and northern Montana, which Brumley and Dau (1988:54) recognize as falling within the geographic distribution of the Old Women’s phase and the know post-contact distribution of the Blackfoot.

Vickers (2008) uses the distribution of Napi boulder effigies on the Plains to strengthen the Old Women’s/Blackfoot connection. These Napi effigies are defined based on the presence of a heartline and phallus, as well as various other stylistic indicators. Vickers (2008:217), using the Direct Ethnological Approach, confirms that the Blackfoot recognize these effigies as Napi figures, although he notes that that does not necessarily imply that they were originally constructed as Napi figures, or that they were constructed by the Blackfoot. Vickers (2008:217) then uses distribution of Napi effigies to determine if they fall within the territory of the contact period Blackfoot, with the conclusion that all but one of these figures, the Penokee effigy, is consistent with known Blackfoot territory. The Penokee effigy is theorized to have been made by a Blackfoot traveler (Vickers 2008:218). The identification of boulder effigies as Napi by

Blackfoot people, as well as the strong correlation between Napi effigies and contact period

Blackfoot geographic distribution, makes a strong case for a Blackfoot origin.

Peck (2002) seeks to make a case for the Old Women’s/Blackfoot connection using the contact period use and precontact distribution and context of fossilized ammonites on the Plains.

Peck (2002) notes a connection between the contact period Blackfoot and fossilized ammonites, called Iniskim, a term meaning “buffalo stone” due to their resemblance to a buffalo. These

Iniskim had a strong spiritual and religious purpose among the Blackfoot, especially in terms of bison hunting. The distribution of archaeological ammonites is strongly indicative of a

Blackfoot/Old Women’s phase connection in that very few fall outside of the Old Women’s phase time period or its geographical distribution (Peck 2002:161). Peck (2002:161-162) also notes that the Old Women’s phase ammonites have been recovered from ritual contexts and sites related to bison hunting, suggesting continuity between their ethnographically known significance and the precontact period.

Matson (1982) notes that one must be careful when attempting to find an equivalence between an anthropological culture and an archaeological culture; archaeological cultures can be a composite of multiple anthropological cultures and vice versa. He does concede, however, that a close correspondence can exist (Matson 1982:233). As it stands, I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Blackfoot are the descendants of Old Women’s phase people and as such, historic and ethnographic information can be used to provide evidence of cultural aspects of the Old Women’s phase as long as it is done with caution.

Mobility and the Seasonal Round

Uhlenbeck (1912) and Ewers (1955) ethnographic work has often been used to illuminate the possible seasonal round and mobility of the people of the Old Women’s phase. Because the seasonal round as described by Uhlenbeck (1912) and Ewers (1955) relies heavily on the distribution of natural resources, we must consider that there may be variations in the exact locations utilized in their works compared to the past. However, Meyer and Epp (1990:323), citing various environmental data, suggest that ecological zonal boundaries in the Plains and surrounding areas have been relatively stationary since before 3000 BP, allowing extrapolation of the early historic environmental data backward in time.

Uhlenbeck (1912:1-8), working with a Blood informant from the Blackfeet Reservation, described the seasonal round of equestrian Blackfoot thusly: Winter was spent in the valley

14 bottom of the Marias River until Spring, when they set out towards the Sweet Grass or Cypress

Hills to hunt Bison. They then worked their way towards the Milk River, where they continued to hunt bison whose skin was used for lodges. This was followed by a short move to Pakowki

Lake, where they camped for a long period and conducted a large summer bison hunt, after which they moved to Manyberries then Buffalo-Head, just west of the Cypress Hills, to gather berries. This was followed by a move to the Cypress Hills to procure lodge poles and then on to

Writing-on-Stone to gather berries. At the approach of fall, they moved to Cut-Bank Creek at the headwaters of the Marias River, where they prepared themselves for winter. At the first snow fall they moved down into the Marias River valley and determined where the Bison were wintering.

Graspointner (1981:87) estimates that this seasonal round encompassed 400–500 miles of travel, and working on the assumption that pedestrian travel is roughly half the distance of equestrian travel, he suggests that the pedestrian seasonal round would have covered a total of

200–250 miles. Due to this more restricted seasonal round, Graspointner (1981:87) suggests that the Alberta Plains could have accommodated a number of bands, with one cycle in the east, encompassing the Sweetgrass Hills, the Milk River Plains, and the Cypress Hills; another could have been centered on the Oldman River and Porcupine Hills; while a third could be in the

Foothills and adjacent mountain areas of southwest Alberta. Oetelaar and Oetelaar (2006:387), however, point out that the equestrian distance breaks down to only 50 days of travel at 10 miles a day, which would leave a minimum of 134 days to collect necessary resources if they left their overwintering grounds in May and returned in October. They presume this to be a reasonable possibility for pedestrian precontact groups.

Ewers (1955) provided a similar description of the seasonal round of equestrian

Blackfoot based on information collected from elderly Blood and Peigan informants. Ewers

(1955:124) states that during the winter, bands would separate and shelter a few miles apart in areas that included wood, water, and grass (for the horses). This appears to be supported by evidence gathered by Kooyman (2006) on Blackfoot oral traditions and artwork from the early contact period, which often depicts winter and spring encampments located in wooded riverine valleys.

While grass for horses was unnecessary in pedestrian precontact times, and water may have been accessible in many areas in the form of snow, the importance of wood for winter camps has been discussed by archaeologists in terms of its necessity for providing warmth.

Malainey and Sherriff (1996) argue that wood is not a necessary resource for winter encampments, citing Wright’s (1992) research into the use of bison chips as fuel. They note that well-seasoned bison chips burn hotter than wood and therefore would have provided an alternative fuel source in the winter, allowing groups to camp on the open Plains, rather than in wooded river valleys and along the Parklands (Malainey and Sherriff (1996:353). Vickers and

Peck (2004:99) argue that although bison chips burn hotter than wood, they don’t radiate heat very well, in addition to being difficult to find in the snow and needing a fresh breeze to burn well, which would be troublesome when attempting to warm a lodge. In addition, wood is necessary for more than fuel. Vickers and Peck (2004) note its importance in building bison pounds, which is almost exclusively a fall and winter activity. Ewers (1955:124) discusses the need for wooded areas to act as a windbreak and snow fence, in addition to providing firewood.

Ewers (1955:124) states, “For a Blackfoot camp to have remained on the open plains in winter would have been suicidal.”

As such, it seems reasonable to assume that Old Women’s phase people would have sought to make their winter camps in the wooded river valleys and Parklands of the region. In

16 addition, in the absence of horses, Morgan (1979) believes that larger encampments were possible and therefore one might find evidence for larger winter campsites in the archaeological record. Ewers (1955:124) notes that bands stayed in their selected camps all winter, usually at least five months (from November to March or April), or as long as there was sufficient wood. If this was exhausted, a camp move of less than a day’s march would be conducted to bring them to a new site with the necessary resources.

As spring approached, Ewers’ (1955:126) informants talked of the bison drifting away from the winter camps, resulting in each band going its separate way in pursuit. Ewers

(1955:127) suggests spring to be a “transitional period between the breakup of the long winter encampment and the formation of the tribal summer encampment.” This time period lasted around two months, and frequent moves were made (Ewers 1955:127).

Summer was the second longest time that bands remained in one place. Ewers (1955:127) discusses the large tribal communal bison hunt that takes place in this season, where by early

July the bands were assembled and chasing bison on the level Plains. However, Morgan (1979) suggests that in pedestrian times, the summer communal hunt would have been more difficult to impossible without horses. This is consistent with Brumley’s (1983) description of pedestrian hunting techniques where hunters, who lacked the ability to run down bison, relied on concealment in order to maneuver, stalk, and/or ambush animals. Morgan (1979) also theorized that many surface water sources would be dry by July, and, lacking horse transportation, they would have needed to camp closer to river systems. Groups normally occupied the summer encampment for two to three months, from June to the beginning of September (Ewers

1955:128).

Fall is described as the hunting season, as the bison cows were in their prime during this time. Large numbers of animals were killed and berries were collected. These were then used to create winter stores of pemmican and other necessary winter food (Ewers 1955:128). Camp moves were largely determined by the available supply of meat, with successful fall hunt stops lasting a week or longer. The Blackfoot continued to hunt bison and prepare meat for the winter into November and December (Ewers 1955:129). From here, the seasonal round cycle would begin anew.

Vickers (1991) offers a good breakdown of the archaeological evidence as it relates to

Ewers’ (1955) ethnographic model. He notes that the ethnographic model has both positives and negatives, stating:

Its advantage lies in its anthropological nature; that is, the seasonal round reflects

recollections of real persons who lived the life of mounted buffalo hunters in the Alberta

Plains. Its disadvantage, for an archaeologist, is that it reflects the life style of equestrian

natives which must, to some greater or lesser extent, have varied from that of prehistoric

pedestrian hunters [Vickers 1991:58].

Data from archaeological sites occupied in the winter seem to conform to the pattern suggested by Ewers (1955). A number of small, winter occupation sites exist along the Belly

River, upper Oldman River, and Ross Creek (Vickers 1991:65). There also appear to be large winter encampments, such as the FM Ranch site on the Bow River, the Saamis site on Seven

Person Creek, and the Ross site on the Oldman River (Vickers 1991:65) which are more representative of Morgan’s (1979) model based on bison ecology.

Vickers (1991:62) suggests that some of the archaeological data for spring sites seems to support Ewers (1955) model of band aggregates engaged in communal hunting, while other data seem to suggest a different pattern, one where dispersed bands engaged in stalking bison. This is slightly confusing, as it seems that Ewers’ (1955) model actually suggests the second pattern of dispersed bands, rather than the one of band aggregates and communal hunting. However, it is clear that two patterns do exist, and therefore there is a divergence from Ewers’ (1955) model in precontact times.

Although spotty, archaeological data for the summer season also contradicts Ewers’

(1955) model of large tribal aggregation and communal bison hunting on the open plains, and supports Morgan’s (1979) theory that people were forced to camp in proximity to secure water supplies, as archaeological site density for known summer sites is greater closer to river systems

(Vickers 1991:63-64). In addition, population size seems to be much smaller than a tribal gathering, and may possibly have been smaller than a band (Vickers 1991:64). This is consistent with the idea that pedestrian groups would have been unable to carry out large bison drives without horses, and therefore would have been unable to support a large population aggregation

(Vickers 1991:66)

Archaeological data for the fall does suggest large communal kill sites in Wyoming, but they remain elusive in Alberta (Vickers 1991:64). Although communal fall kill sites exist, they are not as large as those noted for late spring, although Vickers (1991:64) suggests that the application of modern techniques to jump sites may result in the recognition of a higher frequency of fall kill events.

As can be seen, Ewers’ (1955) and Uhlenbeck’s (1912) seasonal round models can help illuminate the mobility of the Old Women’s phase people, as long as it is understood that they cannot be imposed on the archaeological past with impunity.

Summary

The Old Women’s phase (ca. 1200 BP to the Contact Period) has two known temporal expressions based on geographic distribution and projectile point styles, an early expression (ca.

1200 BP to 600 BP) and a late expression (ca. 600 BP to the Contact Period). While it appears to have its origins in the preceding Avonlea phase, it is not clear-cut and debate still exists, with some researchers maintaining that there is a possible link to the Besant phase people.

Much evidence has been presented to suggest a connection between the later expression of the Old Women’s phase and the contact period Blackfoot. This connection is based on the similar geographic distribution of the Old Women’s phase and the Blackfoot at the time of contact, as well as similarities in material culture, some of which suggest possible continuity in religious and spiritual beliefs. Based on this information, ethnographic and documents may be used to help elucidate various aspects of culture, including mobility, in the Old Women’s phase.

Chapter 3: Sites Overview

Three sites were chosen for this research with overlapping dates between roughly 500 BP and 400 BP. One, DkPi-2, is a large processing campsite, while the other two are smaller campsites. Three sites were chosen in order to look for intersite variability, which can be an indicator of the degree of a group’s mobility. The descriptions of the sites differ somewhat due to the nature of the analyses undertaken for the original site reports.

Environmental Context

The sites that will be analyzed in this research are located within the northwestern Plains, including portions of the short and mixed grass parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montana, the

Dakotas, and Wyoming. The extent of the northwestern Plains is defined by Wedel (1961:240) as:

…south of the forty-ninth parallel, the drainage basins of the Yellowstone and the Upper

Missouri, as well as much of the North Platte drainage. Beyond the International

Boundary, they sweep northward for another 150 miles to or a little beyond the fifty-

second parallel, taking in most of the Palliser Triangle and the drainage of the South

Saskatchewan. They terminate on the west where the short grass reaches the pine-clad

slopes of the Rocky Mountains, except in Wyoming. Here, for present purposes, they

extend to the Continental Divide, and include the Bighorn, Wind River, Laramie, and other

basins partially enclosed by the eastern-most ranges of the Rockies.

The Old Women’s phase has a geographic distribution that encompasses south-central and southwestern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and possibly northern Montana in its early

21 expression (ca. 1200 BP to 600 BP). It has a slightly more circumscribed distribution in southwestern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and north-central Montana in its later expression

(ca. 600 BP to the Contact Period) (Meyer 1988; Peck 2001; Peck and Ives 2001; Vickers 1994;

Walde et al. 1995) (Figure 1). For the purpose of this current research the focus will be on the southern Alberta Plains.

The Alberta Plains are drained from west to east by three main river systems (from south to north): the Milk River, the Oldman-Bow-South Saskatchewan Rivers, and the Red Deer River.

The Milk River is part of the Missouri-Mississippi drainage system, while the Oldman-Bow-

South Saskatchewan Rivers and Red Deer River form the Saskatchewan River system that flows into the Hudson Bay (Vickers 1986). The river valleys are deeply incised and often contain wooded flats and water all year round. Deeply incised glacial spillways and coulees are abundant in the area, but they tend to lack the wood and water resources of the river valleys (Downing and

Pettapiece 2006; Vickers 1986; Walde et al. 1995).

The grasslands include a mixture of vegetation, ranging from shorter, drought-tolerant needle-and-thread and blue grama grasses in the south, along the border and into Montana, to taller needle-and-thread grasses, porcupine grass, and northern and western wheatgrasses in the moister climates to the north and west (Downing and Pettapiece 2006). Fescue grasses begin to dominate the vegetation as one moves closer to the Foothills and Parklands regions (Binnema

2001; Downing and Pettapiece 2006). This grassland area can vary from flat glacial lake beds, to rolling moraine, to wooded uplands (Downing and Pettapiece 2006; Vickers 1986; Walde et al.

1995). These wooded uplands are an important feature of the Plains in terms of use by human groups, and include the Wintering, Cypress, and Hand Hills (Vickers 1986; Walde et al. 1995).

The Plains are bordered on the west by forested foothills of the Rocky Mountains and to the north by the Aspen Parklands.

This area is characterized by extremes in winter and summer temperatures, little moisture and high winds (Downing and Pettapiece 2006). Winter temperatures vary from a mean of -12°C to -18°C while summer temperatures range from a mean of 27°C to 24°C as you move south to north (Vickers 1986). Winter temperatures can range greatly due to the presence of Chinooks, a type of dry and warm wind that occurs in the lee of the Rocky Mountain range. Chinooks can raise the temperature by 20+ degrees Celsius for a few hours or days before temperatures return to their base levels (Downing and Pettapiece 2006; Vickers 1986). Wind is frequent and strong from the southwest, west, and northwest, but rare from the northeast (Vickers 1986).

Precipitation is mostly in the form of rain that arrives from May to June, averaging around 18 cm to 25 cm annually, decreasing from west to east (Binnema 2001; Downing and Pettapiece 2006;

Vickers 1986).

This environment supports elk, deer, antelope, big horn sheep, ground squirrels, porcupines and bison, among many other herbivores. Predators include wolves, black bears, plains grizzly bears, coyotes, and foxes (Binnema 2001; Downing and Pettapiece 2006).

DkPi-2: The Highway 2/3 Junction Site

Overview

DkPi-2 is located 2 km west of Fort Macleod, Alberta, on the south side of the Oldman

River at the Highway 2/3 interchange (Figure 2). The site was first noted in 1920, when a

Lethbridge Herald reporter wrote an article pertaining to the richness of artifacts, which included obsidian projectile points and a bone bed, unearthed by government road gangs working on the development of Spring Ridge (Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005:6). The bone was mined and shipped

23 to manufacturers in Chicago, where it was used in the manufacture of fertilizer, charcoal filters, and sugar (Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005:6). Due to this early and publicized recognition of the site, DkPi-2 has been heavily looted for arrowheads since the 1920s (Unfreed and Van Dyke

2005:6).

The site was first officially recorded by Richard Forbis in 1964, where it was referred to as the “Jake Hubert site” and given its Borden designation (Forbis 1964; Unfreed 1993:I:22;

Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005:7). The site’s first official subsurface testing occurred in 1980 and was conducted by Lifeways of Canada, Ltd. During this excavation, a total of 10 square meters was tested and six occupations were identified (Reeves et al. 1981). A large mitigation program was later conducted by Bison Historical Services in 1991 and 1992 on behalf of Alberta

Transportation and Utilities in advance of the construction of the Highway 2/3 interchange

(Unfreed 1993:I and II).

DkPi-2 is composed of two landforms: an upper prairie level and a lower river terrace that is adjacent to the Oldman River. At the time of the 1991 investigations, it was determined that the upper prairie level was not of cultural importance, and excavations were focused on the lower river terrace. The 1991 program resulted in the excavation of 15 sample blocks totalling

112 square meters, while the 1992 program resulted in the excavation 32 sample blocks and

444.5 square meters, totalling 37 sample blocks and 556.5 square meters of excavation (Unfreed

1993:I).

Methodology

Horizontal provenience was recorded by 1x1 m units. Vertical provenience was generally recorded in arbitrary 10 cm levels, but excavation employed cultural strata where possible.

Excavated sediments were screened through standard CRM wire mesh (6 mm; 1/4 inch) screens.

Fire-broken rock was weighed, measured, and recorded in the field, but was not collected. Burnt and unburnt sediment samples and hearth fills were collected from features throughout the site

(Unfreed 1993:I).

The lower terrace was subdivided into smaller analytical areas based on topography and the cultural activities that were defined during the first stages of the investigation. They include:

Terrace One (T); Terrace Edge Zone of Terrace Two (E); Kill Zone of Terrace Two (K); and

Central Zone of Terrace Two (C). Excavation blocks were then labeled according to these areas and the order in which they were placed; for example, the first block opened in the central terrace zone is referred to as C-1 (Unfreed 1993:I). The 1992 excavations then organized the excavation blocks into four main groups: Area A, which consists of the “central terrace,” including all of the central and terrace edge zone, terrace one, and one block of the kill zone; Area B, which consists of the “southern base-of-ridge” portion of the kill zone; Area C, which consists of the “central base-of-ridge” portion of the kill zone; and Area D, which consists of the “northern base-of- ridge” portion of the kill zone (Unfreed 1993:I).

Cultural periods of site use within the areas are referred to as “cultural facies” which are defined by a cultural and natural stratigraphic body that has internal integrity and is sufficiently different from other bodies so as to be unique with respect to either cultural or natural tendencies

(Unfreed 1993:I:52, 54). These facies were associated with paleosols and their corresponding cultural inclusions, with the result being that a facies is always found to be associated with only a single set of paleosols. Facies are distinguished between excavated areas by designations such as

“Facies B (Area A),” which allows one to differentiate between, for example, kill deposits or processing areas while still recognizing them as activities in a single culturally or temporally defined period.

Figure 2. Location of DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Cultural Components

DkPi-2 contains two main cultural components, Components I and II, both of which are attributed to the Old Women’s phase and believed to reflect the presence of a series of closely spaced occupations (Unfreed 1993:II:712). These two components are separated by a thick layer of alluvium, representing a temporal separation between an earlier and a later form of the phase

(Unfreed 1993:II). A third component, Component I/II, was situated between the two main components and is believed to represent a mixing of the two. These components will be discussed in more detail below with an emphasis on Component II since it is material culture from this component that was studied for this research. A fourth component, Component III, is

26 the youngest component, separated from the lower components by a site-wide sand horizon

(Unfreed 1993:II). This component is not considered a true component as it is a mixed assemblage with questionable integrity and no cultural facies were identified, thus it will not be discussed further.

Component I

Component I is the earliest component at DkPi-2 and represents a kill and processing site

(Unfreed 1993:I; Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005) comprised of Facies A (Area D) and Facies B and C (Areas A, B, and C). At least two kill events are suggested for this component due to the presence of both adult male and female bison, as well as fetal bison. The presence of female bison and fetal bone suggests a late winter/early spring kill event, and since the bull herds are separate from the cow/calf herds at this time, the significant number of male bison strongly suggests a second killing event.

Projectile points include Prairie and Plains Side-notched points which support the bone collagen radiocarbon dates ranging from 860 ± 70 BP to 800 ± 80 BP for Facies A, 840 ± 70 BP to 430 ± 70 BP for Facies B, and 910 ± 70 BP to 310 ± 70 BP for Facies C (Unfreed 1993:II;

Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005). Although some of these radiocarbon dates suggest a more recent date for this component, the majority of the radiocarbon dates cluster around an average date of

AD 1221 (Unfreed 1993:II:716).

Component I/II

This component is a layer of fluvial sands overlaying Component I and contains few cultural materials. It is considered a mixed component with materials from the upper Component

II slipping down and those from the lower Component I working their way up (Unfreed 1993:II;

Unfreed and Van Dyke 2005).

Component II

Component II is the most recent of the Old Women’s phase components; it consists of

Facies D and E (Areas A, B, and C) with Facies D being associated with a paleosol at depths between 20 and 35 cm below surface and Facies E being associated with three intertwined paleosols occurring at depths between 20 and 37 cm below surface (Unfreed 1993:I).

Radiocarbon dates range from AD 1299 to AD 1419, suggesting an average date of AD 1396, although most of the dates cluster between AD 1408 and AD 1419 (Unfreed 1993:II:716).

Overall, Component II is primarily comprised of processing campsites, which will be discussed in more detail below, as well as a major bone bed in the killsite deposits.

Facies E (Area A)

This facies is characterized by cultural floors composed of sparse amounts of bone, fire- broken rock, or scattered patches of charcoal or ash. The faunal material indicates processing activities, with more appendicular elements than axial elements identified, and breakage and removal of the upper one-third of limbs being practiced (Unfreed 1993:I). A minimum of four individual bison were identified, with one adult female and one adult male recognized in the assemblage. Four ceramic vessels were identified in this area (Unfreed 1993:II:Appendix V).

Few lithic artifacts were identified, and those present tend to be more expedient and minimally worked. Tools included Plains Side-notched points, a piece of bead waste, and a polished bone

(Unfreed 1993:I:430). Some post-contact materials are present and it is suggested that they are the result of a scattering of contact period refuse over the precontact site, these contact period remains then mixed in due to rodent burrowing (Unfreed 1993:I:432).

Facies E (Area B)

This area is characterized by a light scattering of fragmented bone. The cultural material is extremely minimal and suggests that this area was not used to any great degree during this time period (Unfreed 1993:I:434).

Facies E (Area C)

This area is characterized by bone scatter features. The faunal assemblage suggests a secondary bison processing site, similar to Area A. Again, the appendicular skeletal elements are represented more frequently than the axial elements, with selective discard resulting in the removal of the proximal portion of limbs from the area and the disposal of the remainder the site.

The minimum number of individuals is estimated to be five, with one adult male, one adult female, and one juvenile under the age of two to four years. Lithic tools include Plains Side- notched points, utilized and minimally retouched flakes, bifaces, and scrapers (Unfreed

1993:I:439). Faunal artifacts include a bone bead, a cut rib for hafting, and cut or polished bone fragments (Unfreed 1993:I:443). Only three ceramic fragments were recovered.

Facies D (Area A)

This area is characterized by unprepared hearths, scatters of bone, charcoal, and rough collections of fire-broken rock scattered throughout the living floors. These features suggest this area was being used for secondary and tertiary bison processing activities. Three bone collagen dates were obtained for this area: 560 ± 80 BP, 550 ± 80 BP, and 660 ± 80 BP. The last date was rejected by the reporting archaeologist due to it being unacceptably old for its stratigraphic position above the sand horizon compared to the other radiocarbon dates for the site (Unfreed

1993:II:720).

The faunal collection consisted mainly of bison, with a minimum number of 18 individuals present. Of these 18 individuals, three males and four females between two and four

29 years of age were identified. The faunal remains were often highly fragmented and associated mainly with features indicative of intense burning activities, such as unprepared hearths, patches of ash, charcoal or oxidized sediment, and fire-broken rock scatters (Unfreed 1993:I:400). Other faunal artifacts included a drilled shell pendant, formed tools such as awls, fleshers, a bone uniface, and an antler pressure flaker, as well as expedient tools with blunted ends. The presence of fetal bison bone suggests that the site was occupied in late winter/early spring, while the presence of adult male animals suggests at least one other kill event, giving evidence for multiple occupations of the site or a long occupation with multiple kill events.

The lithic artifacts include Plains Side-notched projectile points, scrapers, wedges, and spokeshaves, as well as expedient and minimally worked tools. These artifacts will be discussed in more detail later.

Ceramic fragments, though numerous, were mostly unidentifiable in terms of vessel portion represented and vessel type. The fragments that could be identified were primarily body sherds with a few rim sherds, resulting in the identification of one vessel (Unfreed 1993:II:677).

Facies D (Area B)

This area only contained one flake and therefore does not appear to be culturally significant.

Facies D (Area C)

This area is characterized by bone scatter features associated with burning activities, primarily concentrations of fire-broken rock. Dating of these deposits is based on two bone dates: 380 ± 70 BP and 420 ± 70 BP (Unfreed 1993:I:404).

The faunal assemblage is again dominated by bison, with a minimum on 29 individuals present. Of these 29 individuals, 6 were identified as adult males and 9 were identified as adult

30 females (Unfreed 1993:I). Skulls and lower limb bones, especially the radius, ulna, and tibia, were well represented, while upper limb bones and carpals and tarsals were much rarer. A large number of fetal bison bones were also present. This butchering pattern in association with the remains of burning activities suggests a processing campsite. Other faunal artifacts include pieces of modified bone, a bone awl, 18 cut rib hafts, 7 expedient tools made from ribs, dorsal spines, or long bone shaft fragments, and bone beads (Unfreed 1993:I:417). The large amount of fetal bone again suggests a late winter/early spring kill, while the presence of many adult males suggests a secondary kill event and therefore the possibility of multiple occupations or an extended occupation of the site.

Lithic artifacts consist of Plains Side-notched points, scrapers, wedges, spokeshaves, and cores as well as expedient cutting and crushing tools. Again, these will be discussed in more detail later in the thesis.

Ceramic artifacts were relatively abundant, although they were largely unidentifiable, with most of the identifiable pieces being body sherds.

As can be seen, Component II of DkPi-2 appears to have been used as a processing campsite in the late winter/early spring, with other occupations possibly occurring throughout the year.

DjPm-126: The Castle Forks Buffalo Jump

Overview

DjPm-126 is located on the south side of the Oldman River, less than half a kilometer upstream from its confluence with the Castle River (Figure 2). This area is known locally as

Castle Forks, resulting in DjPm-126 being named the Castle Forks Buffalo Jump (Landals

1990:I). It was first recognized by Brian Reeves during the initial Historical Resources Impact

Assessment (HRIA) in 1986, where he recorded the dimensions of the site and the extent of erosional damage, but did not undertake any test excavations (Reeves 1987; Landals 1990:I).

The site was revisited and excavated as part of the Oldman River Dam Mitigation program in

1988 and 1989 (Landals 1990:I).

The site is situated on a long, narrow remnant terrace feature which is situated 3 m above the river (Landals 1990:I). The river, at the time of study, was cutting into the terrace, resulting in numerous bones visible in both the river and exposed in the bank. The exposed bone in the bank extended for a distance of 40 m, which is likely a good estimate of the bone bed’s full linear extent. However, much of the width of the terrace had already been lost to erosion, and it was estimated that only half of the original terrace width remained at the time of excavation

(Landals 1990:I).

The cliff-face used for the jump is 10 to 15 m high and faces northeast, taking advantage of prevailing winds to aid in the running of bison over the edge (Landals 1990:I). The prairie level above the site is open and rolling with a gentle downwards slope towards the jump, which is not visible until the edge is reached. It is also bisected by a coulee that runs northeast and parallels the Castle River, being separated by a distance of about 800 m. This coulee could have provided a positioning guide for people using the jump as well as acting together with the high

Castle River terrace as a natural constraint leading the bison towards the edge of the cliff

(Landals 1990:I). Reeves, in his initial assessment, noted drive lanes present on this prairie level, assigning it a site designation of DjPm-19, but unfortunately they had been destroyed by ploughing by the time of the mitigation program (Landals 1990:I).

In total, the excavation area opened up 56 square meters and 789 ten cm levels. This was mostly contained in one main excavation block that was placed along the terrace edge, directly

32 over top of the bone bed. A second, much smaller excavation block was opened to the north of the main block (Landals 1990:I).

Methodology

Horizontal provenience recording was by 1x1 m units. Depth measurement employed a combination of 10 cm arbitrary levels and natural stratigraphic layers. Excavation units were shovel shaved, troweled, and brushed. All sediments were screened through a standard CRM wire mesh (6 mm; 1/4 inch) power screen. The stone tools and large unmodified cobbles were mapped in situ (Landals 1990:I).

Stratigraphy and Cultural Units

DjPm-126 displays a complex sequence of rapid fluvial and colluvial deposition interspersed by periods of relative stability which are represented by the development of organic horizons, or paleosols. This stratigraphy allows for good separation of the cultural occupations even though the time represented at the site is less than 1000 years.

From the base of the excavations at ca. 240 cm to 220 cm below surface, a paleosol exists above alluvial silt. It is in this paleosol that Cultural Unit 4 is contained. This cultural unit is dated to 960 ± 80 BP based on a bone radiocarbon date. Cultural Unit 4 is characterized by the presence of 230 faunal remains and is of an unknown occupation season and cultural affiliation

(Landals 1990:I).

Above this cultural unit is approximately 20 cm of coarse, bedded river deposited sand, above which, at 180 to 200 cm below surface, is another strong black organic horizon with no associated cultural materials (Landals 1990:I).

From 150 to 180 cm below surface, there lies a mixed clay/silt layer with numerous charcoal fragments, above which is a poorly developed paleosol overlain by a fine silt from 140-

150 cm below surface. In the central part of the excavation block, Cultural Unit 3 is contained in the silt immediately above the paleosol. This cultural unit is dated to 460 ± 80 BP based on a bone collagen date, and is characterized by a dense, well-defined living floor containing two hearth features, lithic remains, butchered bone, red ochre fragments, and ceramic remains. This cultural unit is believed to be an Old Women’s phase campsite based on the types and distribution of artifacts found, the radiocarbon date, the presence of Plains side-notched points, and the presence of ceramic remains. This cultural unit will be discussed in more detail below as it is material from this occupation that was studied (Landals 1990:I).

The silt which contains Cultural Unit 3 is overlain by a thin sand layer, which is capped by a very thick organic soil at 80 to 125 cm below the surface. It is within this paleosol that

Cultural Unit 2 is found. It is dated to approximately 450 BP based on two bone collagen dates of 520 ± 90 BP and 370 ± 100 BP. This cultural unit is characterized by faunal materials distributed in sparse quantities at different depths in small clusters throughout the soil. It also contains 2 Plains Side-notched projectile points, 6 pieces of debitage and 2 unmodified cobbles.

Based on these artifacts and their distribution, it is suggested this is a kill deposit, however, no seasonal indicators were present (Landals 1990:I).

Above this thick paleosol, from approximately 40 to 80 cm below surface, is a silt layer.

The layer rises in the north area of the excavation block until it is at the interface of the next highest soil, a thick organic colluvisol. It is in this silt layer that Cultural Unit 1 is located. This cultural unit is dated to 260 ± 90 BP based on bone collagen dating, and is characterized by the main bone bed at the site. Preservation of the bone bed is remarkably good, with most bone surfaces fresh and delicate bone parts well preserved. Due to the erosion of the bank, it is believed that the sample retrieved represents 30 to 60 percent of the original deposit. The sample

34 seems representative of the site as a whole. Cultural Unit 1 is believed to be a Protocontact bison jump kill site based on the dominance of faunal artifacts, almost all of which are bison, as well as nine Plains Side-notched points, and one metal projectile point. The bison dental indications suggest a winter kill, perhaps in December (Landals 1990:I).

Cultural Unit 3 (460 ± 80 BP)

Cultural Unit 3 is dated to 460 ± 80 BP and represents a significant campsite occupation attributable to the Old Women’s phase (Landals 1990:I). The main features of the occupation are two hearths, which are different in terms of construction but similar in terms of material culture association.

One hearth, Feature 17, is a surface hearth and consists of a faint charcoal rich stain and an associated thin layer of very white ash distributed across a two-meter area, possibly by wind.

There are 16 pieces of fire-broken rock and one reddened cobble associated with the feature

(Landals 1990:I:280). Numerous flecks of red ochre, ceramic body sherds, and butchered bone fragments were found within and immediately around the feature. In addition, there was an obsidian late Plains Side-notched point and lithic debitage in association with the hearth (Landals

1990:I:280).

The second hearth, Feature 18, is located seven meters north of Feature 17, and consists of a well-constructed, rock encircled hearth which has, unfortunately, been sectioned by the eroding river bank. Five large cobbles encircle the remnant half of the hearth and the hearth fill consists of 8 to 10 cm of white, charcoal-rich ash. Below this ash layer is a 10 to 12 cm deep reddened basin-shaped stain with some charcoal flakes (Landals 1990:I:280). In terms of lithic remains, five Plains side-notched projectile points, numerous pieces of flake debitage and marginally retouched flakes, a biface fragment, and an endscraper were found in the immediate

35 vicinity of the hearth. In addition, numerous flecks of red ochre and ceramic sherds were found within and around the feature. A portion of a bison spine, consisting of the last thoracic and the first three lumbar vertebrae with the spines and transverse processes removed by butchering, was found within the hearth, along with five bison phalanges (Landals 1990:I:280). There was also a charred goosefoot seed found within the hearth (Landals 1990:I:281). The substantial nature of this hearth in terms of construction and fill indicates repeated or long term use of the site. There is some evidence that suggests that this feature may be a central heating hearth within a cobble and sandstone slab tipi ring, but the patterning is unclear and the large amount of bone within the ring would be unusual (Landals 1990:I:281).

Neither hearth has evidence of stone boiling nor grease extraction, and burned or calcined bone is rare, which may indicate that the primary use of the hearths was for roasting or boiling fresh meat. Landals (1990:I:285) suggests the presence of red ochre is due to it being made into cakes for use in softening leather shoes, stockings, coats and robes, as described by Fidler for the

Piegans (1792 in MacGregor 1966:83). Fidler describes the process of preparing the ochre as first kneading it like a dough which is then formed it into a small, round flat cake about two inches in thickness and then baked in the fire, where it hardens. When it is removed, it is broken into small pieces and put into bags for occasional use. If the ochre cakes were broken near the hearths, this would very likely explain the many small flecks of ochre found in and around their vicinity.

Overall, the material culture for this unit included lithic, ceramic, and faunal remains.

The lithic remains included 10 Plains Side-notched projectile points and various other formed and expedient tools, as well as debitage, all of which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter

One hundred eighty-one ceramic sherds were recovered from as many as five different vessels and classified as Saskatchewan Basin Complex: Late Period (Landals 1990:I:285). The sherds were scattered but most were recovered within a 2 m radius of hearth Feature 18, with a second concentration near hearth Feature 17. A granitic rock was found in association with many of the ceramic sherds and is similar to the temper of the ceramic remains, suggesting it was brought to the site to produce temper (Landals 1990:I:285).

The faunal assemblage is dominated by bison with the minimum number of individuals estimated at seven: four males, 2 females, and one fetal bison. Other species present include a small ungulate, a large canid and a small canid. An antler tool was also found; it had been split longitudinally with the distal end (towards the burr) beveled where the cut occurred. The proximal end of the tool is softly rounded and worn into a palette or spatulate tool, suggesting it may have been used for ceramic surface finishing or possibly marrow scooping (Landals

1990:I:286). Almost all of the faunal elements show signs of butchering such as green fracture margins or spiral fracture, and all long bones but two exhibiting fragmentation due to butchering, with the femur showing the strongest degree of fragmentation, suggesting a strong selection for marrow bones.

Although there are no strong seasonal indicators present in the faunal sample, a winter occupation is suggested for this cultural unit. This is due to the sheltered nature of the site, the presence of ceramic remains from different vessels (suggesting people were staying in one place long enough to need and use ceramic storage, although due to the presence of hearths, they may have more likely been used for cooking), and the inferred presence of a tipi ring with a central hearth feature (Landals 1990:I:286, 288).

DjPm-36: The Snyder Farm Locality

Overview

DjPm-36 is located on the North Fork of the Oldman River at its confluence with the

Crowsnest River (Figure 2). The site was first recorded by Brian Reeves in 1965 as part of a program of study which involved the initial investigation of alternate reservoir sites within the region (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992). The site was recorded on the basis of Besant, Plains Side- notched, and trade metal points, as well as trade beads, shown to Reeves by the tenant of the property. The site was returned to in 1985 and 1986 as part of the HRIA, where a series of backhoe tests were carried out in order to determine the extent of the site (Reeves 1987; Van

Dyke and Unfreed 1992). The site was revisited again and fully excavated in 1988, 1989, and

1990 as part of the Oldman River Dam Mitigation program (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

The site itself is composed of a series of four individual terraces that cover an area of

11.5 hectares: a flood plain, a fossil floodplain, and two higher terraces which contain aggregational deposits from an earlier stage in the evolution of the Oldman River system. The terraces range in elevation from 3 to 12 m above the present level of the river.

Two locations of high archaeological importance were noted, one in the northwest portion of the site, named the Snyder Farm Locality, and another 276 m to the southeast, named the Welsch Locality. The Snyder Farm Locality yielded a series of occupations spanning 6000 years, while the Welsch Locality represented pre-Mazama occupations dating between 7450 BP and 8390 BP. Due to the nature of this research, only the Snyder Farm Locality will be outlined below since it is materials from this locality that are used in this thesis. This Locality is located in the extreme northwest corner of the landform, on the edge of a 6 m terrace on the east bank of the Oldman River. It includes undisturbed lands between a rock outcrop to the north, a former

38 garden to the south, and between the terrace edge to the west and the back of the terrace on the east.

In total, 191 square meters and 1752 levels were excavated at the Snyder Farm Locality in five major excavation blocks, with interconnecting backhoe trenches.

Methodology

Horizontal provenience was recorded by 1x1 m units and vertical provenience employed

10 cm arbitrary levels. Excavation units were shovel shaved, with features mapped in place. All sediments were screened through a standard CRM wire mesh (6 mm; 1/4 inch) power screen.

Feature fill samples, soil samples, radiocarbon samples, and thermo-luminescence samples were recovered (Van Dyke et al. 1990).

Artifacts were grouped according to cultural material units (CMUs) on the basis of diagnostic artifacts, cultural and natural stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dates. These CMUs were then integrated across blocks and between sites into “Sub-Components” which represent local, project wide expressions of a particular precontact campsite cultural unit. These Sub-

Components are considered part of larger Components, which are expressions of regional precontact cultural units which integrate the results of the kill sites and stone circle sites in the area (Van Dyke et al. 1990; Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

Natural Stratigraphy

The natural stratigraphy of the Snyder Farm Locality is fairly consistent, with observed differences between profiles being associated with upper sediments and consisting primarily of recognizable paleosols. The correlated depths between profiles varied by, on average, about 5 cm. Basal sediments were encountered at 210 cm in the northern area of the locality and between

220 and 240 cm in the southern section. Basal sediments were composed of rounded cobbles

39 mixed with gravel, and were overlain by clayey silts and sands grading to silts. Above 130 cm, sediments are composed of compacted sand and silt, which exhibit discontinuous lenses of darkening representing paleosols. The paleosols represent at least four major periods of soil formation (Van Dyke 2008:94-95).

Cultural Components

Six components were identified at the Snyder Farm Locality. They are characterized by occupations represented by living floors marked by the presence of unmodified cobbles and fire- broken rock features. These components will be discussed briefly, with a more detailed exploration of the Old Women’s phase component which was the focus of study for this research.

Component 1: Mummy Cave (5920 ± 170 BP)

CMU 12 is characterized by features consisting of surface burns, possible hearths, lithic remains, and concentrations of bone. There are no unmodified cobbles but there is a small amount of fire-broken rock. Cultural affiliation is based on the presence of Bitterroot projectile points, the radiocarbon date based on bone collagen, and a lack of Mazama ash. The faunal remains suggest the season of occupation to be late winter to spring (Van Dyke 2008; Van Dyke et al. 1990; Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

Component 2: McKean (3670 ± 130 BP)

This component (CMU 25 and CMU 26) is found between 100 and 120 cm below surface. It is characterized by a small amount of cultural material consisting of a rock concentration in association with a fire-reddened soil, fire-broken rock, bone fragments, and a small lithic assemblage. The cultural affiliation is based on the presence of one Hanna projectile

40 point and the radiocarbon date based on bone collagen. Unfortunately, no seasonal identifiers were present (Van Dyke 2008; Van Dyke et al 1990; Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

Component 3: Pelican Lake (3000 ± 170 BP)

This component is composed of CMUs 4-7, CMU 16 and 17, CMUs 22-24, CMUs 31-33,

CMU 41, 43, and 44, which are mostly found between 60 and 130 cm below surface. It is characterized by multiple living floors that include features such as hearths (present as fire- reddened soil stains), concentrations of fire-broken rock, distributions of unmodified cobbles, possibly disturbed “tipi” rings, and stone circles. The cultural affiliation is based on the presence of six Pelican Lake projectile points and the radiocarbon date based on bone collagen.

Unfortunately, no seasonal indicators were available for this component (Van Dyke 2008; Van

Dyke et al. 1990; Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

Component 4: Besant (2160 ± 90 BP and 2240 ± 90 BP)

This component is composed of CMU 3, 15, 20, 21, 39, 40, 41, 82, and 83. It is characterized by multiple living floors whose features include a stone circle composed of unmodified cobbles containing two areas of fire-stained soil, fire-broken rock, unmodified cobbles, reddened soils, a surface hearth, and a small number of cultural materials including lithic and faunal remains. The cultural affiliation is based on the presence of four Besant Side- notched projectile points and the radiocarbon dates based on bone collagen. Unfortunately, there were no seasonal indicators present (Van Dyke 2008; Van Dyke et al. 1990; Van Dyke and

Unfreed 1992).

Component 5: Avonlea

This component is composed of CMU 2, which has a single living floor associated with a paleosol. The living floor includes unmodified cobbles dispersed along the perimeter of the

41 excavation block, a patch of fire-reddened soil in association with a cluster of fire-broken rock, and various material culture remains including lithic and faunal remains. The cultural affiliation is based on the presence of an Avonlea Side-notched projectile point. There were no seasonal indicators or radiocarbon dates for this occupation (Van Dyke 2008; Van Dyke et al. 1990; Van

Dyke and Unfreed 1992).

Component 6: Old Women’s Phase (410 ± 90 BP)

This component is composed of CMU 18, 19, and 38 and is characterized by the presence of living floors in the upper 20 to 40 cm of sediments at the site.

CMU 18

CMU 18 is found at a depth of 0 to 20 cm below surface. It is associated with a paleosol and the excavation covered 31 m2 and included 62 10 cm levels. The living floor that defines this

CMU has a small diameter stone circle (deemed a “toy lodge”) and areas of fire-reddened soil and ash. The assemblage consists of 125 unmodified cobbles and 113 pieces of fire-broken rock

(Van Dyke et al. 1990:205).

The faunal assemblage is dominated by bison, with a heavy concentration of unidentified bison bone scrap and limb fragments found within an ash pit. A secondary concentration of unidentified bones was found in the “toy lodge.” A more modest amount of unidentified bison bone was found in a second ash pit, where burned bone was heavily concentrated. Faunal tools were also present in the form of a bone awl and two shell beads (Van Dyke et al. 1990:205).

Besides bison, large canids and a large ungulate were also represented. The bison remains suggest a minimum number of three individuals: one fetal and two mature bison that could not be sexed. The presence of fetal bone suggests a late winter to early spring occupation (Van Dyke et al. 1990:207).

The lithic assemblage includes flakes, tools, and Plains Side-notched projectile points.

This material will be discussed later. The lithic debitage was found throughout the excavation block but tended to be more common in the western half of the block, with a clear concentration around the “toy lodge,” and a less robust concentration around the ash pits. Five projectile points were found in the same units as the “toy lodge,” while a sixth was found 1 m south (Van Dyke et al. 1990:208).

Three ceramic rim sherds were also found, along with 60 ceramic body fragments, all in association with the “toy lodge” (Van Dyke et al 1990:208).

The radiocarbon date of 410 ± 90 BP, based on bone collagen, and the presence of Plains

Side-notched points and ceramic remains, suggests that this cultural occupation is affiliated with the Old Women’s phase (Van Dyke 2008:116; Van Dyke et al. 1990:208).

CMU 19

CMU 19 is found at a depth of 20 to 30 cm below surface, directly below CMU 18. The excavation covered 31 m2 and employed 60 10 cm levels. CMU 19 is defined as a living floor consisting of two fire-broken rock concentrations (Feature 25 and Feature 29) in the northern portion of the block, and a possible arc of unmodified cobbles. In total, there are 127 unmodified cobbles and 414 pieces of fire-broken rock (Van Dyke et al. 1990:209).

Faunal remains were again dominated by bison, with a minimum number of four individuals comprising one unsexed individual under 2 to 4 years, two females older than 2 to

4.5 years, and one fetal bison. Other faunal remains present included two elements from a large canid, one element from a deer, and two freshwater shell fragments. Undifferentiated limb fragments, scrap, and axial bones tended to be found more frequently in the northern area of the excavation block, along the western edge of Feature 25 and Feature 29. The burned bone (which

43 composed 14.1% of the total faunal remains) clustered in Feature 29 and south of Feature 25

(Van Dyke et al. 1990:211). Late winter to early spring is again suggested for the season of occupation due to the presence of female bison and fetal bone (Van Dyke et al. 1990:211).

The lithic assemblage includes flakes, stone tools, and projectile points, which will be discussed in more detail later. Lithic debitage was slightly more common in the northern half of the excavation block but was found across the entire area. Lithic tools were also more likely to be found in the north with almost all formed tools found near Feature 25 (Van Dyke et al.

1990:212).

CMU 38

CMU 38 is located at a depth of 10 to 20 cm below surface, covering 6 m2 and employing

6 10 cm levels. CMU 38 is characterized by a patterned distribution of cobbles representing part of a stone circle. In total, there are 45 unmodified cobbles, 9 pieces of fire-broken rock, as well as faunal and lithic material (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992:102).

The faunal material is uncommon and is again dominated bison, with a minimum of two individuals represented, as well as one deer, one bird, and one unidentified mammal (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992:103).

The lithic material is also minimal, with only 19 flakes, three tools, and one portion of a projectile point (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992:103). This material will be discussed Chapter 5.

This CMU is argued to be Old Women’s phase based on its stratigraphic relationship to materials in CMU 18 (Van Dyke and Unfreed 1992:103).

Overall, when viewed in terms of other sites in the area such as DjPm-44 and DjPm-100,

Van Dyke and Unfreed (1992) suggest that during the Old Women’s phase the area was used as an overwintering campsite by groups that were probably smaller than 30 people.

Summary

All three sites indicate at least one occupation in the winter or early spring, and have a combination of faunal processing activities, lithic tools and debitage, and ceramic fragments. The sites’ dates are 560 ± 80 BP to 380 ± 70 BP for DkPi-2, 460 ± 80 BP for DjPm-126, and 410 ±

90 BP for DjPm-36. The seasonality, material culture, and dates for the sites make them ideal for comparison in terms of material and lithic tool use patterns.

Chapter 4: Lithic Remains and Mobility

Understanding precontact mobility has been an important focus for archaeologists as it can elucidate certain aspects of a culture, including subsistence, sociopolitical organization, and social inequality (Kelly 1992). Because lithic remains preserve well and are ubiquitous amongst the archaeological remains of forager societies, they can be central for understanding precontact mobility and settlement patterns.

Source Provenance

One aspect of lithic mobility studies involves determining the source location of lithic materials present in a site. By determining the various locations where lithic material originated, archaeologists can achieve a measure of the territorial range of ancient hunter-gatherers. It should be noted that proportions of known sources at each site only indicate the minimal extent of a group’s territory. Ingbar (1994) demonstrated this through a series of three hypothetical simulations. In these simulations, “actors” visited three separate sources in their seasonal round, two of which had variations in the number of tool discard events between sources, and one in which the toolkit had to be maintained at 100 tools. Each simulation ran for 13 seasonal rounds and within these three hypothetical situations, only in the simulation where the toolkit had to contain 100 tools did all three sources consistently appear in all 13 toolkit states (Ingbar

1994:89).

Lithic materials can also enter the site through trade or exchange, rather than direct procurement. This can complicate our understanding of a group’s territorial range and will be discussed in more depth later in the chapter.

Since sourcing lithic material only gives an indication of the foraging range of precontact people it must be combined with other forms of lithic analysis in order to reconstruct precontact mobility patterns.

Mobility

Mobility not only entails the size of the geographic range, but also the frequency of moves, which is related to the length of occupation span, and who actually moves (individuals or the entire group) (Andrefsky 1998; Jones et al. 2003). Binford (1980) introduced the concepts of residential and logistical mobility to better define and conceptualize how hunter-gatherers move across a landscape and exploit resources. Residentially mobile groups (termed “foragers”) occupy an area for a relatively short time span, foraging within the immediate area surrounding their residential base. The residential base, comprising the entire group, is moved as resources within the foraging radius are depleted (Binford 1980). Binford (1980:10) describes this form of mobility as one that “maps onto” resources through residential moves and adjustments in group size. Among foragers, the residential base is the most archaeologically visible being that it is the hub of subsistence activities (Binford 1980:9). It is at the residential base that most processing, manufacturing, and maintenance activities take place, being the locus where foraging parties originate (Binford 1980:9). Binford (1980:9) argues that areas where extractive tasks are exclusively carried out, termed a “location,” are almost invisible archaeologically due to the fact that they tend to be “low bulk” procurement sites. Low bulk means that very limited quantities are procured at location sites, with the result being that they are only occupied for a very short period of time and tools are rarely maintained, exhausted, and abandoned at these sites.

Logistical mobility, on the other hand, relies on task groups to procure resources from distant sites, often too far from the residential base to return to the same day. These task groups

47 do not search for any resource encountered, but rather they seek to procure specific resources in specific contexts (Binford 1980:10). In this manner, logistically mobile groups (termed

“collectors”) are tethered to a more permanent residential base (compared to residentially mobile groups), with mobility being restricted to subgroups of individuals, rather than the entire group

(Binford 1980). Thus, while foragers use residential moves to map onto resources, collectors use logistics to supply themselves with specific resources through specially organized task groups.

Because of this form of mobility and resource collection, collectors tend to be distinctly different from foragers in their archaeological visibility.

First, the residential base camp, because it is occupied in one location for a relatively long period of time when compared to forager residential bases, can result in much more debris build up, which may result in a more segregated camp layout. Second, collectors also have locations where they collect and process raw materials, but because they are often procuring resources for groups much larger than themselves, the debris generated may be much greater than that seen at forager locations; this also means that collector locations are far more archaeologically visible than forager locations (Binford 1980:10). Third, collectors generate three additional types of sites that foragers do not: these include the “field camp,” the “station,” and the “cache” (Binford 1980:10). Field camps are the operation centers for task groups, where they sleep, eat, and maintain themselves while away from the residential base. Stations are where task groups engage in the information gathering necessary for exploiting their specific resource targets, such as a hunting stand where game can be observed in order to develop a hunting strategy (Binford 1980:12). Caches are facilities that are created for storage, which is often necessary due to the large bulk of resources being procured by a relatively small group that must be transported to consumers (Binford 1980:12).

While it is clear that foragers and collectors as defined by Binford (1980) will produce very different archaeological signatures, it must be understood that they are not polar opposites, but rather two ends on a continuum. Hunter-gatherer systems are very likely to employ features of both foraging and collecting and therefore it is the degree of emphasis on each strategy that can help archaeologists elucidate past mobility.

Therefore, in order to understand human land-use patterns, it must be determined how the organization of lithic technology relates to the frequency and organization of hunter-gatherer movement.

Organization of Technology

One aspect of lithic technology that is believed to be strongly correlated to hunter- gatherer land-use patterns is the organization of technology. Kelly (1988:717) defines the organization of technology as “the spatial and temporal juxtaposition of the manufacture of different tools within a cultural system”. This includes how their use, reuse and discard relates to tool function, raw material type and distribution, as well as to the behaviors that mediate the relations between activity, manufacturing, and raw-material loci. This can help elucidate group mobility since, as Kelly states:

There is no necessary relation between the locations of food and lithic resources;

therefore, a stone tool must solve the problem of spatial and temporal differences

between the locations of raw material and the locations of stone tool use while

meeting the functional needs of the task(s) for which the tool is used. Stones

weigh too much for a mobile people to carry more than needed, yet tool needs

cannot always be anticipated precisely; therefore, mobility simultaneously

dictates tool needs and access to raw material [Kelly 1988:718].

Hence, how a group uses their lithic tools will reflect the different adaptations necessary for different mobility strategies. As such, if one can determine how the organization of technology differs between a more residential vs. a more logisitical form of mobility, then an analysis of lithic assemblages can be used to elucidate group mobility patterns.

Four theories will be discussed below, each theory using a different aspect of the organization of technology to understand mobility. Three of the theories—tool form, patterns in the tools and debitage, and intersite variability—elucidate the degree of mobility (logistical vs. residential) from the organization of technology. The fourth theory—distance-decay—uses the organization of technology to determine the directionality of movement of the group’s seasonal round.

Tool Form

Tool form is one aspect of the organization of technology that is theorized to reflect mobility strategies. Both ethnographic and archaeological evidence has been used to elucidate how these two aspects of hunter-gatherer life intersect.

Expedient vs. Curated Tools

Binford (1979) developed the theory of expedient vs. curated technologies to help understand how lithic tool technology relates to logistically organized hunter-gatherer land-use patterns. However, archaeologists have attempted to expand on this theory in order to understand how the organization of technology differs between logistically organized and residentially mobile hunter-gatherers.

Expedient tools are defined as quickly made tools that are unstandardized with regards to form (Binford 1979:266). They are manufactured, used, and discarded over a relatively short period of time and are regarded as situational gear that is put to use in response to conditions, rather than in anticipation of events (Binford 1979:266). This is considered highly wasteful of lithic raw material and is associated with more sedentary populations (Andrefsky 1994; Carr

1994; Jeske 1992; Odell 1994a, 1998; Parry and Kelly 1987; Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004).

Expedient tools are preferred by more sedentary populations because, once the weight restriction imposed by high mobility is removed, they take less time and energy to produce, have sharper edges than facially flaked tools, do not require good quality raw material, and they are quite effective at completing most tasks (Andrefsky 1994; Jeske 1992; Railey 2010). While the definition and form of expedient tools has been widely agreed upon and accepted by archaeologists, curated tools have posed more of a problem.

Binford (1973; 1979) defined curation as tools that are produced and maintained in anticipation of future use, while maximizing the utility of tools by carrying them between successive settlements. While this definition gives a fairly straight-forward contrast to expedient technologies, it still begs the question of what, exactly, curation looks like in the archaeological record, and how it relates to group mobility. Bamforth (1986:39) addresses this question by defining five aspects of tool curation which could guide archaeologists in their attempts to recognize curation on tools and in lithic debitage. These include: 1) production of implements in advance of use; 2) design of implements for multiple uses; 3) transport of implements from location to location; 4) maintenance; and 5) recycling.

Andrefsky (1994) borrows Bamforth’s curation aspects of advanced preparation, anticipated use, and transportability to define “formal tools,” which he describes as flexible tools,

51 designed to be rejuvenated and having the potential to be redesigned for use in various functions

(Andrefsky 1994:22). Andrefsky (1994) links formal tools to more residentially mobile populations with short site occupation spans, the logic being that formal tools minimize risk by providing a constant supply of functional tools in regions where they cannot be manufactured either due to lack of suitable material or preparation time (Andrefsky 1994; Kelly 1992; Riel-

Salvatore and Barton 2004). This conflicts with the original theory set forth by Binford (1979), since he defined curation in respect to the Nunamiut, a logistically organized hunter-gatherer group.

Odell (1996) also noted this problem while exploring the definition of curation as it relates to hunter-gatherer mobility and settlement patterns with data from the Illinois Valley. In this study, Odell (1996) researched the two aspects of curation that he believed to be the most testable archaeologically, those of tool preparation in advance of use and tools designed for multiple uses. In terms of preparation in advance of use, Odell (1996) looked at hafting usewear, and found that hafting usewear traces in the data increased through time, suggesting greater curation, which he argued was the result of a gradual change to more logistical organization.

To determine changes in the amount of tools designed for multiple uses, Odell (1996) looked at the change in proportion of bifaces, a tool type which is thought to be multifunctional

(Kelly 1988) and was confirmed to be so in this area through usewear analysis. What he found was that the number of bifaces decreased through time, while other tools did not, which would suggest a decrease in curation and therefore a move towards a more residentially mobile foraging strategy.

At first, based on this study, it would seem that the concept of curation is not a reliable theory for understanding hunter-gatherer mobility. However, Odell (1996:67) looked at the

52 adaptive strategies in which these two tool technologies (hafted tools and bifaces) would be desirable and found them to be at odds with each other. Hafted tools, or those prepped in advance of a known use, are crafted for reliability of implements on solitary or small-group forays and single-encounter situations (Odell 1994a:54; Odell 1996:67). Bifaces, or tools designed for multiple uses, on the other hand, is a generalistic strategy that emphasizes easy maintenance and continuous encounters with potentially different resources, a strategy associated with more mobile foragers. Hence, it makes sense that the number of bifaces would decline while the number of hafted tools increased as groups adopted more logistically organized strategies.

We can also look at this discrepancy in terms of risk. When discussing risk, I am not only referring to the probability of failure, but also to the magnitude (or cost) of the consequences of that failure (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). For foragers, in terms of securing food, for example, the magnitude of failure is low and therefore they can absorb a higher probability of failure. This is because it would only be a small amount that was meant to feed a small number of people for a short time, and another chance at success will probably happen shortly, whether it is due to a diverse diet or abundant resources within the environment (Bousman 1993). This means that for highly mobile forager groups, because the magnitude of risk is low, minimizing the probability of risk is not their primary concern. Rather, they must create a technology that meets the greatest demand, which is need for easily transportable tools that can be used for a variety of unexpected tasks, which allows them to maintain the probability of failure at a sustainable level.

For collectors, especially those like the bison hunters of the Plains who target a large number of animals for a constricted period of time, even if the probability of loss is low, the magnitude of failure is extremely high. If a collector group fails in its attempts to secure a large

53 number of animals that will be used for winter stores for a large number of people, the effect will greatly decrease the group’s ability to secure enough food to survive the winter (Bousman 1993).

Therefore, because the magnitude of failure is so high, collectors must attempt to decrease the probability of failure as much as possible, and technology is one way in which they can do this

(Bamforth and Bleed 1997; Odell 1994a).

Torrence (1983) notes a similar phenomenon, but frames it as a result of time stress, where those groups that rely on hunting migratory animals (such as bison) are limited in the time available for capture of these resources due to their high mobility and seasonal occurrence in a certain area. Therefore, production of tools must be planned in order not to detract from the small amount of pursuit time and be manufactured well in advance of sighting the game. Due to this severe time restriction in procuring game resources, there will be no time to repair any tools until the game has been secured, with the result being that large amounts of time and energy are invested in the production and maintenance of hunting equipment, long before their use is required, in order to insure that tools will not break during the task that must be completed on a restrictive schedule.

Although Torrence (1983) relates this type of technological response to time stress, the underlying issue facing a hunter-gatherer group with this type of subsistence strategy is the magnitude of risk. The magnitude of risk involved in relying on a resource that is available for only a short period of time is much higher than it would be for a group that relies on a resource that is readily available for a long period of time, effectively equating time stress with high risk.

As can be seen, although both foragers and collectors seek to decrease the probability of failure, the magnitude of failure varies for foragers vs. collectors, and therefore differing technological strategies must be employed by these groups in order to mitigate risk. We must

54 then ask the question that if both foragers and collectors use curation as part of their technological organization, how do they differ from one another and can we determine the difference archaeologically?

Reliable vs. Maintainable Organization of Technology

Bleed (1986), expanding on many of the ideas put forth by Torrence (1983) and relating them to mobility, addresses this question by dividing curated tools into forms that are either meant to be reliable or maintainable. Within this theoretical framework, Bleed (1986) focuses on the challenges faced by engineers as analogous to those faced by stone tool manufacturers; both are concerned with creating a technology that is efficient, that is, the amount of output of system divided by the amount of input or “cost” to create and maintain it, and one that has high availability, defined as the amount of time that the system is available to do its job (Bleed

1986:739). Bleed (1986:79) argues that in order to meet these goals, a system can either be reliable, wherein its ability to function is assured no matter what happens, or it can be maintainable, in which it can be quickly be brought to a functional state no matter if it is broken or unsuitable for the task at hand.

Reliable systems are characterized by parts that are overdesigned (i.e., they are made stronger than they minimally need to be); there are redundant and standby components; the system is under-stressed (i.e., it is not used at its full capacity); it has carefully fitted parts; and the craftsmanship is of high quality (Bleed 1986:Table 1). In addition to these characteristics, a generalized repair kit is used which includes basic raw materials. This is because the system is not designed to breakdown and therefore problems may occur unpredictably, requiring the user to be able to replace any component at any time. Another feature of reliable systems is that they

55 are generally maintained during scheduled “downtimes,” so their maintenance events are separated from their use events (Bleed 1986:740).

Reliable systems are extremely costly in terms of time and raw material due to their reliance on overdesigned and redundant parts. They are also bulky, which makes them more difficult and expensive to transport since more mobile populations are limited by what they can carry, with the estimate for a family being no more than 1–2 kg of stone (Close 1996). Due to this high cost, they are restricted to hunter-gatherer groups who face a very distinct set of circumstances in which the advantages of increased availability and reliability outweigh the costs.

First, for this type of system to be desirable, the costs of system failure (or magnitude of risk) must be extremely high (Bleed 1986:741). This would include hunter-gatherer groups who practice an “encounter” strategy (Binford 1979:85), where they focus either on hunting a specific large game, or a seasonally abundant game which provides food for the group long past the season in which it is available. If a hunter-gatherer group practicing this strategy were to fail in their hunt due to the failure of their tools, they risk the starvation of the entire group, hence the cost of failure is high.

Second, situations that make it easy to predict when and for how long a system will be needed are also appropriate for reliable systems (Bleed 1986:741). This is because there is predictable downtime, during which it is known that the tools will not be needed, in which they can be created and maintained; this lowers the overall costs of those activities, increasing the overall efficiency of the system (Bleed 1986:741).

Third, highly specialized, repetitive activities tend to be best suited to reliable systems

(Bleed 1986:741). Within these systems, because the activities are known in advance, a tool can

56 be designed to complete a task in the most efficient way possible. By increasing the efficiency of resource extraction through tools designed for the intended task, the overall efficiency for the system is increased. In addition, if tasks are specialized and known in advance, only a portion of the entire toolkit needs to be transported, reducing carrying costs (Binford 1979:263; Bousman

1993:73; Shott 1986).

Finally, reliable systems are best suited to situations where bulk and weight are not important (Bleed 1986:741). This would only be possible in situations where group mobility was reduced and/or pack animals were used to help transport the system due to the fact that, as previously discussed, the costs to transport a heavy and bulky toolkit quickly outweigh any advantages it may incur. As Close (1996) notes, cattle may have been used in the Safsaf region to cache large quantities of stone in a raw material poor area that was reoccupied from year to year. Shott (1986) also cites the use of dog teams and water transport by high-latitude groups to increase their bulk transport capacity, which may account for the complexity of arctic technologies. Therefore, the presence of pack animals to decrease carrying cost must be considered when making interpretations based on reliable vs. maintainable tools.

Since these characteristics of mobility all reflect a logistically organized strategy

(Bousman 1993:71), it is no surprise that an example of a group that uses a reliable system is the

Nunamiut. Binford (1979:262) makes note that what he termed “personal gear” was heavily curated and selected for anticipated, known activities, as well as possible mishaps that may happen. This meant that personal gear varied based on the purpose of the expedition and the mode of transportation (both of which were often seasonally mandated). In addition, personal gear was always inspected before going into the field in order to ensure that it would not fail when it was most needed (Binford 1979:263), thus the creation, maintenance, and, often, discard

57 of tools was separated from their use events. Tools were also made with great consideration for quality since they were not limited by time constraints (Binford 1979:267). In terms of mishaps, the Nunamiut emphasized a need for a “backup strategy” in case of a failure in the planned strategy, which is often met through including redundant parts in their field gear; this was highlighted by Binford (1979:261) in his mention of a man who carried backup flint cores as part of his regular field gear even though he had never used a stone tool in his life.

A reliable system is desirable for the Nunamiut for a multitude of reasons. First, they practice an encounter hunting strategy based on the migration of caribou in which the costs of failure would be devastating. This is because they obtain more than 70 percent of their yearly food from the thirty days they spend hunting these caribou herds (Binford 1979:256). Second, task groups participate in specialized activities, the timing of which is often extremely predictable. Not only does this allow predictable downtimes for tool maintenance (Binford

1979:263) but also allowed tools to be more specialized for the predicted tasks. Finally, they are not overly constrained by carrying costs due to their use of embedded procurement (where lithic material is procured during the completion of other tasks) as well as their methods of transport

(sleds in the winter and canoes in the summer), allowing them to carry more raw material than was needed at the time. This raw material could also be cached as “insurance gear” (Binford

1979:256) at various sites; these caches can also include redundant systems.

Maintainable systems are characterized by being generally light and portable; having a series design in which each component does its own unique job; and, due to the series design, points of failure can be predicted and, therefore, they also have a modular design so that if one component fails it can be easily replaced. They are also designed for partial function, that is, if one component fails they can still function, but less efficiently (Bleed 1986:Table 1). In addition,

58 maintenance and use events are not separated. Tools are fixed when broken and maintained as needed, and repair kits include spare parts and tools designed for specific and anticipated repairs

(Bleed 1986:740).

The costs of this type of system is low, but again, since maintainable tools have a higher failure rate than reliable tools they may not always be available when needed, and therefore are only desirable for hunter-gatherers living in a certain set of circumstances.

First, maintainable systems are best suited for hunter-gatherers that have unpredictable schedules (Bleed 1986:741). This is because unpredictable schedules often require tools designed to perform a range of applications, which are best designed to be maintainable (Bleed 1986:741).

This is due to the fact that maintainable tools can be altered as needed to meet the task at hand.

Second, the cost of tool failure (or magnitude of risk) must be low (Bleed 1986:741).

This is due to the fact that maintainable tools are more likely to fail and may need to be altered/maintained before they can be used. When resources are continually available but on an unpredictable schedule, the cost of failure is lowered since the individual/group is not dependent on a resource that has a limited time frame for its successful extraction. In these situations, the ability to adapt a tool system to the resource encountered is far more beneficial than having a reliable tool that would be unable to do the unexpected task.

Finally, maintainable systems are best suited in situations where limits on construction, size, or weight are important (Bleed 1986:741). This is due to the fact that a small number of tools can do a large number of tasks, reducing the overall weight and bulk of the system. This would be most beneficial in lowering the carrying costs of highly mobile groups with unpredictable schedules which require them to carry their entire toolkit.

Maintainable systems are therefore best suited for hunter-gatherer groups practicing a residential foraging approach (Bousman 1993:71), with the !Kung San being an excellent example of such a group that uses a maintainable system. Their tools are described as being “few in number, lightweight…and multi-purpose” (Lee 1979:119). For example, the !Kung hunting toolkit is light weight, allowing it to be carried at all times, ready to be used if game is sighted

(Lee 1979:135). This reflects the unpredictable but continually available nature of game resources extracted by the !Kung. The !Kung hunting toolkit is also fairly generalized, being used at all times in the same form and not changing with the season. It is also supplemented with spare parts which can be seen in Lee’s (1979:135) description of the fact that only a few arrows are ready to use, with additional arrows, unfinished main shafts, and link shafts being carried at all times, allowing more arrows to be made with only an hour’s work (Lee 1979:135). This description also reflects the fact that predictable downtimes for tool maintenance did not exist, and therefore tool maintenance and use events could overlap.

Reliable and maintainable tools reflect design alternatives that a hunter-gatherer group can employ to exploit various situations. This means that a group may not use only reliable tools or only maintainable tools, but rather they may emphasize one over the other. In addition, they may increase reliability of a system by designing them to have the basic characteristics of reliability with features of maintainability (Bleed 1986:740). Another possibility is that the type of system may vary seasonally depending on mobility and how resources are being exploited.

Shott (1986) expresses a similar theory concerning tool design in his study of ethnographic tool use by various hunter-gatherer groups, but expresses it as a focus on tool diversity. In this study, he notes a strong correlation between the frequency (the number of residential moves per year) and, to a lesser extent, the magnitude (the distance) of moves, and the

60 diversity of tools within the hunter-gatherer toolkit; namely, as residential mobility increases, tools tend to become smaller and lighter and assume a greater range of uses, hence, tools become less specialized and more multifunctional in character (Shott 1986). Shott (1986) suggests this is a result of the transport capacity of the group, in other words, the greater the mobility of a group, the greater the amount of energy expended in transportation, and therefore the greater effort by the group to minimize the amount it carries. This is highlighted by an examination of ethnographic groups that are more logistically organized. Shott (1986) recognizes that only a portion of a group’s toolkit needs to be transported when engaging in logistical forays, since these forays are for a known and specific task, resulting in lower carrying costs and allowing greater tool diversity. The fact that different logistic moves are likely to have different purposes is also argued to result in more specialized tools being produced for use in the forays, which would also serve to increase tool diversity (Shott 1986:29). In addition, collectors have a comparatively low frequency of residential moves which also serves to reduce the carrying costs and allow for a greater number of tools.

As can be seen, Shott’s (1986) theory on hunter-gatherer tool diversity aligns closely with

Bleed’s (1986) theory of maintainable vs. reliable tools. Both argue that as residential mobility increases, tools become less specialized and more multifunctional, while more specialized and task-specific tools are preferred by logistically organized collectors.

Carr (1994) used Bleed’s theory of reliable vs. maintainable tools to understand the

Hayes site located in Tennessee; a site in an area with only low quality lithic materials, but with accessible high quality materials.

Carr (1994:38) predicted that if the site was a forager residence, there would be a maintainable technology of non-local chert, specifically large bifaces, as well as local material in

61 the form of expedient tools and the replacement of curated tools of non-local material with local material. The local material debitage is assumed to be primarily early and middle stage flakes, which would reflect the manufacture of both expedient and maintainable tools. The non-local material is assumed to be primarily reflected in the middle and late stage debitage due to the use of large bifaces as cores, and the maintenance and resharpening of curated tools (Carr 1994:38).

If the site was a collector’s residential base camp, it is predicted that there would be a predominance of reliable tools of non-local material, including bifacial cores and finely crafted reliable tools, while local material would be present as expedient tools. The debitage at a collector’s base camp is predicted to have local material dominate the early stage debitage since it is primarily being used for expedient tools. The majority of the non-local material is expected to be late stage, due to the maintenance and resharpening of reliable tools, with a smaller amount of middle stage debitage based on the use of bifacial cores (Carr 1994:38).

If the site was a collector’s field camp, Carr (1994:38) predicted that there would be almost exclusively reliable technology of non-local material, evidenced by broken tools and resharpening flakes, with little reduction debris (Carr 1994:38).

When Carr (1994) compared the three components at the site (early Middle Archaic, late

Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic) he found that while some components adhered quite well to the predictions (i.e., the early Middle Archaic component fit well with the predictions for a forager residential camp), others, especially the late Middle Archaic, were troublesome. For example, in the late Middle Archaic assemblage, non-local material accounted for a high percentage of early stage debitage, with middle and late stage reduction much lower than expected. Carr (1994:42) suggests that this evidence fits best with a forager residence only because it fits slightly better than that predicted for a collector camp.

Carr’s (1994) study suggests that the relationship between mobility and lithic technology is quite complex and many factors of the lithic assemblage must be considered in order to achieve a reliable theory concerning mobility. A more comprehensive approach, combining aspects of debitage analysis, retouch intensity, and usewear analysis, in addition to tool form is necessary to fully understand the technological organization of precontact people.

Tool Form: The Form of Maintainable and Reliable Tools

Within this theoretical framework, what, exactly, does a maintainable tool look like vs. a reliable one? In regards to maintainable tools, Kuhn (1994) attempts to address the question in his study of the attributes of mobile toolkits that are potentially measurable archaeologically. In this study, Kuhn (1994) relates the transport costs, durability, and potential versatility of artifacts to a single variable—artifact size. As such, he asks two questions: “(1) should people carry cores or tools/tool blanks, and (2) should they transport a few larger artifacts or a larger number of small ones?” (Kuhn 1994:426). Using a utility/mass equation, he determines, due to the need to optimize tool utility while keeping weight down, that carrying many smaller flake tools, as long as they are within 1.5 to 3 times the minimal usable size, is the most economical option.

However, Kuhn (1994) concedes that there are situations in which the anticipated use of a tool may take precedence over its transportation costs. Namely, the need for large, heavy-duty choppers in the butchering of large animals. Although these tools can often be made expediently on low-quality raw material, there are regions where such material is unavailable, and therefore it is beneficial to carry at least one relatively massive object. Close (1999) also notes in her study of three sites in Egypt that tool form can take precedence over economics. Namely, backed flint bladelets appeared incredibly uniform in size, regardless of distance from the lithic source material, suggesting that bladelets were required to be a specific size by the social groups that

63 manufactured them. This resulted in relatively massive cores that were suitable for the production of bladelets to be transported to sites great distances from their original quarry location. In addition, since flint was only used to manufacture bladelets, cores were discarded when they could no longer produce blanks of suitable size, even though the cores could still have produced usable flake blanks of smaller size (Close 1999:31).

However, Kuhn’s utility/mass equation has been criticized by Morrow (1996). Morrow notes a critical flaw in Kuhn’s (1994) equation in that he measures utility in only one dimension, while dividing the utility by the three-dimensional measure of mass. The problem lies in the fact that the unusable portion of a tool also has three dimensions—a width, a thickness, and a weight.

By adjusting the equation to reflect this, Morrow (1996:584) argues that the relationship between usable and unusable portions of a stone tool is better elucidated. This new equation shows that, if the minimum usable size of a tool is held constant, then as tool size increases, so does the usable component of the tool. It follows then that, instead of a number of small tools, it would be more efficient for mobile hunter-gatherers to carry fewer, larger tools. This is made clear when one considers the relative volume of waste that each tool contributes to the total gear; if the unusable portion is held constant, by carrying around many small tools an individual is carrying a greater volume of unusable material. Essentially, larger stone tools maximize the utility/mass ratio, with a few large stone tools accomplishing the same volume of work (i.e., they have a longer use-life) as many smaller stone tools for a much lower transportation cost (Morrow 1996). The shorter use-life of smaller tools would also require more frequent replacement, which could result in a greater cumulative investment of time in tool manufacture. Finally, large stone tools have a greater capacity for reworking and recycling, making them more flexible and able to better meet the requirements of maintainability as discussed by Bleed (1986).

Morrow (1996) also undertakes experimental work to test the efficiency of small

(weighing 14 gm), medium (25 gm), and large (56 gm) knives for sawing a wooden dowel. He found that the small knife was extremely ineffective and that the large knife was much more efficient than either the small or medium sized knives, with the large knife completing the sawing task in one-fifth the time required by the small knife. The large knife was also noted to be more comfortable to work with compared to the other two knives. The small and medium knife were then hafted, and it was noted that it improved the performance of both tools by about 50 percent, but with the medium sized knife still being more effective than the small one. Odell

(1994a:54) also notes hafting as a method used by logistically organized collectors to extend the use-life of tools by making small implements more useful, in addition to increasing reliability.

Morrow (1996:587) also notes the drawbacks to hafting for a mobile group, namely, the increased investments in time, materials, and labour, and the increase in size and composite weight of the tool.

This suggests that if hafting reduces the maintainability and portability of a tool, as discussed previously, then more mobile groups may lean towards larger tool forms which may be considered exhausted much earlier than those of logistically organized hunter-gatherers. In addition, hafting can increase the diversity of tool forms since hafting often requires extensive retouch of a tool to fit in a haft and therefore results in more distinct morpho-typological types

(Keeley 1982:801; Rots 2010:4). This is consistent with both Bleed’s (1986) and Shott’s (1986) theories that tool diversity increases as mobility decreases. Therefore, we may expect less retouch intensity on the discarded maintainable tools of more residentially mobile groups than on the discarded reliable tools of more sedentary groups.

Morrow’s (1996) theory conforms well to Kelly’s (1988) discussion on the role of bifaces among mobile hunter-gatherers. Kelly (1988:718) suggests that bifaces can serve three purposes:

1. As cores which can create thin, sharp flakes that can be used as tools. Kelly

(1998:718) notes that bifacial cores have more usable flake edge that can be

produced than a percussion core of a similar weight because the flakes removed

from bifaces have a higher edge-to-weight ratio. Kelly (1988:718) goes on to

suggest that this is indicative of a need to prepare for a variety of unknown tasks

in areas where it is not known if raw material will be available.

2. As long use-life tools, since a bifacially flaked edge can be quite sharp

(although not as sharp as an unretouched edge) and also much more durable

than an unmodified flake. Bifacial tools also have a similar microtopography

along all the edges and should an edge become dull, it can be resharpened

quickly. Thus, bifacial tools provide sharpness, durability, and the potential to

be resharpened, unlike expedient tools, which is highlighted by experiments

conducted by Odell and Cowan (1986).

3. As a by-product of stylistic or shaping concerns. This includes the idea that

tools may be distinctive to their manufacturer or the social group, or that a tool

may be worked bifacially in order to fit a pre-existing haft. Kelly (1988:718)

quotes Keeley’s (1982) observation that most hafts are more difficult and time-

consuming to manufacture than stone tools, and therefore the stone will be fitted

to the haft. This means that the bifacialness of these tools is not as intrinsic to

their function as it is for the other two types of bifaces.

As per the descriptions of maintainable vs. reliable tools provided by Bleed (1986), it may be suggested that bifaces that fit the second type would fall under the concept of maintainable, while those that fall into the third type might best be described as reliable, and, in fact, Kelly (1988:719) states as much. The use of bifaces as cores could be argued to be common for both foragers and collectors, depending on the quality of locally available material and the preference for certain materials for specific tool types, which is discussed in more detail below.

Again, it should be stated that both foragers and collectors will use maintainable and reliable tools, it is merely a matter of emphasis on one form of technology over the other.

Railey (2010:260) agrees with Kelly’s (1988) assessment of bifaces as maintainable tools, noting that, in addition to their extended use-life, they can be retooled to meet a variety of tasks, and can serve as blanks for spear or dart points while also being used as tools themselves.

In addition, bifacial tools and cores are noted to allow the flintknapper a high degree of control over the length, width, and thickness of a potential flake, and therefore is less likely to waste lithic material. However, Kelly’s (1988) argument that bifaces are more economical as cores for the production of flake tools has been called into question during experimental studies conducted by Prasciunas (2007), who noted that there are no significant differences in the amount of usable flake edge produced using bifacial cores vs. less standardized, amorphous cores. This suggests that bifaces are no more efficient than nonstandardized cores. Despite this, bifacial cores may still have been preferred among highly mobile groups since bifaces are less bulky than more globular or amorphous cores, and therefore easier to transport (Prasciunas 2007). This does suggest, however, that more mobile foragers may use bifacial cores while more sedentary groups, even in areas with little to no good quality material, may use more amorphous cores

67 since they do not have to concern themselves with transportability as much as more mobile foragers, although there is nothing preventing them from using bifacial cores as well.

In sum, maintainable tools can be identified by their undefined shape, often noted as being simply “bifaces” with no obvious purpose or specific task elucidated by their form; they are often unhafted; and they may be larger than reliable tools, resulting from the need to be held comfortably in the hand. Reliable tools, on the other hand, will have distinct forms designed for a specific task; they will often be hafted; and, due to hafting, they may be smaller than maintainable tools.

Tool Form: Versatility and Flexibility

Another way to identify reliable vs. maintainable tools archaeologically is to determine tool versatility and flexibility. Shott (1986) suggests determining versatility (defined as the number of task applications) by the number of “employable units” (EUs), defined as the continuous edge or projection that is appropriate for performing a task. While versatility concerns the number of task applications per tool, flexibility refers to the range of those applications (i.e., a tool used for three different tasks that relate to tool manufacture is less flexible than a tool that’s task applications include tool manufacture and hunting) (Shott 1986).

To determine this, the range of EUs and the evenness of distribution of tools across EU categories are employed. More flexible tool classes are those that are more evenly distributed across EU categories.

Usewear is one of the best tools to recognize tool versatility and flexibility, as is apparent in Odell’s (1994b) study of mobility in the Illinois Valley. In this study, usewear was used to identify the number of EUs per tool, as well as the number of different activities and materials tools were used to work, to determine how these varied through time. This was done in an

68 attempt to determine if mobility really did affect the organization of technology in an archaeologically significant way since it is known from various other archaeological evidence that mobility decreased from the Early Archaic through to the Mississippian.

Odell (1994b:76) found that the number of EUs dropped steadily from 2.5 in the Early

Archaic, down to around 2.0 in the Mississippian. The reason for this decrease in the number of

EUs was determined to be increases in the hafting of tools, which made tools more reliable, but decreased the number of edges that could be used (Odell 1994a:66–67, 1994b:76). The number of different activities and worked materials per tool also decreased (Odell 1994b:76), which fits with Bleed’s (1986) theory that reliable tools were used for more specialized tasks while the maintainable tools of more mobile groups are more flexible in function. Thus, both the versatility and flexibility of tools decreased through time, accurately reflecting the move towards decreased mobility in the Illinois Valley.

Summary

It is clear that a strong argument can be made for determining the degree of a group’s mobility from the form of their tools. However, in order to elucidate mobility, multiple methods must be used to ensure that tools are correctly identified as reliable or maintainable. These methods include:

1. Tool weight. This method allows one to determine the overall size of the tool and gives a

suggestion of whether the tool may have been held in the hand (as is common for

maintainable systems) or hafted (which is more indicative of a reliable organization of

technology). There is no specific known weight (or size) that divides hafted from

unhafted tools, which complicates the use of this trait. However, we may assume that

utilized flakes would be held in the hand rather than hafted since hafting often requires

significant reshaping of a stone tool in order to fit it in the haft. Using this assumption,

the weight of utilized tools could be taken as a base comparison for the weight of tools

that could be held comfortably in the hand, and thus tools that are equal or greater in

weight than the utilized flakes in the assemblage could be assumed to have possibly been

handheld, while those below this average weight may presumably have been hafted.

2. Tool diversity. The diversity of tools is strongly tied to a maintainable vs. reliable

organization of technology in that a reliable system will have many specialized tools and

therefore a greater amount of tool diversity than a maintainable system, which will

primarily rely on multipurpose bifaces. Tool diversity can also be indicative of hafting,

since hafting often requires extensive retouch of a tool to fit in a haft and therefore results

in more distinct morpho-typological types (Keeley 1982:801; Rots 2010:4).

3. Retouch intensity. This method may also elucidate if tools were handheld or hafted, and

as such if they were maintainable (handheld) or reliable (hafted). This is due to the fact

that hafted tools can experience a much greater degree of retouch since they can be

smaller than handheld tools. Again, there is no specific degree of retouch that separates

handheld from hafted tools, although it may be reasonable to suggest that tools with an

intensity of retouch of 0.70 or greater may have been hafted. This is because a tool with

this degree of retouch or higher is almost completely exhausted and would most likely be

far too small to hold in the hand.

4. Evidence of hafting. In addition to tool weight and intensity of retouch, evidence of

hafting can also be present in the form of notches, tangs, edge flaking that is not on the

working edge (Rots 2010:4), and usewear.

5. Usewear analysis. Not only can usewear analysis provide evidence of hafting, it can also

be used to determine tool versatility and flexibility. Usewear analysis is well suited for

determining the degree of tool versatility and flexibility since it can provide great insight

into how, exactly, a tool edge was used, and what type of material that edge was used to

work. Again, there is no specific known degree of versatility and flexibility that defines a

maintainable vs. reliable tool, but it would be reasonable to assume that any tool

averaging less than two for versatility and/or flexibility is very task specific and most

likely indicative of a reliable tool. A tool averaging greater than two may be assumed to

have a rather high degree of versatility and/or flexibility and therefore may be more

indicative of a maintainable system.

Mobility and Patterns in the Tools and Debitage

Collectors base camps tend to be occupied for a much longer period of time than foragers’ residential base camps, thus we may expect different patterning in long-use life

(curated) tools made of both exotic and local materials. As Bamforth (1990) noted, being more sedentary means that the group will be forced to replace their curated tools of exotic material with local material, and, depending on how long they stay in one area, the local material may come to dominate the tool assemblage. This is due to the fact that tools made of exotic materials are replaced with local material tools, which, as they complete their use-lives, are replaced with more tools made of local material, resulting in a much higher proportion of tools made on local material in the archaeological assemblage (Holdaway et al. 2010).

Similarly, we might expect that debitage in more sedentary collector base camps will adhere more closely to the discarded tools, especially for exotic material. Again, due to the shorter occupation spans of residential foragers, they may reshape or resharpen a tool made of

71 exotic material at a site, but then move camp before that tool has completed its use-life, resulting in the exotic material only being represented in the debitage. However, collectors may reshape, resharpen, and discard the tool all at the same site due the more extensive time span that it is occupied, resulting in exotic material being represented in both the debitage and the tool assemblage.

In addition, many archaeologists (Andrefsky 1998; Bamforth and Becker 2000; Parry and

Kelly 1987; Morrow 1996) suggest that if good quality raw material is not available locally, we may expect more sedentary groups to use their good quality toolstone more intensively, with the possibility of more bipolar reduction of old tools and exhausted cores. Similarly, when good quality local material is only available in small nodules or pebble form, as is common on the southern Alberta Plains, more sedentary groups may attempt to use it to its fullest extent through bipolar reduction. Bipolar reduction is expressive of a conscious attempt to conserve lithic material since it yields comparatively larger flakes from the available raw materials than normal core reduction (often, the pieces are too small to hold in the hand and knock off any flake of significant size), which can offer more opportunities for renewal (Kuhn 1994).This attempt to conserve good quality raw material is due to the fact that bifacially flaked tools require material that flakes in a predictable manner, since, as Parry and Kelly (1987:298) explain, for tools,

“flawless pieces [of lithic material] of certain minimum dimensions are needed.” This is expected for more sedentary groups that have to make special trips to collect high-quality toolstone, but would probably not be the case for those sedentary groups that practice embedded procurement, unless their demand for high-quality material is greater than their ability to keep it stocked. More mobile foragers, on the other hand, move more frequently and therefore have more opportunities to “gear up” at quarry locations with high quality toolstone. However, this

72 may not be the case if good quality toolstone is unavailable over a large region, which will be discussed in more depth below.

The use of expedient tools can also help elucidate the extent of mobility of a certain group. As mentioned previously, expedient tools are often identified as unretouched or minimally retouched flakes and debitage, requiring low investments in time and energy

(Andrefsky 1994; Binford 1980; Cowan 1999). Tool use life is short, as edges are fragile and easily damaged, and difficult to resharpen. They can also only perform a limited number of tasks, and, unless extensively retouched, they may be difficult to haft into pre-existing handles (Cowan

1999). This is considered highly wasteful of lithic raw material and is associated with more sedentary populations (Andrefsky 1994; Carr 1994; Jeske 1992; Odell 1994b, 1998; Parry and

Kelly 1987; Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004), since they are not as restricted by weight as more mobile populations.

It may seem contradictory to theorize that more sedentary collector groups would use a highly wasteful expedient tool strategy while also suggesting that they practice an extremely conservative curated tool technology. However, this situation can be the result of a decrease in the availability of lithic raw material due to decreased mobility and smaller range size and the idea that certain raw materials, and materials of a certain quality, are preferred for specific types of tools (Beck and Jones 1990; Morrow 1996). It then becomes clear that a more logistically organized group may emphasize expedient technology on the one hand, made of poor quality local materials, and a heavily curated technology made of exotic raw materials on the other.

Therefore, the assemblages of more mobile populations should have a higher proportion of bifacial and unifacial tools to expedient tools compared to more sedentary assemblages, which

73 should contain more unretouched, or minimally retouched flakes, which could be large or small in size, depending on the size of the available raw material.

The analysis of debitage is also important for understanding tools used at a site since, due to curation, the tools that are discarded at a site can be very different from the actual types and proportions of tools used at a site, as is made clear in Binford’s (1977) study of the Nunamiut.

Therefore, by analyzing the composition of the lithic debitage, as well as the tools, one can get a much better understanding of the extent and type of toolkits used by the occupants of the site.

Bamforth and Becker (2000) demonstrate this through their analysis of the lithic material found at a Paleoindian site in Nebraska. Bamforth and Becker (2000) used Parry and Kelly’s

(1987) theory on core/biface ratios in an attempt to understand precontact mobility. When determining this ratio with only the tools found on site, the ratio was extremely low, at 0.15, suggesting high mobility (Bamforth and Becker 2000:282). When refitted debitage that was determined to be either from core reduction or biface reduction was included in the ratio, the ratio became much higher, at 1.17 (Bamforth and Becker 2000:282). This data revealed that cores were a very important part of the overall technological strategy but, because they had a longer use-life than bifaces, they were discarded at a slower rate and therefore were more likely to be removed from the sites in which they were used (Bamforth and Becker 2000:283). As can be seen through this example, the tools at a site can be a poor indicator of the true activities that were conducted there, and a thorough analysis of the debitage can help to better elucidate a site’s function and its relation to mobility.

Complicating Factors in the Selection of Material Type and Tool Form

Andrefsky (1994, 1998) and others (see Bamforth 1990; Odell 1996; Thacker 1996) have noted some factors other than mobility that may structure the use of curated or expedient tools,

74 as well as the presence of local vs. nonlocal toolstone. These factors are the quality and abundance of lithic raw material, and these must be considered when using such distinctions to help define hunter-gatherer settlement patterns. Andrefsky (1994) looked at three different archaeological cases from western North America: the first is located in an area with ubiquitous, high-quality lithic raw materials, and was occupied by both mobile and sedentary precontact groups; the second is an area with abundant but very poor quality lithic raw material; and the third has very few raw materials, all of which are of very poor quality. In all instances, quality refers to the ease with which the material can be flaked and controlled in the shaping process

(Andrefsky 1994).

In the first case, the relative frequencies of bifacial and formal cores for short-duration sites occupied by mobile groups and longer-duration sites occupied by more sedentary groups were compared, and no significant difference between the two site types was found. A similar comparison was done with the relative frequencies of formal (curated) and informal (expedient) tools between the two site types, and again, no significant difference between the sites was recognized. Andrefsky (1994) attributes this to the availability of lithic raw material. He suggests that when the abundance of lithic raw materials allows mobile groups relatively good access to raw material for manufacturing, the need to expend extra energy in formal tool production is unnecessary.

In the second case, the frequency of informal and formal tools were compared within sites that were occupied by mobile hunter-gatherers. It was found that most of the tools were informal (86 percent of the entire tool assemblage present). This suggests that when poor-quality lithic material is locally available and in great abundance, informal tools will be preferentially produced, even by mobile foragers (Andrefsky 1994).

The third case, in which locally available material is of poor quality and not very abundant, compared the frequency of informal to formal tools for a relatively sedentary precontact population. It was revealed that the assemblage was dominated by formal tools (85 percent), which accounted for 95 percent of the nonlocal raw materials. Only 13 percent of the tools were made from local material, and of those, 87.2 percent were informal (Andrefsky 1994).

In a case where local lithic raw material is not abundant, or of high-quality, it appears that a relatively sedentary population may practice a lithic technology more commonly associated with more mobile groups.

Beck and Jones (1990) also recognized the tendency for more sedentary groups to use nonlocal toolstone when it came to the production of specific tool types. They relate this to the function of the tools and the need for lithic material that meets those functional necessities. For example, they note in their study of a Great Basin assemblage that projectile points could be made from a variety of high-quality stone, such as obsidian or basalt. Scrapers, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly made of chert, with some basalt scrapers, and a very minimal amount of obsidian. They reasoned that because scrapers require a certain level of “toughness,” chert will be preferred over obsidian, which is very brittle and would not hold up well when applied to a scraping task (Beck and Jones 1990). Projectile points, on the other hand, do not require a high level of toughness and therefore will cross-cut material types. This could be used to explain why certain exotic materials show up in relatively high abundance in sites that display signs of more sedentary occupations. Therefore, it is not only important to identify a tool category, but it is also useful to identify different types of tools in order to determine the relative frequency of each tool type in relation to specific lithic raw material.

As these studies make clear, it is important to consider material quality and availability when studying mobility with lithic assemblages. However, maintainable vs reliable tools (which is related to tool diversity) should still be a good indicator of mobility despite lithic quality and availability. This is because tool type and diversity is an effect of different procurement strategies and reduced weight constraints caused by reduced mobility, so even if high-quality raw materials are abundant or scarce, more sedentary groups may still make less versatile, more task specific tools. Toolstone diversity should still be a helpful measure because even if more sedentary populations are procuring more exotic lithic materials, they will still be visiting a much more limited number of sources than more mobile hunter gatherers.

Summary

It is clear that patterns in the tools and debitage at archaeological sites can help inform our understanding of the length of occupation in the local area, as well as how the site was used

(e.g., as a collector’s location or a forager’s base camp). However, in order to understand these patterns, multiple methodologies must be used. These include:

1. Flake typology. This methodology looks at flake typology as it relates to reduction stage

(early, middle, late), which can then be used to inform how the site was used. For

example, an emphasis on early stage reduction suggests that tool manufacture was a

common occurrence at the site, which may be more indicative of a base camp, while an

emphasis on late stage reduction is more indicative of tool use over manufacture,

suggesting a processing location. Flake typology can also be used in combination with

toolstone sourcing to determine length of occupation of the site/the local area by

elucidating differences in how local vs. non-local toolstone was used.

2. Toolstone sourcing. Lithic materials must be sourced in order to determine if there is an

emphasis on local or non-local materials at the site. An emphasis on local materials may

suggest a longer occupation of the local area since fewer opportunities to gear up on non-

local material occur when a group is more sedentary. This will result in exhausted tools

made of non-local material being replaced by tools made from local materials, and the

longer the occupation length, the more tools will be made from local materials,

eventually resulting in local materials dominating all the reduction stages as well as the

tool assemblage. On the other hand, an emphasis on non-local material suggests that a

group is quite mobile, due to the fact that any tools made of local material are removed

from the site before they complete their use-life.

By combining flake typology and lithic sourcing, one can suggest an occupation

length for the site/local area based on the expected tool and debitage patterns for different

sites. Collector’s sites would be expected to have local material dominate all stages of

reduction as well as the tool assemblage due to a decrease in opportunities to access non-

local material as a result of increased sedentism. Forager’s sites would be expected to

have local materials dominate the early stages of reduction, due to the need to replace

exhausted tools of non-local material with tools of local material, while the remainder of

the reduction stages and tool assemblage would be expected to be dominated by non-local

materials. This is because the shorter occupation span of sites would result in the tools

made of local materials being removed from the site before they complete their use-lives.

Lithic sourcing can also be used to evaluate the degree of tool curation by comparing

the materials found in the debitage to those in the tool assemblage. If the materials in the

debitage are consistent with those in the tool assemblage, this suggests that few tools

were being curated away from the site, indicating a long occupation span. If the reverse is

true, then a shorter occupation of the site is indicated since the occupation of the site was

shorter than tool use-lives.

3. Toolstone quality. Toolstone quality is a general understanding of the ease and

predictability with which a toolstone flakes (Andrefsky 1994), as well as the material’s

ability to create a useable working edge (e.g., a material may flake easily and predictably,

but may be too soft to hold an edge for a long period of time). As such, toolstone quality

may affect the types of tools it is used to make (e.g., a poor quality material may only be

used to make expedient tools since it is not suitable for making more intricate tools) and

therefore may complicate some of these expected patterns in the tools and debitage. For

example, an abundance of low quality toolstone in an area may result in both collector’s

and forager’s emphasizing an expedient technology made from local toolstone.

Therefore, an understanding of how toolstone quality may result in deviations from the

expected patterns is paramount.

4. Retouch intensity. Reduction intensity can be used as a measure of the length of a tool’s

use-life and therefore give an indication of site occupation, especially when combined

with lithic material sourcing. For example, if tools made from local material average a

reduction intensity equal to or greater than 0.75 and dominate the tool assemblage, this

would be strongly indicative of a long occupation of the site/local area. However, if local

material tools dominate the tool assemblage but have significantly less retouch than non-

local tools, this would not necessarily be indicative of a long occupation span of the site

since the retouch intensity suggests that local tools have a shorter use-life than non-local

tools and therefore would enter the tool assemblage at an accelerated rate.

5. Tool diversity. Tool diversity can aid in understanding the site type in multiple ways.

First, as with tool form, tool diversity can indicate whether a technology is more likely

maintainable vs. reliable, which can inform on whether the site was most likely inhabited

by collectors or foragers. Second, tool diversity can inform on the specific way a site was

used. For example, if tool diversity is restricted to scrapers and knives, one may assume

that the site is a collector’s processing location site, since these tools are task specific.

Similarly, if tools are primarily bifaces then a site may be assumed to be a forager’s base

camp. Another example might be the presence of a large number of expedient tools along

with a high degree of tool diversity. This pattern would suggest a collector’s base camp

since collectors often practice a combination of wasteful expedient technology (due to

reduced weight constraints) in combination with a conservative, reliable technology that

results in a high number of task specific tools.

6. Usewear analysis. Usewear analysis can provide an indication of the reliability vs.

maintainability of tools as it relates to versatility and flexibility, which, like tool diversity,

can indicate if the site was occupied by collectors or foragers. Versatility and flexibility

can also be used to determine if the site was a more multipurpose campsite or a task

specific processing location. A processing location will be more likely to have tools that

were used in the completion of one task, while a base camp may have tools that were

used for multiple tasks. It can also provide evidence as to the exact tasks that were

undertaken at a site, providing strong evidence for how a site was used. For example, if

the usewear on tools at a site indicates hide working and/or butchering, this would

strongly indicate that the site was a collector’s processing location.

Intersite Variability

As discussed earlier, logistically organized hunter-gatherers practice task specific procurement at great distances from the residential base. On the other hand, residentially mobile populations forage very close to the residential base, and therefore all tasks associated with daily activities will be present within a limited radius of the base camp. Binford (1980:12) argues that

“other things being equal, we can expect greater ranges of intersite variability as a function of increases in the logistical components of the subsistence-settlement system.” That is, the more intersite variability, the less mobile the group. Therefore, evidence of increased functional differences between sites suggests a more logistically organized population, while little variation in the function of different sites suggests a more residentially mobile population (Bamforth 1986;

Binford 1979; Smith 2011).

As previously discussed, the presence of reliable vs. maintainable tools (elucidated through an analysis of their usewear and form) can be a useful analytical tool for determining whether a site was intended for a specific purpose or if the tasks were more variable. Logistical mobility might also be evident in the debitage found at different sites. For example, at a relatively permanent residential base camp we might expect the presence of large lithic assemblages containing large, cortex bearing flakes with minimal dorsal scarring, and high numbers of expedient tools. Surrounding this would be sites with small lithic assemblages that contain mainly utilized bifacial reduction flakes, spent or broken tools, and resharpening flakes

(Cowan 1999).

Summary

Intersite variability can be a useful indicator of the mobility strategy practiced by a group.

By using information gleaned from tool form and the patterns in the tools and debitage, site type can be analysed and the degree of intersite variability can be understood.

Distance-Decay and the Seasonal Round

Another strategy for determining the mobility of precontact peoples is one that focuses on the reduction stages of specific lithic raw material sources. This model is based on the premise that as residentially mobile groups move across a landscape, they deplete and replenish their supply of raw tool stone in a patterned manner, which leads to the deposition of artifacts of different types, sizes, and raw materials (Eerkens et al. 2007; Holdaway et al. 2010). At its heart, this idea is based on distance-decay theory borrowed from economic geography (Clark 1979).

Within this theory, models predict that as a lithic material moves further from its source, artifacts made on that material will be more thoroughly worked and used, and will occur in gradually decreasing quantities, both absolute and relative to more local materials (Blumenschine et al.

2008).

Within this pattern, raw material sources are the areas where mobile groups replenish their dwindling lithic supplies. Therefore, at these sites we would expect to see evidence of primary flintknapping activities associated with core reduction and preform creation, such as decortication flakes, as well as shaping and thinning flakes (flake typology will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). Further reduction may occur on site, at nearby lithic workshops, and/or at residential sites (Eerkens et al. 2007). Therefore, quarrying locations might have the full range of reduction debris made from the local toolstone source present, including bifacial reduction and finishing flakes. If cores or preforms were further reduced at nearby lithic workshops and/or

82 residential sites, we might expect thinning flakes (although these are not as likely at residential camps as it would be unlikely that mobile groups would transport relatively useless raw material), as well as the later stage flakes of bifacial reduction and finishing flakes. The tools made from the local toolstone would then be transported out of the area as the group moves to its next location. Since hunter-gatherers would be replenishing their lithic material at source areas, they would also be discarding broken or exhausted tools that they had transported with them from previous sources that they had visited (Beck et al. 2002; Jones et al. 2003). Tools that had not yet been exhausted, but were still in use, would also be represented in the archaeological record at a site as small resharpening flakes, and possibly finishing flakes. Thus, there should be a clear distinction in the raw material sources represented by large flakes, and those of tools and their associated late stage flakes. Specifically, large, early stage flakes should more often be associated with local sources, while tools and late stage flakes should overwhelmingly be from exotic materials. Of course this may not always be the case, since factors such as length of site occupation and the quality of local material, as discussed previously, can affect the proportions of local and exotic toolstone.

Weight is also an important factor to consider, since it is the main constraint in limiting stone transportation. Therefore, assemblages of local material should also weigh more, on average, than assemblages composed of exotic raw material.

In addition, if mobility is high and groups are visiting a number of different sources in their foraging movements, then tools and their associated debitage should also reflect a greater diversity of source material than early stage debitage, which should, again, mostly represent the closest raw materials. Smith (2011) defines local toolstone as less than or equal to 20 km from a site (since this would equal a 40 km roundtrip, the maximum distance a pedestrian can walk in a

83 day (Smith 2011)). For sites that do not have a source within 20 km, the nearest source is considered local and all others are non-local (Smith 2011). I believe that this is a reasonable classification and therefore it will be used in this research.

Eerkens et al. (2007) tested this theory in a study of three Great Basin assemblages. In this study, the authors divided artifacts into three categories: 1) formal tools (projectile points, bifaces, formed flake tools), 2) large flakes (including utilized flakes), and 3) small flakes

(unmodified waste flakes under 10 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm in thickness). I would have restricted small flakes to bifacial reduction, resharpening, and finishing flakes, and the authors do note that their results conform better to the expected pattern when only these flakes are considered (Eerkens et al. 2007:592). Artifacts from each category were randomly selected for geochemical analysis and the relative distance from sources for each category was calculated. It was noted that small flakes were consistently farther from their source locations than larger flakes, as was also the case for formal tools. The diversity of materials represented was also much greater for small flakes and tools than for early stage debitage (Eerkens et al. 2007). This suggests that small flakes could be used as a measure of the original source diversity, as well as be a direct indication of the curation of formal tools. In addition, if the relative frequency of flake types for each raw material class were calculated, it may be possible to draw inferences about the directionality and the specific intensity of conveyance (Jones et al. 2003).

While this pattern is what we expect to see with high residential mobility, a different pattern is expected with more sedentary occupations. With prolonged occupation in one area, it is expected that more locally available resources will dominate assemblages since there are fewer opportunities to procure lithic raw material from more distant sources (Holdaway et al. 2010;

Smith 2011). Therefore, locally available raw material should dominate flakes from all the reduction stages.

Newman (1994) showed a similar trend in how distance from source affects the size of flakes in his study of the Pot Creek Pueblo. Although this study did not use flake typology, a decrease in flake size is often related to reduction stage, with early stage reduction flakes tending to be larger than late stage reduction flakes. In this study it was found that as source distance increased, flake size got smaller, which Newman (1994:499) suggests is a reflection of the smaller parent material size and technological conservation as the raw material is moved further from the source. Similarly, Blumenschine et al. (2008) found in their study of material from

Naibor Soit, located in the Olduvai Basin of Tanzania, that as distance from the quartzite quarry area increased, the weight density (measured in grams per meter of excavation cubed) and weight proportion (measured in comparison to all other material types present) of quartzite decreased.

Ricklis and Cox’s (1993) study of 18 Late Precontact assemblages in Texas also found adherence to this theory, with materials that were increasingly distant from sources showing progressively lower unused flake to tool ratios, higher proportions of biface thinning flakes, and higher proportions of utilized flakes; all of which reflect a decrease in size and abundance of material as it moves further from its source.

For tools (and cores), one would also expect them to become smaller as they move further from the source, as it is complementary to the idea that lithic debitage gets smaller as distance from the source material increases. Ricklis and Cox’s (1993) study found adherence with this theory, finding that projectile points got shorter the further they moved from their parent material. Andrefsky (2008) also tested this theory with his analysis of hafted bifaces from

85 a residential base camp, the Birch Creek site in Oregon, and the Paulina Lake site, which is adjacent to a quarry area. Using the hafted biface retouch index (HRI) (which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6), it was found that hafted bifaces made on more distant material tended to have their use-lives extended through retouch more often and to a greater extent than those made on more local material (Andrefsky 2008:208). Andrefsky (2008:209) then plotted the

HRI values against distance from the Birch Creek site, and found a positive and significant correlation between retouch intensity and source locations.

However, it must be noted that if a group stockpiles lithic materials, which is not uncommon among logistically organized collectors practicing an expedient technology (Barton

2008; Odell 1994a; Parry and Kelly 1987; Webb 1993), we may see a variation in this pattern.

Specifically, there would be an unexpectedly large amount of raw material located some distance from its source location, which would be evidenced by a large number of early stage flakes, minimally retouched tools, utilized flakes, amorphous cores (Odell 1994a:53), and cores in all stages of reduction (Barton 2008:66), as well as a high proportion of material by weight (Webb

1993:110). Thus, while the pattern of distance and decay discussed here should hold true for most mobile hunter-gatherer groups, it can deviate from the expected pattern.

Trade vs. Direct Procurement

The presence of exotic raw material in an assemblage does not necessarily imply that it was procured directly from the source, it is also possible that it was obtained through trade or exchange. Many archaeologists argue that, in general, if raw material types show up in relatively high frequencies, they are probably the result of direct access at some point in a group’s movements, and that an exclusive reliance on exchange to provision such an important resource entails too much risk to be a truly viable option for precontact groups (Jones et al. 2003; Smith

2011). Although this may be true, and although it may be difficult to sort out direct procurement from exchange, I think it is worthwhile to attempt to recognize certain patterns that could allow archaeologists to infer one as being more likely than another. For example, Eerkens et al. (2007) suggest that trade may be difficult to discern if tools were traded in complete or near-complete form, as the resulting debitage would be that expected from a curated tool from a distant source.

However, it may be possible to infer trade if the source location is radically removed from the region that the other sources represent. For example, if most of the source locations for toolstone are located in the central Great Basin area, but one or two sources are located in the Eastern

Woodlands, this could very likely suggest that the raw material was procured through trade or exchange. In the case where unmodified nodules were traded, exotic raw materials would be more highly represented in the early stage debitage (Eerkens et al. 2007). In such cases, Eerkens et al. (2007) suggest that the context of various formal tools may help determine a trade relationship. For example, large nodules of exotic raw material may be traded for the production of ceremonial objects, and the ceremonial aspect of such objects may be discernable through the context in which they are found.

Beck and Jones (1990) suggest in their study of Great Basin assemblages, that if exchange was what provisioned the more distant obsidian that was used in point manufacture, this would suggest a preference for points made of obsidian. If this was the case, why were exhausted specimens not replaced with other obsidian garnered through exchange, rather than using the more locally available basalt? Also, if basalt is a viable substitute for obsidian points, what economic advantage would lie in the exchange for exotic obsidian? Although the first question may be answered by the possibility that groups could only exchange at certain times of

87 the year, these two questions highlight the fact that trade is not the most likely explanation for the presence of non-local toolstone in this case.

In addition to the presence of exotic raw materials as a possible indicator of trade and exchange, the absence of locally available raw material, especially if it is high quality, may suggest that such a material is socially distant (Kooyman 2000). A material may be socially distant if it is in the territory of another group (especially when that group is aggressive and territorial), or there may be many intervening groups, making movement in that direction difficult or impossible.

Summary

Distance-decay theory predicts that as a distance from a source increases, the amount of material from that source decreases due to the subtractive nature of lithic tool creation and use.

Therefore, it should be possible to determine a directionality of movement by determining the relative frequencies of flake classes as they relate to reduction stage and formal tools within each lithic material type. Material types that are only represented by formal tools and/or late stage flakes, according to distance-decay theory, will be from quarries visited very early in the seasonal round since these materials have been thoroughly depleted by the time the group arrived at the site(s) under investigation. If a material type is primarily represented by middle and late stage debitage one would assume this quarry was visited after the one that is primarily represented by formal tools and late stage debitage since the material is still abundant enough that tools are being reshaped/resharpened but have not yet completed their use-lives. Finally, if a material type is heavily represented in the early and middle stage debitage we can assume that this quarry was visited very recently since this indicates that exhausted tools were being replenished by this material since early and middle stage reduction are indicative of tool creation.

In addition, tools made from this material would not be present in the archaeological assemblage since the group would move out of the local area before they completed their use-lives.

Similarly, weight can also be used to indicate directionality of movement since as distance from a source increases, the weight of the material decreases as it is depleted through use events. As such, material that takes up the smallest proportion of weight in the assemblage was most likely visited very early in the seasonal round, while material that represents the greatest proportion of weight in the assemblage was most likely visited the most recently.

Therefore, the variation in the proportion of weight of particular lithic materials in the assemblage can be an indicator of movement in a seasonal round.

However, these are the patterns that are expected when mobility is high and groups are regularly moving across the landscape, allowing them the opportunity to gear up at many quarry locations. If a group is more sedentary, as is the case with logistically organized hunter- gatherers, they have fewer opportunities and lithic material options for replacing depleted lithic supplies due to decreased mobility. This will change the expected patterns in that local materials should come to dominate all stages of lithic reduction and formal tools. However, logistical hunter-gatherers may still have a seasonal round (or they may practice varying mobility strategies throughout the year) and therefore non-local material could still be used to determine a possible directionality of movement in the same manner described above, even if local material dominates all stages of the assemblage.

The presence of trade can complicate the patterns expected by distance-decay theory since these patterns are based on the presumption of direct procurement of resources. However, trade may be recognized by the presence of non-local lithic material that comes from a location far removed from other non-local materials present at the site, or by an unexpected abundance of

89 a lithic material that is located at a great distance from the site. This would be especially apparent if materials from similar or lesser distances were much less abundant. Abundance in this sense would include a larger-than-expected amount of early or middle stage debitage and/or composing a large proportion of the weight of the lithic assemblage.

Caching material can also disrupt the expected distance-decay patterns and is most common amongst logistically organized hunter-gatherers due to their decreased weight constraints (Binford 1980). Again, this would introduce an unexpected abundance of non-local material.

If these complicating factors are understood and can be recognized, then distance-decay can provide a reliable method for determining the directionality of movement within a seasonal round.

Summary

In sum, organization of technology can be an effective tool for determining precontact mobility patterns, as long as its limitations are understood and it is combined with other approaches. Understanding the difference between reliable vs. maintainable tools can be one of the most effective determinants of a group’s mobility. Although the difference between these two technologies in regards to flexibility and versatility can best be elucidated through usewear analysis, aspects of form, such as size, shape, and evidence of hafting, can be used to distinguish the two types. Once tools are recognized as either reliable or maintainable, while being good indicators of different mobility strategies in and of themselves, they can also be used to help determine the degree of intersite variability. Intersite variability is one of the primary indicators of mobility, with logistical mobility being defined by a higher degree of intersite variability than

90 residential mobility. Thus, by analyzing the lithic assemblages from three Old Woman’s phase sites, the degree of intersite variability can be understood, at least on a small scale.

Debitage can also be used to help determine mobility, and, in fact, can be a better indicator than tools since tools are often removed from a site while the debitage remains; this means that the debitage is often more reflective of the types and proportions of tools used at a site. In addition, by combining a debitage analysis based on flake typology with the source of lithic material, one can use a distance-decay relationship to determine further evidence of site occupation length, diversity of sources visited (which relates to the degree of mobility with more mobile populations visiting a greater range of sources), the minimum extent of a group’s territory, and directionality of movement.

By combining these multiple approaches, the movement of Old Woman’s phase people across the landscape can be understood through the analysis of their stone tool assemblages.

Chapter 5: Usewear Theory

Usewear analysis was inspired by archaeologists’ desire to understand the function of ancient stone tools. Although form was (and is) often used as an indicator of function, it is problematic since similar forms can carry out very disparate functions while different forms can conduct similar functions. Attempts to understand the function of ancient stone tools often appealed to ethnographic analogy, but one must be aware that there is no guarantee that tools with a specific form were used for the same purposes in the present and the past (Olausson

1980:49).

Semenov (1964), often considered the father of usewear analysis (Anderson et al.

2005:15), was the first to create a systematic method for understanding traces of use on precontact implements (Anderson et al 2005; Hayden and Kamminga 1979; Olausson 1980).

With the 1964 publication of the English translation of his book, Prehistoric Technology,

Semenov introduced western archaeologists to the systematic use of experimental replication and magnification with a microscope to understand wear traces. In Prehistoric Technology, Semenov

(1964) discusses his method of using experimental tools to complete use-tasks, after which he would compare the use-traces on these experimental tools to archaeological specimens using a binocular microscope with magnifications up to 180x and, in some cases, a monocular microscope with magnifications ranging from 300–500x (Semenov 1964:22). By using experimental tools and microscopes, Semenov was able to create a direct analogy between the functions of past tools with the known functions of experimental tools based on minute alterations to the lithic material caused by use. This allowed for a strong argument to be made concerning the function of ancient implements.

Semenov (1964:13) thoroughly discussed the multiple variables that affect usewear, including the quality and hardness of the lithic material from which the tool is made, the shape or angle of the working edge, the length of time it is used, the force applied, working angle, and the nature of the worked material. Concerning the actual traces of wear, Semenov was mostly concerned with how variations in the way a tool is held and used to work a material will affect wear traces, leading him to focus on striations and linear features and how they are distinct to the range of movement or function of a tool (1964:16–21), although he did also make note of variables concerning polish and edge-rounding. Unfortunately, Semenov (1964) did not provide a thorough discussion concerning his experimental work, resulting in archaeologists being unable to accurately interpret or recreate his analysis (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). However,

Semenov’s methodology provided a strong basis for understanding wear traces and inspired further research into usewear analysis.

Although Semenov’s (1964) research focused primarily on mid-range magnifications

(100–180x), the usewear research that followed his seminal publication was divided into two techniques: one that primarily uses stereomicroscopes with reflective light and magnifications averaging around 40–60x, termed the low-power technique; and one that uses incident-light, metallurgical microscopes at magnifications averaging 200–400x, termed the high-powered technique. Each technique reflects the aspect of wear that the analyst feels is most important to understanding tool function.

Proponents of the low-powered approach, such as Tringham et al. (1974), Odell (1977), and Kamminga (1982), focus on edge-fractures as the primary indicators of tool function, although other features such as striations, polish, and rounding are often employed in the interpretation. The low-powered approach is ideal for the examination of edge fractures since the

93 level of magnification allows for a large depth of field while still allowing one to observe details not easily discernible to the naked eye. In addition, because a stereomicroscope is used, the tool can be held in the hand and moved around freely, allowing the researcher to achieve the best angle for reflected light to strike the tool in order to enhance shadow effects necessary for accurately observing the variables related to edge-fracturing and tool function (i.e., size and type of fractures, patterning of edge-fractures) (Odell 2003).

Proponents of this technique do not seek to determine the exact material worked, but are more concerned with material hardness and motion of use, believing that this level of interpretation is satisfactory for answering many archaeological questions (Odell 2003; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). This method also has some advantages over the high-powered technique, mainly where time is concerned. With the low-powered technique, Odell and Odell-

Vereecken (1980:64) estimates that it takes a skilled analyst about 5 minutes to asses a tool and interpret its function versus the 1.5 hours per tool that Unrath et al. (1986:165) estimated for the high-powered technique. This allows the usewear analyst to interpret a much larger collection of tools than one using the high-powered approach, since time constraints are often an issue when it comes to archaeological research.

Proponents of the high-powered approach, which was developed by Keeley (1980), primarily view polish as the most important wear feature for understanding tool function. Early practitioners of the high-powered approach, such as Keeley (1980) and Vaughan (1985), strongly believed that polish was distinct to the material worked, and as such, extremely high magnifications were required to observe the minute variations in polishes created by different worked materials. The attributes of polish that Vaughan (1985:27) believed to be most useful in determining worked material included polish reflectivity, surface texture, volume, surface

94 features, degree of linkage between polish patches (with Vaughan’s [1985:27] motto being

“safety in linkage” in cases of ambiguous isolated or small-sized polish areas that could be natural or the result of non-use damage), and extension of polish into the tool. Again, variables of edge-fracturing (although this is often observed on a stereomicroscope since it is difficult to observe many of the details related to edge fracturing with a metallurgical microscope due to the small depth of field and incident light that strikes the surface at 90°), rounding, and striations are also observed and aid in the interpretation of tool function.

The main benefit to this technique is that it allows a more detailed analysis of subtle wear traces, which can allow an analyst to determine the specific material a tool was used to work, as well as achieving a greater degree of accuracy in interpreting the hardness of the material worked

(see Blind Tests, below).

Although usewear analysis predominantly split into two separate techniques, an analysis that combines both techniques will result in the greatest accuracy in interpretation since it allows the strengths of one method to make up for the weaknesses inherent in the other. As such, the usewear analysis portion of this research uses both techniques, with the high-powered approach being used to understand variables of polish, striations, and rounding, and the low-powered approach used to understand variables of edge-chipping.

Manufacturing Traces

When analysing usewear features, one must be aware of the traces that are created by manufacturing and post-depositional effects in order not to confuse them with true wear from use. Manufacturing traces that can be confused for usewear include spontaneous retouch and other traces left by hammerstones and soft hammers.

Spontaneous retouch was first noted by Newcomer (1976:62), which he described as a row of tiny chips that are removed from a flake edge when it is struck from the core. Newcomer

(1976:62) argues that this is due to the knapper holding a flake in place as it is removed from the core, causing the flake to pivot where the knapper is securing it and forcing the distal portion against the core, creating pressure which results in small flake removals.

Brink (1978a:31) identified a second type of spontaneous retouch, which occurs on the core rather than the detaching flake. Brink (1978a:31) suggests that the impact force from removing a flake transmits into the surrounding rock mass, resulting in the production of small flake scars on the portion of a core that was not struck directly, nor utilized. Keeley (1980:26) also seems to recognize this form of spontaneous retouch while creating experimental tools using hard-hammer retouch. He notes that with each strike of the hammerstone, a large flake will be removed along with a series of microflakes.

Newcomer (1976), Brink (1978a), and Keeley (1980) all note the strong resemblance between spontaneous retouch and flake scars created through utilization, and so usewear analysts must be very careful when attempting to distinguish between the two. Odell (Odell and Odell-

Vereecken 1980) believed that he could determine the difference between true usewear and spontaneous retouch, but in a blind test he found that, “All the incorrectly assessed implements were judged to have been utilised on a substance harder than they actually were. Apparently some of the retouch was [emphasis Odell’s] mistaken for use wear and the resistance of the worked material assessed was thereby exaggerated” (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:118). As such, it is prudent to only assess edge-chipping present on unretouched edges (Grace 1988:36).

Hard and soft-hammer percussion can leave additional traces that mimic usewear. Keeley

(1980:28) and Vaughan (1985:41) describe these traces as scratches that are concentrated on the

96 very edge of a tool and as such can be distinguished from striations caused by wear, which tend to be more invasive; smears, which are described as being broad and flat; and a very flat and smooth beveling of the edge. As such, one must be exceedingly cautious when interpreting an edge that displays these features as being used. Vaughan (1985:41) also notes that pressure flaking leaves little to no traces.

Post-Depositional Surface Modification (PDSM)

Post-depositional surface modification covers a range of factors that can affect the appearance of lithic materials once they have been discarded, and include patination, soil sheen, and trampling, as well as excavation and post-excavation handling.

Patination is an alteration of the lithic surface, often appearing white or bluish, that can be caused by alkaline or acid environments, as well as UV radiation (Rottländer 1975).

Investigations into how patination affects usewear by Keeley (1980) and Levi-Sala (1996) have revealed that patination can have a significant effect on the appearance of polish. Under high magnifications, severe patination was noted to cause the flint surface to become pitted and granular, obscuring traces of use, while lesser degrees of patination were often accompanied by a polished appearance (Keeley 1980:29). Keeley (1980:29) also noted that patination has a tendency to develop on edges and dorsal ridges, which is especially troubling because the edge is where usewear develops since it is the area that is in contact with the worked material. Levi-Sala

(1996:72) noticed similar alterations to the surface of flint tools by patination, and suggested that interpretation of tool function should be avoided on such implements since the usewear would either not survive, or be too greatly distorted.

Soil sheen is the alteration of the lithic surface due to mechanical processes (e.g., trampling, bioturbation, wind blasting, settling of the sediment under pressure) or the chemistry

97 of the soil (Keeley 1980; Levi-Sala 1996). Similar to patination, soil sheen has a tendency to concentrate on edges and prominent parts of artifacts, areas which would also be expected to develop usewear polish first (Keeley 1980:30; Levi-Sala 1996:23–24). Experiments into PDSM conducted by Levi-Sala (1996:53) revealed that: soil sheen developed faster on finer-grained cherts; striations unrelated to the direction of use appeared; striations from usewear disappeared on some occasions; and polish development increased on weakly developed polishes. It was also discovered that, overall, coarser-grained flints were less affected by both mechanical and chemical processes (Levi-Sala 1996:68), suggesting that coarser-grained tools may be interpretable even if subjected to extensive PDSM processes.

Keeley (1980:29–35) suggests that soil sheen can be recognized as distinct from usewear since it often results in heavy abrasion, striations, and/or faint polishes across either the entire tool surface, on all of its ridges, or on areas of the tool where usewear features would be unlikely to be found (e.g., in the center of the tool on a low area). In addition, striations tend to be randomized, although not always, which would be a clear indicator of soil sheen rather than use

(Keeley 1980:30). When soil sheen is recognized, the tool should be treated as uninterpretable since, as shown by Levi-Sala’s (1996) experiments, the alteration to usewear is quite extensive.

Trampling has been shown to cause edge-chipping (Keeley 1980:34; Levi-Sala 1996:15;

Vaughan 1985:11) and striations, although Keeley (1980:34) believes that these striations are unlikely to be confused with usewear for the same reasons as those listed above regarding soil sheen. Edge-chipping from trampling is of greater concern since it has been shown to mimic patterned edge-chipping from use (Keeley 1980:34; Vaughan 1985:11), and therefore, edge- chipping alone cannot be used as evidence of use on a tool (Levi-Sala 1996:15).

Excavation and post-excavation handling can result in a multitude of surface modifications if lithic artifacts are not handled correctly. Obviously, during excavation metal tools and screens can scrape against or hit archaeological artifacts, resulting in superficial polishes and chip and flake removals (Vaughan 1985:11). These traces often do not cause a problem for the usewear analyst since metal tools often leave behind metal traces that can be observed at high magnifications and the flake removals are rarely patterned in a way that mimics usewear.

Of greater concern are tools that are packaged together post-excavation, where they are able to rub and bang against each other. Experiments by Levi-Sala (1996:24, 54) revealed that when two pieces of chert rubbed against each other, a distinct polish that was bright, flat, and crossed by striations developed when an edge or prominences of a piece rubbed against the flat surface of another, and a dull, diffuse polish similar to soil sheen developed when the flat areas of two pieces rubbed together. For sites DjPm-36, DjPm-126, and DkPi-2, tools were bagged individually in plastic bags, which have been shown to not cause post-depositional traces (Levi-

Sala 1996:25), so such traces should not pose a problem to this research.

Levi-Sala (1996:25) also conducted experiments in which chert pieces were brushed with water and sediment for up to 5 minutes with a nylon brush, a common action used to clean archaeological artifacts. Fortunately, it was found that neither the polish nor the surrounding surface was affected by this cleaning method (Levi-Sala 1996:25).

Bias in Representation

Due to the nature of usewear development on stone tools, the recognition of certain tools and wear traces will inevitably be biased. For example, it has been recognized that coarser- grained cherts do not develop usewear as quickly as finer-grained cherts (Keeley 1980:28–34,

35, 43, 56; Vaughan 1985:27). As a result, coarse-grained cherts will be labelled unused, or used but for an indeterminate purpose, a greater proportion of the time. This may seriously bias the data if only coarse-grained flints were used for a specific task in an archaeological assemblage, or if there is variation in the quality of local vs. non-local materials (e.g., if local material tends to be more coarse-grained than non-local material, it may appear that non-local material was used more extensively than local material when that may not be the case).

Similarly, since the development of recognizable and distinct usewear is affected by the duration of use of a tool and the type of material worked (Grace 1988; Keeley 1980; Vaughan

1985), expedient tools may be under-represented in a usewear analysis, since they are only used for a short period of time and therefore may not develop any usewear (Hurcombe 1992:67).

Thus, the role of expedient tools may be under-represented compared to curated tools. In addition, if expedient tools were used to cut meat and saw bone for a short period of time, usewear data would be extremely skewed towards bone sawing due to the hardness of the material. Bone usewear traces would be more likely to develop in the short amount of time the tools were used, versus meat, an extremely soft material that does not develop usewear quickly

(Hurcombe 1992:67). Again, we see the data being distorted with certain tasks being less visible than others, resulting in their under-representation in the data.

Another factor that can distort usewear data is multiple use-events. It has been noted to be difficult to discern if the same edge was used for multiple tasks (Bamforth 1990; Hurcombe

1992; Levi-Sala 1996) since the usewear traces can overlap and become impossible to distinguish from one another. In order to reduce the chance of interpreting an edge as being used for only one task when it was used for multiple tasks, one must be aware that the edge could have been used in multiple ways on multiple materials and look for evidence of differing

100 distributions of polish, a variable that has been noted to help distinguish between multiple use- events (Hurcombe 1992:68; Levi-Sala 1996:69). Similarly, when a tool is recycled, the previously used edge is removed in order to use the tool for another task, obliterating any previous wear traces (Hurcombe 1992:68). In this situation it is impossible to determine all the tasks in which a tool was used, although suggestions that the tool had a longer use-life may be possible through recognizing features that suggest a tool has been resharpened or reworked.

These features include twisted beveling, noticeably irregularly shaped lateral margins, or a significantly shorter blade length for a particular style (Andrefsky 1998) as well as the use of various retouch indexes, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

This type of bias obviously can distort the data to suggest that tools may have been more restricted in their use than they actually were. However, this is only an issue when multiple use- events are superimposed on one edge, and therefore additional edges can help to determine the degree to which tools were maintainable vs. reliable (e.g., more reliable tools will often have fewer used edges, and those edges may reflect less versatility in the tasks undertaken).

Blind Tests

Blind tests are unique to the study of usewear, since so often in archaeological studies there is no way to test the efficacy of an interpretation. Keeley and Newcomer (1977) conducted the first blind test in usewear studies. In this test, Newcomer used 15 chert flakes and unifacial tools to process plant and animal material for a variety of time (the shortest being 10 minutes to drill pine, and the longest being cutting raw meat for 44 minutes), while leaving one tool unused; the exact materials used were unknown to Keeley. Tasks were restricted to those observed ethnographically or inferred from archaeological evidence, and included scraping, slicing, sawing, boring, chopping, and whittling (Keeley and Newcomer 1977:34). The tools were then

101 washed and given to Keeley to analyze using the high-powered approach with magnifications from 24 to 400x; however, a stereomicroscope was also used to examine edge wear at lower magnifications (from 6 to 50x magnification) (Keeley and Newcomer 1977:36–37).

The results of Keeley’s interpretations were divided into three separate classes: identification of the area of the tool used; reconstruction of the motion of the tool; and specific material worked (Keeley 1980:75; Keeley and Newcomer 1977:59). Each class was scored with

1 point for each correct interpretation and 0 for an incorrect interpretation, with partial credit given for those with two inferences if one of them is correct (Keeley 1980:75; Keeley and

Newcomer 1977:59). The final scores were 14/16 or 87.5 percent for area of use; 12/16 or 75 percent for use motion; and 10/16 or 62.5 percent for the material worked (Keeley 1980:76;

Keeley and Newcomer 1977:59–61; Newcomer and Keeley 1979:202). These results suggested that, although usewear is not completely infallible, it is a viable method for understanding tool function, a fact that was encouraging to usewear analysts and helped waylay some of the doubts about the method (Olausson 1980:51).

This ability to test the effectiveness of usewear analysis gave rise to a series of similar blind tests. Odell and Odell-Vereecken used a blind test to examine the efficacy of the low- powered approach, with magnifications ranging from 10 to 100x, but primarily focused on magnifications from 20 to 40x (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:89). Odell-Vereecken used 32 basalt flakes, blades, spalls, and core tools to carry out a variety of tasks (however, one tool broke during use and was discarded, leaving 31 pieces to be analyzed) on both organic and inorganic substances, all of which were unknown to Odell (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:91).

Tools were washed when an activity was completed and placed in a plastic bag. Once all

102 activities were completed, the tools were given to Odell for analysis (Odell and Odell-Vereecken

1980:95).

The results of Odell’s analysis were divided into classes and scored in the same way as

Keeley’s in Keeley and Newcomer’s (1977; Keeley 1980:75) blind test. However, a fourth class,

“relative worked material,” was created which reflected the relative hardness of the material worked, dividing materials into “soft,” “soft medium,” “hard medium,” and “hard,” with the final results subsuming soft medium and hard medium into one general “medium” category (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). This fourth class was added due to the fact that Odell and Odell-

Vereecken (1980:116) did not believe that the low-power method could determine specific worked material, and that categories of “soft,” “medium,” and “hard” are often sufficient for answering questions regarding environment and human behaviour (Odell and Odell-Vereecken

1980:89).

The final results of this test were 24.5/31 or 79 percent for area of use; 21.5/31 or 69.4 percent for use motion; 12/31 or 38.7 percent for exact worked material; and 21/31 or 67.7 percent for relative worked material. The fact that these results were quite close to Keeley’s

(Keeley 1980:76; Keeley and Newcomer 1977:59–61; Newcomer and Keeley 1977:202) confirmed the validity of usewear analysis even for those who had neither the time nor money to invest in a high-powered approach.

A blind test conducted by Unrath et al. (1986) was one of the most comprehensive, involving 20 flakes and retouched tools used in a variety of complete and realistic activities believed to be common in the past, some of which were subjected to post-depositional damage, such as trampling or being carried in a leather bag. These tools were then analyzed by four individual analysts who did not work together or discuss their results. Once the experiments were

103 complete, the pieces were washed, individually packaged, and sent to the analysts, who used the high-powered approach to interpret the tools’ function (Unrath et al. 1986).

The scoring of these results was similar to the other blind tests in that the results were divided into classes: used area, use motion, and worked material; but the scoring was further subdivided in each class based on degree of certainty. In this way, used area was scored separately for being “specific,” “unspecified” (e.g., the tool seemed to be used), and “wrong or missing” (Unrath et al. 1986:149). Use motion was divided into “specific,” “group” (e.g., transverse, longitudinal, or rotational actions), “unspecified or unknown,” and “wrong or missing.” Finally, contact material was divided in five possible levels of accuracy: “specific,”

“group” (e.g., rock/shell, bone/antler/ivory, meat/fresh hide, etc.), “interpretation based on relative hardness” (i.e., soft, hard, medium) or a multiple answer in which at least one material is correct, “unspecified or unknown,” and “wrong or missing” (Unrath et al. 1986). If only the specific answers are counted, the analysts score an overall total of 87/112 or 78 percent for used area; 62/128 or 48 percent for use motion; and 31/120 or 26 percent for material worked (Unrath et al. 1986:150). These results may seem quite low in comparison to the other blind tests discussed, especially for use motion and worked material, but this may simply be an artifact of the scoring method, since no partial marks were given for partially correct interpretations, but, rather, were included in an entirely separate subsection. Due to the fact that Unrath et al.

(1986:139–148) provided the observations of the analysts, Bamforth (1988:14) attempted to score the results of this blind test in a manner that more closely resembles previous ones, with 1 point given for correct inferences, 0.5 points given for partially correct inferences, and 0 points given for incorrect inferences. When the scoring is standardized to the other blind tests, the results become 88/112 or 79 percent for used area; 66/112 or 77 percent for motion of use; and

104

54.5/112 or 49 percent for worked material. It is unclear why Bamforth (1988:14) restricted the number of use motions and worked materials to 112 when the original test implied 128 different use motions and 120 worked materials, but the percentage of correct inferences would still increase if we accept Bamforth’s (1988:14) scoring adjustments while maintaining the original number of use motions and worked materials. This would result in 66/128 or 52 percent correct inferences regarding use motion, and 54.5/120 or 45 percent correct for worked material. These results are much closer to those seen in the previous blind tests, although it does still give pause regarding the ability to predict specific worked material.

One of the most important observations to come from this blind test was the fact that traces from hafting, prehension, and manufacturing were mistaken for usewear only 14% of the time, suggesting that these traces can be distinguished from traces of use with great accuracy

(Unrath et al. 1986:152). Rots et al.’s (2006) series of blind tests regarding prehensile wear traces also confirms this.

Rots et al. (2006) conducted three blind tests in which the chert tools for each test were produced, hafted (or not), and used without any information being provided to the analyst, V.

Rots. Once the tools had been used, they were de-hafted and cleaned before being given to the analyst. For the tools created for the first blind test, all tools had to be used for only one function, they had to be used for a minimum duration of 30 minutes, and they could have no post- depositional alteration. For the additional blind tests, no restrictions were made (Rots et al.

2006:936).

The first blind test was an exploratory test to determine the general interpretability of hafting wear. Eight tools were made for the first blind test with the results being that three of the tools were interpreted correctly on all levels, while three others had minor mistakes in

105 interpretation, and two were completely misinterpreted (Rots et al. 2006:939). Overall, this suggested to Rots et al. (2006:939) that hafting traces are produced and are interpretable since the success rate was too high to be coincidental, and further analysis into the interpretation of prehensile wear was merited.

The second blind test was designed to test the interpretability of prehensile wear at different levels of magnification: macroscopic, low-power, and high-power. In this blind test, it was revealed that each level of analysis had its advantages and weaknesses. For example, macroscopic analysis allowed for a quick distinction to be made between hafted and hand-held tools, but any further interpretations concerning things such as haft-material or hafting- arrangement were made with only limited certainty (Rots et al. 2006:944–945). However, it was found that using low-power magnification increased the certainty of the predictions made at the macroscopic level. The high-powered approach offered the greatest degree of certainty in offering a complete interpretation for each tool, especially concerning identifying the haft- material, but it was found that the low-powered approach was more reliable for interpreting the hafting-arrangement (Rots et al. 2006:945). Therefore, Rots et al. (2006:948) came to the conclusion that the best method of analysis would combine all these approaches in order to take advantage of the strengths of each approach, a method that was tested in the third blind test.

The results of the third blind test are extremely promising for those hoping to recognize prehensile traces and ensure that they are not confused for traces of use. Six tools were examined in the third blind test and scoring was organized with 1 point given for a correct interpretation,

0.5 points given for a partially incorrect interpretation, and 0 points given for an incorrect interpretation. Within this scoring system, the analyst was able to recognize hafting vs. prehension, the hafted/hand-held area, the haft limit, the haft material, the presence of wrapping,

106 the contact zone of wrapping, and hafting method in 100 percent of the tools. Recognition of the remaining features of hafting were less successful, but could still be recognized in a majority of the tools. For example, the contact zone of the haft and the recognition of bindings was only recognized in 4/6 or 66.7 percent of the tools; the contact zone for bindings was recognized in

3/6 tools, or 50 percent; and the haft type (i.e., juxtaposed or male haft type) was correctly interpreted 3.5/6 or 58.3 percent of the time (Rots et al. 2006:Table 8). Overall, this blind test suggests that archaeologists can recognize the presence of prehensile use on tools and avoid confusion with usewear.

One final blind test that needs to be discussed since it had a great impact on the discussion of how usewear analysis was conducted is that of Newcomer et al. (1986) at the

Institute of Archaeology. It is important to note that the Newcomer et al. (1986) blind tests were designed to test only the distinctiveness of use polish, and not the overall ability of usewear analysts to interpret tool function. Therefore, it should not be compared to other blind tests, such as Keeley and Newcomer (1977), Odell and Odell-Vereecken (1980), and Unrath et al. (1986), which were specifically designed to test the overall ability to interpret tool function from usewear. Newcomer et al. (1986) conducted these blind tests in order to directly address their concerns regarding the method and theory of usewear analysis. Specifically, the authors hoped to push archaeologists to clearly state the observations they were making during usewear analysis and to separate these observations from the interpretation of tool function. This is because, up until this point, although it was implicitly understood that many variables were being used in the interpretation of tool function, they were not discussed in a systematic manner, if they were discussed at all; rather, descriptions regarding the appearance of polish were often the only

107 systematically recorded observations, and even then, they were discussed in very subjective terms.

In this blind test, 30 chert tools were used by Newcomer with the same rules used for the

Keeley and Newcomer (1977) blind test (Newcomer et al. 1986:204). These tools were then given to six analysts who used the high-powered approach (except for one analyst who used a hand lens) to determine the used area, use motion, and material worked. Scores were calculated by 1 point being given for a correct answer, 0.5 points given for a non-specific answer that includes the correct material worked (e.g., if the material worked was antler and the answer was

“bone or antler”), and 0 points given for an incorrect answer (Newcomer et al. 1986:206).

The 30 tools were divided into groups of 10, which allowed the researchers to change the tests as they deemed necessary (Newcomer et al. 1986:204). The first 10 tools were replicas of

Upper Palaeolithic tools, and were used to simulate Upper Palaeolithic tasks, with the longest task being 29 minutes (Newcomer et al. 1986:204). The tools were then cleaned with soap and water before being given to the analysts. The results of the first set of tools (excluding the analyst with the hand lens) average 7/10 or 70 percent of area used; 4/10 or 40 percent for motion of use; and 1.5/10 or 15 percent for worked material (Newcomer et al. 1986:Table 1).

The second set of tools was designed specifically to test the distinctiveness of polish in regards to specific worked materials. In this test, in order to avoid any clues to worked material provided by tool shape and edge-chipping, unretouched flakes had their ventral surface rubbed against a contact material for 10 minutes (Newcomer et al. 1986:214). The flakes were paired, so that each of the five material types (ferns, hide, wood, bone, and antler) was rubbed against two flakes; the analysts did not know what materials were used, nor that the flakes had been paired

(Newcomer et al. 1986:214). The results from this test were not scored but it was noted that only

108 one observer managed to pair the flakes correctly, although their answers regarding worked material were often incorrect (Newcomer et al. 1986:214). However, from the analysts’ answers regarding worked material provided in Newcomer et al.’s (1986:215) Table 3, the scores can be assumed to average at 2/10 or 20 percent for determining material worked. However, one analyst did not provide any answers for material worked since they felt that the polish was too undeveloped to be distinct to a specific material; therefore, if they are excluded, the average is closer to 2.5/10, or 25 percent.

The third test was conducted due to the fact that the analysts felt that the distinctiveness of the polish may have been affected by the nature of the contact, rubbing, which would be unlikely in archaeological circumstances (Newcomer et al. 1986:215). Therefore, the tools were used to slice the same paired materials as in the second test, and this time the analysts were aware of both the materials worked, and the pairing (Newcomer et al. 1986:215). Again, exact scores were not provided but it was noted that none of the analysts were able to pair the five worked materials correctly (Newcomer et al. 1986:215). Working from answers regarding worked material provided by the analysts in Table 4 (Newcomer et al. 1986:215), the results can be estimated to average at 3/10, or 30 percent for material worked.

These results seem to suggest that polish is much less distinct to worked material than is suggested by some of the major proponents of the high-powered approach, such as Keeley

(1980) and Vaughan (1985). However, many usewear analysts argued that there existed major flaws in the design of the blind test which affected the analysts’ results negatively.

The most frequently cited flaw is that the tools were used for a relatively short period of time (Bamforth 1988:17; Hurcombe 1988:3; Moss 1987). Vaughan (1985:28–29), with his extensive research into usewear traces, notes that the polish for all material types passes through

109 similar stages in which they cannot be distinguished from one another; the first stage he terms

“generic weak polish” and the second stage is described as a “smooth-pitted polish.” It is argued that only once a polish is well-developed does it become distinct to a worked material.

Bamforth (1988:Table 4) attempts to show how tool use duration affects the percentage of correct inferences concerning worked material by comparing the duration of use of a tool to the number of correct inferences for both the Newcomer et al. (1986) blind test and the combined results of the blind tests performed by Keeley and Newcomer (1977), Gendel and Pirnay (1982) and Knutsson and Hope (1984). It is apparent from Bamforth’s (1988:Table 4) summary of these various tests that the Newcomer et al. (1986) tools skew towards shorter duration of use than tools used in the other three blind tests. In the Newcomer et al. (1986) test, 93 percent of the tools were used for 15 minutes or less, while the other tests have 77 percent of tools being used for 16 minutes or more. In addition, the Newcomer et al. (1986) test had 5 tools which were used for 5 minutes or less, and no tools that were used for longer than 30 minutes (Bamforth

1988:Table 4). The Keeley/Gendel/Knutsson tests, on the other hand, have no tools that were used for 5 minutes or less, and 9 tools that were used for 31 minutes or more (Bamforth

1988:Table 4).

When the duration of use is compared to the number of correct responses, we see a steady increase in the number of correct responses with longer use time, starting with 0 percent accuracy for tools used for 5 minutes or less, and steadily increasing to 83 percent accuracy for tools used for 31 minutes or more (Bamforth 1988:Table 4). This clearly suggests that the short use times for the tools in Newcomer et al.’s (1986) blind tests may have been at least partially responsible for the poor results reported.

110

In addition to this, Moss (1987:475), an analyst who participated in Newcomer et al.’s

(1986) blind test and is analyst VI in the article, makes it clear that the polish on all the tools was far too underdeveloped to make any inferences regarding material worked with any degree of certainty. For the second blind test, Moss decided that the polish on the tools was too minor to suggest any worked material at all (Moss 1987:475), and this is reflected in Newcomer et al.’s article (1986:Table 3). For the third set of tools, Moss again determined that the polish was too underdeveloped, and if such artifacts were to be found in an archaeological context, they would not be classified as anything more than “unspecified” (Moss 1987:476). As such, Moss provided no written answers but rather gave verbal responses, which she specified were only guesses

(Moss 1987:476). This, however, was not stated in Newcomer et al.’s (1986) article, and the verbal answers that Moss provided were included in Table 4 (Newcomer et al. 1986:215) with no explanation as to the degree of certainty with which they were made.

Another criticism levelled at Newcomer et al.’s (1986) blind test is the way the analysts’ answers were scored (Bamforth 1988; Hurcombe 1988; Moss 1987). Primarily, it is believed that by pressuring the analysts to give only one answer while punishing them when they gave two, as well as discouraging any non-specific answers, such as “unspecified,” that the scoring system practically guaranteed poor results (Bamforth 1988:17; Hurcombe 1988:2). For example, the fact that only a half point would be given for an answer of “bone/antler” if the material worked was antler can be interpreted as artificially skewing the results lower, especially when these two materials were acknowledged to create very similar polish by Vaughan (1985:31–33), unless under extremely prolonged use. However, because this blind test was developed to test the distinctiveness of usewear polishes to specific material types, I feel that this scoring method is

111 very much in line with that stated goal, and therefore cannot be critiqued in the same manner as a blind test seeking to determine the overall efficacy of usewear analysis.

Despite these criticisms, Newcomer et al. (1986:204) succeeded in their attempt to start a discussion on the need for usewear analysts to create a more explicit and detailed account of the variables that are observed on tools during usewear analysis, and how these affect the interpretation of a tool’s function. For example, Moss (1987:475–476), in her critique of the second set of test tools, mentions that Newcomer et al. removed the tools’ edges by pressure flaking, noting that this seems like an unlikely precontact activity and that it was most likely done to create polish and “no other sorts of wear traces.” This statement alone suggests that more than the appearance of the polish is used in determining worked material.

Bamforth (1988:22) criticizes Newcomer et al.’s (1986:216) suggestion that studies should rely on multiple variables in usewear analysis as gratuitous, since usewear analysts already use things such as edge morphology, edge-chipping, and various microwear features in their interpretation, citing Keeley’s interpretation of Tool 14 in the Keeley and Newcomer

(1977:56–58) blind test. However, in Keeley’s description of Tool 14, Keeley does not discuss anything related to tool morphology, instead emphasizing the appearance of the polish for determining the material worked, with some references made to striations and an admittedly in- depth description of edge-chipping (Keeley and Newcomer 1977:56, 58). In addition, although

Keeley notes the need to use multiple forms of evidence to infer the method of use of a tool, which include the shape and size of the tool, the type and placement of utilization damage, the distribution and orientation of linear wear features (e.g., striations), and the location and extent of usewear polish, he still restricts his ability to infer the material worked to the appearance of the polish (Keeley and Newcomer 1977:37–44; Newcomer and Keeley 1979:199–202), and does not

112 make explicit any of his observations regarding tool morphology or the precise location and extent of usewear (Keeley and Newcomer 1977:56–58). As such, it appears that Bamforth (1988) missed the point that Newcomer et al. (1986) were trying to make with their blind test.

Essentially, Newcomer et al. (1986:203–204) argued that usewear analysts must be more transparent about what variables, exactly, went into their interpretation of the function of a tool in order for other archaeologists to be able to weigh the validity of an interpretation. As it stood at the time, descriptions of tools were often subjective and variables were not listed systematically, and, in some cases, not at all (as evidenced by Keeley and Newcomer’s [1977] blind test), which left the pictures that an author included as the only means by which a reader could evaluate and understand the interpretation; pictures that were often limited in number and of insufficient quality to make such a judgement call (Newcomer et al. 1986:204; Hurcombe

1988:2).

The fact that usewear analysts were not clear about which variables they were using to interpret tool function is highlighted by Levi-Sala’s (1996:9) discussion of her early attempts at usewear research. Levi-Sala (1996:9) claims she struggled in determining differences between polishes for both her undergraduate and graduate research, but attributed these difficulties to be the result of inexperience. By the time she began her graduate research, the works of Keeley

(1980) and Vaughan (1981), as well as others (e.g., Moss 1983), had been published, but Levi-

Sala (1996:9) notes that there was little discussion concerning obstacles in recognizing distinct polishes and problems posed by post-depositional processes. When these were mentioned, they were often dismissed and it was implied that once an analyst had sufficient experience, such problems would no longer be an issue (Levi-Sala 1996:9). It was not until Newcomer et al.’s

(1986) blind test, in which Levi-Sala participated, that she felt vindicated in her belief that polish

113 appearance could not be the only variable used to determine material worked. Thus, although usewear analysts may claim that it was obvious that other variables besides distinctiveness of polish were being used, at least one well-researched usewear analyst was under the impression that it was the only, or at least the most important, variable for determining worked material.

Obviously, if an analyst who was working with other usewear researchers at the Institute of

Archaeology was under such an impression, then usewear research was in need of a drastic change to its theory and method.

Hurcombe (1988) was more willing to accept the challenge provided by Newcomer et al.

(1986), devising a recording system for wear variables that allowed a separation between observation and interpretation (Hurcombe 1988:Appendix). This recording system includes seven variables relating to polish, four variables relating to striations, two variables relating to attrition, and one variable relating to degree of rounding (Hurcombe 1988:Appendix). Hurcombe

(1988:2) agrees with Newcomer et al. (1988) that such a recording system would allow other researchers to understand why a certain interpretation has been given based on the observations made. Hurcombe (1988:5) also notes that this process could lead to greater discussion regarding what variables are more and less important to understanding tool function through usewear analysis, allowing for the development of a more sophisticated approach.

Essentially, Newcomer et al. (1986) brought to the forefront many issues regarding polish appearance, which, though often noted, were very rarely explicitly dealt with in actual archaeological analysis. These issues include the fact that many polishes overlap in appearance, even when they are well-developed (Keeley 1980:56, 61; Vaughan 1985:46); the effect of the coarseness of chert on the development of polish (Keeley 1980:28–34, 35, 43, 56; Vaughan

1985:27); and the fact that polishes can look similar even if they are used on very different

114 materials due to variations in duration of use (Keeley 1980:35–49, 55–60; Vaughan 1985:31–34,

45–46). This direct attack on the diagnostic ability of polishes required researchers to directly address and discuss the theory and methodology surrounding usewear analysis. Newcomer et al.’s (1986, 1988) call for a less subjective and more systematic approach would give rise to the multivariate approach in usewear analysis.

The Multivariate Approach

The multivariate approach is a method which uses multiple variables, such as aspects of tool morphology, edge wear, rounding, striations, and gloss, as well as multiple aspects of polish, in order to elucidate tool function, and is a method championed primarily by Grace (1988; Grace et al. 1988) amongst others (Levi-Sala 1996:11; Newcomer et al. 1986, 1988). This method does not view polish as distinctive, but rather uses the interaction of multiple variables to reach the most likely conclusion regarding tool function. In fact, of the 22 variables that Grace (1988) deems important for interpreting tool function, only one deals directly with polish appearance and it is a simple measure of polish development.

For example, aspects of tool morphology can be functionally diagnostic when correlated with other variables. Edge angle is one such aspect of tool morphology, since, in conjunction with the amount and nature of edge-chipping, it can be used to determine the hardness of the worked material (Grace 1988:47). This is due to the fact that the edge angle affects the

“toughness” of the tool, in the sense that where an acute angled edge would accumulate little to no edge-chipping when used to cut meat, it would accumulate considerable edge-chipping when used to cut antler. Similarly, the relationship between edge angle and the hardness of the worked material will allow one to discern probable uses for the tool, such that an acute angled tool will not be considered for scraping bone, since the resulting edge damage would make the tool

115 inoperable in a very short period of time (Grace 1988:47). Thus, the functional capability of tools can be surmised from morphological attributes, and can immediately narrow down the possible uses of a tool when attempting to determine its function.

By understanding the complex interplay of specific variables and how they relate to tool function, one can overcome many of the problems associated with polish appearance. For example, as stated earlier, one of the main problems with polish is that all polishes go through the same stages of polish formation, and the hardness of the worked material impacts how quickly polish develops. Therefore, a tool used for a short period of time on hard material can have similar polish development to a tool used for a long period of time on a soft material. In this scenario, the hardness of the material can be determined by understanding the polish development in light of other variables. If the used edge is acute angled, with little edge-chipping and invasive, weakly-developed polish, one can assume that it was not used on a hard material such as antler and bone. The edge angle and degree of edge wear is important for determining this because hard materials would create high amounts of edge-chipping on an acute edge, and therefore a hard material can be discounted as the worked material (Grace 1988:61). The degree of invasiveness vs. the degree of polish development can be used to further support the exclusion of use on a hard material. This is due to important differences between hard and soft materials.

The first is the fact that hard materials are much more resistant to penetration, and therefore a tool would have had to have been used for a long time to get invasive polish (Grace 1988:56).

The second is that polishes are noted to develop faster when working hard materials over softer ones (Vaughan 1985:29). Thus, if the tool was used to work a hard material, the polish should be extremely well-developed if it is invasive since not only would the tool have been used for a long time, but the polish would have developed much quicker than for a softer material.

116

One could further narrow down the material worked by taking into account variables such as striations and polish distribution types, which indicate the use motion, some of which cannot be used on certain materials (e.g., a whittling motion cannot be used on hide), in addition to observations regarding the distribution of the polish (e.g., is it restricted to high points or is it found in both high and low points?). If the striations are perpendicular to an acute edge, and the polish distribution type is linear lines of polish perpendicular to the working edge, suggesting a whittling motion, and the polish distribution was primarily restricted to higher points, then one could surmise that the material worked was wood, since it is a material of medium hardness which could create the complex interplay observed between edge-chipping, distribution type, degree of invasiveness, and degree of polish development, as well as being a material that is commonly worked in the motion indicated by the striations and polish distribution type.

A more thorough discussion on the usewear variables recorded and their importance to understanding tool function is provided in Chapter 6.

A blind test was conducted by Grace et al. (1988) to determine the efficacy of this method in comparison to the “Keeley method,” which is the method of analysis focusing on distinctive usewear polishes as proposed by Keeley (1980), and used in Keeley and Newcomer’s

(1977) and Unrath et al.’s (1986) blind tests, and the first set of tools (tools 1–10) in Newcomer et al.’s (1986) blind test.

The parameters of the blind test were carried out in the exact same manner as the first 10 tools in Newcomer et al.’s (1986) blind test, with 20 experimental tools being created and given to 4 analysts for interpretation (Grace 1988:89). However, this blind test differed from

Newcomer et al.’s (1986) in that analysts used the multivariate approach in which they all used

117 the same data sheets, recording 22 separate variables and making their interpretations based on this methodology (Grace 1988:94).

Grace et al. (1988) used the same scoring method as the Newcomer et al. (1986) blind test, except that all partial marks were excluded and counted as zero, allowing for a direct comparison between the results garnered by the Keeley method vs. the multivariate method. The results from Grace et al.’s (1988) blind test averaged 79/80 or 99 percent for used area, compared to 64 percent for Newcomer et al. (1986); 72/80 or 90 percent for use motion, compared to 36 percent for Newcomer et al. (1986), and 40/80 or 50 percent for worked material, compared to 6 percent for Newcomer et al. (1986) (Grace 1988:Figure 56). Further, if Grace et al.’s (1988) results are assessed at the level of hardness of worked material, the score increases to 90 percent accuracy (Grace 1988:93). This suggests a significant improvement over the Keeley method.

In addition to the comparison between the Grace et al. (1988) and Newcomer et al.

(1986) blind tests, Grace (1988) adjusted the scoring of both the Keeley and Newcomer (1977) and Unrath et al. (1986) to also match that of the Institute of Archaeology scoring system in order to further compare the multivariate approach to those using the Keeley method (Table 1).

Table 1. Results of Four Blind Tests using the Institute of Archaeology Scoring System (from Grace 1988:Figure 56).

Blind Test Used Area (%) Use Motion Worked Material (%) (%) Grace et al. (1988) 99 90 50 Keeley and Newcomer (1977) 87 75 44 Unrath et al. (1986) 72 52 26 Newcomer et al. (1986) 64 36 6

As can be seen in Table 1, when scoring is kept constant, the Grace et al. (1988) blind test still performs the best, especially in regards to other blind tests conducted with multiple analysts, suggesting that the multivariate approach is a viable means for assessing tool function.

118

The multivariate approach allows for a more consistent method of observation resulting in a consistent and high degree of accuracy when interpreting tool function, in addition to allowing other archaeologists to directly assess the interpretation of tool function based on the observations provided by the analyst. As such, the multivariate approach will be the method of usewear analysis used in this research.

Summary

Since its introduction to western archaeologists in 1964 by Semenov’s Prehistoric

Technology, usewear research has exploded, with various methods being developed (low vs. high-power), as well as exploration into the non-use traces that could mimic or obscure usewear.

Although early blind tests (Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980) suggested usewear’s efficacy in determining precontact stone tool function, later blind tests

(Newcomer et al. 1986; Unrath et al. 1986) suggested that adjustments still needed to be made to the theory and method behind usewear analysis. In response, the multivariate approach arose to address many of the issues prevalent in the Keeley method, advocating for an understanding of the complex interplay of variables that affect usewear development. With this understanding, a series of features can be used to narrow down tool function interpretations.

119

Chapter 6: Methodology

Usewear

Experimental Program

An initial experimental program was conducted with stone tools for two reasons: 1) to better understand the development and appearance of usewear and 2) to create data sheets that could be directly compared to those created for archaeological tools in order to aid in interpretation of the tool function.

A combination of unmodified flakes and formed tools were used to conduct usewear experiments. The materials that were used in the experiments were selected due to their prevalence in the archaeological tool assemblages, and include: chert, which was primarily heat- treated Swan River chert, except for two flakes of unmodified Swan River chert and three flakes of Antigua chert; heat-treated petrified wood; and obsidian. The scraping of the flesh side of elk hide was conducted three times: once with a heat-treated, pressure-flaked scraper; once with a heat-treated unmodified flake; and once with an unmodified flake that was not heat-treated. This was done to determine any differences in the development of usewear due to heat-treatment, including edge-chipping, which could not be determined on the pressure-flaked scraper.

All of the petrified wood pieces used for the experiments were heat-treated after it was determined that the petrified wood tools in the archaeological assemblages were heat-treated. It was suspected that heat-treatment had a significant impact on the flakeability of petrified wood after discussions with Eugene Gryba (personal communication 2013), a skilled flintknapper, concerning his own experience working with petrified wood. This was confirmed through two experimental tests regarding the heat-treatment of petrified wood and the effects on its

120 flakeability conducted by Eugene Gryba (personal communication 2013), as well as multiple specimens of heat-treated petrified wood provided to the author by Eugene Gryba.

In the first experiment, a raw piece of petrified wood was broken into seven pieces and each piece was heated to a different temperature in a kiln, with one piece remaining raw. Once a piece had been heat treated, a flake was removed in order to determine any changes in the texture and flakeability of the material. This method allowed the author to determine to what degree the temperature that heat-treatment occurs at affects the flakeability of petrified wood, if it all. The lowest temperature to which the petrified wood was heated was 610°F, where no significant change in texture or flakeability was noted. 670°F was noted to have a minimal change, while the next temperature increment, 725°F, was the lowest temperature at which a waxy luster started to appear. 750°F was noted to have a good luster, with significantly improved flakeability over the raw piece, and temperature increases beyond this point (to 800°F and 830°F) seemed to have minimal impact on the luster and flakeability of the material.

The second, shortened, experiment was done to confirm the results of the first experiment. In this one, a petrified wood core was broken into two pieces, one of which was flaked in its raw state, the second of which was heated to 750°F and then flaked. The results conform to those of the previous experiment, with a notable improvement in the luster and flakeability of the heat-treated core.

Three additional collections of flakes, tools, and shatter that had been made from petrified wood cores heat-treated to between 700–735°F were also provided to the author by

Eugene Gryba. These pieces, although there was no original raw material to compare them to, had a luster that was recognized as being distinct to heat treatment. To confirm this, an extremely high-quality piece of Hand Hills petrified wood, which had not been heat-treated but could easily

121 be mistaken for a chalcedony, was compared to the heat-treated petrified wood. The heat-treated petrified wood had a distinct waxy luster that was absent from the high-quality Hand Hills material, which had a much duller luster due to having a slightly rougher, less vitreous surface texture (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Petrified wood from the first heat-treatment experiment: a) untreated petrified wood; b) untreated Hand Hills petrified wood; c) petrified wood from the same core as “a” but heated to 750°F. Note the difference in lustre between the three pieces.

Experiments with campfires done by Bentsen (2013) revealed that wood fires can reach temperatures near to and within the range required to achieve the luster and flakeability noted in the experimental pieces. Bentsen (2013:Table 1) found maximum surface temperatures ranging from 817°F to 1362°F and subsurface temperatures—which would allow for a slower heat- treatment in order to avoid spalling or cracking due to rapid changes in temperature—ranging between 351°F to 681°F. Bentsen (2013:138–139) also noted that various factors can affect the

122 surface and subsurface temperatures, which include the topsoil horizon, wood taxon, wood mass, and log size; therefore, a hunter-gatherer group may have been able to have a great amount of control over the heat of their fires by making adjustments in these variables, and could possibly achieve much higher subsurface temperatures than the ones in Bentsen’s experiments.

This experiment revealed that petrified wood flakeability improved tremendously with heat-treatment by creating a much more homogenous texture in petrified wood, removing much of the internal grid-like structure of the material. In addition, the texture became waxier and the colour changed, often resulting in a dark red or orange-brown cortex and streaks throughout lighter-coloured material; however, this change in colour was often extremely subtle, and therefore the texture and luster of the material are better indicators of heat-treatment. The flakes created in this experiment were then compared to the archaeological material, which was found to bear a striking resemblance to the heat-treated flakes. In addition to this resemblance, the fact that heat-treatment so remarkably improves the flakeability of petrified wood suggests that this would have been a common strategy of precontact flintknappers, especially when other materials in the assemblages also bear evidence of heat-treatment (e.g. Swan River chert).

Chert and petrified wood formed the most extensive part of the experimental program as they were the most common materials within the archaeological collection. In addition, petrified wood was used to perform a number of experiments due to the fact that little previous research could be found on the development of microscopic usewear on petrified wood tools. Once multiple experiments had been conducted with both petrified wood and chert tools, it was found that the development and form of usewear was very similar between the two materials—which is to be expected as they are both cryptocrystalline silica minerals—with petrified wood behaving similarly to a fine-grained chert but with some minor differences. First, petrified wood has a

123 grid-like structure that is a remnant from the original structure of the wood. This element actually proved to be useful in determining use-motion since the motion would often remove the grid-like traces that were perpendicular to it, resulting in the remnants of the grid-like structure being only those that were parallel to the use-motion, creating a type of “linearity” to the surface. Second, the platy, lamellar structure of the petrified wood makes identification of striations difficult, as this structure has a tendency to mimic them. However, often these “false striations” are not straight, and also appear to be above, rather than within, the material itself, with the result that a practiced eye can sometimes distinguish them from true striations. Caution and careful attention to these details is critical. Third, edge-chipping cannot be used to determine material type worked since petrified wood tends towards step flakes, no matter the hardness of the material worked. Fourth, petrified plant cells are highly reflective and can mimic polish, therefore the researcher must be cognizant of this and look for remnants of vessels to help determine if it is true polish or merely a petrified cell. Due to the fact that polish development was so similar between chert and petrified wood, I found their results to be interchangeable and therefore did not use petrified wood and chert to work all of the same materials.

Obsidian was used to conduct a small number of usewear experiments. This was done because a very small number of the tools from the archaeological assemblage were made on obsidian and, due to the fact that it is an exotic material on the southern Alberta Plains, I wanted to understand how it was used. However, there were not enough tools (or time) to warrant a full- scale experimental program with obsidian, so experiments were conducted only to achieve a better understanding of how usewear develops and what it looks like on obsidian. Hurcombe’s

(1992) experimental analysis of obsidian usewear was used to make more detailed interpretations regarding material hardness and motion of use.

124

Experimental tools were inspected under the microscope before use in order to ensure that a natural formation or pre-existing edge-chipping was not confused for usewear. Any features that could be mistaken for usewear were photographed and compared to observations after use to ensure correct interpretation of usewear. In addition, photographs of unmodified edges were also taken in order to directly compare and contrast an unmodified edge and a used edge. This allowed me to fully comprehend the effect of use on the edge of a tool and therefore understand and recognize usewear more readily on archaeological tools.

Use tasks were chosen to represent a variety of materials with different degrees of hardness, while still being relevant to the materials and tasks that would have been conducted by the precontact users of the stone tool assemblages under study. A combination of formed tools and utilized flakes were used to cut meat and carrots; scrape the flesh and the hair side of fresh elk hide, both with an abrasive and without; cut fresh hide; scrape and saw wood; saw a palm frond (although this is not found on the Plains, it was used to mimic sawing a silica-rich plant); and scrape and saw bone, both with an abrasive and without (see Table 2 for a detailed breakdown of the experiments conducted). All tools were held in the hand, with latex gloves worn in some, but not all, experiments. Abrasive experiments with hide and bone were conducted for two reasons. First, as Keeley (1974:330) states, the environment of hunter- gatherers was a good deal grittier than present day, and therefore abrasive particles may have been an unavoidable aspect when carrying out a task. This seems especially relevant to hide- working since during the usewear experiments with fresh, clean hide it was found that the hide attracted dirt and grit that was impossible to remove completely. Second, Brink (1978b:364) discusses ethnographic evidence of hunter-gatherers using materials such as dirt, bone dust,

125 flour, and cornmeal in hide-working. The reasons for these additions are suggested to be the absorbing of fats and grease, and as lubrication for scraping tools.

Overall, the experimental program was somewhat limited since the goal was to recognize general patterns in polish development as they relate to material hardness, which could be achieved with far fewer experiments than those hoping to determine polishes distinct to worked materials. In addition, Vaughan (1985) conducted an extensive experimental program (249 chert tools), which he documented in great detail and with copious high-quality photographs, which allows researchers to use his experimental work to supplement their own. Grace (1989:Appendix

3) also provides the data sheets for his experimental tools, which can be used to supplement my own.

Although various methods of recording the amount of use on experimental tools has been used, such as time (e.g., Keeley 1980, Vaughan 1985) and task completion (e.g., Hayden 1979a),

I used number and size of strokes as suggested by Schiffer (1979:19) and used by various usewear analysts such as Tringham et al. (1974) and Brink (1978b). This method was employed as it can be easily standardized across experiments since one can estimate exactly how much, for example, hide was scraped or wood was cut. I believe this to be a more accurate standardization method than working a material for a specific amount of time since the number and length of strokes completed within a specific time frame will vary from person to person, which could result in very different use-wear development. The task completion method could be argued to have better standardization across different analysts, however, the tasks themselves vary in size and therefore very specific descriptions must be provided for each task (e.g., how large was the animal, and how many/what types of meat cuts were made?). The average number of strokes

126 made was 1000, with fewer strokes made if the tool became too dull to use before that point, and more strokes made if the usewear took longer to develop.

Once use tasks had been completed, the tool was washed with warm water and dish soap, then placed in a plastic bag.

127

Table 2. Usewear Experiments.

Lithic Material Worked Material Number of Strokes Length of Strokes Motion of Use Tool Type (cm) Chert Meat 1000 5 Cutting Utilized Flake (Heat-Treated) (Blade Steak) Chert Carrots 1100 1–2 Sawing Utilized Flake (Antigua) Chert Hide 1000 10–20 Scraping End Scraper (Heat-Treated) (Flesh Side) Chert Hide 1000 5–10 Scraping Utilized Flake (Heat-Treated) (Flesh Side) Chert Hide 1000 10–20 Scraping Utilized Flake (Flesh Side) Chert Hide 1000 5 Scraping Utilized Flake (Hair Side) Chert Hide 1000 5–10 Scraping Side Scraper (Heat-Treated) (Hair Side) with Abrasive Chert Hide 1000 10 Scraping Side Scraper (Heat-Treated) (Flesh Side) with Abrasive Chert Hide 1000 (Noticeably 15–20 Cutting Utilized Flake (Heat-Treated) (Flesh Side) dull at 800) Chert Fresh Wood 1000 5–10 Whittling Utilized Flake (Heat-Treated) (Populus tremuloides) Chert Dry Wood (Abies 1000 5 Sawing Utilized Flake (Antigua) balsamea) Chert Dry Wood (Abies 2000 5 Sawing Utilized Flake (Antigua) balsamea) Chert Bone 1000 5 Sawing Utilized Flake (Heat-Treated) Chert Bone 1000 5 Scraping Side Scraper (Heat-Treated) Petrified Wood Meat 1000 2–5 Cutting Biface (Blade Steak) Petrified Wood Hide 1000 5–10 Scraping Side Scraper (Flesh Side) Petrified Wood Hide 1000 5 Scraping Utilized Flake (Hair Side) Petrified Wood Hide 800 (Extremely dull 15–20 Cutting Biface (Flesh Side) at 500) Petrified Wood Palm Frond 1000 8 Sawing Biface (Genus Caryota) Petrified Wood Fresh Wood 1000 10 Sawing Biface (Populus tremuloides) Petrified Wood Fresh Wood 1000 5–10 Scraping Side Scraper (Populus tremuloides) Petrified Wood Bone 1000 5 Scraping End Scraper Petrified Wood Bone with Abrasive 1000 5 Scraping Side Scraper Petrified Wood Bone 1000 5 Sawing Biface Obsidian Hide 1000 5–10 Scraping End Scraper (Flesh Side) Obsidian Hide 1000 5–10 Cutting Utilized Flake (Flesh Side) Obsidian Fresh Wood 1000 5 Sawing Utilized Flake (Populus tremuloides)

128

Tool Preparation

In order to prepare tools for usewear analysis, tools were cleaned with hot water and liquid dish soap that was rubbed into the tool with the fingers. Tools were then patted dry with paper towel. Tools may be washed multiple times during the course of the analysis in order to remove finger grease or other residues. Acetate was sometimes applied with a small paintbrush to remove nail polish from cataloguing that was overlaying an edge, or stubborn finger grease. In instances where tools had dirt that could not be removed by scrubbing with the fingers and soap, tools were placed in either a small plastic Tupperware container or a plastic bag with soap and warm water and placed in a sonicator for 15 to 20 minutes. The tools were then rinsed and patted dry with paper towel.

Tools were propped on the slides using sticky tack in order to maintain as large a depth- of-field as possible for the area of the tool being observed.

Data and Interpretation

Usewear was observed using a Nikon Optiphot incident light, metallurgical microscope with magnification at 100x, 200x, and 400x. Initial scans of the tools were done at 100x in order to find any evidence of post-depositional alteration, such as soil-sheen or patination, and determine which edges showed signs of usewear. Photographs of usewear were regularly taken at both 200x and 400x magnification. A stereoscopic microscope with up to 40x magnification was used in some cases to determine the form of flake scars composing edge-chipping. Photographs of usewear were taken using a Tucsen IS Capture IS500 camera with IS Capture software; photographs were then stacked using Zerene Stacker software. Outline drawings of the tools were made so that the position of each photograph could be recorded.

129

Data was recorded using data sheets developed by Grace (Figure 4), as published in

Grace (1988:Figure 8); these data sheets were chosen due to the fact that they make explicit many of the implicit observations that are made in determining tool function. In addition,

Grace’s methodology was significantly more accurate in predicting used area than other methodologies that were used in blind tests, as was discussed previously (Table 1).

Tool Number Tool Type Grain Size: Fine/Medium/Coarse Topography: Flat/Undulating/Ridged Topographic Features: Percussion Ripples/Edge Feathering/Flake Scars/Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle Length Thickness Profile Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 per 10 mm/>5 per 10 mm/Absent Fracture Type: Snap/Feather/Hinge/Step/Absent Rounding: Light/Heavy/Absent Gloss: Present/Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 per 5 mm/>5 per 5 mm/Absent Fracture Type: Snap/Feather/Hinge/Step/Absent Rounding: Light/Heavy/Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat/Undulating/Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous/Intermittent/Absent Distribution Type: Away from Edge/Gapped/Edge Only-Even/Edge Only- Asymmetric/Differential/Absent Invasiveness: Edge Only/<0.5D/>0.5D/Absent Linear Features: Parallel/Perpendicular/Angled/Absent Striations: Parallel/Perpendicular/Angled/Absent Polish Development: A (Individual Elements)/A+/B (Linked)/B+/C (All Over)/D (Linear)/Absent Attrition (Obsidian Only): Light/Heavy/Absent

Figure 4. Usewear Data Sheet (based on Grace 1988:Figure 8).

130

The observations recorded based Grace’s (1988) data sheets are:

Grain Size: This is important due to the fact that grain size can affect how polish develops and its appearance under the microscope. Coarser-grained material can take longer to develop edge- rounding and polish (Grace 1988:23; Keeley 1980:28–34, 35, 43, 56; Vaughan 1985:27). Coarser grains result in less linkage between polish components, resulting in more unpolished interstitial spaces, however, greater use-time can result in a polish equal to that of finer-grained flints

(Vaughan 1985:28).

Grace (1988) does not offer an objective method to measure grain size; however, I classified fine-grained material as those that had the appearance of mudstone (observed with the naked eye, having a smooth appearance) at 200x magnification, while those that had the appearance of siltstone (again, observed with the naked eye, having a rough appearance) at this magnification are classified as medium-grained material. Any materials that look coarser than siltstone at 200x magnification are classified as coarse-grained. To clarify, materials classified as fine or medium-grained do not have mud or silt-sized particles, but rather mimic the appearance of unmagnified mudstone or siltstone at 200x magnification.

Topography: This refers to the topography of the flint surface and is included as it may affect polish distribution patterns, and therefore must be recognized so as not to confuse any such patterning as being a result of functional tool use (Grace 1988:23). Topography can be flat, undulating, or ridged, where undulating is the result of percussion ripples, and ridged is, according to Grace (1988:24), edge feathering. However, I also included edge flake scars, whether intentional or unintentional, as creating a ridged topography.

Topographic Features: This observation simply makes explicit the origin of the topography, whether it is percussion ripples, edge feathering, edge flake scars, or a combination of the three.

131

Edge Angle: This is an important aspect of the morphology of the tool since edge angle can have a strong influence on what types of task a tool is best suited for (Grace 1988:47). An edge angle of 90° would be incredibly inefficient for a cutting task but would make for an efficient scraper.

Hayden’s (1979b) work in Australia allows for some generalizations to be made concerning edge angle and probable task, although there is great variation within each tool type. Scrapers have an edge angle ranging from 60° to 90°; knives have an edge angle ranging from 20° to 50°; and choppers have an edge angle ranging from 60° to 90° (Hayden 1979b). In addition, Grace

(1988:47) suggests there is a relationship between edge angle and the amount of edge-chipping, which can be used to understand the hardness of the material worked. For example, a thin edge will have much less damage when used to work a soft material, such as meat, versus a hard material, such as bone.

Edge angle is measured using a goniometer, at the midpoint of a working edge, and is the angle between the ventral surface and the retouched or utilized edge, or, in the case of bifacially flaked tools, it is the angle of the working edge created by such retouch (Grace 1988:24). It is not to be confused with Tringham et al.’s (1974) spine plane angle, which will provide a very different angle measurement, especially in the case of bifacial retouch.

Edge Length: This measurement is used as an indicator of functional capability, with the basic assumption being that different edge lengths are preferable for different tasks (Grace 1988:47).

For example, a longer edge is preferable for a sawing task than a shorter edge.

Edge length is measured using either non-stretchable string or a dressmaker’s tape measure which is placed along the length of the working edge (Grace 1988:27).

Thickness: This aspect of tool morphology gives one an idea regarding the strength of a tool in relation to its working edge (Grace 1988:47). It also limits the possible uses of a tool; for

132 example, a thin knife would not be able an effective tool in a chopping task, which would require a much thicker tool to withstand the percussive force.

Thickness is a measure of the thickest portion of the tool using a caliper perpendicular to the midpoint of the working edge (Grace 1988:28)

Edge Profile: This relates to the shape of the working edge, whether it is convex, concave, or straight. This aspect of tool morphology also limits the possible uses for a tool (Grace 1988:47); for example, a concave edge would be inefficient for sawing or grooving.

Although Grace (1988:29) suggests a measurement to determine the exact degree of convexity or concavity, I simply held the working edge up to a flat surface in order to achieve a basic observation of the shape of the edge profile.

Macro Fractures: These are fractures that can be seen with the naked eye. This feature provides three pieces of information when combined with “macro fracture type” (discussed below): which portion of the tool may have been used, the motion of use, and the hardness of the worked material (Grace 1988:48). Of course, a lack of edge-chipping does not mean that tool has not been used, especially since the edge angle and thickness can affect how much an edge fractures

(e.g., a thin, acute angled tool will accrue much more edge-chipping than a thick, obtuse angled tool when used to scrape a hard material).

Macro Fractures are recorded as being either greater than or less than 5 fractures per 10 mm.

This is a simple method of determining whether the amount of edge-chipping is functionally diagnostic or not, with any damage less than 5 fractures per 10 mm having a high probability of being the result of accidental damage (Grace 1988:34). This feature cannot be observed on retouched edges, since any usewear fractures cannot be distinguished from spontaneous retouch

(Brink 1978a; Grace 1988:34; Keeley 1980:25; Newcomer 1976; Vaughan 1985:11).

133

Macro Fracture Type: This relates to the type of flake scar that is created from use and can be seen with the naked eye, and can be used to determine motion of use, as well as hardness of the worked material. It includes snap fractures (crescent or half-moon shaped fractures created by bending stress), step scars (result of flakes that ended in a hinge or step fracture and are often produced by percussion directly on the edge rather than against one side), and conchoidal scars

(result of flakes that end in a feather termination and are often produced when percussion is against one side of the edge) (Grace 1988:34).

They are recorded separately for the ventral and dorsal side, since where the fractures are found can be an indicator of movement. For example, if flake fractures are found only on the dorsal aspect of a tool, it suggests a unidirectional movement that places the ventral surface as the leading aspect. If flake fractures are found on both the dorsal and ventral edge, it suggests a longitudinal movement such as cutting or sawing (Grace 1988:48; Odell and Odell-Vereecken

1980:98–99; Tringham et al. 1974:188–189).

Various usewear analysts (Kooyman 2000:156; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:101;

Tringham et al. 1974:189–191) have noted that working soft materials tends to result in small scars with feather terminations; medium materials often cause larger scars than soft materials, and tend towards hinge terminations; and the working of hard materials often results in large, step scars.

Macro Rounding: This observation records the degree of rounding on a tool edge and can elucidate which tool edges were used, as well as use motion and possible hardness of the worked material (Grace 1988:50). Rounding can be an indicator of motion of use due to the fact that rounding only occurs on the aspect of a tool that is in contact with the worked material (Grace

1988:50). When rounding is present on only one side of an edge, it suggests a unilateral motion,

134 such as scraping, whereas rounding found on both the dorsal and ventral aspect of a tool suggests a longitudinal motion, such as cutting. Hardness of the worked material is theorized to also have an effect on the degree of rounding, with soft materials often causing less edge-rounding than hard materials, although hide is often an exception to this rule (Grace 1988:50). It is suggested that hide-working produces heavy rounding due to the fact that the yielding material does not result in the rounded edges being removed through frequent edge fracturing, as well as a significant number of abrasive particles being present (Grace 1988:50).

Rounding is recorded as light, heavy, or absent (Grace 1988:37). There is some subjectivity to this method, with comparisons to experimental tools being necessary.

Macroscopic rounding can be felt with a fingertip and seen with the naked eye.

Macro Gloss: This refers to polish that can be seen with the naked eye and is recorded as present or absent (Grace 1988:37). This observation helps to identify working edges, and can indicate that the tool was either used to work a hard material that produces a high polish quickly, or a softer material over a long period of time (Grace 1988:49)

Micro Fractures: This is the same variables and values as Macro Fractures but observed at 200x magnification, and therefore excludes those fractures recorded under Macro Fractures. The number of fractures are recorded as less than or greater than 5 fractures per 5 mm (Grace

1988:37). As with Macro Fractures, Micro Fractures cannot be recorded for retouched edges.

Micro Fracture Type: Again, this is the same variables and values as Macro Fracture Type but for the fractures observed at 200x magnification (Grace 1988:37).

Micro Rounding: This observation is the same as Macro Rounding, with observations recorded as light, heavy, or absent, but made at 200x magnification (Grace 1988:37).

135

Micro-topography of Polished Area: This observation is similar to the one for Topography, but is restricted to the polished area at 200x magnification (Grace 1988:38). Again, the topography must be understood so that any patterns resulting from the topography are not mistaken for patterns resulting from a specific use motion or worked material. For example, in the case of a ridged or undulating surface, the peaks of the ridges may have more developed polish than the valleys because the ridges contact the material first and for longer and/or have more pressure placed on them by the worked material (Grace 1988:51). Although Grace (1988) does not include flake scars in the topography, I include them under the “ridged” topography label.

Polish Distribution: Polish distribution is recorded as either continuous or intermittent, and may relate to the original topography of the polished area, as discussed above (Grace 1988:38, 51). It can also elucidate possible use motions and hardness of the worked material. Transversal motions, such as scraping, are expected to result in more discontinuous polish distribution since the motion is parallel to the projections caused by retouch and therefore the material is primarily contacting only the tops of the ridges, especially when used to work a hard material.

Longitudinal use motions, on the other hand, will result in a more continuous polish distribution since it is perpendicular to the ridges, often resulting in the worked material contacting more of the tool edge (Grace 1988:52).

Polish Distribution Types: These types describe the variations in polish distribution as noted on

Grace’s (1988:38) experimental tools, and include where, and in what arrangement, the polish is distributed on the working edge: 1) Away from the edge: where polish is distributed in a band not on the very edge of a tool, but away from it (Grace 1988:38). This distribution pattern indicates that the edge was not the cutting edge of the tool since it was not in direct contact with the worked material, rather, the surface was rubbing against the worked material (Grace

136

1988:53); 2) Gapped: where polish is located on the very edge and away from the edge, with a gap in between the two bands (Grace 1988:38). This occurs when the edge is the cutting edge and the surface of the tool is rubbing against the worked material (Grace 1988:53); 3) Edge only/even: where polish is distributed evenly along the very edge of the tool (Grace 1988:38).

This is the most common distribution type according to Grace (1988:54) and is produced by a number of activities and therefore is not the best indicator of function; 4) Edge only/asymmetric: where the polish is distributed along the working edge but it is more invasive along some portions of the edge (Grace 1988:39). This distribution pattern can help determine motion of use since the more invasive portion of polish is often indicative of the leading aspect of the edge

(Grace 1988:54); 5) Differential: characterized by two different levels of polish development on the same edge (Grace 1988:39). This distribution type can be indicative of either two separate activities or two different materials involved in the same activity (such as cutting meat on a wooden cutting board) (Grace 1988:54). As discussed previously, topographical features can also cause this pattern.

Some tools may have more than one distribution pattern, which can help to narrow down their function.

Invasiveness: This refers to the degree that polish extends away from the edge. It can be used to help determine degree of hardness of the worked material since it is often associated with the depth of penetration of the material (Grace 1988:55). A softer material will allow greater penetration (and more easily) than a harder material. This observation can be combined with polish development to make a strong case for material hardness. Contact angle can also effect the degree of invasiveness; for example, a transverse scraper held at an acute angle will have a

137 greater area in contact with the worked material than one used at a more obtuse angle, resulting in greater invasiveness (Grace 1988:55).

It is recorded as less than or greater than half a diameter of the field of view through the microscope at 200x magnification. A third option, edge only, is given for distances of less than

100 μm (Grace 1988:40).

Linear Features: This observation describes lines of polish, referred to as superficial striations by

Vaughan (1985:24), and their orientation to the working edge is recorded (Grace 1988:41, 56).

Their orientation is recorded since linear features are oriented in the direction of use, and are therefore an important indicator of direction of use (Grace 1988:56). They are recorded separately from striations because they are not true striations, not being a void within the polish, but rather are polish created by contacting the worked material (Grace 1988:56). For petrified wood tools, this term is also used to refer to any “linearity” observed from the removal of the grid-like structure, as discussed previously.

Striations: This refers to scratches or grooves in the polished surface, and their orientation to the working edge is recorded (Grace 1988:41). Striations are an indicator of the motion of use in the same way as linear features (Grace 1988:56).

Polish Development: This describes the degree of linkage between polish elements, with A being individual points of polish that are separated from each other within an unpolished surface; A+ being larger, but still unlinked, points of polish; B being linked polish but with the majority of the observed area being unpolished; B+ being the amount of linked polish is equal to the amount of unpolished area; C being all over polish with very few to no unpolished interstitial spaces; and

D is polish that is linked in a linear manner (Grace 1988:42–43). Grace (1988:57) found through his experimental work that polish development was related primarily to hardness of the worked

138 material and duration of tool use. Essentially, all tools will pass through the same stages of polish development, but the degree of polish development will vary based on those two variables, rather than being distinct to specific material types, such as wood or bone. Other usewear analysts, even those who have found that distinct materials create distinct usewear, have noted that polish tends to progress through similar stages until it is well-developed, such as Keeley’s (1980) reticular patterning and Vaughan’s (1985) generic weak polish and smooth-pitted polish. The problem here is that because all polishes move through the same stages of development, and we do not know how long a material was worked, polish could be the result of any number of materials

(Grace 1988:58). For example, polish could be the result of working a hard material for a short period of time, or a soft material for a long period of time. However, when taken in conjunction with other observations, such as edge angle, polish invasiveness, and edge-chipping, polish development can be a good indicator of the hardness of material worked, as discussed in Chapter

For obsidian tools, polish development is merely noted as being present or absent, since obsidian is too fine-grained to recognize noticeable individual polish elements.

Attrition: This is an observation that is only used for obsidian tools, and is defined by Hurcombe

(1992:57) as the breaking up of the surface area due to fracture damage. It is an important observation due to the fact that Hurcombe (1992) noted that scraping actions tended to result in greater edge attrition than did cutting motions. In addition, variations in the amount of attrition depend on the material worked (e.g., harder plants create more edge attrition than softer ones). It is recorded as being light, heavy, or absent. It is not recorded for any other material type due to the fact that the uniquely brittle and homogenous nature of obsidian is what makes it susceptible

139 to attrition under certain circumstance in which chert and petrified wood would be immune to such forms of surface damage.

These observations can be used in conjunction to make interpretations regarding direction of use, motion of use, hardness of the worked material, and, based on all these interpretations, the most probable function of the tool.

In most cases, the final interpretation was limited to the hardness of the material (soft, medium, or hard) since determining specific worked material accurately would require a much more extensive experimental program and time investment than was possible for this research.

Even if this level of analysis was possible, predicting specific material worked had quite a low success rate in blind tests amongst even the most well-researched usewear analysts (44% for

Keeley and 50% for Grace [Table 1]). Soft materials include such things as meat, plants, woody plants, soft wood, and fresh hide (Grace 1988:69; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:101); medium materials include wood, fish, dry hide, and horn (Grace 1988:69; Odell and Odell-

Vereecken 1980:101); and hard materials include antler, bone, shell, and stone (Grace 1988:69;

Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980:101). This should not affect the ability to determine the versatility of a tool, being that EUs and use motion should be unaffected, but it may cause some issues when it comes to determining the flexibility of a tool if all EUs were used to work materials of similar hardness. However, this may be avoided by recognizing minor differences in well-developed usewear, which could point to different worked materials even if the specific material is unknown. However, in certain cases where a high degree of confidence can be achieved, precise material type worked is offered.

140

Excluded Tools

Quartzite and sandstone tools, as well as projectile points and wedges were excluded from the usewear analysis. Quartzite and sandstone tools were excluded on the basis that many were far too large to fit under the microscope. The few tools that were small enough were a small percentage of the overall tool assemblage and it was therefore decided that the time investment required to learn the variations in usewear found on quartzite and sandstone tools was far greater than any value that could be gleaned from the tools.

Projectile points were excluded on the basis of time investment. Projectile points take up a large percentage of the tool assemblage and, although it is possible for projectile points to have been used for multiple tasks, their primary purpose as tools for killing is well established ethnographically and is strongly related to their form (Alexander Henry in Coues 1965:713–714;

Grinnell 1962; David Thompson in Hopwood 1971:261; Turney-High 1937:114; Pope 1923).

This allows them to be quickly classified by their form rather than usewear analysis and it was decided that they would be excluded in an effort to minimize the already extensive amount of time that the usewear analysis research would require.

Wedges were also excluded from the analysis because a small number were analyzed for usewear and it was found that if they had been used for any other function, the heavy battering that these tools were subjected to obliterated any past traces. It was therefore decided that since their function is very evident based on their morphology, it would be prudent to forgo usewear analysis of these tools for the sake of time management.

Time management was also an important factor when it came to doing usewear analysis on the tools at DkPi-2. DkPi-2 has roughly 200 tools on which usewear could be conducted, and it was decided that only a percentage of these tools should be examined for usewear since the

141 amount of time it would take to analyse all of the tools would be astronomical. Therefore, 100 tools were selected to show a range of morphologies, as well as represent the various locations within the site. However, these tools were selected before certain restrictions on the usewear analysis were fully understood (e.g., before wedges were excluded and the exact size of tools), and therefore the final number of tools that could be analysed totaled 89. This was still an extensive undertaking so additional tools were not added to compensate for the loss of the ones that could not be analysed.

Tools that were too patinated or had evidence of soil sheen were also excluded from the analysis since patination and soil sheen can obscure or mimic usewear (Keeley 1980; Levi Sala

1996).

Lithic Analysis

Tools and lithic debitage were weighed on an electronic scale and recorded to the nearest

0.10 gram since weight is the primary restricting factor for tool movement, as discussed in

Chapter 4, and has been shown to be a reliable reflection of distance from the source material

(Blades 2002; Blumenschine 2008; Newman 1994).

Sourcing

One way that sourcing can be achieved is through macroscopic visual characteristics of the lithic material, such as color, texture, luster, inclusions, fossils, and phenocrysts (Andrefsky

2008). This method can be somewhat limiting and unreliable as macroscopic characteristics can vary greatly within a source or, conversely, be present over an expansive range (Andrefsky

2008). To address this issue, great strides have been made in the geochemical sourcing of chert

(see Akridge and Benoit 2001; Andrefsky 2008; Foradas 2003; Jones et al. 2003; Malyk-

Salivanova et al. 1998; Milne et al. 2011 for examples), however, an Alberta chert sourcing

142 database is far from realization and outside the scope of the current research, and therefore macroscopic visual signatures were used to source chert and other raw materials when possible.

Archaeological materials were compared to the lithic comparison collection from the

University of Calgary, which has known sources from Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Montana. Additional materials for comparison were provided by Lifeways Canada, Ltd.

Lithic Debitage

Magne (1985) used experimental work to define flake characteristics that could be used to determine reduction stage. In his experimental work, 7 cores and 20 tools were created through lithic production sessions carried out by 13 knappers. These included “one single- platform core, six bipolar cores, six large bifaces, two bi-marginally retouched flakes, three large unifaces, three endscrapers, and six unimarginally retouched flakes” (Magne 1985:100). Hard and soft hammer percussion were used, and flakes greater than 5 mm were gathered and catalogued in order of their removal. Due to the size cut-off, flakes created by pressure flaking were not studied. Materials flaked included chert, basalt, and obsidian.

Magne (1985) defined three reduction stages: early, middle, and late. Early stage reduction is defined by Magne (1985:106) as core reduction events, including single platform and bipolar core forms. Middle stage reduction is defined as the primary shaping stages of tools, which includes all the reduction events of marginally retouched tools and the first half of the reduction events of all other tools, whether unifacial or bifacial (Magne 1985:106–107). Late stage reduction is defined as the latter half of the reduction events of unifacial and bifacial tools

(Magne 1985:107). This division is made due to the fact that initial tool formation requires the straightening of edges and removing excess mass while the later stages refine the shape of the tool, resulting in two very different flake types.

143

Magne (1985) used multiple discriminant analysis and chi-square tests of independence in contingency tables in order to determine which variables best predict the reduction stage of lithic debitage. These tests are useful because the “factors” are known (i.e., stages, bifacial reduction flakes, bipolar reduction flakes), but the variables are not; as such, the multiple discriminant analysis allows one to see if differences exist between reduction stages, and to discover which variables best reflect those differences, while the chi-square tests allows one to ascertain the significance of those variables in predicting reduction stages (Magne 1985:116,

120). The six variables chosen were: 1) Weight: the weight of each flake taken to 0.10 gram; 2)

Dorsal Scar Count: the number of flake scars on the dorsal surface of a flake; 3) Dorsal Scar

Complexity: the number of directions that flake scars originate from; 4) Platform Scar Count: the number of scars occurring on the flake platform; 5) Platform Angle: the angle made by the platform and the dorsal surface of the flake; 6) Cortex Cover: the amount of weathered surface on a flake’s dorsal surface, measured in six increments of 25 percent.

The results of the multiple discriminant analysis and chi-square tests revealed that

Platform Scar Count and Dorsal Scar Count were the most important variables for predicting reduction stage, contributing 90 percent to the overall variance and correlated with discriminant functions with 0.9 correlations (Magne 1985:125). Within these variables, platform remnant bearing flakes were found to have a platform scar count of 0–1 in the early stage, 2 in the middle stage, and equal to or greater than 3 in the late stage; for shatter, dorsal scar counts ranged from

0–1 in the early reduction stage, 2 in the middle stage, and equal to or greater than 3 in the late stage. In addition, bifacial reduction flakes—recognized as being extensively faceted, and having narrow angled and often lipped platforms—and bipolar reduction flakes—recognized by the evidence of simultaneous percussion from opposite directions (Magne 1985:100)—were found to

144 be good indicators of bifacial and bipolar reduction. This is evidenced by the fact that bifacial reduction flakes were correctly classified 84.6 percent of the time and bipolar reduction flakes

66.7 percent of the time among all platform remnant bearing flakes (Magne 1985:127).

Another important observation that came out of Mange’s (1985:127) research that must be noted is the fact that stage definition is independent of the raw materials used; this allows one to apply this methodology to an entire lithic debitage collection, regardless of the raw materials present.

Bradbury and Carr (1995) attempted to determine the accuracy Magne’s flake typology using an experimentally produced debitage assemblage where the position of each flake in the knapping stages (early, middle, and late, as defined by Magne [1985]) was known. They found that platform scar count resulted in correct classification on 70 percent of the platform bearing flakes and that dorsal scar count for flakes without a complete platform resulted in correct classification on 66 percent of flakes (Bradbury and Carr 1995:108). These results align closely with Magne’s (1985:118–120) results, which had a 76.1 percent correct classification for platform bearing flakes, and a 54.2 percent (Basalt) and 78.8 percent (Obsidian) correct identification for non-platform bearing flakes.

Bradbury and Carr (1995) further assessed the use of these attributes to separate reduction stage classes by conducting discriminant function analysis on the experimental assemblage. The results of this discriminant analysis confirmed Magne’s (1985) results, with platform scar count being the most accurate attribute for assessing flake typology on platform bearing flakes, and dorsal scar count being the best attribute for non-platform bearing flakes

(Bradbury and Carr 1995:110). However, Bradbury and Carr’s (1995:109, 110) discriminant analysis also found that, for platform bearing flakes, the attributes of platform cortex, weight,

145 dorsal scars, and platform lipping are useful for correctly identify flake type as it relates to reduction stage. For non-platform bearing flakes, weight and cortex were also useful for identifying flake type. Because of this, Bradbury and Carr (1995:110) suggest that these attributes should be included in any study of flake typology to distinguish reduction stage.

Further, Bradbury and Carr (1999:106) express support for stage models in their analysis of stage vs. continuum models, stating that, “as long as stages are explicitly defined, mutually exclusive, assigned with relatively high accuracy and are replicable, stage classification can be used to provide insights into prehistoric lifeways.”

If we are to take Bradbury and Carr’s (1995) suggestion to include more flake attributes in debitage analysis, then Kooyman (2000) perhaps provides one of the most comprehensive flake typologies. Kooyman (2000) defines a flake typology based on early, middle, and late stages that expands on Magne’s (1985) flake stages, but includes additional flake attributes such as cortex, lipping, dorsal scarring (for platform bearing flakes), exterior platform angle, and overall shape of the flake. These reflect the observed trends noted by various researchers

(Bradbury and Carr 1999; Magne 1985; Magne and Pokotylo 1981; Shott 1996) that include a decrease in cortical flakes, a decrease in platform angle, an increase in the number of platform facets and dorsal scars, and a decrease in size variables as reduction progresses. The specifics of this method can be seen in Figure 5. Kooyman’s (2000:51–61; Figure 31) typology also includes more narrowly defined sub-stages of reduction under the more generally defined stages of middle and late, while early stage reduction has no sub-stages and is similar to Magne’s (1985) definition as being the result of core and blank reduction. Middle stage reduction is sub-divided into two sub-stages: 1) thinning flakes: defined as “the flake type removed to thin and reduce one of the major sides of a biface or uniface” (Kooyman 2000:51). These flakes are often thin and

146 elongate, but lack the lipping and acute exterior platform angle of bifacial reduction flakes

(Kooyman 2000:51, Figure 31); 2) shaping flakes: these are defined similarly to Magne’s

(1985:106–107) definition of middle stage flakes, with shaping flakes being those that are removed to give the general outline of the tool to be produced. This often requires straightening edges and removing irregularities (Kooyman 2000:54). Such flakes are small and short with a rounded outline, which distinguishes them from thinning flakes.

147

Early Middle Late Core/Blank Shaping Thinning Bifacial Finishing Resharpening Reduction Reduction Flake 0–1 Platform 2 Platform 2 Platform 3 or more 3 or more 3 or more Scars Scars Scars Platform Platform Platform Scars Scars Scars 0–1 Shatter 2 Shatter 2 Shatter 3 or more Dorsal Scars Dorsal Scars Dorsal Scars 3 or more 3 or more Shatter Dorsal Shatter Shatter Scars No Usewear No Usewear No Usewear Dorsal Scars Dorsal Scars Has Usewear Large, Thick Small Most No Usewear No Usewear Elongate Cortex Short Most Thin Small Common Medium Rounded Exterior Most Short Little Dorsal Outline Platform Elongate Perimeter Angle May have Scarring Little Acute Acute Scarring No Lip Exterior Exterior Platform Platform Medium Angle Angle Scarring Lipped May have Lip Complex Scarring Complex Scarring

Figure 5. Flake Typology Based on Attributes of Reduction Stage (from Kooyman 2000:Figure 31).

Late stage reduction is sub-divided into three sub-stages: 1) bifacial reduction flakes: these types of flakes are defined as being those that are detached during biface thinning and reduction (Kooyman 2000:51). They are identified according to Magne’s (1985:100) definition of having an acute exterior platform angle, a lipped platform, and a heavily faceted platform and dorsal surface (Kooyman 2000:51); 2) finishing flakes: these are defined as the small flakes detached to remove irregularities from manufacture and provide the finished edge, although the initial shaping may be enough to produce the final edge form and, therefore, finishing flake

148 removal may be unnecessary (Kooyman 2000:54); 3) resharpening flakes: these flakes occur when the edge becomes dull from use and small flakes are removed to resharpen the edge

(Kooyman 2000:54). Such flakes are recognized by the rounded surface (usewear) between the platform and dorsal surface, which is the remnant of the tool’s used edge.

These sub-divisions allow one to make a more fine-grained analysis of tool reduction stages, and therefore allows for a better understanding of precontact human behaviour.

Only platform remnant bearing flakes were assigned a reduction stage. This is due to the fact that flakes can break into multiple pieces during manufacture and post-depositionally, which would result in an over-representation of some flakes in the reduction stage analysis. In addition, the platform provides the most reliable evidence of flake stage, and therefore attempting to diagnose non-platform-bearing flakes introduces more sources of error into the sorting of the assemblage.

Tools

Retouch intensity is important for determining the extent of a tool’s use-life (Clarkson

2002:65). Three formal approaches can be used here. The first approach is an index of invasiveness developed by Clarkson (2002) and works best for unhafted unifaces (although not those with steep-edged retouch, such as scrapers [Clarkson 2002:72]) and bifaces. In this index, an artifact is divided into eight segments on both its dorsal and ventral side, with each division representing one-fifth of the total length of the artifact. The artifact is also divided into two zones, an inner and an outer zone. The inner six segments’ invasiveness zones are partitioned at the halfway point between the middle and lateral edge of the tool, and the proximal and distal segments are partitioned between the outer edge of the inner six segments and the proximal and distal margins. Each zone is then ascribed an invasiveness score, with segments that have flake

149 scars terminating no further than the outer zone ascribed a score of ‘0.5,’ and segments that have flake scars penetrating past the outer zone into the inner zone division ascribed a score of ‘1’

(Clarkson 2002:67–68). These scores are then summed to give a total figure for the invasiveness of each artifact. By dividing the total sum by the number of segments, a result ranging from ‘0’

(no retouch) to ‘1’ (completely retouched) is given, allowing one to compare the level of retouch intensity on different tools. This, along with the other formal approaches discussed below, must be restricted to complete artifacts since artifact breakage can result in both retouched and unretouched sections being missing from an artifact, creating potential error in the estimations of retouch intensity (Clarkson 2002:72).

Clarkson (2002:74) tested the viability of this index against two measures of reduction: the percentage of retouch blows delivered and the percentage of weight lost from a specimen. A strong correlation was found between these two measures and index increase, suggesting that this technique is quite accurate as a measure of retouch intensity. In addition, a blind test was conducted to measure inter-observer error, since it could be argued that it is difficult to accurately “eye-ball” the limits of the inner and outer zones for each of the 16 segments and achieve accurate results. Ten people determined the index of retouch on ten experimental artifacts whose index of invasiveness was known through measurement of the segment divisions and segment scores. It was found that inter-observer error was low, with a mean difference between the estimated and measured index of 10.6 percent (Clarkson 2002:71). This suggests that this technique is both an accurate and viable measure of retouch intensity on archaeological specimens.

Clarkson’s (2002) index of invasiveness assumes a tool begins its life as an unmodified blank and as the tool undergoes use it undergoes resharpening and retouching. Within this index,

150 a tool that is completely flaked on both surfaces would have the highest retouch intensity, and a tool with no flakes removed would have the lowest retouch intensity. While this is viable for estimating the retouch intensity of unhafted tools that receive little to no flaking before they are employed in a task, difficulties arise when attempting to apply it to hafted tools. This is because hafted tools are often extensively shaped before they are ready to use, often resulting in them having flake scars completely covering both surfaces before they are employed in any activity

(Andrefsky 2006:744; Clarkson 2002:72). Therefore, the second approach, developed by

Andrefsky (2006), determines the amount of retouch present on hafted bifaces, termed the hafted biface retouch index (HRI). This method measures the amount of retouch on the blade of the specimen, and not the haft element as this is unlikely to change due to the constraints imposed by hafting (Andrefsky 2006:745; Shott 1986). The blade is partitioned into sixteen segments (eight per face) and each segment is assessed a value based on the amount of edge resharpening within the segment. One point is given if more than half the length of the edge within a segment has resharpening scars, while a half point is given if only half or less of the edge has resharpening flake scars. The HRI is then calculated as the sum of all section scores divided by the total number of sections, with unretouched pieces having an index of 0 and the most heavily retouched having an index value of 1. This allows all hafted bifaces to be compared to each other regardless of size, and therefore, we can determine to what extent tools and materials were conserved.

The third approach is the unifacial index of invasiveness developed by Kuhn (Kuhn 1990).

This index is restricted to tools with only one working edge (such as scrapers) and estimates the amount of flakes removed by retouch. The index of retouch is the ratio between the maximum centerline thickness of a tool and the vertical thickness at the point where the retouch scars

151 terminate (Kuhn 1990:585). When the vertical thickness of the retouch scars is divided by the maximum thickness of the tool, unmodified flakes will have an index of retouch of 0, while the most heavily modified will have an index ratio of 1. Again, this allows for tools and assemblages to be compared to one another, allowing a more objective determination of tool maintenance and conservation between and within sites.

Hiscock and Clarkson (2005) evaluated the utility of Kuhn’s index of reduction through the use of an experimental tool collection that included tools of varying shapes, ranging from extremely flat, trapezoidal cross-sections, to extremely high, triangular cross-sections. They found that Kuhn’s index was an excellent indicator of the percent of weight lost through retouch, and hence, an excellent indicator of retouch intensity, regardless of the shape of the initial flake blank.

This became especially apparent when compared to the regression correlation coefficients of other methods of determining unifacial retouch intensity, such as Dibble’s (1995) surface area to platform area index and Close’s (1991) retouch scar length method, where it was able to explain at least 35 percent more variation than the next closest method, which was Holdaway et al.’s (1996) surface area to thickness method.

Retouch can also be recognized by blade elements having twisted beveling, noticeably irregularly shaped lateral margins, or significantly shorter blade length for a particular style

(Andrefsky 1998). Although this does not allow for direct comparison between artifacts, it does provide quick recognition of tool maintenance taking place.

Summary

This chapter should provide a clear understanding of how the usewear and lithic analysis will be accomplished in this research. The results of these analysis will be discussed in the following chapters.

152

Chapter 7: Lithic Analysis

Lithic Material Identification

Lithic material type identification was based on macroscopic analysis, with the aid of a

40x stereoscope microscope. There are problems associated with macroscopic identification, such as the fact that many materials from different sources look the same or materials from the same source look extremely different, and therefore materials were only ascribed to a particular known material if they had reliable diagnostic features. In cases where a material could not be reliably identified to a known lithic material, a more general identification was given (such as

“miscellaneous chert,” “siltstone,” and, in some cases with extreme patina development, simply

“unknown material”). Materials that were present for each site are shown in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, while the locations of known sources are shown in Figure 6. Detailed lithic material descriptions and source locations are provided in Appendix I.

Cherts and Chalcedonies

The Glossary of Geology (American Geologic Institute 2005:111) defines chert as a hard, dull to semivitreous, microcrystalline or cryptocrystalline sedimentary rock. It is primarily composed of quartz and has a conchoidal fracture pattern. It should be noted that flint is often synonymous with chert (American Geologic Institute 2005:111), and it will be treated as such here. Chalcedony is noted by the Glossary of Geology (American Geologic Institute 2005:107) to behave in a similar fashion to chert (and is often a primary component of chert), with the primary difference being that the material is transparent to semi-transparent. Due to their cryptocrystalline nature and conchoidal fracture pattern, cherts and chalcedonies are two of the most highly prized materials for flaked stone tools since they flake predictably, hold sharp edges, and are highly durable.

153

Cherts and chalcedonies are discussed separately from other sedimentary materials since there is a great variety of cherts that are present at the sites, many of which can be identified to a particular source area.

Table 3. Cherts and Chalcedonies Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Material DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Local/Mid- Etherington Chert Present Present Present Distance Swan River Chert Present Present Present Materials Pebble Chert Present — Present Top of the World Chert Present Present Present Knife River Flint (KRF) Present — Present Montana Chert (Unspecified Present Present Present Non-Local Quarry) Materials Helena Chert Present Present Present Everson Chert Present Present Present Avon Chert Present — Present Banff Chert Present — Present Unknown Miscellaneous Cherts and Present Present Present Provenance Chalcedonies

Sedimentary Materials

Table 4. Sedimentary Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Material DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Sandstone Present Present Present Quartzite Present Present Present Paskapoo Silicified Limestone — — Present Local/Mid- Siltstone and Silicified Distance Present Present Present Siltstone Materials Mudstone and Silicified Present Present Present Mudstone Limestone — Present Present Non-Local Kootenay Argillite Present — Present Materials Grinnell Argillite Present Present Present

154

Igneous Materials

Table 5. Igneous Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Material DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Obsidian Present Present Present Non-Local Ignimbrite Present Present — Materials Basalt Present Present Present Unknown Unknown Volcanic Material Present — Present Provenance

Other Materials

Table 6. Other Materials Present at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Material DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Petrified Wood Present Present Present Local Materials Petrified Peat Present Present — Silcrete Present — Present Non-Local Quartz Present — Present Materials Porcellanite Present — —

155

Figure 6. Lithic material source locations.

156

Quality of Local vs. Non-Local Toolstones

As can be seen, the materials that are local to the archaeological sites are of relatively poor quality when compared to non-local materials. Quartzite is abundant and is often found as large cobbles, providing good-sized cores to manufacture a variety of tools. However, it is coarse and blocky which results in somewhat irregular flaking patterns and prevents the sharp edges that are possible with finer-grained material; the same is true for sandstone. The siltstones, mudstones, and local cherts are fine-grained and therefore flake in predictable ways and provide sharp edges, but they are often only found in small pebble form which severely restricts freedom in tool form. Petrified wood is often fine-grained but due to the retention of the original wood texture, it tends to be platy and therefore flake in undesirable ways. In addition to this, the replacement of organic matter is not always even and homogenous, which can result in the petrified wood sheering unexpectedly along inherent flaws in the material. Swan River chert, although not present directly near the sites, could be collected through short collection forays, and is probably the highest quality material that is near the sites. However, as noted above, the quality of the material is quite variable, it often requires heat-treatment, and it is difficult to work

(Grasby et al. 2002). Etherington chert is also fairly close to the sites but, again, it is far enough away that it would require foraging forays to collect it. Etherington chert is also not the most desirable material due to its brecciated nature which results in unpredictable flaking patterns and regular shattering.

The non-local materials, on the other hand, are often fine-grained and homogenous and are available in a variety of core sizes, resulting in predictable flaking patterns, sharp edges, and more freedom in tool form.

157

This juxtaposition of abundant poor quality local materials and good quality exotic materials that are attainable is important when considering Andrefsky (1994, 1998) and Beck and

Jones’ (1990) factors of quality and abundance on toolstone use. The fact that the local material is abundant would lead one to expect a greater use of expedient tools made from local material regardless of mobility strategy, however, the local material is also limited in its functionality.

This limited functionality may have resulted in a preference for non-local material in the creation of certain tool types.

The Problem of Paskapoo Silicified Limestone

Although there is a known quarry for Paskapoo silicified limestone (PSL) on the Red

Deer River roughly 25 km east of Red Deer (Figure 6), it is unlikely that the material termed

PSL at DjPm-36 came from this quarry. This is due to the fact that had the material been obtained from this quarry it would be an extreme outlier when compared to other exotic materials at the site, almost all of which come from the south and the west. In addition, the material itself is of extremely low quality and the debitage appears to be primarily composed of shatter (58 percent of the PSL assemblage (excluding flake fragments)) (Figure 7). For being an extremely poor quality material, it makes up a disproportionate amount of the assemblage by count (8 percent) being the third most common material after quartzite, silicified siltstone, and tied with silcrete. However, its weight only accounts for 1 percent of the total assemblage, making it the tenth most abundant material by weight. It seems highly unlikely that so much of this extremely poor quality material would be transported 300 km from the quarry source near

Red Deer to DjPm-36.

158

Figure 7. Paskapoo silicified limestone from DjPm-36 organized by typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble).

An argument could be made that the PSL is non-local to DjPm-36 based on the fact that this material is absent at both DjPm-126 and DkPi-2, and therefore it is not outside the realm of possibility that the people of DjPm-36 were travelling or trading much further north than the people of DjPm-126 and DkPi-2. However, PSL is not the only low quality material that is abundant at DjPm-36 and absent (or nearly absent) at the other two sites. The material that I have termed “silcrete” is equally as abundant as PSL by count, and is the fifth most abundant material by weight (roughly 3.5 percent of the total assemblage weight). In addition to the large amount of material, the silcrete assemblage is primarily composed of debitage from core reduction

(Figure 8). This strongly suggests that this material is also locally available, although its source location is unknown, and yet it is absent from DjPm-126 and only one flake was present at DkPi-

159

Figure 8. Silcrete from DjPm-36 organized by Typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble).

The possibility that these two materials are local is also supported by the fact that DjPm-

36 relied much more heavily on local materials than either DjPm-126 or DkPi-2 (Table 7).

Formal tools and cores are significantly more local on average at DjPm-36 when compared to the other two sites, and early and middle stage flakes have a less extreme, but still significant difference in the average distance from the source. Late stage flakes are the only typological category in which DjPm-36 is on par or surpasses DkPi-2 and DjPm-126, although it has significantly fewer late stage flakes in its assemblage than the other two sites (Table 8), suggesting that non-local material was not as abundant as it was at DkPi-2 and DjPm-126.

Table 7. Average Distance from Source.

Site Early/Mid Stage Flakes Late Stage Flakes Formal Tools Cores DjPm-36 18.1 152.7 43.7 1 DjPm-126 31.6 93.3 200.6 91.75 DkPi-2 49.5 183.2 151.2 67.3 Note: Paskapoo silicified limestone is excluded; all distances in km.

160

Table 8. Late Stage Flakes as a Percentage of the Entire Assemblage

Site Late Stage Flakes (%) DjPm-36 6.5 DjPm-126 12.8 DkPi-2 13.4

In addition, of the four tools that were made of PSL, none had any evidence of usewear. This is unexpected since, although the material is quite coarse and therefore a lack of polish would not be surprising, it is also very soft and therefore one would expect some degree of rounding, even if the tools were only used for a short period of time. Because of this, and the fact that the material is also quite brittle, I suspect that two of the tools, which have very minimal retouch, are not tools at all but rather are the result of post-depositional damage. The other two tools, which are bifaces, were significantly damaged to the point where they would be unusable; this, in combination with the lack of usewear, suggests that these tools broke very early on in their use- life, or possibly even during production. One of the bifaces is only flaked along one edge, while the opposite edge is extremely thick, rough, and unworked. The base of this biface is also missing, supporting the theory that this biface was never completed and broke during production.

This suggests that this material was not a desirable material for making flaked stone tools and therefore casts further suspicion on it being transported long distances.

Altogether, this evidence suggests that a more likely scenario than travel or exchange to the north is that people from DjPm-36, being more reliant on local materials, were more willing to use lower quality materials than people from DjPm-126 and DkPi-2, who had access to a greater abundance of high quality material.

If PSL is indeed local to DjPm-36, this poses one of two possibilities: either the material at DjPm-36 is not PSL, but looks extremely similar; or there is another source within the

Crowsnest Pass area.

161

The possibility for another source is very likely since the PSL quarry is believed to be from the Edmonton Formation (now Group) (Dale 1983), which also outcrops in the Crowsnest

Pass as part of the St. Mary River Formation (Eberth et al. 2013:Figure 1; Irish 1970; Ower

1960). According to Ower (1960:317), Member B (and possibly C and D) of the Edmonton

Formation is present in both the St. Mary Formation and the Edmonton formation in the area of the PSL quarry. Irish (1970) later grouped Ower’s Members B and C into the Horseshoe Canyon formation and divided Member D into the Battle and Whitemud formations of the Edmonton

Group (Irish 1970:Figure 2). Irish (1970:Figure 3) correlates the Horseshoe Bay formation to the

St. Mary River formation in the Crowsnest Pass, as well as recognizing the presence of the Battle and Whitemud formations in the Crowsnest Pass area. This strongly suggests that another outcrop of PSL could be present within the vicinity of DjPm-36.

This is further supported by the lack of study surrounding this material. The site form

(Dale 1983) for the quarry location simply refers to PSL as “bog material,” with a note that

Reeves called the material “Paskapoo chert.” No site report was ever produced for the quarry and therefore further information about the material could only be retrieved through personal communication with Jason Roe of Lifeways of Canada, Ltd. The fact that this material is so poorly studied amongst Plains archaeologists suggests that it could be abundant in the Crowsnest

Pass area, but has not been recognized as a distinct material type in site reports from this region

(most likely being classified as a silicified siltstone/siltstone).

Based on this evidence, I believe the material at DjPm-36 is Paskapoo silicified limestone that was retrieved from a local quarry source.

162

Lithic Trends at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36

Each site was examined for trends in regards to local vs. non-local toolstone use in both debitage and tools. All percentages relating to count are derived from the total counts for debitage and tools displayed in Table 9; all percentages relating to weight are derived from the numbers in Table 10. Invasiveness indices were also examined for differences in the treatment of local vs. non-local toolstone.

Table 9. Total Counts for Debitage, Tools, and Cores at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Debitage Debitage Tool Core Debitage Debitage Tool Core Debitage Debitage Tool Core (All) with (All) with (All) with Platform Platform Platform Local 1402 663 177 26 160 93 8 7 343 182 24 6 Non-Local 417 168 74 6 31 11 4 1 72 29 3 0 Unknown 560 13 132 235 118 6 6 5 1 33 5 0 Provenance Total 2 379 1 066 369 38 204 110 17 9 547 244 32 6 Note: Debitage provides the counts for sourcing material while Debitage with Platform provides the counts for flakes that have been assigned a reduction stage.

Table 10. Total Weight in Grams for Debitage, Tools, and Cores at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

DkPi-2 DjPm-126 DjPm-36 Debitage Tools Cores Debitage Tools Cores Debitage Tools Cores Local 3 632.79 2 056.8 360.8 1 214.9 3 833.99 2 716.64 2 402.55 3 719.59 140.73 Non-Local 332.34 140.52 22.83 18.13 5.42 1.12 192.27 6.6 0 Unknown 444.72 212.08 168.91 51.08 17.14 777.7 249.55 10.5 0 Provenance Total 4 409.85 2 409.4 552.53 1 284.11 3 856.55 3 495.46 2 844.37 3 736.69 140.73

DkPi-2

Debitage

Debitage at DkPi-2 was primarily composed of local materials in both count (59 percent local material vs. 17 percent non-local material) and weight (82 percent local material vs. 8 percent non-local material) (Figure 9), with quartzite being the most common material (33 percent of local material debitage by count and 78 percent of local material debitage by weight)

163 followed by petrified wood (31 percent of local material debitage by count and 6 percent of local material debitage by weight) (Figure 10).

The majority of non-local toolstone debitage is from the south, especially if it is assumed that obsidian and ignimbrite were from quarry locations in Montana or Wyoming. A lesser percentage of debitage is from sources to the west of DkPi-2 (Grinnell argillite, Kootenay argillite, and Top of the World chert), although Grinnell argillite is the most prevalent non-local material by weight (29 percent of local material debitage). A small percentage of material is from the east (Knife River Flint) and one early stage flake composed of Banff chert is also present

(Figure 11).

Local material debitage is dominated by middle stage flakes (38 percent of all local material present at the site) while non-local toolstone debitage is dominated by late stage flakes

(25 percent of all non-local material present at the site) (Figure 12 and Figure 13).

a b

Figure 9. DkPi-2: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

164

DkPi-2: Local Debitage organized by Lithic Material (Weight) (%)

Quartzite 78

Petrified Wood 6 Etherington Chert 6

Swan River Chert 5

Silicified Siltstone and siltstone 4 Slate 1

a 0 20 40 60 80 100 b

Figure 10. DkPi-2: Local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count: Granite, Sandstone, Shale, Petrified Peat, and Slate are not included as their counts put them at 0%; and b) weight: Granite, Sandstone, Shale, Petrified Peat, Pebble Chert, and Silicified Mudstone/Mudstone are not included as their weight values put them at 0%.

a b

Figure 11. DkPi-2: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count: Banff Chert and Kootenay Argillite are excluded as their counts put them at 0%; and b) weight: Kootenay Argillite is excluded as its weight value puts it at 0%.

165

Figure 12. DkPi-2: Local material organized by typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble).

Figure 13. DkPi-2: Non-local material orgnaized by typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble).

Tools

Again, local material dominates the tools found at the site by both count (48 percent local material vs. 20 percent non-local material) and weight (85 percent local material vs. 6 percent non-local material) (Figure 14). Petrified wood is the most common material that tools are made

166 from (34 percent of local material tools), although quartzite is the most abundant by weight (57 percent of local material tools), suggesting it was used for large tools (Figure 15).

Non-local material tools were primarily made from material from the south (40 percent of non-local material tools by count; 63 percent of non-local material tools by weight), especially if ignimbrite and obsidian were retrieved from quarries in Wyoming or Montana (78 percent of non-local material tools by count; 74 percent of non-local tools by weight). Material from the east (Knife River Flint) was the second most common non-local material from which tools were made (12 percent of all non-local tools by count and 11 percent by weight). A small percent of non-local tools were made from toolstone from the west (Kootenay and Grinnell argillite)

(Figure 16).

When tool type is considered, local materials are used to make a greater variety of tool types, but only because they were used to make larger tools (hammerstones and choppers)

(Figure 17 and Figure 18). Non-local toolstone was primarily used to make projectile points (28 percent), while local toolstone was primarily used to make both bifaces and projectile points (25 and 24 percent, respectively). The third most common tool type made from local material was minimally flaked tools (16 percent) (Figure 17). For non-local tools, minimally flaked tools and scrapers were the second most common tool types (17 percent for both tools) (Figure 18).

Minimally flaked tools may be so common amongst non-local tools because they were often made on very small and thin blanks which are not conducive to extensive flaking.

Cores and split pebbles are also predominantly local material, both by count (68 percent local material vs. 16 percent non-local material) and by weight (65 percent local material vs. 4 percent non-local material) (Figure 19). Of the cores/split pebbles of non-local toolstone, material from the west (Top of the World chert and Grinnell argillite) is the most common both

167 by count (49 percent of non-local material cores/split pebbles) and by weight (47 percent of non- local material cores/split pebbles). This is followed closely by cores/split pebbles composed of materials from the south (Helena chert and porcellanite) (34 percent of non-local cores/split pebbles by count; 40 percent by weight) (Figure 20).

a b

Figure 14. DkPi-2: Tools organized by lithic material provencance: a) count and b) weight.

a b

Figure 15. DkPi-2: Local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

168

a b

Figure 16. DkPi-2: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

Figure 17. DkPi-2: Local material sorted by tool type: hammerstones are excluded as their count puts them at 0%.

169

Figure 18. DkPi-2: Non-local material organized by tool type.

a b

Figure 19. DkPi-2: Cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

170

a b

Figure 20. DkPi-2: Non-local material cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

Index of Invasiveness

As stated in Chapter 6, the index of invasiveness creates an objective measure of a tool’s degree of retouch. The closer the index is to one, the more it has been retouched/resharpened/reworked. Neither this index, nor any of the others, can be employed for utilized flakes, but minimally flaked tools are included. Broken tools were also not included since there was no way to determine the extent of flake scars on the missing portions of the tools so their index values would be incorrect. For all sites, the index of invasiveness was averaged between material types (e.g., the index of invasiveness for quartzite is an average of the index of invasiveness for all quartzite tools); this allows for the recognition of larger trends in terms of how different material types were treated.

Based on the Index of Invasiveness, Knife River Flint and Grinnell argillite tools had the most extensive retouch, with index values of 1 and 0.969 respectively. Helena chert and quartzite had the lowest retouch values at 0.235 and 0.281 respectively (Figure 21).

171

Index of Invasiveness 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 21. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material.

Hafted Biface Retouch Index

This index works in the same manner as the index of invasiveness, but is specific to tools that are hafted. Again, the closer a tool’s index score is to one, the more retouch/resharpening/reworking it has experienced. As with the index of invasiveness, HRI scores were averaged within each material type. Broken tools were excluded for the same reasons they were excluded from the index of invasiveness.

Amongst hafted tools, ignimbrite tools had the greatest degree of retouch by far with a value of 0.875. Obsidian tools also tended towards high degrees of retouch with an average HRI value of 0.641. Pebble chert averaged the least amount of retouch, with an index value of 0.329

(Figure 22).

172

Hafted Biface Retouch Index 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 22. DkPi-2: Hafted Biface Retouch Index values organized by lithic material.

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness

This index is used for scrapers, since their morphology does not allow for an accurate assessment using either the IA or the HRI. As stated in Chapter 6, the closer the index value is to one, the more retouch/resharpening/reworking a tool has experienced. Again, as with the previous indices, averages were taken within specific material types. Unlike IA and HRI, broken tools that included the edge and most of the body were included since their index score could still be accurately measured.

Within all three sites, the scraping tools have far less variation in their index values than the tools that were measured using the IA or HRI. One reason for this may be the fact that these tools were more likely to be completely utilized before being discarded; however, although many tools do seem to be too small to be resharpened, a small number of tools have extremely high index values while still appearing to be large enough to resharpen. Some of these tools may have been hafted, cutting down on the area of the tool that can be resharpened, but another factor causing the high index values may be the shape of the tool blanks. Some scrapers were made on

173 a blank which was thickest right on the end of the flake, where the scraping edge was made, with the dorsal surface sloping downwards and away from that edge. Due to the manner in which the index value is measured, even large, barely worked scrapers with this form of tool blank will have an index value of one. However, it is difficult to remove these tools from the larger assemblage since it is difficult to determine in many cases if they were hafted, or if the flake was larger at some point and they have, indeed, experienced an extensive amount of resharpening.

Therefore, no tools were removed from the analysis, but it is important to be aware of this possible biasing factor in the unifacial index values.

The unifacial index of invasiveness values at DkPi-2 tended to indicate a high degree of retouch/resharpening. Everson and Helena chert tools had the greatest amount of retouch with index values of 1, while silicified mudstone had the least amount of retouch with an index value of 0.7 (Figure 23).

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 23. DkPi-2: Unifacial Index of Inasiveness values organized by lithic material.

174

Combined Index Values

When all index values are combined, Grinnell argillite and Knife River flint display the greatest degree of retouch, with a combined index value of 0.797 and 0.782, respectively.

Etherington chert and quartzite have the least amount of retouch with index values of 0.393 and

0.406, respectively (Figure 24)

When the index values are organized by lithic material provenance, non-local materials display the highest degree of retouch on average, with a combined index value of 0.584. The retouch value of local materials averages below that of non-local materials, with a value of 0.507

(Figure 25a), a difference of 0.077.

When the unifacial index of invasiveness is excluded, for reasons stated above, Grinnell argillite and Knife River flint still display the same values, as there were no unifacial tools made from these materials, and they remain the tools with the greatest degree of retouch. However, tools made from Helena and Everson chert are the tools with the least amount of retouch, with index values of 0.235 and 0.313, respectively (Figure 26).

Organizing the index values by material provenance shows that non-local materials still display the greatest degree of retouch with a combined index value of 0.485, while local materials have the least amount of retouch, with an index value of 0.427 (Figure 25b), a difference of 0.058.

Overall, the unifacial index of invasiveness appears to reflect similar patterns in the degree of retouch on tools made of local vs. non-local toolstone and therefore does not bias the results. An independent-samples t test comparing retouch intensity on local vs. non-local material (on the results that include the unifacial index of invasiveness) was conducted. It was

175 found that there was not a significant difference in the intensity of retouch on local (M = 0.507,

Var = 0.077) and non-local (M = 0.584, Var = 0.079) toolstone; t(149) = 1.55, p = 0.122.

Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

Jasper

Obsidian

Quartzite

Ignimbrite

Pebble Chert Pebble

Helena Chert Helena

Petrified Peat Petrified

Everson Chert Everson

Miscellaneous…

Petrified Wood Petrified

Montana Chert Montana

Knife River Flint River Knife

Grinnell Argillite Grinnell

Swan River Swan Chert

Silicified Siltstone… Silicified

Kootenay Argillite Kootenay

Etherington Chert Etherington

UnknownMaterial Silicified Mudstone… Silicified Miscellaneous Chert Miscellaneous

Figure 24. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material.

Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index Biface Retouch Index of Invasiveness 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 Local Non-Local Unknown Local Unknown Non-Local Provenance Provenance a b

Figure 25. DkPi-2: a) Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance; b) Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance.

176

Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 26. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values combined and organized by lithic material.

DjPm-126

Debitage

Debitage at DjPm-126 is dominated by local materials (by count: 79 percent local materials vs. 15 percent non-local materials; by weight: 95 percent local materials vs. 1 percent non-local materials) (Figure 27), with the most abundant material being quartzite (Figure 28).

The non-local debitage appears to be primarily composed of material from the south (29 percent of non-local debitage by count), especially if obsidian is assumed to have been transported from Wyoming or Montana (74 percent of non-local debitage by count) (Figure 29).

A small amount of debitage is from the west (Top of the World chert, Grinnell argillite). If weight is considered instead of count, materials from the south still dominate (66 percent of non- local debitage, including obsidian), but materials from the west also account for a significant amount of the non-local debitage (31 percent of non-local debitage) (Figure 29).

177

When comparing local vs. non-local debitage, local debitage is dominated by middle

stage flakes, while non-local material is evenly dominated by middle stage and late stage flakes

(Figure 30 and Figure 31). In addition to the local debitage being dominated by middle stage

flakes, it also has an abundance of early stage flakes and shatter. The non-local material, on the

other hand, has no shatter and a greater percentage of bipolar flakes compared to the local

material.

DjPm-126: Debitage Organized by Lithic DjPm-126: Debitage Organized by Lithic Material Provenance (Count) (%) Material Provenance (Weight) (%)

Local Local 79 95

Non-Local 15 Unknown Provenance 4

Unknown Provenance 6 Non-Local 1

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b

Figure 27. DjPm-126: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

178

DjPm-126: Local Debitage Organized by Lithic DjPm-126: Local Debitage Organized by Lithic Material (Count) (%) Material (Weight) (%)

Quartzite 32 Quartzite 67 Petrified Peat 18 Sandstone 16 Swan River Chert 14 Silicified siltstone and siltstone Silicified Siltstone and Siltstone 13 5 Sandstone 10 Etherington Chert 4 Etherington Chert 6 limestone 4 Petrified Wood 4 Petrified Peat 2 Silicified Mudstone 0.7 Swan River Chert 1 Limestone 0.7 Dolomite Petrified wood 1 0.6 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 a b

Figure 28. DjPm-126: Local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

DjPm-126: Non-Local Debitage Oranized by DjPm-126: Non-Local Debitage Organized by Lithic Material (Count) (%) Lithic Material (Weight) (%)

Obsidian 45 Everson Chert 53

Everson Chert 26 Top of the World Chert 19 Basalt 16 Grinnell Argillite 12

Grinnell Argillite 7 Obsidian 9

Helena Chert 3 Helena Chert 4 Top of the World Chert 3 Basalt 3

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 a b

Figure 29. DjPm-126: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

179

DjPm-126: Local Materials Organized by Typology (Count) (%)

Mid Stage 46

Early Stage 18

Shatter 12

Late Stage 8

Tool 7

Core 7

Bipolar Flake 2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 30. DjPm-126: Local materials organized by typology (flake type, tool, and core/split pebble).

DjPm-126: Non-Local Materials Organized by Typology (Count) (%)

Tool 27

Late Stage 20

Mid Stage 20

Bipolar Flake 13

Early Stage 13

Core 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 31. DjPm-126: Non-local materials organized by typology (flake type, tool, and core/split pebble).

Tools

Tools are again dominated by local materials and while the local tool weight essentially nullifies the presence of non-local tools, when we look at count it is more evenly distributed between local and non-local toolstone than the debitage (47 percent local materials vs. 24 percent

180 non-local materials) (Figure 32), with quartzite dominating the local material tool count and sandstone composing a greater percentage of the local tool weight (Figure 33). As with debitage, tools were made from non-local material primarily from the south (especially so if obsidian and ignimbrite were transported from Wyoming or Montana) (Figure 34).

When the tools themselves are broken down by type, we see far more variation in the types of tools made from local toolstone vs. non-local toolstone. Non-local toolstone is only present in the form of a scraper, a biface, and two projectile points, while local toolstone was used for bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes, projectile points, and choppers (Figure 35 and Figure

36). Choppers are the most common tool made from local material, followed closely by projectile points.

Cores and split pebbles were also predominantly made from local material, with local core weight nullifying the presence of cores made from non-local material, while a count reveals

78 percent of cores and split pebbles made from local materials vs. 11 percent non-local materials (Figure 37). The only non-local toolstone core is Everson chert.

181

DjPm-126: Tools Organized by Lithic DjPm-126: Tools Organized by Lithic Material Provenance (Count) (%) Material Provenance (Weight) (%)

Local 47 Local 99

Unknown Provenance 29 Unknown Provenance 1

Non-Local 24 Non-Local 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b

Figure 32. DjPm-126: Tools organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

DjPm-126: Local Tools Organized by Lithic DjPm-126: Local Tools Organized by Lithic Material (Count) (%) Material (Weight) (%)

Quartzite 38 Sandstone 53 Etherington Chert 25

Sandstone 13 Quartzite 44

Silicified Siltstone and Siltstone 12

Etherington Chert 3 Petrified Wood 12

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 a b

Figure 33. DjPm-126: Local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight: Petrified Wood, Silicified Siltstone and Siltstone are excluded from the weight chart since their weight values put them at 0%.

182

DjPm-126: Non-Local Tools Organized by DjPm-126: Non-Local Tools Organized by Lithic Material (Count) (%) Lithic Material (Weight) (%)

Montana Chert 50 Montana Chert 77

Obsidian 25 Ignimbrite 21

Ignimbrite Obsidian 25 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b

Figure 34. DjPm-126: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

DjPm-126: Non-Local Material Organized by Tool Type (%)

Projectile Point 50

Biface 25

Scraper 25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 35. DjPm-126: Non-local material organized by tool type.

183

DjPm-126: Local Material Organized by Tool Type (%)

Chopper 40

Projectile Point 30

Utilized 10

Uniface 10

Biface 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Figure 36. DjPm-126: Local material organized by tool type.

a b

Figure 37. DjPm-126: Cores/split pebbles organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

Index of Invasiveness (IA)

Within this index, Etherington chert has the greatest amount of retouch, with a score of

0.813, and quartzite has the least amount of retouch, with an index value of 0.188 (Figure 38).

184

Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Quartzite Chert Etherington Chert

Figure 38. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material.

Hafted Biface Retouch Index (HRI)

Within this index, quartzite has the highest degree of retouch, with an index value of 1, and obsidian has the lowest amount of retouch with a score of 0.344 (Figure 39). There is only one hafted quartzite tool and it is a very high quality fine quartzite, which should be considered when evaluating the index values. In addition, obsidian scores so low on the scale most likely due to the fact that the flake blanks on which the tools were made were extremely thin, making it impossible to create extensive retouch.

Hafted Biface Retouch Index 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Obsidian Petrified Chert Montana Quartzite Wood Chert

Figure 39. DjPm-126: Hafted Biface Retouch Index values organized by lithic material.

185

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness

At site DjPm-126, there were only three scrapers made from two materials, miscellaneous chert and Montana chert. Miscellaneous chert was slightly more retouched with an index value of 1, while Montana chert had an index value of 0.933 (Figure 40).

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Montana Chert Miscellanious Chert

Figure 40. DjPm-126: Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material.

Combined Index Values

When all indices are combined, Etherington and Montana chert experienced the greatest degree of retouch, with an average index value of 0.813 and 0.811, respectively, while obsidian had the least retouch, with a score of 0.344 (Figure 41).

If the index values are sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance materials, we see that local materials have an index score of 0.636, non-local materials have the lowest index score at 0.578, and material with an unknown provenance (miscellaneous cherts) has the greatest index score of 0.802 (Figure 42a).

If we remove the unifacial index of invasiveness from the final values, due to its possible biasing effects, Etherington chert remains as the most retouched material, while Montana chert has a retouch value of only 0.688 (Figure 43). Once the material is sorted by provenance, a greater disparity is seen between local and non-local materials, with local materials maintaining

186 an index value of 0.636, while the index value for non-local materials drops 0.062 to 0.516.

Materials of an unknown provenance also drop to an index value of 0.703 (Figure 42b). Overall, the unifacial index of invasiveness does not appear to affect the general trends at this site to a large degree. Unfortunately, there are not enough tools with retouch index values to determine the significance of the difference between the intensity of retouch on local and non-local tools, however the trends in retouch intensity on local vs. non-local toolstone will still be explored in

Chapter 9.

Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Obsidan Petrified Quartzite Chert Montana Etherington Wood Chert Chert

Figure 41. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material.

a b

Figure 42. DjPm-126: a) Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance; b) Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values sorted by local, non-local, and unknown provenance.

187

Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Obsidan Petrified Quartzite Montana Chert Etherington Wood Chert Chert

Figure 43. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness and Hafted Biface Retouch Index values combined and organized by lithic material.

Site DjPm-36

Debitage

Local material dominates the debitage assemblage (by count: 63 percent local vs. 13 percent non-local; by weight: 84 percent local vs. 7 percent non-local) (Figure 44), with the most abundant materials being quartzite and silicified siltstone/siltstone (Figure 45). Grinnell argillite is the most common non-local material (by count: 29 percent of non-local debitage; by weight:

79 percent) (Figure 46).

When looking at material count, non-local material is primarily from the south (33 percent of non-local material), followed closely by material from the west (32 percent). A small percent of non-local material is Banff chert from the north and Knife River Flint from the east (8 percent and 4 percent, respectively). However, when weight is considered, the largest amount of non-local material is from the west (80 percent of non-local material), followed by material from the south (2 percent of non-local material), with a small percentage of Banff chert and Knife

River Flint (1 percent each) (Figure 46).

188

The local material debitage is primarily composed of middle stage flakes (37 percent) while non-local material is dominated by late stage flakes (38 percent) (Figure 47 and Figure 48).

a b

Figure 44. DjPm-36: Debitage organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight

a b

Figure 45. DjPm-36: Local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count: Limestone and Silicified Mudstone/Mudstone are excluded as their counts put them at 0%; and b) weight: Limestone, Silicified Mudstone/Mudstone, Pebble Chert, Swan River Chert, and Petrified Wood are excluded as their weight values put them at 0%

189

DjPm-36: Non-Local Debitage Organized by Lithic Material (Count) (%)

Grinnell Argillite 29 Helena Chert 20 Basalt 14 Quartz 8 Banff Chert 8 Montana Chert 6 Knife River Flint 4 Avon Chert 4 Top of the World Chert 3 Obsidian 2 Kootenay Argillite 1 Everson Chert 1 0 10 20 30 40 a b

Figure 46. DjPm-36: Non-local material debitage organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight: Everson Chert, Kootenay Argillite, Obsidian, Avon Chert, and Montana Chert excluded as their weight values put them at 0%.

Figure 47. DjPm-36: Local materials organized by typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble)

190

Figure 48. DjPm-36: Non-local materials organized by typology (flake type, tool, core/split pebble).

Tools

Tools are overwhelmingly made from local lithic material with the weight of local tools accounting for 100 percent of tool weight, and 75 percent local vs. 9 percent non-local toolstone by count (Figure 49). By count, silicified siltstone/siltstone is the most common material (34 percent of local material tools), followed by quartzite (25 percent) (Figure 50). However, sandstone and quartzite were used to make much larger tools, resulting in them dominating local tool weight (Figure 50). Only three tools were made from non-local material, two of which were made from material from the south (Avon and Helena chert) and one which was made from Top of the World chert from the west (Figure 51).

As with site DjPm-126, local material was used to make a much wider variety of tool forms, with the most common tool type being bifaces (29 percent of local material tools) followed by utilized flakes (17 percent of local material tools) (Figure 52). Non-local materials were evenly spread across tool types, with one uniface, one scraper, and one biface (Figure 53).

Local material also represented 100 percent of the cores present at the site.

191

a b

Figure 49. DjPm-36: Tools organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight

a b

Figure 50. DjPm-36: Local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight: Etherington Chert, Petrified Wood, Paskapoo Silicified Limestone, and Silicified Siltstone/Siltstone are excluded as their weight values place them at 0%.

192

a b

Figure 51. DjPm-36: Non-local material tools organized by lithic material: a) count and b) weight.

Figure 52. DjPm-36: Local material organized by tool type.

193

Figure 53. DjPm-36: Non-local material organized by tool type.

Index of Invasiveness

Within this index, Etherington chert and Avon chert have the highest index values at

0.469, while sandstone has the lowest index value at 0.063 (Figure 54).

Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Sandstone Paskapoo Siltstone Quartzite Avon Chert Etherington Silicified Chert Limestone

Figure 54. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material.

Hafted Biface Retouch Index

There were no tools that could be measured under this index of retouch since the few hafted tools that were present at the site were broken.

194

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness

As mentioned previously, the unifacial index values tended to be quite high on average, with all tools hovering near 100 percent retouch. However, Avon chert expressed the greatest degree of retouch, with an index value of 1 while petrified wood had the least amount of retouch with an index value of 0.824 (Figure 55).

Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Petrified Wood Miscellaneous Avon Chert Chert

Figure 55. DjPm-36: Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values organized by lithic material.

Summary

Debitage

In all three sites, debitage is dominated by local material in both count and weight, with quartzite being the most common material present. The most common non-local materials tend to be those from the south followed by material from the west.

Local material debitage at the sites tended towards flake types that occur earlier in the reduction process while non-local material debitage was predominantly composed of flake types that occur later in the reduction process.

195

Combined Index Values

When both indices are combined, it is found that miscellaneous chert has the highest degree of retouch with a value of 0.96, while sandstone has the lowest degree of retouch with a value of 0.063 (Figure 56). Organizing the material by local, non-local, and unknown provenance reveals that non-local materials have a much higher index value than local materials

(0.334 for local materials vs. 0.735 for non-local materials) (Figure 57a).

When only the index of invasiveness is considered in terms of local and non-local toolstone (material of unknown provenance being excluded since it is restricted to a chert scraper and therefore does not fall under the Index of Invasiveness), there is a decrease in local and non- local lithic material index values but there is still a large difference between them. Non-local material again has a much higher retouch value at 0.469 than local material (0.236), although the difference is less dramatic (Figure 57b). Therefore, it does not appear that the unifacial index of invasiveness has a strong bias on the overall trends in material use at DjPm-36. Unfortunately, there are not enough tools to determine the significance of the difference between the degree of retouch on local and non-local materials, however, there is a difference and what this means will be explored further in Chapter 9.

196

Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 56. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined and organized by lithic material.

a b

Tools

Tools at all three sites were also dominated by local material, and a greater variation in tool types was also made from local material. However, the type of local material from which the most tools were made varied between sites. At DjPm-126, quartzite is the most common material

197 from which tools were made, at DjPm-36 it is silicified siltstone/siltstone, and at DkPi-2 it is petrified wood.

Non-local tools were primarily made from material from the south (Montana and possibly

Wyoming), with a small percent of tools made from materials from the west and east.

Cores and split pebbles were overwhelmingly made from local materials at all three sites.

Non-local cores were predominantly materials from the south and the west.

Combined Index Values

Non-local material tools had a greater degree of retouch compared to local material tools according to the combined IA, HRI, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values at sites DjPm-36 and DkPi-2. Local material tools at DjPm-126 had a slightly higher degree of retouch than non- local material tools (0.058 difference).

The implication of these lithic trends will be discussed Chapter 9.

198

Chapter 8: Usewear Analysis

Tools from DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36 were analysed for evidence of usewear which, if present, was interpreted to provide an inference regarding the motion of use, the hardness of the worked material, and, when possible, the exact worked material. These inferences were then combined to suggest the most likely use of the tool. This analysis will aid in understanding the versatility and flexibility of tools, as well as help determine some of the possible activities that were being performed at these sites. Usewear interpretations are based on data collected during visual analysis of the tools as described in Chapter 6. Due to the difficulty in interpreting the exact material worked from usewear (see Chapter 5: Blind Tests), interpretations regarding worked material were only made when the archaeological data closely aligned with data from my own experimental tools, as well as Grace’s (1989:Appendix 3) blind test tools which were used to supplement my own experimental work. Data sheets for experimental and archaeological tools can be found in Appendix II and usewear interpretations can be found in Appendix III. The tools discussed in this chapter are limited to those that had usewear.

199

DkPi-2

Table 11. DkPi-2: Usewear Interpretation Summary.

Catalogue Number Lithic Material Used Edges Use Motion Worked Material Haft Wear Scraping Hide 4264 Montana Chert 2 — Scraping Medium Scraping Soft 4273 Montana Chert 3 Scraping Soft — Scraping Soft 4277 Chert 1 Scraping Soft — Scraping Soft 4290 Chert 2 — Scraping Soft 4295 Pebble Chert 1 Scraping Medium — 4298 Silicified Mudstone 1 Scraping Soft — Cutting Wood 4300 Petrified Wood 2 — Cutting Wood Scraping Hide 4302 Montana Chert 2 — Sawing Medium Cutting Soft 4305 Chert 2 — Cutting Soft 4306 Chert 0 — — Present Scraping Hard 4307 Chert 2 — Sawing Wood 4328 Pebble Chert 1 Longitudinal Soft — 4561 Ignimbrite 0 — — Present Sawing Hard — 4575 Chert 1 Sawing Soft — 4576 Everson Chert 1 Longitudinal Soft — 4577 Petrified Wood 1 Scraping Hide — 4667 Chalcedony 1 Cutting Medium Present 4669 Etherington Chert 1 Longitudinal Medium-soft — 4680 Chert 1 Scraping Medium — 4681 Chert 1 Sawing Wood — 4695 Chert 1 Scraping Wood — 210775 Swan River Chert 1 Longitudinal Unknown — 212569 Silicified Mudstone 1 Cutting Soft or Medium — Scraping Wood 214096 Chert 2 — Scraping Wood Scraping Hide 217076 Petrified Peat 2 — Scraping Hide Scraping Soft 217077 Montana Chert 2 — Scraping Soft Scraping Soft 217078 Chert 3 Scraping Soft — Scraping Medium-Soft 217139 Montana Chert 1 Scraping Soft — Scraping Hide 217270a+b Chert 2 — Cutting Medium 218316 Chalcedony 1 Sawing Wood Present 219773 Knife River Flint 1 Sawing Wood Present

200

DkPi-2 has 29 tools with usewear present (31 if hafting wear is included), with a total of

44 used edges (see Table 11). Of these 44 edges, 26 (59 percent) were used in a scraping motion.

The remainder of the edges were used in a longitudinal motion, with an equal percentage of edges being used in a cutting or sawing motion (16 percent for each motion).

Soft materials are overwhelmingly the most common materials worked at the site, composing 52 percent of the worked materials (Figure 58). Of these soft materials, the specific worked material was attributed to hide on 6 of the worked edges, totaling 14 percent of the worked materials present at the site. Materials of medium hardness are the next most common worked materials at DkPi-2, composing 34 percent of the usewear assemblage (Figure 58).

Within these materials of medium hardness, wood was recognized as being the specific worked material on 9 edges, composing 21 percent of the edges at the site. Medium-soft, hard, and unknown materials compose the remainder of the used edges.

Based on the usewear data, the most common activity at the site was scraping soft materials (including hide), representing 41 percent of the used edges. The second most common activity was cutting or sawing medium materials (primarily wood), composing 21 percent of used edges. The remainder of the edges were used on various other activities that do not represent a large portion of the usewear assemblage.

201

DkPi-2: Worked Materials (%)

Soft 52

Medium 34

Medium-soft 5

Hard 5

Medium or Soft 2

Unknown 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 58. DkPi-2: Worked materials as a percent of used edges.

DjPm-126

Table 12. DjPm-126: Usewear Interpretation Summary.

Catalogue Number Lithic Material Used Edges Use Motion Worked Material Piercing Hide 23137 Chert 1 Cutting Hide Scraping Soft 23189 Ignimbrite 2 Longitudinal Soft Sawing Hard 23263 Chert 2 Scraping Hide Wood 23348 Montana Chert 1 Scraping Hard Note: No haft wear was present on the tools at DjPm-126

DjPm-126 has four tools with usewear present, and a total of six used edges. Although there are six used edges, there are seven different use motions and eight different worked materials (see Table 12. DjPm-126: Usewear Interpretation Summary.). This is due to the presence of multiple use motions on one edge and one edge being used to work different materials. Scraping is the most common use motion, representing 43 percent of use motions.

Longitudinal activities also composed 43 percent of use motions, but these longitudinal motions include cutting (14 percent of all use motions) and sawing (14 percent of use motions).

202

The most common worked materials were soft materials, representing 63 percent of worked materials. Of these soft materials, hide was recognized as the specific worked material on 3 edges, representing 38 percent of the worked materials present in the usewear assemblage.

Hard materials are the second most common, composing 25 percent of worked materials.

Medium materials (wood) compose the remainder of the worked materials.

The most common activity at the site was scraping soft materials, composing 25 percent of the activities at the site. Of these activities, scraping hide was recognized on one tool (12.5 percent of the activities at DjPm-126). Cutting or sawing soft materials was also a common activity represented by the usewear assemblage, also composing 25 percent of the activities at the site. Cutting hide is one of these activities, and represents 12.5 percent of the activities represented by the usewear present at the site. The remaining activities were various and equally represented in the usewear data.

DjPm-36

Table 13. DjPm-36: Usewear Summary.

Catalogue Number Lithic Material Worked Edges Use Motion Worked Material 9067 Petrified Wood 1 Scraping Soft Note: No haft wear was present on the tools at DjPm-36

Unfortunately, there is not enough usewear data from DjPm-36 to recognize any common use motions, worked materials, or activities that were occurring at the site (see Table 13).

Summary

It is clear from this analysis that these tools were used in various ways to work various materials. The most common use motions appear to be scraping, cutting, and sawing, while the most common materials worked are hide and wood. This information will be used in the

203 following chapter to determine tool flexibility and versatility, as well as provide insight into activities being performed at the sites.

204

Chapter 9: Discussion

As discussed in Chapter 4, lithic evidence can be used to elucidate group mobility in a number of ways, all relating to the organization of technology. In this chapter, the lithic evidence will be analyzed to determine tool maintainability or reliability, patterns in the tools and lithic debitage, site type variability, and distance-decay relationships between lithic sources and the lithic debitage. The conclusions drawn from this analysis will be used to examine whether the hunter-gatherer groups inhabiting DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36 practiced a more mobile foraging lifestyle or if they were logistically organized and therefore more sedentary.

Tools: Maintainable or Reliable?

Hunter-gatherer technology often leans towards either a maintainable or reliable system of technology (Bleed 1986). Maintainable systems are used by highly mobile foraging groups since they are often involved in low-risk but unexpected resource extraction tasks, and therefore they need tools that can be flexible in their function. Reliable systems, on the other hand, are common among logistically organized collector groups since they can predict when a task will need to be done, but these tasks are often high-risk. Therefore, they require tools that can be relied on to complete a task in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The maintainability and reliability of tools can be determined in two ways: 1) tool form; and 2) the versatility and flexibility of tools as revealed by usewear analysis.

Tool Form

As discussed in Chapter 4, tool form can be an indicator of reliable or maintainable technology. Bifaces are often considered a common tool form within a maintainable organization of technology since they can be used for multiple tasks, can be quickly reshaped to conduct an unexpected task, can be used multiple times, and, depending on their size, they can be used as

205 cores. Maintainable tools are also often unhafted, which results in them being quite large so that they can be comfortably held in the hand. This need for larger tools would also be expected to affect the degree of retouch intensity, with handheld tools having less than hafted tools since too much resharpening would make them unusably small. Hafting, on the other hand, allows for smaller tools since the haft is what is held in the hand, not the stone tool itself, resulting in the only limit to tool size being its ability to perform its task. In addition to extending the use-life of a tool, hafting also makes tools more reliable, as discussed in Chapter 4, and therefore it is associated with a reliable organization of technology. Reliable systems also have a greater diversity in tool forms, which are designed to meet the needs of specific, known tasks.

DkPi-2

The most common tool type at DkPi-2 is projectile points (Figure 59), which are technically designed to carry out one task, but are very common in both maintainable and reliable toolkits (see Binford 1979 and Lee 1979 for examples of projectile points being used by logistical hunter-gatherers and residentially mobile hunter-gatherers). The prevalence of projectile points is most likely due to the fact that DkPi-2 is a processing site next to a large kill site, which will be discussed in more detail below.

The second most common tool type is bifaces, constituting 19 percent of the tool assemblage (Figure 59), which could suggest a more maintainable organization of technology.

However, although bifaces are the second most common tool type, they certainly do not dominate the tool assemblage. Even when projectile points are excluded, other tool types make up 51 percent of the total tool assemblage (Figure 59). This suggests that while bifaces may have been the most common tool type due to the tasks being performed at the site, there is still a large diversity in tool types present. In addition, minimally flaked tools and utilized flakes account for

206 a greater portion (21 percent) of the tool assemblage than bifaces; this suggests a regular use of expedient technology which is not commonly found in concert with maintainable systems.

Figure 59. DkPi-2: Tools organized by type.

Tool size is also relatively small, with an average tool weight of 4 grams when tools that must be large (i.e., choppers, hammerstones) are excluded. This is also smaller than the average weight of expedient tools (8.3 grams), which we can assume were held in the hand and not hafted. When examining the tools, very few were large enough to fit comfortably in the hand, suggesting that the majority of the tools were hafted. Usewear analysis did reveal hafting wear on 5 out of the 31 tools that had usewear (see Chapter 8). This may not seem extensive but a good haft should result in little movement of the tool within the haft, which would impede hafting wear and therefore only appear on a small number of tools, even if hafting was common.

Retouch intensity on tools averages at 0.559 when all indices are combined (Figure 60).

However, there are a large number of minimally flaked tools, which would result in a lowered average for retouch intensity. This can be problematic since, as discussed in Chapter 4, logistically organized hunter-gatherers may practice a very wasteful expedient tool strategy in

207 combination with an extremely conservative curated tool strategy due to decreased weight constraints, as well as decreased access to high quality lithic materials. When minimally flaked tools are excluded, as well as tools that would not be hafted (i.e., choppers) the retouch intensity increases to 0.623. This does not suggest an excessive amount of resharpening/reshaping of tools was being conducted at this site, which is more suggestive of a maintainable technology.

Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 All Tools Excluding Choppers and Minimally Flaked Tools

Figure 60. DkPi-2: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined for all tools.

Despite this lack of intense resharpening/reshaping, the overall form of the stone tools at

DkPi-2 appear to suggest a more reliable technological organization. This is due to the diversity of tools at the site, which suggests that tools were designed for specific, known tasks (Shott

1986). This degree of diversity also suggests that hafting was common, since hafted tools have been noted to fit into more classic morpho-typological categories due to the fact that hafting affects the tool’s morphology (Keeley 1982:801; Rots 2010:4). Further evidence for hafting is suggested by the small size of the tools, making them difficult to hold in the hand (Keeley

1982:801; Morrow 1996; Odell 1994a:54), and the direct evidence of hafting usewear on some of the tools. Hafting is often associated with logistically organized hunter-gatherers since not only does it make tools more reliable, but it is also “expensive,” requiring time, material, and

208 labour investment. This increase in investment would be worthwhile for logistically organized groups since they practice high-risk resource extraction and hafting decreases the risks of tool failure. This high-risk strategy also allows for predictable downtimes in which to invest in hafting tools, which makes the investment less “expensive” overall. More mobile groups do not have these predictable downtimes and their resource extraction strategies are considered low- risk, therefore, they would be unlikely to invest in such an “expensive” technology that would do little to improve their success, and may actually decrease it, when extracting resources. Hafting also increases the weight and size of the tool, something which extremely mobile groups actively attempt to limit; for more sedentary groups, on the other hand, weight is not the primary concern since they are not moving as much and they are not carrying their entire toolkit with them on a regular basis.

The mix of small, most likely hafted, tools with minimally flaked tools and utilized flakes

(expedient tools) is also consistent with a more sedentary, logistically organized group. As stated in Chapter 7, the local material toolstone is not of the highest quality but is relatively abundant and therefore, in the absence of weight restrictions due to decreased mobility, it would be preferred for expedient tools. In fact, expedient tools were commonly made from both local materials (25 percent of local material tools (Figure 17)) and non-local materials (28 percent on non-local material tools (Figure 18)). However, expedient tools made from non-local material appear to be an attempt to conserve the material, since the minimally flaked non-local tools are often made on very small and thin blanks, with an average weight of 1.4 grams (including utilized flakes); this restricts the degree of retouch possible. Expedient tools made from local material, on the other hand, seem to align more closely with the view of expedient tools being wasteful of lithic material, with an average weight of 8.3 grams. It is apparent by just looking at

209 how local vs. non-local toolstone is treated in the making and use of expedient tools that there is an effort to conserve high quality non-local material while at the same time being wasteful of poor quality local material. This is consistent with a logistically organized group that has reduced access to high-quality exotic materials and therefore will practice extreme conservation of these materials, while at the same time being highly wasteful of the local material.

Although there was not a significant difference in the degree of retouch on local vs. non- local tools, it does appear that local and non-local material were preferred for different tool types. This may in part be due to the desire to have toolstone of a certain quality for specific tools in order to ensure their reliability for high-risk extraction tasks. It was noted in Chapter 7 that unifacially flaked tools (i.e., scrapers) had an extremely high degree of retouch when compared to other tools, and it does appear that high-quality (often non-local) materials were preferred for this tool type. This can be seen in Figure 61 which shows that cherts and chalcedonies were overwhelmingly preferred for making scrapers. This is most likely due to the fact that scraping requires a certain degree of “toughness” since most of the pressure is restricted to the very edge of the tool, and cherts and chalcedonies are also ideal for making strong, sharp edges.

210

% of Each Tool Type Made from Material Type 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Cherts and Chalcedonies Sedimentary Igneous Other

Figure 61. DkPi-2: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type. “Other” category includes petrified wood, petrified peat, and quartz.

None of the bifaces at the site are large enough to be used as cores, but this is not surprising since any biface that was large enough to be a core would likely be curated and therefore would not show up in the archaeological assemblage. In addition, once a biface is too small to be used as a core it would still be used as a tool. However, of the cores present, the most common forms are bipolar and multidirectional, followed by split pebbles and unidirectional cores, which are much less common (Table 14). The local material cores do not offer too much information regarding mobility since the local material is abundant in the area and therefore more mobile groups would not necessarily need to transport these cores, since more of the same material could be readily located. This could result in foragers and collectors treating the local materials in a similar manner, as described by Andrefsky (1994). However, of these cores, six are composed of non-local materials, which suggests that weight/bulk constraints were not great enough to rely solely on bifacial cores, if bifacial cores existed. This is emphasized by the fact that the multidirectional cores were porcellanite and Helena chert, two of the most distant

211 materials from the site. Therefore, presence of amorphous cores composed of non-local toolstone is indicative of a more sedentary, logistically organized group.

Overall, based on form, it appears that the stone tools at DkPi-2 are more reliable, rather than maintainable.

Table 14. DkPi-2 Cores.

Material Provenance Bipolar Multidirectional Split Pebble Unidirectional Local 9 10 9 4 Non-Local 3 2 1 0

DjPm-126

The most common tool type at DjPm-126 is also projectile points (Figure 62), which as stated previously, are common to both reliable and maintainable systems. The second most common tool type is choppers, which constitute 21 percent of the tool assemblage, with four other tool types (scrapers, utilized flakes, unifaces, and bifaces) composing the remainder of the tool assemblage. There is no emphasis on bifaces, and tools appear to be fairly evenly distributed across tool classes (except for the large number of choppers) which suggests a fairly diverse range of tool forms. In addition, choppers may be emphasized at the site over other tool types since they are extremely large (average weight of 835 grams) and therefore would be unlikely to be curated, unlike smaller tools that are easier to transport. The choppers are also made primarily of material that is located very near to the site (quartzite and sandstone, with one made of

Etherington chert), which would also make its transportation unnecessary since large cobbles of similar material are abundant within the area and therefore they could be easily replaced.

Overall, the diversity in tool forms suggests that they were designed to meet known tasks, rather than being designed to meet a variety of possible tasks, which is indicative of a reliable technological organization (Bleed 1986; Shott 1986).

212

DjPm-126: Tools Organized by Type (%)

Projectile Point 32

Chopper 21

Biface 16

Scraper 11

Utilized 10

Uniface 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 62. DjPm-126: Tools organized by type.

The tools, on average are quite small, with an average weight of 3 grams when tools that need to be large (i.e., choppers) are excluded. Tools of this size would have been difficult to use in the hand efficiently and for a long period of the time, which suggests that the tools could have been hafted. This is especially apparent when compared to the average size of utilized flakes, which are more likely to be handheld, which have an average weight of 16.2 grams. The diversity of tool types also suggests that tools may have been hafted, for reasons stated previously (Keeley 1982:801; Rots 2010:4). However, there was no evidence of hafting usewear.

Tool retouch intensity averages 0.672 (Figure 63), which is quite high but not excessively so. However, the one obsidian tool is made on an extremely small and thin blank, weighing only

0.15 grams, which restricts the degree of retouch possible. When this tool, along with choppers which need to be large and would not be hafted, are excluded from the average retouch intensity, it increases to 0.816. This is indicative of a high degree of resharpening/reshaping which suggests a highly conservative lithic strategy in which the use-life of the tool is extended through hafting (Keeley 1982:801; Morrow 1996; Odell 1994a:54). The fact that tools were very likely

213 hafted is also indicative of an emphasis on reliable tools over maintainable ones, for reasons discussed previously.

Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 All Tools Excluding Choppers and Minimally Flaked Tools

Figure 63. DjPm-126: Index of Invasiveness, Hafted Biface Retouch Index, and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined for all tools.

When comparing the degree of retouch on local vs. non-local tools (Figure 42), it does not appear that they are being treated in a significantly different manner. Local materials have slightly more retouch on average than non-local materials, but the difference is only 0.058.

Although there is little difference in the degree of retouch between local and non-local toolstones, there is still a preference for certain materials to be used to create specific tool types, as is seen in Figure 64. As with DkPi-2, there is a clear preference for scrapers to be made from chert or chalcedony, suggesting that high-quality material was desired for this tool type in order to increase its reliability.

214

DjPm-126: Material Type as a % of Tool Type 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Scraper Utilized Biface Uniface Projectile Chopper Point

Cherts and Chalcedonies Sedimentary Igneous Other

Figure 64. DjPm-126: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type. “Other” category includes petrified wood, petrified peat, and quartz.

As with DkPi-2, no bifaces were large enough to act as cores, although, as stated previously, this is not unexpected. Of the cores present, minimally worked unidirectional cores of quartzite and sandstone were the most common, followed by bipolar and multidirectional cores (Table 15). Of these cores, only one was of a non-local material, Everson chert, and it was a bipolar core. Since Everson chert is located an extremely far distance from DjPm-126 (~522 km as-the-crow-flies (Table 16)), it would be expected that it had been transported as a biface in order to decrease weight and bulk if mobility was high. It is also possible that this material was traded rather than directly procured, and therefore the amount of information regarding mobility that can be gleaned from this core is minimal.

In sum, the tools at this site are quite diverse, suggesting that they were designed for specific, known tasks, and their size and degree of retouch intensity indicates that they were most likely hafted. Therefore, I infer that the inhabitants of DjPm-126 emphasized a reliable system of technology.

215

Table 15. DjPm-126 Cores

Material Provenance Bipolar Multidirectional Split Pebble Unidirectional Local 1 1 1 5 Non-Local 1 0 0 0

Table 16. Lithic Source Distance from DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36.

Lithic Source Distance from Distance from Distance from DkPi-2 (km) DjPm-126 (km) DjPm-36 (km) Avon Chert 338 N/A 337 Banff Chert 177 N/A 168 Etherington Chert 66 25 22 Everson Chert 532 522 524 Grinnell Argillite 81 58 59 Helena Chert 356 358 358 Ignimbrite 583 588 N/A Knife River Flint 789 N/A 846 Kootenay Argillite 254 N/A 216 Montana Chert 400 400 400 Obsidian 583 588 588 Porcellanite 640 N/A N/A Swan River Chert 44 85 88 Top of the World 143 102 99 Chert Note: Distances measured as-the-crow-flies; obsidian and ignimbrite measured to the Yellowstone quarry in Wyoming.

DjPm-36

Bifaces are the most common tool type at DjPm-36 (Figure 65), however they do not dominate, with 66 percent of the stone tool assemblage being composed of other tool types. In total, nine morphologically distinct tool types are present at the site, excluding utilized flakes.

This is a fairly high degree of tool diversity, and is indicative of tools being designed to complete specific tasks, suggesting a reliable organization of technology. This high degree of diversity is also suggestive of tool hafting (Keeley 1982:801; Rots 2010:4), for the same reasons as stated above.

216

Figure 65. DjPm-36: Tools organized by type.

When tools that need to be large are excluded (i.e., choppers and hammerstones), the average tool weighs 9 grams, which suggests that the tools are quite large. However, a few much larger tools are present that skew the average high (two large minimally flaked quartzite tools and a sandstone shaft straightener), and when they are excluded the average tool weight is 4 grams, which is on par with the average tool weight at DkPi-2 and DjPm-126. As with the other two sites, this average weight and the general size of the tools observed suggests that they would have been inefficient as hand-held tools and therefore they were most likely hafted, especially when compared to the average weight of utilized and minimally flaked tools (14 gm, excluding an extremely large (360 gm) quartzite utilized flake which is an outlier), that would have been hand held. However, as with DjPm-126, no hafting wear was evident.

When examining the degree of retouch present on tools, the average degree of invasiveness for all tools is 0.473 (Figure 66). However, this is not a true representation of the degree of retouch that would be seen on maintainable vs. reliable tools since this number includes tools that would not be hafted (i.e., large choppers and hammerstones) as well as

217 expedient tools, which likely were not hafted. When these tools are excluded, the average degree of invasiveness increases to 0.635. This does not indicate a high degree of resharpening and therefore is more indicative of a maintainable technological system.

Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 All Tools Excluding Choppers and Minimally Flaked Tools

Figure 66. DjPm-36: Index of Invasiveness and Unifacial Index of Invasiveness values combined for all tools.

However, as with DkPi-2, there does appear to be a distinct difference in how tools made from local and non-local material are treated at the site. Local tools experience a much lower degree of retouch (0.334) than non-local tools (0.735), with a difference of 0.401 between them

(Figure 57a). The degree of retouch on non-local tools is extensive, and strongly suggestive that these tools had their use-lives extended through hafting. Local material tools, even when the large tools that would be unhafted and the expedient tools are excluded still have a much lower retouch intensity, with 0.465. The average weight of local vs. non-local tools (excluding expedient tools and large, unhafted tools, such as choppers) also indicates a greater conservation of non-local material, with local tools having an average weight of 6 grams while non-local tools have an average weight of 2 grams. Expedient tools are also exclusively made from local materials (Figure 52), which also compose a significant portion of local material tools (25

218 percent of the local material tool assemblage). When these tools are included, the average weight for local material tools increase to 27 grams.

As with DkPi-2, this conservation of high-quality non-local materials and wasteful expedient use of low-quality local materials may be the result of preference for high-quality materials for specific tools to increase reliability. As can be seen in Figure 67, this appears to be the case, with cherts and chalcedonies, as well as petrified wood, being preferred for scrapers. It also appears that this site had less access to high-quality non-local materials since local sedimentary material dominates every other tool type.

% of Each Tool Type Made from Material Type

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Cherts and Chalcedonies Sedimentary Other

Figure 67. DjPm-36: Percentage of each tool type made from a specific lithic material type. “Other” category includes petrified wood, petrified peat, and quartz.

All evidence considered, it appears that the inhabitants of DjPm-36 practiced a reliable system of technology. This is surmised from the high degree of tool diversity, the average weight of the tools, especially tools made of non-local materials, as well as the degree of retouch on non-local toolstone which suggests hafting, and the expedient treatment of local toolstone.

219

Versatility and Flexibility of Tools

Table 17,Table 18, andTable 19 summarize the versatility (shown by the number of EUs) and the flexibility of tools at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36. Although Shott (1986) suggests that flexibility be determined by the evenness of the distribution of tools across EU categories, I determined flexibility by the number of different materials that a tool was used to work. This is because Shott’s method was created in response to the fact that archaeologists could not determine precisely how tools were used and therefore one was forced to use the general tool morphology to determine flexibility. However, usewear analysis allows archaeologists to better understand the type of material worked, which reflects the range of task applications more precisely, even if the use motion was the same (e.g., an end and side scraper may have been used to scrape hide with one edge and wood with another, two distinctly different tasks) or different

(e.g., a tool may have a cutting edge and a scraping edge, but both edges were used in task applications relating to hide preparation). This also allows us to recognize when one EU was used for two distinct tasks applications, further clarifying the degree of flexibility for a tool.

I would also argue that due to usewear analysis, versatility could more accurately be determined by the actual number of use motions. This is because usewear can definitively tell us exactly how an edge was used and it does not need to be solely defined by the edge morphology.

For example, an acute-angled, bifacially flaked edge can be recognized as being used for sawing vs. cutting, rather than simply inferring a longitudinal motion. In addition, I would not describe a tool that has two scraping edges as being equally as versatile as a tool that has a scraping edge and a cutting edge; therefore, by recognizing the use motion, tool versatility can be more accurately determined for tools that have the same number of EUs.

220

Therefore, within this research, versatility in the collection is determined by the number of use motions per tool and flexibility is determined by the number of worked materials per tool.

DkPi-2

Of the 89 tools examined for usewear, 29 had evidence of use (33 percent). DkPi-2 has an average versatility of 1.10 and an average flexibility of 1.21 (Table 17). This reflects an extremely low degree of versatility and flexibility within the tools of DkPi-2, with the majority of tools being used in one specific way for one specific task. This suggests that tools were highly specialized and therefore most likely prepared in advance for a known specific use. As was discussed in Chapter 4, this is consistent with what would be expected for logistically organized hunter-gatherer groups who practice a reliable system designed to compensate for high risk, but predictable, resource extraction.

There is the possibility of bias in the usewear results (as discussed in Chapter 5) and therefore we may be missing some evidence of the DkPi-2 tools’ versatility and flexibility. This could be due to the most recent use events of a tool obliterating past use events, as well as certain use events being underrepresented due to a lack of usewear (i.e., short term use events or events in which softer materials were worked).

The potential for past use events being obliterated is very likely, however, as the usewear results of DjPm-126 reveal (Table 18), multiple use motions and multiple materials could be recognized on the same edge in 50 percent of the tools that had usewear. This reveals that past use events were recognized and that this bias was mitigated to the best of my abilities. Of course, in situations where an edge has been completely removed through reworking or resharpening, any previous usewear would be undetectable, but this bias is no greater for usewear analysis than it is for analyses that use a more traditional morphological approach. The possibility that short

221 term use events are regularly underrepresent is a definite possibility, and therefore these tools may be more versatile and/or flexible than the usewear analysis suggests. The final possibility, that softer materials may be underrepresented, may be true, but soft and medium-soft materials still account for 57 percent of the materials worked at the site (Figure 58), so even if they are underrepresented they still dominate the usewear traces.

222

Table 17. DkPi-2 Usewear.

Catalogue Material Employable Number of Use Number of Flexibility Number Units (EUs) Motions Worked Materials 4264 Montana Chert 2 1 (Scraping) 2 (Hide; Medium) 2 4273 Montana Chert 3 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 4277 Chert 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 4290 Chert 2 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 4295 Pebble Chert 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Medium) 1 4298 Silicified 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 Mudstone 4300 Petrified Wood 2 1 (Cutting) 1 (Wood) 1 4302 Montana Chert 2 2 (Scraping; 2 (Hide; Medium) 2 Sawing) 4305 Chert 2 1 (Cutting) 1 (Soft) 1 4307 Chert 2 2 (Scraping; 2 (Hard; Wood) 2 Sawing) 4328 Pebble Chert 1 1 (Longitudinal) 1 (Soft) 1 4575 Chert 1 1 (Sawing) 2 (Hard; Soft) 2 4576 Everson Chert 1 1 (Longitudinal) 1 (Soft) 1 4577 Petrified Wood 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Hide) 1 4667 Chalcedony 1 1 (Cutting) 1 (Medium) 1 4669 Etherington 1 1 (Longitudinal) 1 (Medium-soft) 1 Chert 4680 Chert 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Medium) 1 4681 Chert 1 1 (Sawing) 1 (Wood) 1 4695 Chert 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Wood) 1 210775 Swan River 1 1 (Longitudinal) 1 (Unknown) 1 Chert 212569 Silicified 1 1 (Cutting) 1 (Soft or Medium) 1 Mudstone 214096 Chert 2 1 (Scraping) 1 (Wood) 1 217076 Petrified Peat 2 1 (Scraping) 1 (Hide) 1 217077 Montana Chert 2 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 217078 Chert 3 1 (Scraping) 2 (Soft; Medium- 2 Soft) 217139 Montana Chert 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 217270a+b Chert 2 2 (Scraping; 1 (Hide; Medium) 2 Cutting) 218316 Chalcedony 1 1 (Sawing) 1 (Wood) 1 219773 Knife River 1 1 (Sawing) 1 (Wood) 1 Flint Average 1.48 1.10 1.21 Note: Tools that only have hafting wear are excluded.

DjPm-126

Of the 10 tools that could be analyzed for usewear, 4 tools (40 percent) had evidence of use. The versatility and flexibility of tools at DjPm-126 were also quite low, with an average

223 versatility of 1.75 and an average flexibility of 1.5 (Table 18). This suggests that tools were still fairly specialized to a known task, although not as task specific as those at DkPi-2.

As with DkPi-2, bias may affect the degree to which the flexibility and versatility of the tools is recognized. As noted previously, one tool was found to have two use motions on one edge, while another tool was found to have two different materials worked with the same edge

(Table 18). This suggests that any bias stemming from an inability to recognize overlapping use events was at least minimized. Short term use events also pose a problem and it must be recognized that they may be significantly underrepresented in this analysis. On the other hand, use events in which softer materials were worked account for three out of six of the materials worked. Again, it is possible that these use events are underrepresented, but they still compose a large portion of the data set.

Table 18. DjPm-126 Usewear.

Catalogue Material Employable Number of Use Number of Flexibility Number Units (EUs) Motions Worked Materials 23137 Chert 1 2 (Piercing; 1 (Hide) 1 Cutting) 23189 Ignimbrite 2 2 (Scraping; 1 (Soft) 1 Longitudinal) 23263 Chert 2 2 (Sawing; 2 (Hard; Hide) 2 Scraping) 23348 Montana 1 1 (Scraping) 2 (Wood; 2 Chert Hard) Average 1.5 1.75 1.5

224

DjPm-36

For DjPm-36, of the 18 tools that could be analyzed for usewear, only 1 tool (6 percent) had any evidence of use (Table 19). Unfortunately, this is not enough information to determine the overall versatility and flexibility of the tools in the assemblage. This lack of usewear may be a result of the tools from this site being primarily composed of local materials (Figure 49), which are generally coarser-grained than non-local materials. In fact, of these 18 tools, only 8 were made on a fine-grained material, and it was one of these fine-grained tools which displayed usewear. In addition, the usewear present on the tool indicated that it was used to work a soft material, which has the slowest rate of usewear development. If the coarser-grained tools were used to work similar soft materials, it is possible that there would be no usewear evidence. Tools may also have been used for only a short period of time, which is supported by the limited retouch intensity on local material tools, which would also result in a lack of usewear development.

Table 19. DjPm-36 Usewear.

Catalogue Material Employable Number of Number of Flexibility Number Units (EUs) Use Motions Worked Materials 9067 Petrified 1 1 (Scraping) 1 (Soft) 1 Wood

Patterns in Tools and Debitage

The organization of technology can affect the patterns we see in tools and debitage left behind by hunter-gatherer groups. These patterns are complex, but when analyzed they can be used to determine site type: whether it is a forager base camp, or one of the many different types of sites used by logistically organized hunter-gatherers.

225

DkPi-2

Debitage and Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone

DkPi-2 is unique amongst the sites in this research in that the lithic assemblage is dominated by late stage debitage and tools which account for 43 percent of the total assemblage

(Figure 68). In fact, while there was no significant difference found amongst the proportion of tools, late stage flakes, and early stage flakes/shatter of the DjPm-126 and DjPm-36 lithic assemblages (χ2(1, N = 205) = 1.775, p = 0.4118), it was found that there was a significant difference between the proportions of these artifacts (tools, late stage flakes, early stage flakes/shatter) at DkPi-2 and those in the combined sample of the other two sites (χ2(1, N = 926)

= 75.490, p < 0.001). Middle stage flakes are still the most common typological class, like

DjPm-36 and DjPm-126, but overall the emphasis is on the final stages of tool creation and maintenance. However, like DjPm-36 and DjPm-126, the lithic assemblage is dominated by local material in both count and weight (Figure 69). This holds true for both debitage (Figure 9) and tools (Figure 14), although local materials make up slightly less than 50 percent of the tool count.

When comparing the percentage of local and non-local materials that are represented in the reduction stages and formal tools, local materials again dominate all stages (Table 20). The fact that local materials are more prevalent in both late stage flakes and formal tools strongly suggests that the range of the group was limited due to a more sedentary lifestyle. This is because as non-local tools were exhausted, they were replaced by local material tools, and for a very mobile group, these local material tools would be removed from the area, where they would be maintained and discarded at some distance from their original source. However, if a group has limited mobility they have less access to non-local toolstone and therefore local materials will

226 begin to dominate all stages of reduction and tools because the local area is occupied for longer than the tools’ use-lives.

Figure 68. DkPi-2: Lithic Assemblage Typological Composition.

a b

Figure 69. DkPi-2: Lithic assemblage organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

Table 20. Proportions of Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone within Flake Stages and Formal Tools.

DkPi-2 (%) DjPm-126 (%) DjPm-36 (%) Local Non-Local Local Non-Local Local Non-Local Early/Mid Stage Flakes 87 13 93 7 91 9 Late Stage Flakes 61 39 82 18 64 36 Formal Tools 71 29 64 36 87 13

227

The fact that there is not a significant difference in the degree of retouch on local and non-local tools (Figure 25), suggesting that local material tools have a similar use-life to non- local tools, supports the assertion that the inhabitants of DkPi-2 were more sedentary. This is because local material tools were not being discarded at an accelerated rate when compared to non-local tools (which would be expected if local tools had significantly less retouch and therefore shorter use-lives), and therefore their predominance in the tool assemblage is the result of an extended occupation of the local area.

In addition, there is a similar diversity in tool types between local and non-local material, with the exception of choppers, which, due to their need to be large, can be excluded due to morphological and weight constraints (Figure 17 and Figure 18). Although there are obvious preferences for certain tool types to be made from certain material types (Figure 61), local and non-local toolstone appears to be treated similarly in the types of tools that they were used to make. This lends further credence to the theory that non-local tools were being replaced by tools made from local material. Since the local material tends to be poor-quality, this would only be likely to occur if access to higher-quality toolstone was restricted, and one way that this could happen is due to a more sedentary lifestyle that would require organized task groups to retrieve non-local material, rather than the embedded procurement that is expected from more mobile populations. Another possibility that would restrict access to non-local toolstone is the presence of physical or cultural boundaries. However, due to the fact that high-quality non-local toolstone is present and quite prevalent in the assemblage, if these boundaries existed, they did not restrict access to all high-quality toolstone.

The average distance to the source material can also provide us with information regarding how local vs. non-local toolstone was treated. At DkPi-2, we see that the average

228 distance to the source for early/mid stage flakes, late stage flakes, and formal tools adheres quite closely to what would be expected for a distance-decay relationship as discussed in Chapter 4

(Table 7). The fact that early/mid stage flakes are made from materials located much closer to the site than late stage flakes or formal tools indicates that tools were being manufactured from these materials, most likely in order to replace exhausted tools of non-local material, as well as to serve as expedient tools. The late stage flakes and formal tools show a much greater average distance to the material source, which would be expected if non-local toolstone was entering the site as tools, which were then used, maintained, and discarded. The fact that the average distances of late stage flakes and formal tools are quite comparable suggests that the materials in the tool assemblage and the debitage align quite closely, and this will be discussed in more detail below.

In sum, DkPi-2 appears to have an emphasis on tool use and maintenance (such as reshaping and resharpening), rather than tool production. However, it does appear that tools made from non-local material were being replaced by tools made from local material, and the fact that local material tools dominate the tool assemblage suggests that the local area had been occupied for a long period of time. The fact that local materials account for 87 percent of early/mid stage flakes and also have an average distance to source that is significantly closer to the site than late stage flakes and formal tools (Table 7) indicates that there was some tool manufacture from local materials at the site, even if it was not the main activity.

Tools and Debitage

By comparing the material that was used to make tools to the material present in the debitage, we can find evidence of tool manufacture, maintenance, and curation, which can give insight into the length of occupation.

229

All the tools made from local material have corresponding material in the debitage

(Figure 10 and Figure 15), suggesting that these tools were most likely used and maintained at the site, before being discarded. It is possible that, since these are local materials, the debitage was produced from other tools that were curated away from the site, but it is unlikely that these tools were brought to the site and discarded immediately so it is probable that at least some of the debitage is from the tools found on site. The theory that these tools were used and maintained at this site is supported by the presence of usewear on some of these local material tools (29 percent of the tools with usewear were made from local materials (Table 17)).

However, there were three local materials in the debitage that were not represented in the local tool assemblage. Of these materials, granite was only represented by one piece of shatter and shale was only represented by one flake fragment, neither of which is extremely indicative of tool curation. Only the slate debitage suggested that a tool may have been present at the site and possibly removed, since it was composed of one bifacial reduction flake, two flake fragments, and two pieces of shatter. Of course, the slate tool(s) from which this debitage came may simply have not been recovered.

Non-local tools also closely align with the debitage, with only one tool made of jasper having no corresponding debitage material (Figure 11 and Figure 16). Again, this indicates that these tools were used and maintained at the site before being discarded, which is supported by the presence of usewear on many non-local tools (28 percent of all the tools with usewear were made from non-local materials (Table 17)).

Of the fourteen non-local materials present in the debitage, only five did not have a tool made from the same material in the archaeological assemblage. Of these five materials, two had cores present (Figure 11 and Figure 20), suggesting that there was some manufacturing of non-

230 local tools at this site. These cores included two bipolar cores of Top of the World chert, and one multidirectional core of porcellanite. The tools made from these materials did not complete their use-lives at the site and therefore were curated to another location, which is not surprising since non-local material tools most likely had long use-lives, as discussed previously. However,

Grinnell argillite, Helena chert, and quartz also had cores, debitage, and tools present in the assemblage. If the tools made from these cores were the same ones that were found in the archaeological assemblage, this would suggest that the site was occupied for a long period of time due to the presumed long use-life of these tools.

Overall, there appears to be very little curation happening at this site, both amongst local and non-local material tools. This could suggest a longer occupation of the site, especially since both local and non-local tools are theorized to have longer use-lives, as discussed previously. It is also possible that the site was occupied for a shorter duration but that tools were used intensively. This is very likely based on the prevalence of tools and their corresponding later reduction stages in the lithic assemblage (Figure 68). However, the dominance of local materials in all stages of reduction as well as formal tools suggests that if this site was occupied for a shorter period of time, the scale of the work being done at the site had to be extremely extensive for local materials to so completely overwhelm non-local materials.

DjPm-126

Debitage and Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone

The lithic assemblage at DjPm-126 is dominated by mid and early stage flakes, especially if one were to group shatter with early stage debitage, resulting in these reduction stages composing 69 percent of the entire assemblage (Figure 70). This shows a clear emphasis on the earlier stages of reduction at this site. As with DkPi-2 and DjPm-36, local materials also

231 significantly dominate the assemblage in both count and weight (Figure 71), and this pattern holds for both debitage and tools (Figure 27 and Figure 32). Not only do local materials dominate the debitage and tool assemblages, they also dominate all stages of reduction and formal tools (Table 20). It is not surprising that local materials dominate the early stages of reduction, since the distance-decay theory discussed in Chapter 4 predicts this for all hunter- gatherer groups regardless of their mobility, unless large cores of non-local toolstone are being cached. However, the degree to which local materials dominate late stage flakes and formal tools is strongly indicative of a group with limited mobility, as discussed previously for DkPi-2.

DjPm-126: Assemblage Typological Composition (%)

Mid Stage 42

Early Stage 15

Tools 13

Shatter 10

Late Stage 10

Core/Split Pebble 6

Bipolar Flake 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Figure 70. DjPm-126: Lithic Assemblage Typological Composition.

232

DjPm-126: Lithic Assemblage Organized by DjPm-126: Lithic Assemblage Organized by Lithic Material Provenance (Count) (%) Lithic Material Provenience (Weight) (%)

Local 76 Local 89

Non-Local 16 Unknown Provenience 11

Unknown Provenance 8 Non-Local 0

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b

Figure 71. DjPm-126: Lithic assemblage organized by lithic material provenance: a) count and b) weight.

There is also greater diversity in tool types made from local materials (Figures 34 and

35), but one of these types (choppers) must be large, and therefore it is not surprising that there

are no choppers made of non-local material. Therefore, local materials only have one additional

tool type compared to non-local materials, utilized flakes, and this is not a formal tool type and

therefore it is not especially indicative of a difference in the diversity of tools made from local

vs. non-local materials. As discussed previously, there also does not appear to be a difference in

how intensively local vs. non-local materials were utilized, with all tools showing intense

retouch/resharpening regardless of toolstone material. However, the fact that utilized flakes are

only made from local materials reveals that local material was being treated slightly more

wastefully than non-local materials.

When looking at the average distance from source for the different stages of reduction

and formal tools (Table 7), we see that early/mid stage flakes are primarily composed of sources

located quite close to the site, while late stage flakes and tools are from more distant sources, on

average. This suggests that the distance-decay model discussed in Chapter 4 appears to be

holding true for this site, with early/mid stage flakes being primarily composed of local materials

as new tools are made from the local material to replace exhausted tools of non-local origin. The

233 fact that late stage flakes and tools show a much greater distance from the original source also reveals that non-local materials are entering the site as formed tools, since the primary debitage from these materials is indicative of tool finishing and maintenance. However, the fact that the average distance to the source for late stage flakes is dramatically shorter than for formal tools reveals that local materials are dominating this category more than would be predicted by the distance-decay model. This is because non-local materials should also dominate the late stage flakes due to the fact that local material tools should be removed from the area before excessive late stage reduction occurs, which should result in the late stage flakes having an average distance to the source that is fairly close to the average distance of formal tools. Therefore, the fact that local materials compose 82 percent of the late stage flakes at the site (~20 percent more than is seen at DjPm-36 and DkPi-2) (Table 20) indicates that local material tools are experiencing a high degree of retouch, which results in local materials dominating the late stage debitage. The fact that the average distance from the source for formal tools is so much greater than late stage flakes also indicates that local material tools are having their use-lives extended, since these tools are obviously being used and maintained at the site, as evidenced by their presence in the late stage debitage, but not all of them are entering the tool assemblage, indicating curation away from this location. Put more simply, local material tools are not present in the quantity expected based on the number of late stage flakes made of local material, as is evidenced by the percentage of local vs. non-local materials and the distance from the source material for late stage flakes and formal tools. It is also possible that non-local tools entered the site when their use-lives were almost exhausted and therefore are overrepresented in the tool assemblage but underrepresented in the late stage flake debitage, but this is unlikely due to presence of many non-local materials in the debitage but not the tools assemblage, which will be

234 discussed in more detail below. The other possibility is the non-local tools are from material sources that are a greater distance from the site than the non-local materials in the debitage, which is a distinct possibility in that the only late stage flake of non-local material that could be attributed a distance was obsidian (with the other flakes being basalt, the source of which is not known), while the distance from the source could be calculated for all four non-local tools.

However, even if the distance to source data is not reliable, the fact that late stage flakes are so overwhelmingly composed of local material, in combination with intensity of retouch on local tools, as discussed previously, strongly indicates that local materials were being intensively utilized and therefore had long use-lives.

In sum, local materials dominated the assemblage and all stages of lithic reduction as well as tools, suggesting that there was manufacture, use, maintenance, and discard of tools made from local materials at DjPm-126. Formal tools made from local materials also had similarly long use-lives to those of non-local material which makes their dominance in the tool assemblage indicative of a longer occupation in this area and decreased mobility. In addition, local materials were used to make expedient tools as well as intensively utilized reliable tools, while non-local materials were conserved and are therefore only present as reliable tools in the assemblage. The use of local material for expedient tools could be indicative of a more logistically organized group since, due to decreased weight constraints, they can be more wasteful with lithic material.

However, due to the abundance of poor-quality local material in the area, more mobile groups would also be likely to adopt an expedient technology made from this materials (Andrefsky

1994), and therefore, on its own, it is not indicative of group mobility. However, the combination of an expedient technology made from local toolstone in combination with reliable tools that

235 were most likely hafted strongly suggests a more logistical organization, as discussed in Chapter

Tools and Debitage

When comparing the tools and debitage made from local material, we see that all the tools have corresponding material in the debitage (Figure 28 and Figure 33), suggesting that these tools were most likely used at this site. Of course, since the tools are made from local material, it is possible that this debitage was from different tools that were removed from the site, but it is unlikely that the local tools in the assemblage would have been transported and then discarded without any maintenance events taking place. In addition, the high percentage of late stage flakes made from local material (Table 20) strongly indicates that these tools were used and maintained at DjPm-126.

However, the materials present in the local tool assemblage only account for 50 percent of the materials found in the debitage assemblage (Figure 28 and Figure 33). This indicates that some tool curation of local materials tools was occurring. When examining the typology of the local toolstone (Figure 30), we see that local toolstone is most strongly represented in the early and middle reduction stages. This suggests that tools were being manufactured from local material at this site, and, since the local tools show evidence of long use-lives, it is not unexpected that they would be curated.

The relationship between tools and debitage for non-local materials is extremely different than that seen for local materials (Figure 29 and Figure 34). The only material to be represented in both the tool assemblage and the debitage is obsidian, with one obsidian projectile point, one resharpening flake, and thirteen flake fragments. This means that three tools, two of Montana chert and one of ignimbrite, were brought to the site but were discarded very quickly. It is

236 possible that some resharpening events occurred and their debitage was not recovered, since late stage flakes are often very small and are regularly underrepresented in archaeological assemblages. This is especially likely since this site was excavated with 6 mm screens, which is larger than many late stage flakes. Two of these tools also had usewear, indicating that they were used before being discarded (see Chapter 8).

Within the non-local debitage, five of the six materials present have no corresponding material in the tool assemblage (Figure 29 and Figure 34). This is strongly indicative of tool curation since these materials are obviously not local and therefore were transported to the site where they were maintained, and then transported out of the site. This is made especially clear by the typological breakdown of the non-local assemblage as it is mostly composed of tools and late stage flakes, followed by mid stage flakes (Figure 31). This reveals that non-local materials primarily arrived at this site fully formed into tools, where they were maintained, used, and discarded. The relatively high number of bipolar flakes further suggests an attempt to conserve this material. The only early stage flakes are composed of Everson chert, one of which appears to be from the bipolar reduction of an Everson chert core. The core itself is very small, weighing only 1.12 grams, while the flake that was most likely removed from it weighs 1.4 grams. Another early stage Everson chert flake weighs 4.6 grams, so it is significantly larger, but it is not excessively wasteful. Therefore, even though there is a core and early stage flakes made from

Everson chert, it appears that this material was being conserved.

Overall, it appears that tools made from local materials were manufactured, used, maintained, and discarded at the site, while non-local material primarily entered the site as fully formed tools that were used, maintained, and sometimes discarded at the site. Both local and non-local tools appear to have been curated out of the site. The large number of non-local

237 materials that were represented in the debitage but not in the tool assemblage indicates a shorter occupation for the site. This is because the majority of non-local tools were removed from the site, suggesting the use-lives of these tools was longer than the occupation of the site.

DjPm-36

Debitage and Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone

When looking at the overall lithic assemblage composition for DjPm-36, we see that middle stage flakes are the most common typological class, followed by early stage flakes and shatter (Figure 72). This suggests an emphasis on the early stages of reduction over the later stages. Not only is there an emphasis on early stage reduction, but there is also an emphasis on local materials, which dominate the assemblage by both count and weight (Figure 73). This emphasis on local toolstone holds true for both the debitage (Figure 44) and tools (Figure 49). In addition, although expedient tools were exclusively made from local toolstone, there were also a greater diversity in formal/curated tool types that were made from local toolstone (four distinct types, excluding tools that need to be large) vs. non-local toolstone (three different types) (Figure

52 and Figure 53). However, as discussed previously, local material tools had much less reduction intensity than non-local tools, and therefore it seems that there was an attempt to conserve non-local toolstone, while local tools were considered exhausted much earlier.

238

DjPm-36: Assembalge Typological Composition (%)

Middle Stage 37

Shatter 19

Early Stage 15

Late Stage 14

Tool 11

Bipolar Flake 2

Core/Split Pebble 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 72. DjPm36: Assemblage typological composition.

a b

Figure 73. DjPm36: Lithic assemblage organized by material provenance: a) count; and b) weight.

This emphasis on local material is especially noticeable when the average distance from the source for different flake stages, tools, and cores is considered. Formal tools average only

43.7 km from their source material, which is a dramatic difference when compared to DkPi-2 and DjPm-126 whose formal tools average 151.2 km and 182.4 km from the source, respectively

(Table 7). Early and middle stage flakes are also more local than is seen at DkPi-2 and DjPm-

126, with an average of 18.1 km, and there are no non-local cores present at the site. Late stage flakes are the only typological category that do not show this trend towards local material use;

239 with an average distance to the source of 152.7 km, late stage flakes at the site are near on par with late stage flakes at DkPi-2 (183.2 km to the source) and actually exceed the distance of late stage flakes at DjPm-126 (93.3 km from the source). This dominance of local material tools could in part be due to the fact that many local material tools had much shorter use-lives than those made of non-local material, as discussed previously. In fact, DjPm-36 has significantly lower retouch intensity for local material tools (0.334) than DkPi-2 (0.507) and DjPm-126

(0.636). This indicates a more expedient/shorter use-life technology made from local material, and would mean that local material tools would enter the tool assemblage at an accelerated rate compared to non-local tools and quickly overwhelm the assemblage.

Despite the emphasis on shorter-use life tools made from local material, local materials also dominate the late stages of the reduction process (Table 20), but to a lesser degree than early/mid stage flakes and tools. This, in combination with average distance to the source for late stage flakes and tools, reveals that there was indeed less late stage debitage being created from local material tools, supporting the theory that they had shorter use-lives than non-local materials. However, the fact that the short use-lives of local tools resulted in less late stage debitage, and yet they still dominate that typological category, is very indicative of a long occupation span in the local area, for the same reasons discussed for DkPi-2.

In sum, this emphasis on local material and the early stages of reduction suggests that tool manufacture was an important activity at this site. However, the presence of local material tools (which dominate the assemblage) also indicates that tool manufacturing was not the only activity, since these tools were obviously also being used (at the site or elsewhere) and discarded at the site. Non-local materials, on the other hand, are present primarily as late and mid stage debitage, suggesting that they were brought to the site as fully formed tools, where they were

240 finished, maintained, used, and sometimes discarded. The fact that local material tools were less intensively retouched and yet still dominate the late stage debitage suggests that this area was occupied by the inhabitants of DjPm-36 for a long period of time.

Tools and Debitage

When comparing the local material tools and debitage at DjPm-36, we see that all the local material tools have debitage of a corresponding material present at the site (Figure 45 and

Figure 50). As with DkPi-2 and DjPm-126, this indicates that these local material tools were most likely being used and maintained at the site before being discarded.

However, five out of the eleven materials present in the debitage are not present in the tool assemblage. This suggests that even though tools made from local material tended to have a shorter use-life than tools made of non-local material, some degree of curation of these tools was present. This is not unexpected since local material was still being used to make formal tools, even if they had shorter use-lives on average, and it would be unlikely that they would be discarded if they were still usable.

All of the non-local material tools also have corresponding material present in the debitage (Figure 46 and Figure 51), indicating use, maintenance, and discard of these tools at the site. However, while there are only three different non-local materials represented in the tool assemblage, there are twelve different non-local materials present in the debitage. Therefore, there are nine non-local material types that do not have corresponding tools, suggesting that there were many more non-local tools that were maintained at the site, but not discarded, signifying a high degree of curation for these non-local tools. This is emphasized by the fact that the late stage and middle stage flakes dominate the non-local lithic assemblage (Figure 48). The fact that

241 the majority of non-local tools were being removed from the site also suggests that this site had a shorter occupation span, since the tools had a longer use-life than the site.

Overall, it appears that this site had a short occupation span, since the majority of long use-life non-local tools that were present at DjPm-36, as evidenced by the different non-local materials present in the debitage, were curated away from the site. Local materials also appear to have been curated, even though their use-lives were shorter. However, since the debitage indicates that the manufacture of tools from local material was a common activity at the site, it is difficult to suggest a length of occupation from the curation of these tools.

Site Type

Using the information gleaned from the patterns in the lithic debitage, as well as from the usewear analysis and tool form, predictions can be made as to whether these sites were created by more mobile foragers or by more logistically organized hunter-gatherers. If these sites were the result of mobile foragers, they will appear to have shorter occupations and be more general in their purpose since the only sites that foragers create that have true archaeological visibility are their base camps (Binford 1980). If the sites were created by more logistically organized hunter- gatherers on the other hand, we may expect evidence of longer occupation in the area, although the site itself may have a short occupation due to the presence of sites created by task groups. We may also expect a high degree of intersite variability due to the different sites created by these task groups, which include field camps, locations, caches, and stations (Binford 1980), in addition to the larger group’s base camp.

Site type will be initially predicted on the basis of the lithic assemblage alone, and then this prediction will be compared to the one made based on the larger archaeological assemblage.

242

This will help determine how accurate the organization of technology approach is to predicting hunter-gatherer mobility.

DkPi-2

Site Type based on Lithic Assemblage

Based on the evidence presented by the lithic assemblage, the portion of DkPi-2 investigated during the present study is theorized to be a collector’s processing location. This is due to the prevalence of tools and the later reduction stages in the debitage, which is indicative of a focus on tool use rather than tool manufacture. This is supported by the usewear evidence, which revealed that tools at the site had very limited versatility and flexibility, often being used in only one task application. This is expected of logistically organized hunter-gatherers’ reliable tools that are designed to complete one or two tasks in the most efficient way possible.

Projectile points are the most common tool type present at the site (Figure 59), which suggests that the resources being procured from this site were animal products. This is supported by the hide usewear present on five of the scraping tools (Table 17). In addition, seven scrapers are believed to have been used to scrape a soft material, while five bifaces were used to cut a soft material. With the evidence of projectile points and the hide usewear on the other scrapers, it is likely that this soft material was also probably hide (especially for the scrapers since the number of soft materials that would be scraped is quite limited), or meat. Wood working was also common at the site, as evidenced by the usewear analysis. Wooden pegs or frames were noted to be used by the contact period Blackfoot to stretch hides for scraping (Schultz 1992:Table 1), and this may account for the wood usewear on tools if a similar technique was used in the past.

Repairing, adjusting, or creating wooden hafts may also have taking place at the site, which is supported by the presence of a groundstone shaft straightener in the tool assemblage. Further,

243 tools at the site do show evidence of hafting, both in their form and their intensity of the retouch, as well as the presence of hafting usewear on some of the tools.

The lithic assemblage does not show evidence of a significant amount of curation of tools away from the site, as discussed previously, which would suggest a longer occupation span. This conflicts with the theory that this is a processing location since these sites were often used for a shorter period of time. However, this may be an incredibly large location site with an extremely high number of animals being processed. This would result in many tools being intensely utilized and completing their use-lives at the site. To determine if this is the case, the larger archaeological assemblage must be analysed, and will be below.

Similarly, the fact that local materials dominate the formal tool assemblage may also appear to indicate a longer occupation span since it would be assumed that once the high-quality non-local tools completed their use-lives, they would be replaced by formal tools made from local materials, which would then complete their use-lives and be replaced by more tools made of local materials, creating the dominance of local material amongst formal tools. However, if the inhabitants of this site had been occupying a base camp in the area for a long period of time, they may have fewer high-quality non-local tools than could be counted on to complete a task, and therefore reliable tools made of local material would also be transferred to the location site.

In other words, this pattern of replacing non-local material with local material did occur, but it occurred at a base camp site, which resulted in the toolkits transported to the location site already be primarily composed of local material.

Despite the possible evidence for a longer occupation of the site than would be expected for a location, the majority of the evidence points to a collector group’s location site.

244

Site Type and the Larger Archaeological Assemblage

Unfreed (1993) theorizes that this site is a series of processing campsites primarily due the presence of a large bison bone bed associated with the site, along with butchered bone, fragmented bone, and burned and calcined bone and the corresponding lithic and bone tool assemblages. The presence of a significant number of fetal bones and adult male bison suggests that the site had been reoccupied multiple times, since the male bison are separated from the female bison during the late winter/early spring season when the females would be pregnant.

This is consistent with the site type theorized based on the lithic assemblage alone. In addition, it is apparent from the larger archaeological assemblage that the lack of apparent curation at the site was most likely due to the large number of animals being processed (Unfreed

1993:I and II). The evidence of site reoccupation may also mask tool curation in that a tool may be used and maintained at the site, then be curated away before it completes its use-life. Upon a reoccupation of the site, new tools of the same material may complete their use-lives at the site and be discarded. This would give the impression that curation did not occur. It is difficult to determine if this happened at DkPi-2 since it is almost impossible to conclude if the debitage came from the tools in the tool assemblage, short of doing refitting analysis.

A large number of ceramic sherds, which were identified as belonging to Byrne’s (1973)

Saskatchewan Basin Complex: Late Variant and therefore are most likely Ethridge Ware (Meyer and Walde 2009), were also found at the site (Unfreed 1993:I and II) which could give the impression of a longer occupation span. However, given the strong evidence for a large processing location, the site was most likely occupied for multiple days and therefore the people required ceramic vessels for cooking while they inhabited the site. This is supported by the observation of carbonized food remains found on the interior of Ethridge Ware sherds from other

245 archaeological sites (Kehoe 1959:240), suggesting that the ethnographic evidence for Blackfoot ceramic vessels being primarily used for cooking (Ewers 1945) continued into antiquity. Some ethnographic evidence also notes that certain ceramic vessels were used for boiling (Ewers

1945:291, 293), and therefore it may also be possible that these ceramic vessels were being used for grease extraction, although they may have been too fragile for this task since the ethnographic evidence only specifies that water was boiled in them, not water and bones.

The presence of fetal bones allowed Unfreed (1993:I) to suggest a late winter/early spring kill event, and later dental cementum analysis conducted by Peck (2001:180) confirmed this seasonal assessment. As Peck (2001:248) suggests, the bison would aggregate in the parklands and river valleys during the winter, and return to the plains in the spring, where they would scatter in small herds. Peck (2001:248) predicts that people did not follow the bison out of the river valleys and parklands with the onset of spring due to unpredictable weather during this time; rather, they relied on stored food and other resources from the winter kills. Overall, this meant that in the winter an encounter strategy had to be used to exploit the large herds of bison and prepare surplus resources in anticipation of the bison herds moving out of their wintering areas during a time when humans were unable to follow them. This is further confirmed by the ample evidence (boiling pits, fire-broken rock, ceramic remains) (Unfreed 1993:I and II) that food was being preserved for later consumption.

The use of an encounter strategy for hunting bison also suggests that there was predictable downtime between hunts, allowing tools to be created and maintained at times when they were not needed. This would be consistent with the emphasis on tool maintenance at the site rather than tool creation, since these tools would have been made during these downtimes at a

246 separate base camp and then transported to DkPi-2. This is indicative of a reliable technological strategy (Bleed 1986).

It is apparent from both the lithic assemblage and the larger archaeological assemblage that DkPi-2 was a collector’s processing location.

DjPm-126

Site Type based on Lithic Assemblage

The emphasis on reliable technology, elucidated by tool form and usewear analysis, in conjunction with expedient tools made from local materials is highly indicative of a logistically organized hunter-gatherer group. In addition, the fact that local materials dominate all stages of lithic reduction, as well as the tool assemblage, is strongly indicative of a group with limited access to lithic material sources as a result of limited mobility.

DjPm-126 appears to have features of both a collector’s location and a collector’s field camp, and it may, in fact, be both as Binford (1980:12) notes that these collector site types are not always independently located.

The evidence for a collector’s location site comes from the dominance of tools that are diverse, but are primarily used in the process of collecting one resource, which I hypothesize to be animal products. The most common tools are projectile points, which were most likely used for hunting, and choppers, which are most commonly utilized in butchering (Figure 62). It is true that a fair amount of tool curation is indicated by the lithic assemblage, and therefore choppers may appear more important than they actually were, but they are still an important part of the assemblage. In addition to morphological tools that indicate hunting and butchering, two of the four tools with usewear have evidence of hide-working, and a third tool was used to scrape and cut a soft material, which very likely could have been hide based on the other tools’ usewear

247

(Table 18). Furthermore, the formal tools were all intensely utilized, morphologically distinct, reliable tools of both local and non-local material, suggesting they were designed to accomplish certain known tasks at this site.

The evidence for a collector’s field camp is the dominance of the early reduction stages in the lithic assemblage (Figure 70), suggesting that not only were tools brought to the site and used to extract a resource, but they were also manufactured at the site. It would be unlikely for a collector task group to need to manufacture enough tools that the early reduction stage debitage would become the most common at the site since they depend on reliable tools to conduct a task quickly and efficiently. Therefore, the evidence for a significant amount of tool manufacture suggests downtime which would not be available when completing a large-scale resource extraction task at a location. However, if the processing location is also where the group is camping, this downtime would be available. In addition, the usewear revealed that these tools, although they are determined to be reliable, as discussed previously, have a greater range of flexibility and versatility than is seen at DkPi-2, a theorized processing location site. This suggests that these tools were used in a few more activities than just the processing of animal products, and were possibly used for more general camp activities.

It is also proposed that this site is a location/field camp based on the evidence of high tool curation, which also suggests that the site was occupied for a short period of time.

It could be argued that this site is a base camp due to the presence of early stage reduction and tool manufacture, as well as the combination of expedient technology made of local materials and reliable technology made from both local and non-local material. However, expedient tools are very poorly represented at the site (only 10 percent of the tool assemblage is composed of expedient tools), which would be unexpected for a base camp. This is because

248 expedient tools offer many advantages over reliable tools: they take little energy to create; they have sharper edges than bifacially flaked tools; and they can be used for a variety of tasks.

Therefore, collectors living in base camps may choose to utilize expedient tools (if abundant lithic material is available, which it is in this area) for every day camp tasks since these tasks are low-risk, and there is no need to expend the energy of creating a reliable tool for tasks that do not need to be conducted in the most efficient manner possible. Second, expedient tools have much shorter use-lives when compared to reliable tools, and therefore, if this site did have a longer occupation, these tools should be very well-represented in the archaeological assemblage, even if they were only used infrequently. This would be especially likely of a site in this area where the material is locally abundant but of poor quality, which would encourage people living in longer occupation camps to utilize expedient tools. This further supports the theory that the local material being so intensely utilized at this site, despite its general poor-quality, is very indicative of a processing location.

Initially, the fact the local materials dominate the formal tool assemblage may also appear to indicate a longer occupation but, as with DkPi-2, this could simply indicate that the local area had been occupied for a long period of time and not necessarily this specific site.

Overall, the lithic assemblage is more indicative of a collector’s field camp/processing location than a collector’s base camp.

Site Type and the Larger Archaeological Assemblage

Landals (1990:I) inferred DjPm-126 was a winter camp based on the presence of at least five ceramic vessels, possible ceramic manufacture, and a substantial hearth feature, which may have been a central hearth within a tipi. Landals, however, does not state outright how long she believes the camp was occupied, and therefore closer examination of the site is necessary.

249

Landals (1990:I:281) notes that neither of the hearth features at the site show evidence of grease extraction, but rather that the hearths were used for roasting or boiling fresh meat. This would be unexpected from a processing location where the extraction of animal products was the primary task, although if the goal was not long term storage, but rather immediate consumption for a larger base camp a short distance away, then grease extraction may not have occurred.

Landals (1990:I:281) also suggests that the substantial construction and fill of the one hearth feature, Feature 18, suggests long term use of the site, although reoccupation of the site is also a possibility. This feature may also not have been a central hearth since a large amount of bone is found in the vicinity of hearth, within the possible tipi ring, which would be unexpected of a living space.

There is also no evidence of burned bone (Landals 1990:I), which would be expected for a long-term occupation site, as this was a common way to prevent the animal remains from rotting and maintained the cleanliness of the camp. If a site was only occupied for a short period of time, the inhabitants would not have to concern themselves with removal of the animal remains since they would abandon the camp before they posed a problem.

However, the strongest indicator of long-term occupation of this site is the presence of a number of ceramic vessels and evidence for their construction in the form of a granitic rock that matches the temper of the vessels (Landals1990:I:285), and a bone tool that may have been used in shaping (although this tool may also have been used for marrow extraction and not pottery manufacture (Landals 1990:I:286)). Since ceramic vessels are fragile, it is unlikely that so many would be transported on a foraging excursion. However, there is the possibility that they were transported to the site in order to cook food, especially since the site is also believed to be a field camp and may have been occupied for a number of days or even weeks. It is also possible that, if

250 ceramic remains were being created at this site, the base camp was in a location where the resources required for making pottery were not available, and therefore this site was used as a processing location for ceramics as well.

If this site was a longer occupation base camp, it is possible that the lithic assemblage does not reflect this due the erosion at the site. Many lithic tools and debitage were found in association with Feature 18, half of which had been eroded away by the river. It is unclear how much of the original site was lost to erosion, but it could have had a significant impact on the materials that were recovered vs. the materials that originally existed at the site.

Despite this, there is not a great amount of evidence suggesting the site was a long term occupation base camp outside of the possibility of ceramic manufacture at the site, and therefore it very well could be a field camp/processing location, although it is still unclear due to the erosion of the site.

DjPm-36

Site Type based on Lithic Assemblage

Based on the available lithic evidence, this site was most likely created by logistically organized collectors, rather than more mobile foragers. If it was a forager site, local material would be expected to dominate the early and middle reduction stages, as local material tools are created to replace exhausted non-local material tools; however, local material also dominates the late stages of reduction as well as the formal tools, which is very indicative of a group that has occupied a restricted range for a long period of time.

In addition, the fact that the non-local tools appear to be so intensely utilized also lends credence to the possibility that they were hafted, a technology which would be uncommon among foragers for reasons stated previously. While non-local tools appear to be used

251 exclusively for reliable tools, local material was used more expediently and less intensively when it was used to make formal tools. This dichotomy in the treatment of local vs. non-local toolstone is much more common among logistically organized hunter-gatherers since they have a more restrictive range and therefore must conserve their high-quality non-local toolstone for important, predictable resource extraction tasks, while using the available, poor-quality local material in a more wasteful manner.

The diversity in tool forms at this site, in addition to hafting and intensity of retouch, is also indicative of a reliable tool technology, and therefore logistically organized hunter- gatherers.

Based on the lithic assemblage, DjPm-36 could be one of two possible site types: 1) a collector’s field camp; or 2) a collector’s base camp.

Suggesting that DjPm-36 might be a collector’s field camp may initially seem unlikely, especially if we were to use Carr’s (1994) predictions for a collector’s field camp lithic assemblage being composed primarily of non-local tools and resharpening flakes, with little reduction debris. However, I would argue that Carr’s predictions would more accurately describe what one would expect at a collector’s location site. This is because the location site would be where collector task groups would actual use their high-quality, reliable tools for a specific task.

This work would result in these tools becoming dull and being resharpened, resulting in debitage that contained non-local resharpening flakes, as well as non-local tools that were broken or exhausted during the course of the work.

Carr’s prediction for a field camp is based on Binford’s (1980:10) theory that the lithic assemblage, as well as the general archaeological assemblage, would reflect the field camp’s target resource since the tools brought to the site would primarily be for performing that resource

252 specific task. This may be true in areas where local material is less abundant, however, the local material is very abundant in this area and, as Andrefsky (1994) noted, this affects how both foragers and collectors use the material. When local toolstone is abundant, it is much more likely to be used expediently, and therefore an abundance of expedient/short use-life tools may not be indicative of a base camp over a field camp. A logistical forager task group may not use their high-quality tools designed to conduct a specific resource extraction task for everyday camp needs, especially when there is abundant lithic material available. Rather, there may be a reliance on expedient tools made from local materials to complete these everyday tasks and, once the camp was abandoned, many of these low-quality tools would be abandoned at the site. At DjPm-

36, formal tools are more abundant than expedient tools, but the majority of these formal tools are made of local material that was not intensively utilized. In addition, high-quality tools would have been brought to the field camp where they would have been maintained during down times, but very few would have been discarded since they were not used at this camp, but rather at a separate processing location. Therefore, we would expect to see a large amount of non-local toolstone represented in late stage flakes debris, but not in the stone tool assemblage. The fact that non-local tools are so underrepresented in the stone tool assemblage, while being well- represented in the debitage, also indicates a short term occupation since the majority the non- local tools’ use-lives were longer than the period of site occupation. Local material tools, on the other hand, have much shorter use-lives and therefore they overwhelm the tool assemblage.

However, the lithic assemblage could also be indicative of a longer term base camp occupied by a small number of people, for all of the same reasons as listed above. DjPm-36 meets all of Carr’s (1994) criteria for a collector’s base camp almost perfectly. There are reliable tools of non-local material, while the local material is used for more expedient/shorter use-life

253 tools; the local debitage is primarily in the form of early stage debitage (if one includes shatter

(Figure 47)), while the non-local material debitage is primarily composed of late stage flakes with a smaller amount of mid stage flakes (Figure 48). Due to the possible effect of locally abundant, poor quality lithic material on the lithic assemblage, it becomes difficult to determine if the site is a field camp or a base camp since a heavy reliance on expedient/minimally utilized tools is no longer only restricted to base camps.

Further differences between these two site types, such as the extent of the occupation span and the number of people inhabiting a site, is difficult to determine archaeologically. It could be argued that field camps will often be occupied by a smaller number of people than a base camp, but this is relative to the size of the group, and therefore field camps could be occupied by the same number of people as a base camp (i.e., a base camp occupied by a large number of people may require a large task group to complete a logistical foray that would supply the whole base camp; this task group may have an equivalent number of people to a band-sized base camp). In addition, field camps may be reoccupied multiple times in a relatively short time span, giving the impression of a larger number of people and/or a longer occupation span.

It could also be argued that task groups would not rely on the possibility that there would be local toolstone available to meet their everyday survival needs, and therefore would pack reliable tools for these everyday tasks along with the tools they would need for their specific resource extraction task(s). However, it is possible that reliable tools for camp use would be packed and then not used once the abundance of locally available material was assessed.

The fact that so many exotic materials are represented in the debitage but not the tool assemblage strongly suggests that the site was not occupied for an extremely long period of time.

However, it could be argued that the reliable tools of non-local material were being very

254 carefully conserved and therefore were only used for logistical foray tasks, not camp activities and that is why they do not show up in the archaeological assemblage in large numbers. It is also possible that it was an overwintering campsite that was abandoned before the end of the season due to insufficient resources, such as wood (Ewers 1955:124).

The fact that DjPm-126 is believed to be a field camp/processing location may also lend evidence that DjPm-36 is not a field camp but rather a base camp, since the use of local material is quite different at the two sites. DjPm-126 does not have a heavy reliance on expedient or short use-life tools in comparison to DjPm-36, but this may be because it was also a possible processing location and therefore the longer use-life tools entered the tools assemblage at a greater rate than if it was just a field camp.

Overall, the lithic assemblage does indicate that DjPm-36 was occupied by logistically organized hunter-gatherers, but it is unclear whether the site was a base camp or a field camp.

Site Type and the Larger Archaeological Assemblage

Van Dyke and Unfreed (1992) theorized that DjPm-36 was an overwintering campsite for a small band based on the available archaeological evidence in conjunction with other sites in the area. The presence of burned bison bone and ceramic remains do indicate a longer term occupation (Van Dyke et al. 1990), however, if the inhabitants were planning to reuse the site in the near future, they may have burned the bison refuse in order to insure the site could be reoccupied. The site does appear to have been reoccupied, evidenced by the location of CMU 19 directly below CMU 18. In addition, the ceramic sherds alone do not indicate a long term occupation since the vessel(s) could have been used as a transport or cooking container for a task group. This could be supported by the fact that the ceramic sherds were not especially abundant and may have only been from a small number of vessels.

255

The camp also appears to have clusters of activity areas, which would indicate a longer term occupation. In CMU 18, there are a number of pieces of debris found clustered in and around the “toy lodge,” including animal bones, the ceramic sherds, and the majority of the lithic debitage. This clustering of debris may indicate a refuse pile which would also be suggestive of a longer occupation of the site.

Overall, although there is the possibility that the site was used as a shorter term field camp, the presence of burned bone and ceramic remains in conjunction with activity areas and a possible refuse pile, best fit with the suggestion that the site was a long term base camp used by a small number of people, such as a band.

Site Type Diversity

It is apparent from this discussion that there is fairly pronounced site type diversity in the area. All three of the sites represent a different type of site, with DkPi-2 being a large processing location, DjPm-126 most likely being a small combined field camp/processing site, and DjPm-36 most likely being a base camp for a small band. Even if the theorized site types are not accurate, the lithic assemblages show clear differences in how the sites were utilized, supporting the presence of diverse site types. As discussed in Chapter 4, this high degree of site type diversity is very indicative of logistically organized hunter-gatherers.

Distance-Decay and the Seasonal Round

As discussed in Chapter 4, reduction stages can be used to determine the manner in which certain lithic sources are being exploited, which can allow an hypothesis concerning possible directionality of movement as well as the length of occupation in a specific area. Concerning occupation length, it has already been established for all three sites that local materials dominate all stages of tool reduction, as well as the tools themselves. In addition, local materials also

256 represented the greatest quantity by weight for both tools and debitage. This is strongly indicative of a long occupation span within the local area. However, although a long occupation span is indicated, there are still non-local materials in the tool assemblage and these can be used to determine a possible directionality to the group movement before they arrived in the current research area. In Chapter 7, it was noted that all three sites had similar non-local materials, with materials from the south being the most abundant, followed by materials from the west. A more detailed analysis of the distance-decay relationships for each site will be discussed below.

DkPi-2

Weight

Weight in the lithic debitage is a fairly clear indicator of which lithic sources were visited more recently than others, since the more a tool is reduced, the smaller (and therefore lighter) the flakes. It is important to only consider the debitage and not the tools, because tools weigh more than their late stage debitage, which could skew the interpretation of the data. For example, a certain material may only be present as discarded tools at a site, while another material may be only represented in the late stage debitage. By examining the weight, it would appear that the material represented by tools was visited more recently than the material represented by late stage debitage since it would weigh more. However, this material was more likely visited earlier than the material represented by late stage debitage since it is only represented by exhausted tools.

When examining the weight of each material in the non-local debitage we see that

Grinnell argillite is the most common material by weight, representing 29 percent of the non- local debitage, which indicates that this material was the most recent non-local toolstone to have been exploited (Figure 11). Montana cherts are the second most common material, followed by

257

Helena and Everson chert. This suggests an earlier movement down into Montana and between these quarry sources before travelling north to exploit the Grinnell argillite quarries. However, when the weight for all the Montana quarries is combined, it accounts for 46 percent of the weight of the entire non-local debitage assemblage. This may suggest that the Montana quarries were visited after the Grinnell argillite quarry. All other material types, besides quartz, the exact quarry location of which is not known, make up much smaller portions of the weight assemblage. This suggests that these materials were exploited earlier than the Montana quarries, or that the material may be present due to trade.

The fact that Grinnell argillite is so common but other materials from the west (Kootenay argillite and Top of the World chert) are a very small proportion of the weight of the assemblage could indicate trade. This is supported by the fact that both of these materials fall outside of the area for known Old Women’s phase sites (Figure 1 and Figure 6), suggesting that this area was occupied by another cultural group. In addition, Choquette (1980) notes the wide distribution of both these materials and suggests that this was most likely the result of trade.

Knife River flint is the only non-local material from the east that is represented in the debitage, and it only represents 3 percent of the weight in the assemblage. This could mean that the inhabitants of DkPi-2 travelled southeast after they left the Oldman River valley, where they exploited the KRF quarries, then travelled southwest to exploit the Montana cherts, before travelling northwest to arrive at the Grinnell argillite quarry. It is also possible that such a small amount of material was the result of trade, which is supported by the fact that the KRF quarries are also outside the area of known Old Women’s phase occupations and that it is noted to have been traded into Alberta (Clayton et al. 1970:282).

258

Banff chert is the only material from the north that is represented at the site, representing

3 percent of the total weight assemblage. Due to it being an isolated example of material from the north, and its small size, it most likely entered the assemblage through trade rather than any sort of direct procurement.

Lithic Reduction Stages

When looking at the lithic reduction stages for these materials it is apparent that materials from the south dominate almost every typological class, except for cores, which are even with materials from the west (Figure 74). This indicates that the Montana cherts were most likely visited after Grinnell argillite, which would be consistent with the predominance of Montana cherts by weight. Everson and Helena chert are the most evenly distributed materials across all the typological classes (Figure 75), which indicates that these quarries may have been the most recently visited. However, Everson chert is the most distant of the Montana chert quarries from the site (Table 16), and it also falls far outside the known occupation area for Old Women’s phase people. It could be that a specialized task group travelled some distance to exploit the quarry, or this material may be the result of trade. If it was traded to the inhabitants of DkPi-2, it is unclear where in their seasonal round this trade would have occurred. Obsidian and ignimbrite are the most prevalent in the later stages of reduction and tools, suggesting they were visited prior to the Everson and Helena quarries. Avon chert, and porcellanite appear in such small quantities it is difficult to determine where they fit in the sequence of quarry exploitation, or if they were even visited at all; it is possible that they may have been acquired via trade.

259

DkPi-2: Lithic Source Areas Organized by Typology 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Core/Split Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Tool Pebble Flakes Flakes Flakes Flake

South West East North Etherington Chert Swan River Chert

Figure 74. DkPi-2: Lithic source areas organized by typology. Etherington and Swan River chert are organized separately due to their distance from the site. Y-axis denotes count.

DkPi-2: Southern Lithic Materials Organized by Typology 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Core/Split Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Tool Pebble Flakes Flakes Flakes Flake

Avon Chert Montana Chert Everson Chert Helena Chert Ignimbrite Obsidian Porcellanite

Figure 75. DkPi-2: Southern lithic materials organized by typology. Y-axis denotes count.

Materials from the west appear to be the second most common materials in the assemblage, and are dominated by Grinnell argillite. Grinnell argillite shows a fairly even distribution between the typological categories, with a spike in mid stage flakes (Figure 76). This does not fit well with being visited prior to the Montana quarries, since the material should have been very near to being fully exhausted by the time it entered the DkPi-2 assemblage. It is possible that Grinnell argillite may have been visited after the Montana quarries, but not as much material was collected. This could be a possibility since, although it is nicer quality than many of

260 the local materials, its quality is not nearly as high as the Montana cherts. Also, although there is less debitage by count when compared to the Montana cherts, the pieces themselves are larger, suggesting the quarry was visited more recently. Therefore, if it is assumed that the Grinnell argillite quarry was visited after the Montana quarries, it may have been that they were stockpiling Montana cherts, in preparation to offset the low-quality materials that would be available at their longer occupation site. If this is the case, the Grinnell argillite quarry would have been exploited to replace the material that was exhausted between the Montana and

Grinnell argillite quarries. This seems likely since, considering the distance between the Montana quarries and DkPi-2 (Table 16), there is a relatively large amount of shatter and early stage flakes. It may also be possible that Montana cherts were being traded into the area, keeping the supply more abundant than would be expected for such distant materials.

DkPi-2: Western Lithic Materials Organized by Typology 20

0 Core/Split Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Tool Pebble Flakes Flakes Flakes Flake

Kootenai Argillite Top of the World Chert Grinnell Argillite

Figure 76. DkPi-2: Western lithic materials organized by typology. Y-axis denotes count.

The Grinnell argillite quarry is also relatively close to DkPi-2 (Table 16) and it is possible that it was visited by foraging task groups outside of the seasonal round, since it was slightly higher-quality than the local material. However, 80 km is quite distant when similarly high quality material is located nearer to the site (i.e., Swan River chert) and therefore it may be

261 more likely that the exploitation of Grinnell argillite was part of the seasonal round, although specialized foraging trips cannot be fully discounted.

If the Grinnell argillite quarry was part of the seasonal round, this was most likely followed by a stop at the Etherington quarry (Figure 6), whose debitage is predominantly early stage reduction and shatter, suggesting it was the most recent quarry visited before the move into the Oldman River valley. However, this material is close enough to the site (Table 16) that it may have been exploited through foraging task groups as well. Similarly, Swan River chert was not included in the seasonal round hypothesis for this reason. It is a very short distance from the site, relatively speaking, it is somewhat of an outlier, being the only material from the east besides KRF, which is believed to be the result of trade, and it dominates almost all the reduction stages, suggesting it was being collected regularly.

As stated for weight, Kootenay argillite, Top of the World chert, and Knife River Flint occur in such small quantities that trade is the most likely reason for their presence in the assemblage.

Summary

Based on the weight and typology evidence, it appears that the obsidian quarries were most likely visited first out of all the materials present. It is predicted that these materials came from Wyoming (Kooyman, personal communication 2013), which would imply a movement south of DkPi-2. However, the obsidian quarries in Wyoming are outside the area that is known to have been occupied by Old Women’s phase people. Therefore, it is possible that this material was the result of trade. There was a movement south, however, which is confirmed by the abundance of material from the Montana quarries, whose presence in the lithic assemblage suggests a movement to exploit the Everson (which also may be the result of trade), followed by

262 the Helena quarry. The group may have then travelled northwest, where they geared-up at the

Grinnell argillite quarry, then continued north, where they traded for Top of the World chert and

Kootenay argillite. A possible stop at the Etherington quarry was made, although it is possible that this quarry was visited outside of the seasonal round by foraging task groups. Swan River chert is also assumed to have been collected outside of the seasonal round since it is also the only material that is located east of the site, besides KRF which is believed to have been traded into the site. The fact that it is such an outlier in the direction of movement while being present in such large quantities, and being located only around 40 km from the site (Table 16), makes it very likely that special foraging trips were conducted to retrieve this material.

DjPm-126

Weight

The weight of the materials in the non-local debitage indicate that Everson chert was the most prevalent material present, composing 53 percent of the total assemblage weight (Figure

29). This is followed by Top of the World chert and Grinnell argillite. This indicates that

Everson chert was the quarry that was visited most recently, with Top of the World chert and

Grinnell argillite being visited prior to the Everson chert quarry. Obsidian and Helena chert make up a smaller percentage of the non-local debitage weight, but they were most likely visited around the same time as the Everson quarry, given their distance from the site (Table 16). It is also possible that material from the Everson quarry was being traded into the area, rather than being solely accessed through direct procurement. However, if directionality of movement is considered based solely on the weight values it would appear that the inhabitants of DjPm-126 moved northwest, towards the Top of the World and Grinnell argillite quarries, then southeast to the Montana quarries, with the bulk of material collected from the Everson quarry.

263

Lithic Reduction Stages

As with DkPi-2, the southern materials dominate almost every reduction stage, as well as tools, within the non-local lithic assemblage (Figure 77). Within these materials, Everson chert is prominent in the early and mid-stage debitage, suggesting it was visited most recently (Figure

78), although, as with DkPi-2, it may also have been present due to trade. Helena chert is present only in the mid stage debitage, suggesting it was visited before the Everson quarry. Obsidian and

Ignimbrite are present only in the late stage debitage and tools, which indicates that they were the first quarry visited in the south. Grinnell argillite and Top of the World chert are only present as two bipolar flakes (Figure 77), which, despite their high percentage of the weight in the assemblage, is not very indicative of where they fall in the seasonal round. Etherington chert is dominant in the assemblage, especially among early and middle stage reduction stages (Figure

77) suggesting it was visited after the Everson chert quarry. However, with it only being located

25 km from the site, it is likely that a special foraging task group could have retrieved the material, rather than it being a part of the seasonal round. The same is most likely true for Swan

River chert, which is also prominent in the assemblage (Figure 77). This is because it is the only material from the east, making it somewhat of an outlier, and although it is known to be located at least 85 km from the site, it may have been available more locally in small amounts since it was transferred through glacial movement. It is also possible that the base camp for this site, if it is indeed a field camp/processing location, may have been located nearer the Swan River chert source area. Another possibility is that groups camped nearer to the Swan River chert source traded it to the sites located further west along the river valley.

264

DjPm-126: Lithic Source Areas Organized by Typology

10 8 6 4 2 0 Core Shatter Early Stage Middle Late Stage Bipolar Tool Stage Flake

South West Etherington Chert Swan River Chert

Figure 77. DjPm-126: Lithic source areas organized by typology. Etherington and Swan River chert are organized separately due to their distance from the site. Y-axis denotes count.

DjPm-126: Southern Lithic Materials Organized by Typology

5 4 3 2 1 0 Core Shatter Early Stage Middle Late Stage Bipolar Tool Stage Flake

Everson Chert Helena Chert Ignimbrite Montana Chert Obsidian

Figure 78. DjPm-126: Southern lithic materials organized by typology. Y-axis denotes count.

Summary

The non-local lithic assemblage for this site is quite small and therefore it is hard to see distinct patterns of movement based on the lithic debitage. It appears that, like DkPi-2, the igneous quarry was visited first, suggesting a southern movement away from the site if the material was not the result of trade. This was followed by a western movement to the Everson quarry, or at least to the Helena quarry, if the presence of Everson chert at the site was the result

265 of trade. The materials from the west are very limited and therefore it is not known when these quarries were visited in comparison to the others, or if they were the result of trade.

DjPm-36

Weight

Grinnell argillite heavily dominates the non-local debitage assemblage by weight, composing 79 percent of the total weight (Figure 46). The next material from a known quarry source is Helena chert, composing 2 percent of the assemblage weight. This strongly indicates that Grinnell argillite was the most recent quarry visited by the people of DjPm-36, but little else can be gleaned from the weight of the various non-local debitage.

Lithic Reduction Stages

As with DkPi-2 and DjPm-126, southern materials are the most common materials at the site and are the most evenly distributed across typological classes (Figure 79). This indicates that this area was the most recently visited. Amongst the quarries in this area, Avon chert is only present in the tool assemblage (Figure 80), suggesting this was one of the first quarries visited.

Obsidian, being represented only in the late stage debitage, is also most likely amongst the first quarries visited. Helena chert is primarily present as late stage flakes with some mid stage flakes and a tool. This is indicative that this quarry was visited after the obsidian and Avon chert quarries. Everson chert is only present as a piece of shatter, which is not especially indicative of when it may have been visited in sequence with the other quarries.

266

DjPm-36: Lithic Source Areas Organized by Typology 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Flakes Tool Flakes Flakes Flakes

South West East Etherington Chert Swan River Chert

Figure 79. DjPm-126: Lithic source areas organized by typology. Etherington and Swan River chert are organized separately due to their distance from the site. Y-axis denotes count.

Grinnell argillite is represented across all typological categories, except for tools, with it being most prevalent in the middle and late stages of reduction (Figure 81). This is very indicative of the Grinnell argillite quarry being exploited after the Montana quarries, which is consistent with the predictions made by its prevalence by weight in the debitage assemblage.

There are fewer pieces of Grinnell argillite than the southern materials, but, as with DkPi-2, this is because they are larger overall, which indicates that this quarry was visited more recently than any of the southern quarries.

Etherington chert is present primarily as shatter, followed by mid stage flakes and tools

(Figure 79) which indicates that it may have been visited before the Grinnell argillite quarry.

This is unexpected since the Etherington quarry is only 20 km from DjPm-36, well within foraging range for a collector’s task group. However, Etherington is not the highest quality material and therefore may not have been especially desirable to the inhabitants of DjPm-36. It is also possible that Grinnell argillite may also have been collected by special foraging task groups since it is located only 60 km from DjPm-36 (Table 16) and may be considered higher-quality than Etherington chert due to it not being as brecciated. Therefore, if Grinnell argillite and

267

Etherington chert were collected as part of the seasonal round, but Grinnell argillite was also exploited separately by specialized task groups, then Grinnell argillite would be more prevalent in the assemblage than Etherington chert.

DjPm-36: Southern Lithic Materials Organized by Typology 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Flakes Tool Flakes Flakes Flakes

Avon Chert Everson Helena Chert Montana Chert Obsidian

Figure 80. DjPm-36: Southern lithic materials organized by typology. Y-axis denotes count.

DjPm-36: Western Lithic Materials Organized by Typology 5 4 3 2 1 0 Shatter Early Stage Mid Stage Late Stage Bipolar Flakes Tool Flakes Flakes Flakes

Grinnell Argillite Top of the World Chert

Figure 81. DjPm-36: Western lithic materials organized by typology. Y-axis denotes count.

DjPm-36 also seems to rely quite heavily on materials that are very close to the site, as discussed previously, and therefore its occupants may not have had the ability or the desire to send a task group to forage Etherington chert. Top of the World chert is only present as one tool in the non-local assemblage and therefore it may have been one of the first quarries visited.

However, given that it is quite a distance away from the other quarries that fall within the late

268 stage/tool typological classes, and that it falls outside of the area known to be occupied by the

Old Women’s phase cultural group, it is most likely the result of trade.

Knife River Flint is only present as two late stage flakes and therefore, as with DkPi-2, its presence is most likely the result of trade, especially since the KRF quarries are outside the area in which Old Women’s phase sites have been found. Swan River chert is prevalent amongst mid and late stage flakes but, due to it being present in fairly high quantities compared to the rest of the local assemblage and it being an outlier being located east of DjPm-36, it seems that this was not collected as part of a seasonal round, but was foraged separately in similar manner as the one suggested for DjPm-126.

Summary

As with DjPm-126, the non-local lithic assemblage at the site is quite small, making it difficult to determine a directionality of movement with any great certainty. However, it does appear that there was a movement south from DjPm-36 to the igneous quarries, possibly in

Wyoming, although it is possible that this material was the result of trade as well. There was a movement south, though, as evidenced by the presence of Avon chert, followed by the Helena chert quarries. A possible movement to the northwest was then made to exploit the Grinnell argillite quarry area, followed by a move northward to the Etherington chert quarry. Grinnell argillite may then have been collected outside of the seasonal round by foraging task groups. It may also be possible that the Etherington quarry was also visited outside of the seasonal round, given its distance from the site (Table 16).

Seasonal Round Summary

Based on the reduction stages/tools and weight composition of the debitage based on material types, a pattern of movement seems relatively consistent between the three sites. At

269 some point, it appears that the groups inhabiting this area moved south and possibly exploited the igneous quarries. If the igneous materials were the result of trade, since the Wyoming quarry is outside the area known to be occupied by the Old Women’s phase people, there is still evidence of a movement south to the Montana chert quarries, including Everson, Helena, and Avon. A northwest movement was then made, where Grinnell argillite was collected, followed by a further movement northward where they may have traded for Top of the World chert and

Kootenay argillite. This northern movement may have been along the Old North Trail, which is believed to have been used most frequently during the Late Precontact period (Amundsen-Meyer

2014:267, Table 39). Trade for Top of the World chert and Kootenay argillite may have been from Kutenai, Ktunaxa, and other mountain groups that were known to move east, through the mountain passes into the area around the Old North Trail (Amundsen-Meyer 2014:280). It is unclear if Etherington chert was a part of the seasonal round or if it was collected by specialist task groups, or a possible combination of both.

Swan River chert was most likely collected separately from the seasonal round due to its prominence in the assemblages despite its occurrence to the east of the site while all other common materials come from the south and west. Similarly, the presence of KRF and Banff chert at the sites was most likely the result of trade since both are outliers, one to the east and the other to the north, when compared to the source location of other non-local materials.

Comparison to the Contact Period Seasonal Round

The abundance of local material toolstone in all three lithic assemblages, as well as in all stages of reduction and formal tools clearly indicates an extended occupation of the research area. The seasonality data point to a winter/early spring occupation for all three of the sites, which is consistent with the contact period data on the seasonal round which notes that winter

270 was the most sedentary time for the Blackfoot, with people often staying in one area for around five months (Ewers 1955:124; Uhlenbeck 1912). The location of these sites within the Oldman

River valley is also consistent with the contact period seasonal round, where it is noted that river valleys were chosen for winter occupation due to the sheltered nature of the area and the presence of abundant wood for heating (Ewers 1955; Vickers and Peck 2004).

The exotic toolstone present suggests a large seasonal round which is indicative of fairly regular movement when these groups were outside of their overwintering grounds. It is also possible that since the inhabitants of these sites appear to practice a logistical organization, the whole group was not moving near to these sources, but rather specialized task groups exploited the quarries. This would mean that the larger group had a smaller seasonal round than is indicated by the materials present. If these materials were being directly procured then the seasonal round may have required a greater distance travelled than what is seen in the contact period seasonal round, which seems unlikely considering this period was before the arrival of the horse on the Plains.

However, the contact period seasonal round is based on Blood informants, who exploited the territory around the 49th parallel, both above and below. The Piikani Blackfoot tribe exploited the territory which encompassed the Oldman River valley area in contact times (Hanes and Pifer 2000; Kidd 1986). Therefore, it is a possibility that the inhabitants of DkPi-2, DjPm-

126, and DjPm-36 did not directly procure materials from the southern quarries but rather traded for this material with groups that inhabited the Marias River valley and the surrounding area when those groups moved north out of the valley and onto the plains. This would have resulted in a much more restricted seasonal round.

271

Either way, a movement south would have been necessary in order to account for the high presence of these southern materials at the sites, whether it was to directly procure material from the quarries or if it was to trade with southern groups moving north on their seasonal round.

The use of the Old North Trail in the fall would be consistent with what is theorized of bison herd movement and the contact period seasonal round. Ewers (1955), Kooyman (2006), and Uhlenbeck (1912) note that the fall was the time to hunt bison and build up stores for the winter, while many ecological models predict that the bison were migrating into the foothills at this time in order to seek shelter in preparation for the colder winter months (Epp 1988; Peck

2001; Reeves 1990). This indicates that a movement into and north along the foothills by Old

Women’s phase groups would have allowed access to the bison herds that were migrating into the area creating abundant hunting opportunities.

Whether or not the seasonal round encompassed the Montana quarries, it is clear that the

Old Women’s phase people made a southern movement out of the river valley and onto the

Plains, which was followed by a northern movement up the foothills (possibly using the Old

North Trail) in the fall. It is also clear that these people inhabited the Oldman River valley for an extended period of time, which is consistent with what is known of the contact period seasonal round for the Blackfoot.

Summary

Using the organization of technology to determine mobility is a complex undertaking, and the lithic assemblage can be used in many ways to understand how precontact people were moving across a landscape. By using many different aspects of the organization of technology, I was able to determine if the evidence was consistent between these varying aspects, which

272 allowed me to both test the reliability of the various theories, as well as create a strong case for the type of mobility practiced by the inhabitants of these sites.

The ability to understand the organization of technology required multiple forms of data, including tool form, tool versatility and flexibility, in depth debitage analysis focusing on reduction stages, lithic sourcing, and the prevalence and differential use of local vs. non-local toolstone. Within all these various methods, the data pointed to a consistent organization of technology practiced by logistically organized hunter-gatherers. This data was enhanced through the use of usewear analysis, which added an extra level of assurance to predictions regarding tool versatility and flexibility, as well as interpreting specific site use. Similarly, a focus on reduction stages in the lithic debitage allowed great clarity to be gleaned from how different materials were entering the site and how these materials were being utilized, as well as allowing for a better understanding of the occupation span of the sites. In addition, these reduction stages in combination with lithic sourcing were useful in determining how these groups may have been moving across the landscape.

273

Chapter 10: Conclusion

This research has provided insight into the degree of mobility of Old Women’s phase people in southern Alberta. Previous research has been largely concerned with larger settlement patterns in the area, which revealed evidence of river valleys being used as wintering campsites, but there was little research into how long these sites were occupied for (e.g., Amundsen-Meyer

2014; Brumley and Dau 1988; Morgan 1979; Peck 2001; Vickers 1991). By using the lithic remains found at DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-36, this research was able to provide evidence for the long occupation of winter/early spring campsites. This strengthens the theory that there is continuity between the Old Women’s phase people and the contact period Blackfoot, who practiced a more sedentary mobility during the winter months. It also strengthens theories concerned with broader settlement patterns on the plains, confirming that the river valleys were used throughout the winter, with more sedentary base camps being supplied by smaller, logistically organized task groups.

Due to the fact that lithic assemblages have never been used to study mobility on the southern Alberta Plains, multiple theories concerning the organization of technology were used to strengthen any conclusions that could be made, as well as to test the efficacy of the theories against one another. The first theoretical approach employed was the use of reliable vs. maintainable tools by the inhabitants of the sites. In order to determine whether tools were reliable or maintainable, multiple methodologies were used. Tool morphology and tool diversity were both helpful in recognizing a preference for reliable technology; this is encouraging since these methods are often employed by archaeologists during lithic analysis since they are quick to do and relatively straightforward. The recognition of evidence for tool hafting was also extremely helpful and straightforward, often requiring a simple analysis of tool size and fit in the

274 hand. However, the presence of hafting was supported by other methods, including invasiveness indices and usewear analysis.

The invasiveness indices were useful for determining the intensity of retouch on tools.

Intense retouch suggests a reliable technology, but it was not the easiest method to use because it comes with many caveats, such as the fact that more expedient tools or thin blanks often bring the average degree of invasiveness down for a site. This situation made the technology appear to be maintainable when in fact it was two separate technologies (reliable and expedient) or the result of conservation of lithic material (the use of extremely small/thin blanks). This circumstance meant that good notes had to be maintained for each of the tools that was analyzed in order to recognize any factors that might bias the results.

The degree of tool flexibility and versatility was consistent with the conclusions drawn from the other methods regarding tool form, suggesting that it, too, is a good indicator of reliable vs. maintainable technology. However, I believe this method’s efficacy was greatly enhanced through usewear analysis. Usewear analysis provided a much finer understanding of how a tool was used than could be achieved by just examining tool morphology. For example, there were many instances where it was unclear based on the tool morphology if a tool edge had been used in a task, or if it had simply been shaped for hafting (e.g., tool DkPi-2 219773), or if edges had been used for similar use motions or different ones. Usewear analysis clarified these uncertainties and provided a much better picture of the versatility and flexibility of tools at the sites. However, usewear analysis did not provide a significant amount of information for site

DjPm-36. This is most likely due to the preference for short use-life tools (as revealed by the invasiveness indices) and coarse materials, which take longer to develop usewear. Therefore,

275 although usewear provides some of the most fine-grained and clear evidence regarding tool use, it is not a viable method for all sites depending on the materials used and the use-life of tools.

The second theoretical approach discussed pertained to patterns in the tools and debitage.

It is theorized that different mobility patterns result in differences in the exploitation of resources, as well as differences in site occupation span, and that these differences should be apparent in the tools and debitage recovered from a site. Because the relationship of these patterns to mobility are quite complex, many different methods were required to analyze the evidence that these patterns provided. One of these methods is flake typology as it relates to reduction stage, especially when combined with information concerning lithic material source locations (i.e., whether toolstone is local or non-local). This allowed for both a recognition of how the site was used (e.g., were tools being made at the site or were they being brought to the site), how local and non-local materials were being utilized, and the length of occupation in the local area.

Invasiveness indices were used to determine tool use-lives, which allowed for the recognition of different utilization patterns for local and non-local materials. This aided in developing a theory of how long a site was occupied, since a dominance of local materials in the tool assemblages is a result of variations in the use-life of local vs. non-local tools. In addition, recognizing the diversity of tool types as they relate to local and non-local material was important for understanding the length of occupation of the site and surrounding area since the longer an area is occupied, the more tools of non-local material will be replaced by tools made of local material. The material that was used to make tools was also compared to the material that was present in the debitage in order to find evidence of curation, which can give insight into the length of site occupation. These data were also used to inform site type.

276

The patterns found in the tools and debitage for all three sites was consistent with what would be expected for more sedentary, logistically organized hunter-gatherers. However, this conclusion would have been difficult to determine had it not been for the use of these multiple methodologies that intertwined to clearly elucidate the patterns that resulted from exploiting the environment in a particular manner.

The third theoretical approach that was explored concerned the degree of intersite variability. This required determining how each site was used based on the information gleaned from the patterns in the tools and debitage. Using only the lithic assemblages it was determined that DkPi-2 was a collector’s processing location site, DjPm-126 was a combination collector’s field camp and processing location, and DjPm-36 was either a collector’s base camp or a field camp. To test the effectiveness of using lithic assemblage data to determine mobility, these site types were then compared to the data provided by the larger archaeological assemblage in order to determine if the inferences from these two data sets were consistent. It was found the DkPi-2 was very consistent in the site type suggested by the lithic material and the larger archaeological assemblage, confirming that this site was most likely a processing location for a logistically organized group. DjPm-126’s site type was slightly unclear due to erosion at the site, but overall the larger archaeological assemblage did not contradict the possibility of the site being a field camp/processing location for a logistically organized group. In the case of DjPm-36, the larger archaeological assemblage allowed for a finer understanding of the site type, confirming that it was most likely used as a collector’s base camp rather than a field camp due to the presence of clusters of activity areas, a possible refuse pile, burned bone, and ceramic remains. Therefore, the lithic assemblage did confirm that the site was used by logistical hunter-gatherers, but the larger archaeological assemblage was required to determine the exact site type.

277

Overall, the lithic assemblage proved very effective at determining the specific site type, suggesting that in the unlikely event that only lithic material is recovered from a site, a reasonable inference regarding its use could still be made. Within this research, there is a high degree of intersite variability, with each site being used in a different way. This clearly indicates the use of a more sedentary, logistically organized mobility in this area.

It is clear from this research that all three theoretical approaches provided consistent and clear evidence for a more sedentary, logistically organized approach to mobility by the people of the Old Women’s phase in this area. As such, it suggests that any one of these theories, or a combination of them, could be used to explore the mobility of the inhabitants of other sites in southern Alberta, both within and outside of the Old Women’s phase.

The final theoretical approach discussed utilized distance-decay relationships with regards to flake typology, weight, and lithic sources. This theory varies from the first three in that it is not concerned with the degree of mobility, but rather it is focused on larger scale movement and the minimum size of the territory a group exploits. This proved to be quite difficult to determine for DjPm-126 and DjPm-36 due to the small amount of non-local material present at the sites, although it did provide an estimate of the general territory which the group exploited (including south into Montana and west along the foothills). However, this analysis did provide insight into the movement of the people who occupied DkPi-2, which had a larger amount of non-local materials present when compared to the other two sites. The distribution of materials across typological classes, combined with their known source locations and weight, revealed a movement south at some point early in the seasonal round, where Montana sources were exploited. This was then followed by a movement northwest, where Grinnell argillite was collected, followed by a movement north, possibly along the Old North Trail, where Top of the

278

World chert and Kootenay argillite were collected through trade. Although DjPm-126 and DjPm-

36 lacked enough non-local toolstone to make a strong case for movement across an area, the non-local materials that were present were consistent with those found at DkPi-2, and therefore suggested a similar seasonal movement amongst the people who occupied these three sites.

This theory on the seasonal round is consistent with what is known of the Blackfoot seasonal round based on ethnographic work by Ewers (1955), Kooyman (2006), and Uhlenbeck

(1912). It is also consistent with ecological theories regarding the settlement patterns of precontact people in southern Alberta (Epp 1988; Peck 2001; Reeves 1990), that suggest that people followed the bison into the sheltered foothills in the fall. This shows continuity between the Old Women’s phase people and the modern Blackfoot, and provides further evidence on the efficacy of ecological models of human settlement in the area.

It is clear from this research that lithic assemblages provide viable evidence for mobility in southern Alberta. This opens up many possible avenues of future research, such as exploring changes in mobility through time. This would require using one, all, or a combination of these various theories and methods to explore possible differences in mobility in sites or areas that show great time depth. For example, DjPm-36 has a series of occupations that span 6 000 years and therefore would be an excellent option for exploring changes in mobility strategies. Another possible avenue of future research would involve expanding the study to include Old Women’s phase sites outside of the Oldman River valley to determine if the degree of mobility changed seasonally, as was the case for the Blackfoot at the time of contact. This would require identifying sites that fall within the same date range, 500 BP to 400 BP, but have seasonal indicators that suggest a summer, fall, or late spring occupation. This research could also be used to clarify if pedestrian hunter-gatherers of this period became more sedentary during the summer

279 as did the equestrian Blackfoot (Ewers 1955), or if there was a deviation from the post-contact

Blackfoot seasonal round. A third research area could use these theories and methods in the same way they are used in this research, to explore the mobility of precontact people for different time periods in southern Alberta.

In sum, the theories and methods used in this research provided consistent interpretations regarding the degree of mobility practiced by the inhabitants of DkPi-2, DjPm-126, and DjPm-

36. This speaks to the efficacy of each theory and the methods used to elucidate mobility on the southern Alberta Plains. Hopefully this will encourage others to use lithic assemblages as evidence for precontact mobility in this region, especially since some of these theories and methods (such as reliable vs. maintainable technology elucidated by tool form) are relatively easy to recognize and utilize information that is already commonly recorded.

280

References Cited

Akridge, Glen D. and Paul H. Benoit 2001 Luminescence Properties of Chert and Some Archaeological Applications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:143–151.

American Geologic Institute 2005 Glossary of Geology. 5th ed. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia.

Amundsen-Meyer, Lindsay M. 2014 Nested Landscapes: Ecological and Spiritual Use of Plains Landscape During the Late Prehistoric Period. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Alberta.

Anderson, Patricia C., Galina F. Korobkova, Laura Longo, Hugues Plisson, and Natalia Skakun 2005 Various Viewpoints on the Work of S.A. Semenov. In The Roots of Use-Wear Analysis: Selected Papers of S.A. Semenov, edited by Laura Longo and Natalia Skakun, pp. 11–19. Cortella Poligrafica Spa, Verona, Italy.

Andrefsky, William Jr. 1991 Inferring Trends in Prehistoric Settlement Behavior from Lithic Production Technology in the Southern Plains. North American Archaeologist 12:129–144.

1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21–34.

1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2006 Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–757.

2008 Projectile Point Provisioning Strategies and Human Land Use. In Lithic Technology, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp.195–215. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38–50.

1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11–23.

1990 Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:70–104.

Bamforth, Douglas B. and Mark S. Becker 2000 Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologist 45(173):273–290

281

Bamforth, Douglas B. and Peter Bleed 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and G.A. Clark, pp. 109–140. American Anthropological Associate, Arlington, Virginia.

Barton, Huw 2008 Expedient Technologies and Curated Tools within a System of High Residential Mobility: An Example Using Mass Analysis of Flakes from the Simpson Desert, Central Australia. Lithic Technology 33:51–71.

Beardsley, Richard K., Preston Holder, Alex D. Krieger, Betty J. Meggers, John B. Rinaldo, and Paul Kutsche 1956 Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology No. 11. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Beck, Charlotte and George T. Jones 1990 Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(3):283–299.

Beck, Charlotte, Amanda K. Taylor, George T. Jones, Cynthia M. Fadem, Caitlyn R. Cook, and Sara A. Millward 2002 Rocks are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behaviour in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481–507.

Bentsen, Siltje Evjenth 2013 Controlling the Heat: An Experimental Approach to Middle Stone Age Pyrotechnology. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 68(198):137–145.

Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the ‘Functional’ Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 227– 254. Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd., London.

1977 Forty-Seven Trips. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 24–36. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12, Australia Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–273.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.

282

Binnema, Theodore 2001 Common and Contested Ground: A Human and Environmental History of the Northwestern Plains. University of Oklahoma Press, OK.

Blades, Brooke 2002 Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.

Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737–747.

Blumenschine, Robert J., Fidelis T. Masao, Joanne C. Tactikos, and James I. Ebert 2008 Effects of Distance from Stone Source on Landscape-Scale Variation in Oldowan Artifact Assemblages in the Paleo-Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:76–86.

Boldurian, Anthony T. 1991 Folsom Mobility and Organization of Lithic Technology: A View from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 36:281–295.

Bonnichsen, Robson, Marvin Beatty, Mort D. Turner, Joanne C. Turner, and Diane Douglas 1992 Paleoindian Lithic Procurement at the South Fork of Everson Creek, Southwestern Montana: A Preliminary Statement. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by Dennis J. Stanford and Jane S. Day, pp.285–322. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.

Bousman, Britt 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18:59–86.

Bradbury, Andrew P. and Philip J. Carr 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20:100–115.

1999 Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105–116.

Brink, Jack 1978a Notes on the Occurrence of Spontaneous Retouch. Lithic Technology 7:31–33.

1978b The Role of Abrasives in the Formation of Lithic Use-Wear. Journal of Archaeological Science 5:363–371.

283

Brumley, John H. 1983 An Interpretive Model for Stone Circles and Stone Circle Sites within Southeastern Alberta. Plains Anthropologist 28(102, part 2):171–191.

Brumley, John H. and Barry J. Dau 1988 Historical Resource Investigations within the Forty Mile Coulee Reservoir. Manuscript Series No. 13. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Byrne, William J. 1973 The Archaeology and Prehistory of Southern Alberta as Reflected by Ceramics. Mercury Series No. 14. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Carr, Phillip J. 1994 Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Philip J. Carr, pp. 35–44. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Choquette, Wayne T. 1980 The Role of Lithic Raw Material Studies in Kootenay Archaeology. BC Studies 48:21– 36.

Clark, Frances 1984 Knife River Flint and Interregional Exchange. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9:173–198.

Clark, John R. 1979 Measuring the Flow of Goods with Archaeological Data. Economic Geography 55(1):1– 17.

Clarkson, Chris 2002 An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65–75.

Clayton, Lee, W.B. Bickley, Jr., and W.J. Stone 1970 Knife River Flint. Plains Anthropologist 15:282–290.

284

Close, Angela E. 1991 On the Validity of Middle Paleolithic Tool Types: A Test Case from the Eastern Sahara. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:256–269.

1996 Carry that Weight: The Use and Transportation of Stone Tools. Current Anthropology 137(3):545–553.

1999 Distance and Decay: An Uneasy Relationship. Antiquity 73:24–32.

Coues, Elliot (editor) 1965 New Light on the History of the Greater Northwest: The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry and of David Thompson. Ross and Haines, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Cowan, Frank L. 1999 Making Sense of Flake Scatters: Lithic Technological Strategies and Mobility. American Antiquity 64(4):593–607.

Dale, Rebecca Jane 1983 FbPi-3: 15 Mile Coal Trail Site. Archaeological Site Inventory. Submitted to Alberta Culture: Historic Resources Division. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton, Alberta. de Mill, Christy Nicole 1997 Lithic Raw Material Utilisation Patterns in the Oldman River Valley, Southern Alberta. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Dibble, Harold L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.

Downing, D.J. and W.W. Pettapiece (editors) 2006 Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Eberth, David A., David C. Evans, Donald B. Brinkman, François Therrien, Darren H. Tanke, and Loris S. Russell 2013 Dinosaur Biostratigraphy of the Edmonton Group (Upper Cretaceous), Alberta, Canada: Evidence for Climate Influence. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 50:701–726.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Michael D. Glascock, Craig E. Skinner, and Sharon A. Waechter 2007 Reduction Strategies and Geochemical Characterization of Lithic Assemblages: A Comparison of Three Case Studies from Western North America. American Antiquity 72(3):585–597.

285

Epp, Henry T. 1988 Way of the Migrant Herds: Dual Dispersal Strategy among Bison. Plains Anthropologist 33:309–320.

Ewers, John C. 1945 The Case for Blackfoot Pottery. American Anthropologist 47:289–299.

1955 The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture: With Comparative Material from Other Western Tribes. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 159. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Foradas, James G. 2003 Chemical Souring of Hopewell Bladelets: Implications for Building a Chert Database for Ohio. In Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, edited by P. Nick Kardulias and Richard W. Yerkes, pp. 87–112. Lexington Books, Lanham, Maryland.

Forbis, Richard G. 1962 The Old Women’s Buffalo Jump, Alberta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin No. 180. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

1964 Site DkPi-2. Archaeological Site Inventory. Submitted to Alberta Culture Historic Resources Division. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Fredlund, Dale E. 1976 Fort Union Porcellanite and Fused Glass: Distinctive Lithic Materials of Coal Burn Origin on the Northern Plains. Plains Archaeologist 21:207–211.

Gendel, P. and L. Pirnay 1982 Microwear Analysis of Experimental Stone Tools: Further Experimental Results. Studia Prehistorica Belgica 2:251–265.

Grace, Roger 1988 Teach Yourself Microwear Analysis: A Guide to the Interpretation of the Function of Stone Tools. Arqueohistorica No.1. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Chile.

1989 Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. BAR International Series474. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

286

Grace, R., K. Ataman, R. Fabregas, and C.M.B. Haggren 1988 A Multivariate Approach to the Functional Analysis of Stone Tools. In Industries Lithiques: Tracéologie et Technologie, Vol. 2, edited by Sylvie Beyries, pp. 217–230. BAR International Series 411. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Grasby, Stephen E., Eugene M. Gryba, and Ruth K. Bezys 2002 A Bedrock Source of Swan River Chert. Plains Anthropologist 47:275–281.

Graspointner, Andreas 1981 Southern Alberta: The Nomadic Culture. In Alberta Archaeology: Past and Retrospect, edited by T.A. Moore, pp. 83–96. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Lethbridge, AB.

Gregg, Michael I. 1987 Knife River Flint in the Northeastern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 32:367–377.

Grinnell, George Bird 1962 The Cheyenne Indians: Their History and Ways of Life. Cooper Square Publishers Inc., New York.

Hanes, Richard C, and Matthew T. Pifer 2000 Gale Encyclopedia of Multicultural America: Blackfoot. Electronic Document, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Blackfoot.aspx, accessed February 16, 2012.

Hayden, Brian 1979a Snap, Shatter, and Superfractures: Use-Wear of Stone Skin Scrapers. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 207–230. Academic Press Inc., New York.

1979b Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavations among the Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia.

Hayden, Brian and Johan Kamminga 1979 An Introduction to Use-Wear: The First CLUW. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 1–14. Academic Press Inc., New York.

Hiscock, Peter and Chris Clarkson 2005 Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015–1022.

Holdaway, Simon, Shannon McPherron, and Barbara Roth 1996 Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites. American Antiquity 61:377–387.

Holdaway, Simon, Willeke Wendrich, and Rebecca Phillipps 2010 Identifying Low-Level Food Producers: Detecting Mobility from Lithics. Antiquity 84:185–194.

287

Hopwood, Victor G. (editor) 1971 David Thompson: Travels in Western North America, 1784–1812. Macmillan of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

Hurcombe, L.M. 1988 Some Criticisms and Suggestions in Response to Newcomer et al. (1986). Journal of Archaeological Science 15:1–10.

1992 Use Wear Analysis and Obsidian: Theory, Experiments and Results. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs Vol. 4. J.R. Collins Publications, Sheffield, UK.

Ingbar, Eric E. 1994 Lithic Material Selection and Technological Organization. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Philip J. Carr, pp. 45– 56. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Irish, E.J.W. 1970 The Edmonton Group of South-Central Alberta. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 18(2):125–155.

Jeske, Robert J. 1992 Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 57:467–481.

Jones, George T., Charlotte Beck, Eric E. Jones, and Richard E. Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5–38.

Kamminga, Johan 1982 Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 12. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, Queensland.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies. World Archaeology 5:323–336.

1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798–809.

Keeley, L.H. and M.H. Newcomer 1977 Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:29–62.

288

Kehoe, Alice B. 1959 Ceramic Affiliations in the Northwestern Plains. American Antiquity 25:237–246.

Kelly, Robert L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277–306.

1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–734.

1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43–66.

Kent, Susan 1992 Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 7:635–660.

Kidd, Kenneth E. 1986 Blackfoot Ethnography. Manuscript Series Vol. 8. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Knutsson, K. and R. Hope 1984 The Application of Acetate Peels in Lithic Use-Wear Research. Archaeometry 26:49–61.

Kooyman, Brian 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta.

2006 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Seasonality and Settlement Strategies on the Canadian Plains. In Notions de Territoire et de Mobilité: Exemples de l’Europe et des Premières Nations en Amérique du Nord Avant le Contact Européen, edited by Céline Bressy, Ariane Burke, Pierre Chalard, and Hélène Martin, pp. 125–130. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, Liège.

Kuhn, Steven L. 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–593.

1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3):426–442.

Landals, Alison 1990 1989 Oldman River Dam Prehistoric Archaeology Mitigation Program: Kill Sites Component, 2 vols. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Permit No. 89-32. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

289

Leckie, Dale A. and Lee F. Krystinik 1995 Cretaceous Igneous-Clast Conglomerate in the Blairmore Group, Rocky Mountain Foothills and Adjacent Subsurface (Bow Island Formation), Alberta, Canada. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 43:320–342.

Lee, Richard B. 1979 The !Kung San. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Levi-Sala, Irene 1996 A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. BAR International Series 629. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Loveseth, Beatrice A. 1976 Lithic Source Survey in the Crowsnest Pass Area. In Archaeology in Alberta, 1975, edited by J. Michael Quigg and W.J. Byrne, pp. 51–58. Occasional Paper No. 1, Archaeological Survey of Alberta.

1980 The Crowsnest Lake Dancehall Site (DjPp-3): Interpretation based on Lithic Artifact and Type Analyses. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Low, Bruce 1996 Swan River Chert. Plains Anthropologist 41:165–174.

MacGregor, James G. 1966 Peter Fidler: Canada’s Forgotten Surveyor, 1769-1822. McClelland and Stewart Ltd, Toronto.

Magne, Martin P.R. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 133. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

1987 Distributions of Native Groups in Western Canada, A.D. 1700 to A.D. 1850. In Archaeology in Alberta 1986, Occasional Paper No. 31, edited by Martin Magne, pp. 220-232. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Magne, Martin and David Pokotylo 1981 A Pilot Study in Bifacial Lithic Reduction Sequences. Lithic Technology 10:34–47.

Malainey, Mary E. and Barbara L. Sherriff 1996 Adjusting Our Perceptions: Historical and Archaeological Evidence of Winter on the Plains of Western Canada. Plains Anthropologist 41:333–357.

290

Malyk-Selivanova, Natalia, Gail M. Ashley, Robert Gal, Michael D. Glascock, and Hector Neff 1998 Geological-Geochemical Approach to “Sourcing” of Prehistoric Chert Artifacts, Northwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 13(7):673–708.

Matson, R.G. 1982 The Parallel Direct Historical Approach: Ethnic Identification at Eagle Lake, B.C. In Approaches to Algonquian Archaeology, edited by Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooyman, pp. 233-241. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, AB.

Meyer, David 1988 The Old Women’s Phase on the Saskatchewan Plains: Some Ideas. In Archaeology in Alberta 1987, Occasional Paper No. 32, edited by Martin Magne, pp. 55-64. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Meyer, David and Henry T. Epp 1990 North-South Interaction in the Late Prehistory of Central Saskatchewan. Plains Anthropologist 35:321–342.

Meyer, David and Dale Walde 2009 Rethinking Avonlea: Pottery Wares and Cultural Phases. Plains Anthropologist 54:49– 73.

Miller, James C. 1991 Lithic Resources. In Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd ed., edited by George C. Frison, pp.449–476. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California.

Milne, S. Brooke, Robert W. Park, Anne C. Hamilton, and Mostafa J. Fayek 2011 Chert Souring and Paleo-Eskimo Raw Material Use in the Interior of Southern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 35(1):117–142.

Morgan, R. Grace 1979 An Ecological Study of the Northern Plains as Seen Through the Garratt Site. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 1. Department of Anthropology, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK.

Morrow, Toby A. 1996 Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn’s Formal Approach to Mobile Tool Kits. American Antiquity 61:581–590.

Moss, Emily H. 1983 The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements: Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: Two Case Studies from the French Final Paleolithic. BAR International Series 177. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1987 A Review of “Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests.” Journal of Archaeological Science 14:473–481.

291

Mulloy, William T. 1958 A Preliminary Historical Outline for the Northwestern Plains. University of Wyoming Publications Vol. 22, No. 1–2. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Newcomer, Mark H. 1976 Spontaneous Retouch. In Staringia, Vol. 3, edited by G.H.G Engelsen, pp. 62–64. Maastricht, Netherlands.

Newcomer, M., R. Grace, and R. Unger-Hamilton 1986 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:203–217.

1988 Microwear Methodology: A Reply to Moss, Hurcombe and Bamforth. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:25–33.

Newcomer, M.H. and L.H. Keeley 1979 Testing a Method of Microwear Analysis with Experimental Flint Tools. In Lithic Use- Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 195–206. Academic Press Inc., New York.

Newman, Jay R. 1994 The Effects of Distance on Lithic Material Reduction Technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 21:491–501.

Odell, George H. 1977 The Application of Micro-Near Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1994a Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:51–73.

1994b Assessing Hunter-Gatherer Mobility in the Illinois Valley: Exploring Ambiguous Results. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Philip J. Carr, pp. 70–86. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1996 Economizing Behaviour and the Concept of Curation. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York.

1998 Investigating Correlates of Sedentism and Domestication in Prehistoric North America. American Antiquity 63:553–571.

2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York.

292

Odell, George H. and Frank Cowan 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195–212.

Odell, George Hamley, and Frieda Odell-Vereecken 1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-wear Assessments by ‘Blind Tests’: the Low- Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87–120.

Oetelaar, Gerald A. And D. Joy Oetelaar 2006 People, Places and Paths: The Cypress Hills and the Niitsitapi Landscape of Southern Alberta. Plains Anthropologist 51:375–397.

Olausson, Deborah Seitzer 1980 Starting from Scratch: The History of Edge-Wear Research from 1838 to 1978. Lithic Technology 9:48–60.

Ower, J.R. 1960 The Edmonton Formation. Journal of the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists 8:309– 323.

Parry, William and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285–308. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Peck, Trevor R. 2001 Bison Ethology and Native Settlement Patterns during the Old Women’s Phase on the Northwestern Plains. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

2002 Archaeologically Recovered Ammonites: Evidence for Long-Term Continuity in Nitsitapii Ritual. Plains Anthropologist 47:147–164.

Peck, Trevor and John W. Ives 2001 Late Side-Notched Projectile Points in the Northern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 46:163–193.

Pope, S.T. 1923 A Study of Bows and Arrows. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13:329–414.

Prasciunas, Mary M. 2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72:334–348.

293

Railey, Jim A. 2010 Reduced Mobility or the Bow and Arrow? Another Look at “Expedient” Technologies and Sedentism. American Antiquity 75(2):259–286.

Ramanujam, C.G.K. 1972 Fossil Coniferous Woods from the Oldman Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 50:595–602.

Reeves, Brian O.K. 1969 The Southern Alberta Paleo-Cultural Paleo-Environmental Sequence. In Post-Pleistocene Man and His Environment on the Northern Plains: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Paleo- Environmental Workshop of the University of Calgary Association, edited by R.G. Forbis, L.B. Davis, O.A. Christensen, G. Fedirchuk, pp. 1–5. The Student Press, Calgary, AB.

1970 Culture Change in the Northern Plains 1000 B.C. – A.D. 1000. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

1978 Head-Smashed-In: 5500 Years of Bison Jumping in the Alberta Plains. Plains Anthropologist 23(82, Part 2):151–174.

1981 1980 Field Investigations: DkPi-2 Fort Macleod. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Permit No. 80-53. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

1983 Culture Change in the Northern Plains: 1000 B.C. – A.D. 1000. Occasional Paper No. 20. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

1987 Oldman River Dame Phase II Archaeological and Historical Resources Inventory and Assessment, Vol. II. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Permit No. 85-47C. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

1990 Communal Bison Hunters of the Northern Plains. In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by Leslie B. Davis and Brian O.K. Reeves, pp. 168–194. Unwin Hyman, London.

Ricklis, Robert A. and Kim A. Cox 1993 Examining Lithic Technological Organization as a Dynamic Cultural Subsystem: The Advantages of an Explicitly Spatial Approach. American Antiquity 58:444–461.

Riel-Salvatore, Julien and C. Michael Barton 2004 Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy. American Antiquity 69(2):257–274.

Rottländer, R. 1975 The Formation of Patina on Flint. Archaeometry 17:106–110.

294

Rots, Veerle 2010 Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium.

Rots, V., L. Pimay, Ph. Pirson, and O. Baudoux 2006 Blind Tests Shed Light on Possibilities and Limitations for Identifying Stone Tool Prehension and Hafting. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:935–952.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1979 The Place of Lithic Use-Wear Studies in Behavioural Archaeology. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 15–26. Academic Press Inc., New York.

Schultz, Jack M. 1992 The Use-Wear Generated by Processing Bison Hides. Plains Anthropologist 37:333–351.

Semenov, S.A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M.W. Thompson. Cory, Adams & Mackay Ltd., London.

Shetsen, I. 1984 Application of Till Pebble Lithology to the Differentiation of Glacial Loves in Southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 21:920–933.

Shott, Michael 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42(1):15–51.

1996 Stage versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of a Fluted Biface. Lithic Technology 21:6–22.

Smith, Geoffrey M. 2011 Shifting Stones and Changing Homes: Using Toolstone Ratios to Consider Relative Occupation Span in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:461–469.

Thacker, Paul T. 1996 Hunter-Gatherer Lithic Economy and Settlement Systems: Understanding Regional Assemblage Variability in the Upper Paleolithic of Portuguese Estremadura. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 101– 128. Plenum Press, New York.

Torrence, Robin 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by Geoff Bailey, pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

295

Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171–196.

Turney-High, Harry Holbert 1937 The Flathead Indians of Montana. American Anthropologist Vol.39, No. 4, Pt. 2. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin.

Uhlenbeck, C.C. 1912 A New Series of Blackfoot Texts from the Southern Peigans Blackfoot Reservation Teton County Montana. New Series Vol. 13, No. 1. Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenshappen, Afdeeling Leterkunde, Amsterdam.

Unfreed, Wendy J. 1993 Archaeological Investigations at the Highway 2/3 Junction Site (DkPi-2): 1991–1992, 2 vols. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Transportation and Utilities and Provincial Museum of Alberta, Permit Nos. 91-050 and 92-35. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

Unfreed, Wendy J. and Stanley Van Dyke 2005 Archaeological Investigations at the Junction Site (DkPi-2). Occasional Papers of the Archaeological Society of Alberta, No. 4. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Alberta.

Unrath, Guenther, Linda R. Owen, Annelou van Gijn, Emily H. Moss, Hugues Plisson, and Patrick Vaughan 1986 An Evaluation of Use-Wear Studies: A Multi-Analyst Approach. In Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools, Part I, edited by Linda R. Owen and Guenther Unrath, pp. 117–176. Early Man News Vol. 9/10/11. Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

Van Dyke, Stanley 2008 Oldman River Dam Prehistoric Archaeology Mitigation Program: Campsites Study. Occasional Papers of the Archaeological Society of Alberta, No. 9. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Alberta.

Van Dyke, Stanley, Sharon Hanna, Wendy Unfreed, and Barb Neal 1990 1989 Oldman River Dam Prehistoric Archaeology Mitigation Program: Campsites Component. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services, Permit No. 89-25. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

Van Dyke, Stanley and Wendy Unfreed 1992 1990 Oldman River Dam Prehistoric Archaeology Mitigation Project: Campsites Programme. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Submitted to Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services, Permit No. 90-25. Copies available from Alberta Culture, Edmonton.

296

Vaughan, Patrick C. 1981 Lithic Microwear Experimentation and the Functional Analysis of a Lower Magdalanian Stone Tool Assemblage. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

1985 Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Vickers, J. Roderick 1986 Alberta Plains Prehistory: A Review. Occasional Paper No. 27. Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

1991 Seasonal Round Problems on the Alberta Plains. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:55–72.

1994 Cultures of the Northwestern Plain: From the Boreal Forest Edge to Milk River. In Plains Indians: A.D. 500–1500: The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups, edited by Karl H. Schlesier, pp. 3–33. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

2008 Anthropomorphic Effigies of the Plains. Plains Anthropologist 53:199–221

Vickers, J. Rod and Trevor R. Peck 2004 Islands in a Sea of Grass: The Significance of Wood in Winter Campsite Selection on the Northwestern Plains. In Archaeology on the Edge: New Perspectives from the Northern Plains, edited by Brian Kooyman and Jane Kelley, pp. 95-124. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, AB.

Walde, Dale, David Meyer, and Wendy Unfreed 1995 The Late Period on the Canadian and Adjacent Plains. Journal of American Archaeology 9:7–66

Webb, Cathy 1993 The Lithification of a Sandy Environment. Archaeology in Oceania 28:105–111.

Wedel, Waldo R. 1961 Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Wright, Milt 1992 Le Bois de Vache II: This Chip’s for You Too. In Buffalo, edited by John Foster, Dick Harrison, and I.S. MacLaren, pp. 225–244. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB.

297

Appendix I: Toolstone Descriptions

Cherts and Chalcedonies

Local/Mid-Distance Materials

Etherington Chert

Description: Etherington chert is described by Loveseth (1980:157) as being a translucent to opaque, semi-vitreous to dull chert. It is highly brecciated, resulting in abundant block shatter and hinge fracture when worked, but good quality, homogenous material can be present in the center of nodules. Loveseth (1980:157) also describes Etherington chert as having a “sugary” texture due to the fact that it often breaks unevenly, resulting in “small milky fish scale-like scars.”

Etherington chert displays a wide colour range, with shades of white, pink, red, amber, brown, green, gray, and black being present. However, the most common colours are maroon, red, and smoky black (Loveseth 1980:157).

Source: Quarries are primarily located in the Livingstone Range of the Etherington

Member in the Rocky Mountains (Loveseth 1976:51) (Figure 6). The chert occurs as nodules or thin beds, 20–30 cm in thickness, in a limestone or dolomite matrix (Loveseth 1976:52,

1980:158). Etherington chert was primarily mined, creating pits, although open cast mining

(where the material was mined inwards from the outer edge of an outcrop) and the collection of surface nodules that had eroded from the limestone/dolomite matrix were also practiced

(Loveseth 1976:53–55, 1980:158).

Swan River Chert

Description: Swan River chert in its natural state ranges from white to gray, brown, and sometimes black in colour. However, this chert was often heat-treated to improve flakeability,

298 resulting in a new range of colours, including red, orange, pink, purple, black, gray, blue, white, and transparent (Grasby et al. 2002:275; Low 1996:165)).

The texture of the chert is also quite variable, ranging from vuggy with many small cavities to being fairly homogenous with few vugs (Grasby et al. 2002:275; Low 1996:165). The chert often has a mottled appearance, with clear, translucent and opaque areas, and has been described as having a “curdled milk” appearance. The material can also range from a chert to a more quartz-like appearance.

Swan River chert is described as difficult to work (Grasby et al. 2002:275) but it can be used to create finely made flaked stone tools.

Source: The primary source of Swan River chert is located in the Mafeking quarry in west central Manitoba, however, it is unlikely that early Native American groups used this source due to the till covering the chert bedrock. Instead, Swan River chert was most likely gathered from secondary glacial till sources, with the highest concentration in southwestern

Manitoba, but also located throughout southern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta (Grasby et al. 2002:275–276, 279,281; Low 1996:165) (Figure 6). Within Alberta, Swan River chert has been found as far west as the towns of Lethbridge and Stettler (Grasby et al. 2002:276).

Pebble Chert

Description: Pebble chert is used to describe chert that has remnants of smooth, black, well-rounded cortex which would suggest that they came from a pebble core. Pebble cherts are most often black in colour, although grey and light green are also common.

Source: Pebble chert is locally available in river and stream gravels (de Mille 1997:60;

Loveseth 1980:171).

299

Non-Local Materials

Top of the World Chert

Description: Top of the World chert is described by Choquette (1980:27) as a translucent or opaque and highly vitreous chalcedony-like chert containing scattered quartz crystals and fibrous microfossil relics. Its colour ranges from white through shades of light gray, blue gray, dark gray and black, with a slight pinkish cast occurring rarely. Banding and mottling are common. It is an excellent lithic material for chipped stone tools due to its hardness and homogenous structure.

Source: The major quarries for this material are located 2 150 m above sea level in the

Van Nordstrand Range of the Rocky Mountains (Choquette 1980:24) (Figure 6). The chert is encased in limestone which has weathered back in the quarry locations, exposing the chert and allowing it to be pried or pounded free. Due to the brecciated nature of the source lenses, tools made from this material are limited to 8 to 10 cm in size at their largest (Choquette 1980:27).

Choquette (1980:27) notes that Top of the World chert is widely distributed, with the primary directions of transport being to the south and the west, but with secondary transport directions to the north and the east.

Knife River Flint

Description: Knife River flint is a homogenous dark brown chert which is translucent at up to 0.5 cm thickness (Clayton et al. 1970:288). It contains light inclusions composed of chalcedony or agate which fill former cavities, as well as dark inclusions of darker chert up to a millimeter thick; these inclusions give the chert a distinctive mottled appearance (Clark

1984:175). Exposed surfaces often develop a white to whitish-blue patina (Gregg 1987:369).

300

Knife River flint is a hard material that chips in a predictable manner due to its fine grain and homogenous structure, making it an ideal material for making chipped stone tools.

Heat treatment of Knife River flint results in an increase to its waxy luster and the intensity of ripple mark formation. When it is burned, it becomes gray in colour and loses its translucency (Gregg 1987:368).

Source: Twenty-nine quarries have been located in Dunn and Mercer counties, North

Dakota (Clark 1984:175; Clayton et al. 1970:282; Gregg 1987:369) (Figure 6). The quarries appear to be primarily secondary deposits of pebbles, cobbles, and boulders from the Eocene

Golden Valley formation (Clayton et al. 1970:285).

Clayton et al. (1970:282) suggests that Knife River flint was widely traded, appearing in adjacent states and provinces, as well as Alberta, Missouri, and Ohio.

Montana Cherts

Montana cherts (and also chalcedonies) can be found as nodules in the Madison

Limestone formation located in southwestern Montana (Miller 1991:461). These cherts and chalcedonies are distinct in their colour, ranging from purple to red, orange, or yellow, and containing manganese oxides (dendrites) and, in some cases, brachiopods (Miller 1991:461). The cherts can also be variegated and have a mottled appearance (Miller 1991:461). Nodule size varies, but can be up to cobble sized (Miller 1991:461). These cherts exhibit excellent fracturing and are therefore considered high-quality toolstone (de Mille 1997:57).

Although there are many quarries for Montana chert, only a handful of these quarries provide material that is distinct to a particular quarry location. These quarries include the Helena,

Everson, and Avon quarries, which will be discussed below.

301

Helena Chert

Description: Helena chert is a homogenous, opaque to semi-vitreous chert. It ranges from creamy yellow to dark brown in colour and contains dendritic inclusions (Loveseth 1980:160).

Although Helena chert is present in these various colours and textures, only opaque chert with a

“broken crayon” texture is unique to this quarry and therefore only material that meets this criteria was recognized as being from the Helena quarry (Kooyman, personal communication

2014). Due to its homogenous and strong nature, Helena chert is a prized material for creating chipped stone tools.

Source: The Helena chert quarry is located near the city of Helena, Montana (Loveseth

1980:160) (Figure 6). The chert itself is found as nodules or lenses in a limestone or dolomite matrix, which was pit mined to retrieve the material (Loveseth 1980:160).

Everson Chert

Description: Everson cherts and chalcedonies are homogenous and can be transparent to opaque, with a vitreous lustre. Everson chalcedonies range between clear, white, tan-brown, chocolate brown and black, while Everson cherts range from yellow to red-brown (Bonnichsen et al. 1992:291) and may include dendritic inclusions (Kooyman, personal communication 2014).

Although there is a large range of colours, only the red-brown chert is distinct to this quarry

(Kooyman, personal communication 2014), and therefore only this specific chert colour is described as Everson chert in my research.

Source: The Everson quarry is located 2 197 m above sea level, at the head of the

Beaverhead River drainage system in the Madison formation (Bonnichsen et al. 1992:289)

(Figure 6). The chert was pit mined, resulting in hundreds of quarry pits of various sizes and depths (Bonnichsen et al. 1992:293).

302

Avon Chert

Description: Avon chert is probably the most distinctive amongst the Montana cherts. Its colour ranges from beige to white and, in some cases, a creamy brown, with exposed surfaces developing a white or light-gray patina (de Mille 1997:57; Loveseth 1980:161). Unlike the other

Montana cherts, it has a dull lustre and fossil inclusions, in the form of gastropods, are frequent

(de Mille 1997:57; Loveseth 1980:161). Despite these departures from the average Montana chert, Avon chert still displays excellent flaking qualities, making it a desirable toolstone for flaked stone tools (de Mille 1997:57; Loveseth 1980:161).

Source: The quarry mine for Avon chert is located near Avon, Montana (Loveseth

1980:161) (Figure 6).

Banff Chert

Description: Banff chert grades from a dull, opaque silicified siltstone into a good quality chert (Loveseth 1980:163). It is primarily black, dark grey/blue or dark brown in colour with light coloured, parallel bands that are usually less than 1 mm in thickness (de Mille 1997:59;

Loveseth 1980:163). It flakes well, making it a desirable material for flaked stone tools.

Source: Several large, precontact Banff chert quarries are located 15 km east of the

Vermillion Lakes in Banff National Park (de Mille 1997:59) (Figure 6). However, this material is also more locally available in the Lower Livingstone and Upper Banff formations of the Rocky

Mountains, with outcrops occurring throughout the Rocky Mountains of southern Alberta and northern Montana (de Mille 1997:59; Loveseth 1980:163).

Unknown Provenance

Miscellaneous Cherts and Chalcedonies

303

Description: Debitage and tools that met the physical properties of cherts and chalcedonies, but were not recognized as being from a known source or location, were designated as miscellaneous cherts and chalcedonies.

Source: These cherts and chalcedonies may be from unknown quarry locations or could have been locally collected from the Blairmore Group conglomerate (Leckie and Krystinik 1995;

Loveseth 1980:164). The Blairmore Group conglomerate is the result of fluvial deposition of lithic material from mountains in southern British Columbia into the Western Interior Plains, the

Rocky Mountain Foothills, and the Main Ranges of southwestern Alberta and southeastern

British Columbia (Leckie and Krystinik 1995:340). This conglomerate consists of pebble to cobble sized sediment composed of chert, quartzites, granite, mafic volcanics, and argillite.

Sedimentary Materials

Local Materials

Sandstone

Description: Sandstone is predominantly composed of fine to coarse-grained quartz sand particles that are firmly united by a cementing material (such as silica or iron oxide) (American

Geologic Institute 2005:572). Sandstone can be differentiated from quartzite in that fractures move around the grains, rather than through them. Due to its coarse nature, sandstone cannot form a fine, sharp edge and is therefore undesirable in forming fine flaked tools. Rather, it is often used to make larger tools where the weight of the tool allows for great force to be applied

(such as choppers), or for groundstone tools.

Source: Sandstone is abundantly available locally, both as bedrock outcrops and as well- rounded pebbles and cobbles in gravel tills (Shetsen 1984:923).

304

Quartzite

Description: Quartzite is similar to sandstone except that it fractures through the grains rather than around them. This fracture pattern can be the result the quartz grains being so completely cemented with secondary silica that it creates a very hard sandstone (termed an orthoquartzite) (American Geologic Institute 2005:459), or sandstone being recrystallized through metamorphosis (a metaquartzite) (American Geologic Institute 2005:408). The quality in terms of flakeability varies widely between quartzites, with fine-grained quartzites being more desirable for fine flaked tools and coarser quartzites often being relegated to heavy chopping and bashing tools.

Source: Quartzite is locally abundant, being present in glacial and gravel till deposits (de

Mille 1997:60; Loveseth 1980:174; Shetsen 1984:923).

Paskapoo Silicified Limestone

Description: Paskapoo silicified limestone is dull and opaque, with colours ranging from black, to dark grey, brown, with the most common being purple-brown/maroon. The presence of leaf and root impressions/inclusions is one of the most distinctive features of this lithic material.

It has a platy texture and therefore can flake in an unpredictable manner.

Source: A known quarry for Paskapoo silicified limestone exists approximately 25 km east of Red Deer, on the south bank of the Red Deer River (Dale 1983) (Figure 6). However, it is unclear if the material present at the sites is from this quarry location, and will be discussed in more detail below.

Siltstone and Silicified Siltstone

Description: Siltstone is essentially a massive hardened silt (American Geologic Institute

2005:600), which is dull and opaque with a slightly coarser texture than chert (due to being

305 primarily composed of silt-sized particles). Siltstone ranges from brown to grey or black in colour and microfossil inclusions and root bleaching are common features (Loveseth 1980:171).

Silicified siltstone is siltstone that has been altered through a variety of possible processes to have an increased silica content (American Geologic Institute 2005:599). Silicified siltstone

“sparkles,” differentiating it from siltstone that has not been silicified (Kooyman, personal communication 2013).

Source: The primary source of siltstone and silicified siltstone is as pebbles and cobbles in local stream and river beds (de Mille 1997:60; Loveseth 1980:171).

Mudstone and Silicified Mudstone

Description: Mudstone is very similar to a siltstone, with the primary difference being particle size (clay-sized particles predominate over silt-sized particles) (American Geologic

Institute 2005:427). Silicified mudstone is also identical to silicified siltstone except for grain size and can be distinguished from mudstone by its “sparkle” (Kooyman, personal communication 2013).

Source: Mudstone and silicified mudstone is also readily available locally as pebbles and cobbles in stream and river gravels (Loveseth 1980:171).

Limestone

Description: Limestone is a dull, opaque, carbonate rock. It varies slightly in colour, from cream to a dull grey brown, and has a gritty texture (Loveseth 1980:173).

Source: Limestone occurs in the Paleozoic column and is prevalent in outcrops throughout the local area (Loveseth 1980:173).

306

Non-Local Materials

Kootenay Argillite

Description: Kootenay argillite varies in colour, ranging from dark purple and brown- hued, to pastel shades of blue-green, yellow to pink-green, but most commonly pale green

(Choquette 1980:33). It can also be pink or red when it has been heat-treated (Kooyman, personal communication 2013). It is translucent with a distinct platy structure, resulting in a tendency to step fracture, and has round white inclusions (Choquette 1980:33; Kooyman, personal communication 2013).

Although its platy texture makes it difficult to flake in a predictable manner, it is the only fine-grained siliceous rock in its source location making it a fairly desirable toolstone for the area. It is also commonly found at considerable distances from its source in all directions, including east of the Rocky Mountains and into the research area, suggesting it may have been widely traded (Choquette 1980:33).

Source: Several quarry locations exist for Kootenay Argillite, with one quarry located on the west shore of Kootenay Lake, and another quarry located near the northeast end of Kootenay

Lake (Figure 6). Secondary deposits of float pebbles in stream and beach gravels were also likely exploited (Choquette 1980:33).

Grinnell Argillite

Description: Grinnell argillite is a massive argillite that is less platy than Kootenay argillite, and is medium to dark green in colour (Loveseth 1980:175–176). It is opaque and non- vitreous, with large grains that are visible to the naked eye (Loveseth 1980:176), although in some instances it has metamorphosed to a “chert” (Kooyman, personal communication 2013).

Although it is less platy than Kootenay argillite, it still tends toward step fracturing when flaked,

307 making it less desirable for flaked stone tools than some of the materials with more consistent flaking properties.

Source: Grinnell argillite is named for the Grinnell Formation of the southern Alberta and

British Columbia Rocky Mountains, where it outcrops. A quarry location for Grinnell argillite is located in the Wigwam River area of southeastern British Columbia but it may also have come from the Waterton Park area (Loveseth 1980:176) (Figure 6).

Igneous Materials

Non-Local Materials

Obsidian

Description: Obsidian is translucent glass which commonly exhibits flow banding (Miller

1991:456). It is most often black, but red obsidian does occur (Miller 1991:456). Obsidian flakes in a very predictable manner, creating extremely sharp, fine edges which are extremely brittle.

This makes obsidian highly desirable when fine cutting tasks are required, but it is not as multipurpose as other toolstone materials.

Source: Although trace element analysis is a viable option for sourcing obsidian, it is outside the scope of this research project. As such, the obsidian present at the sites may be from source locations in Glass Buttes, Oregon; Yellowstone Park, Wyoming; southwestern Montana; southern Idaho; or British Columbia (de Mille 1997:59; Loveseth 1980:166) (Figure 6). The most likely source for obsidian found on the Plains is Wyoming (Kooyman, personal communication 2013).

Ignimbrite

Description: Ignimbrite looks similar to obsidian but because it is a rewelded tuff, it is semi-translucent to opaque rather than translucent (Loveseth 1980:166; Miller 1991:456). It

308 often has minute white or grey ash inclusions (Loveseth 1980:166; Miller 1991:456). Its flaking qualities and brittle nature are comparable to that of obsidian.

Source: Ignimbrite is available in the same locations as obsidian (Loveseth 1980:166).

Basalt

Description: Basalt is a dull and opaque, fine-grained igneous rock. Its colour ranges from dark gray to black, and it often contains vesicles and small shards of volcanic glass

(Loveseth 1980:167). Due to its fine-grained texture, it produces good-quality flaked stone tools which can be used for a variety of tasks (i.e., it is not brittle like obsidian).

Source: Due to the relatively homogenous appearance of basalt, it is impossible to determine a specific source from macroscopic analysis. However, it is not local to the area, with possible sources being British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, and Washington (Loveseth 1980:167).

Unknown Provenance

Unknown Volcanic Material

Description: This material is medium-grained, opaque, and dull. It is dark grey and is determined to be volcanic due to the presence of an extensive amount of vesicles and some volcanic glass shards. It is possible that this material may be a very vesicular basalt or a welded tuff. The vesicles give the material a coarse/rough appearance, similar to a sandstone.

Source: Since the material itself is unknown and not of poor quality, it is unclear if the source of the material is local or non-local.

309

Miscellaneous Material

Local Materials

Petrified Wood

Description: Also called silicified wood, petrified wood is wood that has had its organic matter replaced by mineral matter, most often silica. This often occurs in such a manner that at least some of the original structure of the wood remains (American Geologic Institute 2005:599–

600). Due to the preservation of the wood’s original structure, petrified wood tends to have a platy texture which results in step fractures, as well as sheering, making it an unpredictable and less desirable material for flaked stone tools. However, some petrified wood can have most, if not all, of its internal structure obliterated and therefore can be quite high quality. Knappers can also work the platy structure of petrified wood by breaking off thin tabs that can then be shaped into thin tools, such as points (Kooyman, personal communication 2015). In addition, as discussed previously, petrified wood can be heat treated in order to make it more homogenous and flake more predictably.

Source: Petrified wood is abundant locally in the Oldman Formation exposures along the

Oldman River (de Mille 1997:60; Ramanujam 1972:595).

Petrified Peat

Description: Petrified peat is very similar to petrified wood, the main difference being that the organic material in peat is replaced with minerals instead of the organic material in wood. This results in a fossil that looks very similar to petrified wood, but that tends to have a more mottled appearance and lacks the remnant wood structure. Sheering due to uneven mineral replacement is still common, but it is less likely to step fracture due to its amorphous structure.

310

Source: Petrified peat is available in the same sources as petrified wood (de Mille

1997:60).

Silcrete

Description: This material is opaque with a waxy luster and a mottled appearance, with colours ranging from orange, to red, pink, maroon/purple-brown, and white, all of which can occur within the same lithic specimen; it is unclear if these colours are the result of heat treatment or if they are the natural colours of the material. Vugs are common and are often lined with small quartz crystals. Chalcedony also appears to have been deposited in many previous vugs and hollows in the material. The material is extremely faulted and brecciated, resulting in an unpredictable flake pattern. Although the material is incredibly distinct, it could not be identified beyond that it appears to be primarily silica based.

Source: Overall, due to the extremely poor quality of the material and the relatively large amount of it at site DjPm-36, it is believed to be local to the area.

Non-Local Materials

Quartz

Description: Quartz is transparent with a greasy luster and conchoidal fracture. It is a crystalline silica that can occur in either crystal or crystalline or cryptocrystalline masses (vein quartz) (American Geologic Institute 2005:530). It is often colourless but it can be coloured if impurities are present. The quartz present at the sites appears to primarily be vein quartz.

Source: Vein quartz cannot be identified to a particular quarry source, but it is not local to southern Alberta. Possible source locations include southern British Columbia and Montana (de

Mille 1997:55; Loveseth 1980:168).

311

Porcellanite

Description: Porcellanite is the result of metamorphism of clay and shale sediments by the heat generated from burning underground coal seams (Fredlund 1976:207). Technically, because it is metamorphosed, what is referred to here as porcellanite is actually closer to a clinker (Miller 1991:455), but due to the fact that porcellanite has been the accepted term for this material amongst archaeologists retaining the term decreases confusion.

It is siliceous with a dull lustre, and has an appearance similar to that of unglazed porcelain. Colour varies from grey to red, yellow, black, and banded yellow and black (Fredlund

1976:208). The presence of small vesicles from the separation of volatile gases during the burning process are also a common and distinct feature of porcellanite (Miller 1991:455).

Although its fine texture and homogeneity make it a desirable toolstone for flaked stone tools, it is of slightly lower quality than chert since it is less hard, dense, and vitreous (Fredlund

1976:209).

Source: Porcellanite deposits exist throughout Montana, Wyoming, North and South

Dakota (termed Fort Union porcellanites since they come from the Fort Union coal seams)

(Fredlund 1976:207) (Figure 6). In most quarry locations, material was readily available on the surface, with only one actual quarry pit located along the Tongue River in Montana (Fredlund

1976:210).

312

Various Local and Non-Local Materials

Description: Various other lithic materials were present at the sites, but they occur in such small numbers that they are fairly insignificant to the overall composition of the lithic assemblage. These include shale, slate, volcanic tuff, granite, andesite, and dolomite.

313

Appendix II: Usewear Data Sheets

Experimental Tool Data Sheets

Lithic Material: Antigua Chert Tool Type: Balsam Fir Saw (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse where cortex, fine where none Topography: Ridged and undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 50° Length: 78 mm Thickness: 11 mm Profile: Undulating Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat Undulating and ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: <0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel Parallel Polish Development: B B+, with some B in lower areas and some C on higher areas

314

Lithic Material: Antigua Chert Tool Type: Balsam Fir Saw (2000 strokes) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Ridged and undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 35° Length: 43 mm Thickness: 4 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 Fracture Type: Step and feather Step and feather Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 Absent Fracture Type: Step Absent Rounding: Light Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat with small raised areas Undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (only on high points) Intermittent (only of high points) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Gapped Invasiveness: <0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B+ to C B+ to C *Tool was held off of perpendicular when sawing resulting in light rounding on the dorsal surface and gapped distribution on the ventral surface.

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Bone Saw (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 20° Length: 46 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Highly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather and step Feather Rounding: Light Medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Undulating Undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: Extremely intermittent (restricted to Extremely intermittent protrusions on edge) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel Parallel Polish Development: B+ B+ to C

315

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Bone Scraper (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 82° Length: 41 mm Thickness: 9 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Heavy where not flaked away Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A C, but only in small area since most polish is chipped away

Lithic Material: Antigua Chert Tool Type: Carrot Saw (1100 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse where cortex, fine without cortex Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 28° Length: 25 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Undulating Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent <5 Fracture Type: Absent Feather and hinge Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Absent Distribution Type: Absent Absent Invasiveness: Absent Absent Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent Absent Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Flesh Hide Scraper C with Abrasive (1000 strokes)

316

Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 91° Length: 47 mm Thickness: 13 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B+

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Flesh Hide Utilized Flake Knife A (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 43° Length: 55 mm Thickness: 12 mm Profile: Straight to convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent <5 Fracture Type: Absent Snap fractures Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent B *Tool was held off of perpendicular and that is why the dorsal surface lacks polish.

317

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Flesh Hide Utilized Flake Scraper D (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 73° Length: 44 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 Absent Fracture Type: Feather Absent Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A A to A+

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Flesh Hide Scraper D (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 81° Length: 33 mm Thickness: 11 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Light to heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B+ to C

318

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Flesh Hide Utilized Flake Scraper B (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Undulating and Ridged Topographic Features: Percussion ripples and hackles Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 38° Length: 35 mm Thickness: 9 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather Snap Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 Fracture Type: Primarily feather with some hinge and Hinge snap Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: No polish Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Hair Hide Scraper E with Abrasive (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 86° Length: 24 mm Thickness: 18 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B+ with C in some small areas

319

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Hair Hide Utilized Flake Scraper C (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 56° Length: 33 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Absent Very light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Meat Utilized Flake Knife G (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 37° Length: 38 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 Absent Fracture Type: Feather Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Primarily step with some feather Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: No polish No polish Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Absent Distribution Type: Absent Absent Invasiveness: Absent Absent Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent Absent

320

Lithic Material: Swan River Chert Tool Type: Poplar Utilized Flake Whittling (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 38° Length: 21 mm Thickness: 7.5 mm Profile: Concave Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: Primarily feather with some step Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather and hinge with a few step Feather Rounding: Some light areas, some heavy, but Absent absent on most of the edge Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Undulating and ridged where there Undulating and ridged where are flake scars there are flake scars Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Absent Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric Absent Invasiveness: >0.5D Absent Linear Features: Present Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B+ Absent

Lithic Material: Obsidian Tool Type: Poplar Saw (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating and ridged Topographic Features: Percussion ripples and hackles Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 22° Length: 23 mm Thickness: 4.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 Fracture Type: Step Step Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 (but fewer than hide knife) Fracture Type: Hinge and feather Feather Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat and ridged where there are flake Ridged scars Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Angled and parallel (much fewer than Parallel (much fewer than hide hide knife) knife) Polish Development: Present Present

321

Attrition Light Light Lithic Material: Obsidian Tool Type: Hide Knife (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating and ridged Topographic Features: Percussion ripples and hackles Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 28° Length: 28 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Slightly concave Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 Absent Fracture Type: Hinge Absent Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Heavy Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat and ridged where there are flake Ridged scars Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous, but not in low areas Continuous where present (middle caused by flakes of edge has no attrition) Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric, with greater Edge only-asymmetric with less invasiveness in middle of edge invasiveness in middle of edge Invasiveness: Attrition: <0.5D; Striations: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel Parallel Polish Development: Present Absent Attrition Heavy Light *Tool was held off perpendicular, resulting in dorsal surface coming into greater contact with the hide

Lithic Material: Obsidian Tool Type: Flesh Hide Scraper (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating and ridged Topographic Features: Percussion ripples and hackles Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 73° Length: 30 mm Thickness: 6.5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Light Heavy Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular, angled, and parallel Polish Development: N/A Present Attrition N/A Heavy on protrusions, light in other areas

322

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Bone Scraper with Abrasive (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 87° Length: 27 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Concave Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Perpendicular Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B to C

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Bone Saw (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 43° Length: 30 mm Thickness: 3 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Heavy Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Extremely intermittent (only on Extremely intermittent (only on the largest protrusions) largest protrusions) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Parallel Parallel Striations: Parallel Parallel Polish Development: C C

323

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Bone Scraper (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 89° Length: 19 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Heavy due to fracturing Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent to light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A C where present since most polish removed by heavy fracturing

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Flesh Hide Knife (800 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 55° Length: 60 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous Continuous Distribution Type: Edge only-even and differential Edge only-asymmetric and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Parallel Parallel Striations: Absent Parallel Polish Development: Ranging from A+ to B+ to C+ Ranging from A+ to B+ to C+

324

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Flesh Hide Scraper (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 75° Length: 35 mm Thickness: 4 mm Profile: Very slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Perpendicular Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Meat Knife (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 41° Length: 28 mm Thickness: 3 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: No polish No polish Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Absent Distribution Type: Absent Absent Invasiveness: Absent Absent Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent Absent

325

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Palm Frond Knife (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 55° Length: 46 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Straight to slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent to light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Parallel Parallel Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B B+ on high points, A+ to B on low points

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Poplar Saw (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 49° Length: 47 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Parallel Parallel Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B to B+ B to B+

326

Lithic Material: Petrified Wood Tool Type: Poplar Scraper (1000 strokes) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 71° Length: 24 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent (only on high ridges) Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Perpendicular Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

327

DkPi-2 Data Sheets

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4264 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 64° Length: 26 mm Thickness: 3.5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with some ridged areas Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-asymmetric Invasiveness: N/A >0.5D towards left lateral edge, <0.5D towards right Linear Features: N/A Perpendicular Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B+ towards left lateral edge, B towards right

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4264 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake Scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 59° Length: 35 mm Thickness: 3 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Heavy Heavy Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent (restricted to high points; polish removed by flaking) Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B; one small patch of C, possibly from rubbing against rock

328

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4273 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 68° Length: 16 mm Thickness: 10.5 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with some ridges Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent (no polish in low points of flake scars) Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4273 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 66° Length: 15.5 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Mostly straight but slightly convex to distal end Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with some ridges Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-asymmetric (slightly more invasive in middle of tool edge); differential Invasiveness: N/A Edge only to <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+ on ridges

329

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4273 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E3) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 68° Length: 13 mm Thickness: 10 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Step and feather Rounding: N/A Very light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with some ridges Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-asymmetric (slightly more invasive in middle of tool edge); differential Invasiveness: N/A Edge only to <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+ on ridges

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4277 Tool Type: End Scraper Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 87° Length: 9 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged and undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-asymmetric and differential Invasiveness: N/A >0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+ on some high points

330

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4290 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 74° Length: 20 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B to B+ on high points

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4290 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 72° Length: 25 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+ on high points

331

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4295 Tool Type: Scraper Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 82° Length: 21 mm Thickness: 6.5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-asymmetric and differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D; >0.5D on point of right lateral edge Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+ with some B and B+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4298 Tool Type: Split Pebble Scraper Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 87° Length: 15 mm Thickness: 4.5 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged and Undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent on left half of tool, continuous on right half Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

332

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4300 Tool Type: Biface (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 64° Length: 47 mm (broken – distal portion missing) Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Heavy Heavy Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Heavy Heavy where present Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D (but slightly less invasive >0.5D than ventral side) Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel Parallel and perpendicular Polish Development: B to B+ (very rarely C) B+ to C

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4300 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 38° Length: 30 mm (broken – distal portion missing) Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Heavy where present Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Continuous Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-differential Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D (much more restricted than dorsal side) Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Perpendicular Absent Polish Development: B+ to C B+

333

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4302 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Medium-Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 69° Length: 21 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Predominantly Perpendicular with some angled Polish Development: N/A B with some B+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4302 Tool Type: Uniface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 63° Length: 17 mm Thickness: 6.75 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step and Feather Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step and feather (oriented both proximally and distally) Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat with some ridges Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Continuous but intermittent in ridged areas Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric and differential Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Parallel and angled Polish Development: B to B+ B

334

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4305 Tool Type: Biface (E1) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 43° Length: 19 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Heavy Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to high Intermittent (restricted to high points) points) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: A+ to B A+ to B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4305 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 60° Length: 25 mm (but polished area is 17 mm long) Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to high Intermittent (restricted to high points) points) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: A+ to B A+

335

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4306 Tool Type: Scraper Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 52° Length: 20 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent Absent Fracture Type: Absent Absent Rounding: Very Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to base and Intermittent high points) Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric Edge only-asymmetric Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: A+ to B A+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4307 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 65° Length: 18 mm Thickness: 5.5 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: N/A Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with some ridged areas Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous but Intermittent in ridged areas Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+ to B

336

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4307 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake Scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 53° Length: 15 mm Thickness: 4.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel and angled Angled Polish Development: B to B+ B to B+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4328 Tool Type: Biface Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake Scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 41° Length: 31 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (more limited than Intermittent (limited to small ventral side, restricted t small area number of high points) of edge) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Parallel Polish Development: A+ to B B to B+

337

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4561 Tool Type: Uniface (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged and Undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 30° Length: 6 mm Thickness: 1.7 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Hinge and step Feather, hinge, and step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Hinge and step Primarily step with some snap and few feather Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat (ridged where microflakes present) Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Parallel and angled Polish Development: Absent Present Attrition: Light Light

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4561 Tool Type: Uniface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged and Undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 32° Length: 12 mm Thickness: 2 mm Profile: Erratic: flat, then convex, then flat Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 Absent Fracture Type: Feather and step Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Step and hinge Hinge, step, and very few feather Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat (ridged where microflakes Flat (ridged where microflakes present) present) Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D for attrition and striae >0.5D for striae Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Perpendicular Perpendicular and steep-angled Polish Development: Absent Absent Attrition: Heavy Light

338

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4561 Tool Type: Uniface (E3) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged and Undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 20° Length: 8 mm Thickness: 1.8 mm Profile: Concave Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 <5 (1 large flake) Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Step and hinge Feather, step, and hinge Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat (ridged where microflakes present) Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel and angled Absent Polish Development: Absent Absent Attrition: Light to heavy Light

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4575 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 31° Length: 19 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Concave Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather and step Feather and step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Predominantly feather and step with Predominantly hinge and step some hinge (angled both proximally (angled both proximally and and distally) distally) Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat, but ridged where flakes Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Continuous except where removed by flakes Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent B in low areas, B+ on higher areas

339

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4576 Tool Type: Uniface Grain Size: Medium Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 52° Length: 23.5 mm Thickness: 6.5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent on edge but light rounding Absent where polished slightly in from edge Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to ridges and Intermittent high points) Distribution Type: Gapped and differential Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel and angled Absent Polish Development: B to B+ closer to tip B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4577 Tool Type: Scraper Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 33° Length: 27 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: Absent Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Continuous towards left lateral edge, intermittent (restricted to protrusions) towards right lateral edge Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent B

340

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4667 Tool Type: Uniface (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat, ridged, and undulating Topographic Features: Flake scars and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 40° Length: 19 mm Thickness: 2 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Step with few hinge and feather (angled proximally and distally) Rounding: Heavy Medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to high Continuous points) Distribution Type: Gapped Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B+ to C B+ to C

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4667 Tool Type: Uniface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat, ridged, and undulating Topographic Features: Flake scars and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 63° Length: 12 mm Thickness: 2 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Crushed Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Heavy Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous (but restricted to high Continuous points – continuous connection of high points) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Angled and perpendicular Angled and Perpendicular Polish Development: B+ B+ to C

341

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4669 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 36° Length: 25 mm Thickness: 4 mm Profile: Undulating (convex to concave to convex) Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: Absent >5 Fracture Type: Absent Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: <5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather and some hinge Feather and some hinge Rounding: Absent Very light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat (ridged where microflakes) Flat (ridged where microflakes) Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Very intermittent (limited to highest points) Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Parallel Polish Development: Absent A+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4680 Tool Type: Utilized Core Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 73° Length: 31 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent (mostly restricted to slight edge protrusions) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D Edge only Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Perpendicular Polish Development: B B

342

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4681 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat and ridged Topographic Features: Hackles Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 58° Length: 21 mm Thickness: 3 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: Feather Step and feather Rounding: Light to heavy Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Continuous Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Parallel Polish Development: B+ B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 4695 Tool Type: End Scraper Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 72° Length: 9 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Extremely light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B+

343

Tool Number: DkPi-2 210775 Tool Type: Biface Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 44° Length: 13 mm (but broken) Thickness: 3.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Very intermittent Very intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: A to A+ A

Tool Number: DkPi-2 212569 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 40° Length: 22 mm (but broken) Thickness: 2.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather Feather Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Primarily feather, followed by Primarily feather then step step, then hinge (angled distally) (angled distally) Rounding: Very light Very light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: A+ B

344

Tool Number: DkPi-2 214096 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 68° Length: 7 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step (crushing) Rounding: N/A Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 214096 Tool Type: End Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 68° Length: 11 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step (crushing) Rounding: N/A Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

345

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217076 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 75° Length: 17 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Hinge Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent with some small areas that are continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Angled Polish Development: N/A B to B+ and small patch of C

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217076 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 58° Length: 18 mm Thickness: 5.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Hinge Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Undulating Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B to B+ and small patch of C

346

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217077 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 75° Length: 20 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge-only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+ with some B near ventral right lateral edge

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217077 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 80° Length: 22 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light to medium Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Undulating, ridged where flake scars Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous, except in ridged areas Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even and differential (more developed on projections and less developed in low areas) Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B and B+ on projections

347

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217078 Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Coarse on ventral left lateral half, medium on right lateral edge Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 60° Length: 23 mm Thickness: 10.5 mm Profile: Slightly convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather Rounding: N/A Light on left lateral with greater rounding towards right lateral edge Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous with some small gaps in distribution Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+ to B on left lateral half; B to B+ on right lateral half

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217078 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 69° Length: 29 mm Thickness: 11 mm Profile: Straight to convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather and hinge Rounding: N/A Very light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A A+ to B

348

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217078 Tool Type: Side Scraper (E3) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 63° Length: 36 mm Thickness: 10.5 mm Profile: Undulating Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A <5 Fracture Type: N/A Feather and step Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent (restricted to projections) Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B with B+ in some limited areas

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217139 Tool Type: Scraper Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 60° Length: 19 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat with an undulating edge Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Perpendicular Polish Development: N/A B

349

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217270a Tool Type: End Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 81° Length: 10 mm (34 mm when combined with 217270b) Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A Edge only Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B to B+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217270a Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 62° Length: 20 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Very light Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous Continuous Distribution Type: Edge only-even and differential Edge only-asymmetric and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D <0.5D near tip, >0.5D at base Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Angled Polish Development: B with some B+ and C B in low areas; B+ to C on high points

350

Tool Number: DkPi-2 217270b Tool Type: Scraper Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 77° Length: 24 mm (34 mm when combined with 217270a) Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Undetached flakes Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: N/A Very light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Intermittent (possibly flaked away) Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even Invasiveness: N/A >0.5D Linear Features: N/A Perpendicular Striations: N/A Absent Polish Development: N/A B

Tool Number: DkPi-2 218316 Tool Type: Biface (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 65° Length: 30 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light (limited to projections) Light (limited to projections) Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to high Intermittent (restricted to high points) points) Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B+ B+

351

Tool Number: DkPi-2 218316 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 49° Length: 35 mm Thickness: 6 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light (limited to projections) Light (limited to projections) Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (restricted to high Intermittent (restricted to high points) points) Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D over most of edge; >0.5D at <0.5D tip Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B B+

Tool Number: DkPi-2 219773 Tool Type: Biface (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 68° Length: 61 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light with some heavy areas, Light but intermittent intermittent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent (mostly restricted to high Intermittent (mostly restricted to points but not always) high points but not always) Distribution Type: Edge only-even and differential Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel and perpendicular Parallel Polish Development: B, with some B+ on tip and some B, with some B+ on tip and some higher points higher points

352

Tool Number: DkPi-2 219773 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged Topographic Features: Flake scars Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 50° Length: 68 mm Thickness: 7 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Extremely intermittent (restricted to Extremely intermittent (restricted high points but not all of them) to high points but not all of them) Distribution Type: Edge only-asymmetric Edge only-asymmetric Invasiveness: <0.5D over most of edge, >0.5D near <0.5D over most of edge, >0.5D base near base Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Perpendicular Angled Polish Development: B B

353

DjPm-126 Data Sheets

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23137 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Fine Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 77° Length: 33 mm Thickness: 8 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Step and feather Feather Rounding: Absent Very light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Step, followed by hinge and a few Step, followed by hinge and a few feather (angled distally) feather (angled distally) Rounding: Absent Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Mostly intermittent but continuous near tip where polish is most developed Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: B B, with B+ near tip

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23189 Tool Type: Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged and undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 80° Length: 15 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Heavy Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Absent Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Intermittent Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Primarily perpendicular with some angled and parallel Polish Development: Absent Present Attrition Absent Light

354

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23189 Tool Type: Biface (E2) Grain Size: Fine Topography: Ridged and undulating Topographic Features: Hackles and percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 65° Length: 11 mm Thickness: 5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Light Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A N/A Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Absent Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Ridged Micro-Polish Distribution: Continuous on edge; intermittent Continuous on edge; intermittent further in further in Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: >0.5D >0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Parallel Parallel Polish Development: Absent Present Attrition Light Mostly light but heavy on edge protrusions

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23263 Tool Type: Utilized Edge (E1) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Undulating Topographic Features: Percussion ripples Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 53° Length: 20.5 mm Thickness: 8.5 mm Profile: Straight Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather (angled both proximally and Feather (angled both proximally distally) and distally) Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 >5 Fracture Type: Feather and hinge (angled both Feather and hinge (angled both proximally and distally) proximally and distally) Rounding: Very light Light where present (polish and rounding removed by flakes) Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Flat (ridged where flakes removed) Flat (ridged where flakes removed Micro-Polish Distribution: Intermittent Intermittent Distribution Type: Edge only-even Edge only-even Invasiveness: <0.5D <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Multidirectional in C polish area Polish Development: B to B+ B to B+ with some C

355

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23263 Tool Type: Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Coarse Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 72° Length: 20 mm Thickness: 8.5 mm Profile: Convex Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: Absent Light Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A Absent but partially removed flakes present Fracture Type: N/A Absent Rounding: N/A Heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: N/A Flat Micro-Polish Distribution: N/A Continuous Distribution Type: N/A Edge only-even and differential Invasiveness: N/A <0.5D Linear Features: N/A Absent Striations: N/A Multidirectional in C polish area Polish Development: N/A B to B+ with C in 2 small areas

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23348 Tool Type: Scraper (E1) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 73° Length: 10 mm with polish; 23 mm whole edge Thickness: 7.5 mm Profile: Straight on highly flaked/crushed edge; concave on polished area Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 (not on polished area) Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step (and crushed) Rounding: Absent Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat (ridged where crushed) Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Continuous but intermittent in ridged area Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-even Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent B

356

Tool Number: DjPm-126 23348 Tool Type: Scraper (E2) Grain Size: Medium Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 73° Length: 13 mm with fractures; 23 mm whole edge Thickness: 7.5 mm Profile: Straight on highly flaked/crushed edge; concave on polished area Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 (not on polished area) Fracture Type: N/A Step Rounding: Absent Absent Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: N/A >5 Fracture Type: N/A Step (and crushed) Rounding: Absent Light Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat (ridged where crushed) Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Absent Distribution Type: Absent Absent Invasiveness: Absent Absent Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent Absent

357

DjPm-36 Data Sheet

Tool Number: DjPm-36 9067 Tool Type: Utilized Flake Grain Size: Fine Topography: Flat Topographic Features: Absent Edge Morphology Edge Angle: 76° (angle created by edge being flaked away by use) 48° (angle between ventral and dorsal faces) Length: 19 mm Thickness: 10 mm Profile: Mostly straight with convex corner Macro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 <5 Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light to heavy Gloss: Absent Absent Micro Edge Wear Dorsal Ventral Fractures: >5 (oriented perpendicular to <5 edge) Fracture Type: N/A N/A Rounding: Absent Light to heavy Micro-Topography of Polished Area: Ridged Flat, although ridged where flake scars Micro-Polish Distribution: Absent Continuous, but little to none in low points created by flake scars Distribution Type: Absent Edge only-asymmetric Invasiveness: Absent <0.5D over most of edge; >0.5D at corner of left lateral edge Linear Features: Absent Absent Striations: Absent Absent Polish Development: Absent B to B+

358

Appendix III: Usewear Interpretations

DkPi-2 Tools

DkPi-2 4264

Figure 1. Tool DkPi-2 4264 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4264 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: most likely hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 2): Use as a scraping tool is based on the fairly wide edge angle, location of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface, and perpendicular striations (Figure 2a).

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be soft based on the continuous nature of the usewear which suggests a very pliable material that conforms to the shape of the tool (Figure 2b). The worked material is predicted to be hide due to the degree of similarity between the usewear on this tool edge and the usewear on hide-working experimental tools

(heavy rounding, B to B+ polish development, continuous nature of the polish).

359

a b

Figure 2. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4264 Edge 1: (a) striation (indicated by arrow) (400x magnification); (b) polish, edge-rounding, and striations (indicated by arrows) (400x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4264 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a material of medium hardness

Notes (Figure 3): Use as a scraping tool is based on the relatively wide edge angle and location of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be medium due to the large number and type of flake scars (step), as well as the intermittent nature of the polish which suggests a more rigid material that does not come in contact with the low areas along the tool edge.

360

Figure 3. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4264 Edge 2: intermittent polish and edge-rounding (400x magnification).

DkPi-2 4273

Figure 4. Tool DkPi-2 4273 (solid lines indicate used edges). e

Tool No: DkPi-2 4273 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material

Notes (Figure 5): The motion of use is based on the wide edge angle and location of usewear directly along the ventral edge of the tool.

361

The worked material is predicted to be soft due to the fairly continuous nature of the usewear, as well as the light rounding in conjunction with B polish, which is well within the expected range for a soft material.

Figure 5. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 1: polish and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4273 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 6): The motion of use is predicted to be scraping due to the wide edge angle and location of usewear along the ventral edge.

The worked material is predicted to be soft for the same reasons as stated for Edge 1.

362

Figure 6. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 2: polish and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4273 Edge 3

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping Soft Material

Notes (Figure 7): The use as a scraping tool is based on the wide edge angle and the location of usewear directly along the ventral edge.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be soft for the same reasons stated for

Edge 1.

363

Figure 7. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4273 Edge 3: polish and light edge-rounding (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4277

Figure 8. Tool DkPi-2 4277 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4277

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material

Notes (Figure 9): The scraping motion is predicted based on the wide edge angle and the location of the usewear on the ventral surface.

364

The hardness of the material is predicted to be soft based on the continuous nature of the usewear on a ridged and undulating edge, suggesting an extremely pliable material. In addition, the light edge-rounding in conjunction with a medium degree polish development is within the expected range for a soft material.

Figure 9. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4277: polish and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4290

Figure 10. Tool DkPi-2 4290 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4290 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material

365

Notes (Figure 11): The use as a scraper is predicted by the wide edge angle, the location of usewear on the ventral surface, and the presence of perpendicular striations.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish along the edge, and the heavy edge-rounding in conjunction with the medium degree of polish development, which would be expected to be more developed for the amount of rounding present if it was used on a harder material.

Figure 11. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4290 Edge 1: polish and rounding (400x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4290 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping Soft Material

Notes (Figure 12): Scraping is predicted as the use motion due to the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear on the ventral surface.

366

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous usewear along the edge, and the heavy rounding in conjunction with the primarily B polish development, as with Edge 1.

Figure 12. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4290 Edge 2: polish and edge-rounding, with microflake that was most-likely removed after use (200x magnification).

367

DkPi-2 4295

Figure 13. Tool DkPi-2 4295 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4295

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Unknown, but most likely soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a possibly soft material

Notes (Figure 14): The motion of use is predicted to be scraping due to the wide edge angle and the location of usewear on the ventral edge.

It is tentatively predicted to have been used to scrape a soft material due to the extremely under-developed polish (primarily A+) for the heavy degree of edge-rounding, which is probably also a result of the coarseness of the lithic material. The polish itself is quite intermittent, which makes the prediction very tentative.

368

Figure 14. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4295: intermittent polish and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4298

Figure 15. Tool DkPi-2 4298 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4298

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material

Notes (Figure 16): The scraping motion is predicted by the near 90° edge angle and the location of usewear on the ventral surface along the very edge.

369

The softness of the worked material is based on the presence of continuous usewear on one half of the edge, which is believed to have had greater contact with the material than the portion that is intermittent, due to the morphology of the used edge. As with DkPi-2 4264, the light edge-rounding and B polish is well within the expected range for a soft material.

Figure 16. Photograph Tool DkPi-2 4298: polish and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

370

DkPi-2 4300

Figure 17. Tool DkPi-2 4300 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4300 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium Material

Worked Material: Possibly wood

Most Probable Function: Cutting a medium material

Notes (Figure 18): The cutting motion was determined through the presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surface and the presence of parallel striations (Figure 18a). Perpendicular striations (Figure 18b) may be result of pulling tool straight up to remove it from a cut groove.

The polish is also more developed on the leading side of ridges and projections that are perpendicular to the edge, which suggests a cutting, rather than sawing, motion (i.e., the knife is moved in one direction, resulting in only one side of the edge flake scars coming into direct contact with the worked material).

The worked material is determined to be of medium hardness, possibly wood, due to the intermittent nature of the usewear, and the high degree of polish invasiveness in conjunction with

371 the primarily B+ polish development, which would be expected to be greater for a harder material, while the invasiveness would be expected to be greater for a soft material for this degree of polish development. The polish also extended further down the high points than would be expected for a hard material.

The tool was probably held at a slight angle so the ventral surface had more pressure/came in contact with worked material more so than the dorsal surface.

a b

c d

Figure 18. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4300 Edge 1: (a) parallel striation (indicated by arrow); (b) perpendicular striations (indicated by arrow); (c) polish and rounding on ventral surface; (d) polish and rounding on dorsal surface.

372

Tool No: DkPi-2 4300 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Probably wood

Most Probable Function: Cutting a medium material

Notes (Figure 19): The cutting motion is based on the acute edge angle and the presence of invasive polish on both the ventral and dorsal surface. Perpendicular striations (Figure 19a) may be the result of pulling the tool straight up to remove it from the cut groove. As is the same for

Edge 1, the cutting motion is determined due to the presence of greater polish development on the leading side of perpendicular ridges.

The material hardness is predicted to be of a medium hardness, and most likely wood, due to the intermittent nature of the polish on the dorsal surface, as well as the high degree of polish invasiveness in conjunction for with the B+ polish development, for the same reasons as stated above for Edge 1. Although the polish is continuous where present on the ventral surface, the fact that it is not continuous along the entire edge suggests the material worked was not soft.

The tool was probably held at slight angle so the dorsal surface had more pressure/came in contact with worked material more than the ventral surface.

Because the greatest usewear development is on opposite surfaces of the tool for each edge, it suggests that the tool was used for the same task, and was flipped to use the second edge when the first edge became dull.

373

a b

Figure 19. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4300 Edge 2: (a) perpendicular striations (indicated by arrow) (400x magnification); (b) polish and rounding on ventral surface (400x magnification); (c) polish and edge-rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

374

DkPi-2 4302

Figure 20. Tool DkPi-2 4302 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4302

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: most likely hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material, possibly hide

Notes (Figure 21): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle, the location of usewear along the very edge of the ventral surface, and the presence of perpendicular linearity and striations (Figure 21a).

The material is predicted to be a soft material due to the presence of continuous polish along the edge. In addition, with the heavy rounding, the primarily B with some B+ polish is too underdeveloped for a harder material.

The material worked is most likely hide due to striking similarities between the experimental hide-working scrapers and this tool (heavy rounding, degree of polish development, continuous nature of the polish).

375

a b

Figure 21. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4302 Edge 1: (a) perpendicular striations (indicated by arrow) (200x magnification); (b) polish, edge-rounding, and perpendicular striation (indicated by arrow) (400x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4302 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Sawing a medium material

Notes (Figure 22): The sawing motion is inferred from the presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surface, the presence of parallel and angled striations (Figure 22a), as well as the presence of microflake scars on the ventral surface that are angled both proximally and distally, suggesting a back and forth motion.

The worked material is believed to be of medium hardness due to the intermittent nature of the polish, and the medium degree of polish invasiveness in conjunction with the B polish development, which one would expect to be more developed for a harder material, and less developed for a soft one. In addition, the presence of a mix of step and feather flake scars is most

376 conducive to an interpretation of a medium material, since a hard material would be primarily step and a soft material would have more feather scars.

The tool may have been held slightly off-centre, creating greater invasiveness and polish development on the dorsal surface as a greater portion of the edge came in contact with the worked material (Figure 22b and c).

a b

Figure 22. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4302 Edge 2: (a) parallel striation (indicated by arrow) (200x magnification); (b) polish, edge-rounding, and polish invasiveness on ventral surface (200x magnification); (c) polish, edge-rounding, and polish invasiveness on dorsal surface.

377

DkPi-2 4305

Figure 23. Tool DkPi-2 4305 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4305 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft material (such as dry hide or fresh soft wood)

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting medium-soft material

Notes (Figure 24): The longitudinal motion is predicted by the presence of invasive usewear on both the dorsal and ventral faces, as well as the acute edge angle. The polish has greater development on the leading side of ridges that are perpendicular to the edge, suggesting a cutting, rather than sawing, motion.

The hardness of the worked material is inferred to be medium-soft due to the fact that the usewear is intermittent and the edge has heavy rounding. The fact that the polish is quite invasive but the polish is not well-developed can be understood as being due to the fact that the material is coarse and therefore will not develop polish quickly, although a harder material would be expected to have greater polish development for this degree of invasiveness and edge-rounding.

378

a b

Figure 24. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4305 Edge 1: (a) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) intermittent polish and rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4305 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting soft material

Notes (Figure 25): Although the edge angle is more consistent with a scraping motion, the invasiveness of the polish on the dorsal face more strongly suggests a longitudinal motion, especially with usewear present on the ventral surface as well. The cutting motion is inferred due to the fact that the usewear tends to be concentrated on the leading side of perpendicular ridges created by flake scars.

The softness of the material is inferred from the medium degree of invasiveness and lack of polish development (A+), in addition to the fact that the polish is not on all the ridges present.

This suggests that, in combination with the coarseness of the material and the light edge-

379 rounding, that a soft material is responsible since a harder material would have more consistent and greater polish development and greater edge-rounding, as is seen on Edge 1.

The tool was most likely held at an angle, resulting in the greater invasiveness and polish development on the dorsal surface as this surface came into greater contact with the worked material.

a b

Figure 25. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4305 Edge 2: (a) intermittent polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish development, with greater development on one side of the ridge on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4306

Figure 26. Tool DkPi-2 4306 (dotted line indicates hafted edge).

Notes (Figure 27): The usewear on this tool appears to be from hafting. There should be minimal movement in the haft, which is supported by the lack of polish development and the very

380 intermittent nature of the polish, which suggests a rubbing action. In addition, the location of the usewear is very suggestive of hafting, rather than use.

Figure 27. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4306: polish on dorsal ridge (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4307

Figure 28. Tool DkPi-2 4307 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4307 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Most likely hard

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a hard material

381

Notes (Figure 29): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear along the very edge of the ventral surface.

There is very little usewear but a hard material is suggested due to the high number of step microflakes which could have prevented the usewear from becoming well-developed (i.e., the edge would flake away removing previous traces of usewear).

Figure 29. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4307 Edge 1: polish and flake scars on ventral surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4307 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Wood

Most Probable Function: Sawing a medium material, most likely wood

Notes (Figure 30): The longitudinal motion is predicted based on the relatively acute edge angle and the presence of invasive polish on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces, as well as the presence of parallel and angled striations (Figure 30a). The motion is believed to be sawing due to the equal development of polish on both sides of ridges that run perpendicular to the edge (i.e.,

382 the sawing motion results in both sides of the edge flake scars coming into direct contact with the material due to the back and forth movement of the tool through the material).

The material hardness is predicted to be medium due to the intermittent nature of the polish, and the high degree of invasiveness in conjunction with the degree of polish development

(B to B+), which would be expected to be more developed for a harder material and less developed for a soft material. The exact material type is inferred to be wood as the usewear appearance adheres closely to the experimental wood-sawing tools.

a b

Figure 30. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4307 Edge 2: (a) polish and parallel striation (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

383

DkPi-2 4328

Figure 31. Tool DkPi-2 4328 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4328

Motion of Use: Longitudinal

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting or sawing medium material

Notes (Figure 32): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the acute edge angle, parallel striations (Figure 32a), and usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surface. There was not enough evidence to infer the specific type of longitudinal motion.

The hardness of the worked material is believed to be medium due to the intermittent nature of the polish, the light rounding, and the B to B+ polish development for the medium degree of polish invasiveness. If the material was harder, the polish development would be expected to be greater for the degree of invasiveness, and if the material was softer one would expect greater polish invasiveness for the degree of polish development.

The tool was probably held at an angle, resulting in greater polish development and invasiveness on the ventral surface since it would come into greater contact with the worked material.

384

The fact that only a small portion near the right lateral edge on the dorsal surface has usewear suggests that was the leading point.

a b

Figure 32. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4328: (a) polish, rounding, and parallel striation (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and rounding on dorsal surface.

DkPi-2 4561

Figure 33. Tool DkPi-2 4561 (dotted lines indicate hafted edges).

Notes (Figure 34): The usewear on this tool is most likely haft wear because the striations are short (for ignimbrite, which tends towards long striations due to its glassy and homogenous nature) and run all in the same direction (parallel to lateral edges and perpendicular to base) as well as angled, which suggest movement in a haft. The dorsal face had more contact with the haft than the ventral face as evidenced by greater attrition on the dorsal surface.

385

a b

Figure 34. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4561: (a) attrition on edge, angled and parallel striations on left lateral edge of ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) attrition on edge and perpendicular striations on base of dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4575

Figure 35. Tool DkPi-2 4575 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4575

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Hard and possibly a soft material

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Sawing a hard material, and possibly a soft one

Notes (Figure 36): The sawing motion is inferred from the acute edge angle and the presence of multidirectional microflakes on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces.

386

The material hardness is predicted to be hard based on the presence of multiple step and hinge fractures, as well as the high degree of polish development for the lack of invasiveness.

The tool may also have been used on a soft material, which would explain the feather fractures as well as the presence of a less developed polish in the low areas of flake scars.

The dorsal surface is too patinated for usewear analysis.

a b

Figure 36. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4575: (a) multi-directional flake scars on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

387

DkPi-2 4576

Figure 37. Tool DkPi-2 4576 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4576

Motion of Use: Longitudinal

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting or sawing a medium material

Notes (Figure 38): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the presence parallel and angled striations (Figure 38a) and invasive usewear on the dorsal surface as well as usewear on the ventral surface. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to determine a cutting vs. a sawing motion.

The material is believed to be of medium hardness due to the intermittent nature of the polish, the light rounding, and the B to B+ polish development in relation to the medium polish invasiveness. For the degree of invasiveness on the dorsal surface, the polish is too underdeveloped for a harder material, and the lack of a continuous polish in conjunction with B to B+ polish (which is quite developed for a soft material) rules out a softer material.

The tool was most likely held off-centre, creating greater polish development and invasiveness on the dorsal face.

388

a b

Figure 38. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4576: (a) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish, edge-rounding, and angled striation on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4577

Figure 39. Tool DkPi-2 4577 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4577

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Probably Hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material, most likely hide

Notes (Figure 40): The scraping motion is inferred from the presence of usewear only along the very edge of the ventral surface.

389

The material is determined to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish on half of the edge. This is because even though the polish distribution is differential (one half has a continuous polish band while the second half is intermittent, restricted to areas that protrude out from the edge), the natural position in which this tool is held results in the working edge being angled, with the area with continuous polish coming in contact with the worked material before the area that has intermittent distribution, suggesting it was a morphological factor that created the different usewear and not a different worked material. In addition, the polish development and rounding is equal across the working edge, suggesting a pliable material that affected the edge equally wherever it came in contact with the material.

The specific worked material is inferred to be hide due to the light edge-rounding and B polish development, which is similar to that for the experimental hide-working tools.

a b

Figure 40. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4577: (a) intermittent polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) continuous polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (400x magnification).

390

DkPi-2 4667

Figure 41. Tool DkPi-2 4667 (solid line indicates used edge; dotted line indicates hafted edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4667 Working Edge

Motion of Use: Longitudinal, probably sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Sawing medium material

Notes (Figure 42): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the acute edge angle and the presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The use motion is believed to be sawing due to the presence of multi-directional flake scars, although there are not many, which makes the prediction for this motion tentative.

The worked material is believed to be of medium hardness due to the intermittent nature of the polish on the dorsal face and the continuous nature of the polish on the flat, ventral face

(which would be expected to still be intermittent if the material was harder, even on a flat face).

The lack of microflakes also eliminates a harder material. With a harder material eliminated, the

B+ to C polish and medium to heavy edge-rounding in conjunction with the medium invasiveness of the polish is also conducive to an inference of medium hardness since a softer material would have less polish development, at least in certain areas (such as low areas).

391

The usewear on the opposite edge is most likely the result of hafting due to location on a blunt edge with some small flake scars evident of reshaping the edge for hafting. The presence of perpendicular striations on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces (Figure 42c and d) also suggests hafting since such striations could be made by movement in the haft, while the morphology of the edge does not suggest a wedging action, the only use-action that might create perpendicular striations on both surfaces. The usewear is invasive but the invasive usewear is limited to ridges that are away from the edge, so it is more likely the result of a high point rubbing against a haft rather than invasive sawing or cutting, especially considering the blunt morphology of the edge.

392

a b

c d

Figure 42. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4667: (a) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface of working edge (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on dorsal surface of working edge (400x magnification); (c) polish, rounding, and perpendicular striation (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface of hafted edge (400x magnification); (d) polish, rounding and perpendicular striations (indicated by arrows) on dorsal surface of hafted edge.

393

DkPi-2 4669

Figure 43. Tool DkPi-2 4669 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4669

Motion of Use: Longitudinal

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probably Function: Cutting or sawing a medium-soft material

Notes (Figure 44): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the acute edge angle, parallel striations, and fractures present on both the dorsal and ventral surface of the used edge.

The worked material is believed to be of a medium-soft hardness due to the intermittent nature of the polish, which makes a softer material unlikely since it would be expected to have a continuous polish, especially on the flat surface of this tool. However, the light edge-rounding suggests that this tool was used for a decent amount of time, and therefore one would expect greater polish development than A+ if the material worked was of medium hardness. Similarly, the A+ polish development and relatively high degree of polish invasiveness also precludes a harder material, which would be expected to create much greater polish development for the degree of invasiveness due to the time needed to achieve this degree of penetration into a hard material.

394

The tool was most likely held at an angle while cutting or sawing, resulting in the ventral surface having greater contact with the worked material and therefore developing more usewear features than the dorsal surface.

Figure 44. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 4669: polish, edge-rounding, and parallel striations (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4680

Figure 45. Tool DkPi-2 4680 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4680

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium material

395

Notes (Figure 46): The scraping motion is predicted based on the wide edge angle, the presence of perpendicular striations on the ventral surface (Figure 46a), and polish along the very edge of the ventral surface. The tool was probably held at or near 90 degrees, which resulted in usewear on the dorsal side, especially since the area with usewear on the dorsal face protrudes out further than any other area, allowing it to come into contact with worked material more so than any other part of dorsal surface. Rounding on the dorsal surface is also restricted to these protrusions, suggesting a scraping motion more so than a longitudinal one.

The hardness of the worked material is inferred to be medium based on the intermittent nature of the usewear, as well as the light rounding in conjunction with the B polish development, which would be expected to be more developed for a harder material, and less developed for a softer one.

a b

Figure 46. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4680: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and perpendicular striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge- rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

396

DkPi-2 4681

Figure 47. Tool DkPi-2 4681 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4681

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Probably wood

Most Probable Function: Sawing a medium material, most likely wood

Notes (Figure 48): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the relatively acute edge angle, parallel striations (Figure 48a), and presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces.

The sawing action is assumed based on the equal development of polish on either side of ridges that run perpendicular to the used edge.

The material is predicted to be of medium hardness due to the intermittent nature of the polish on the ridged surface of the dorsal face, as well as how well developed the polish is (B) for not being very invasive, in addition to fairly well-developed rounding as well.

The material is most likely wood as it bears striking similarities to usewear found on the poplar sawing experiments.

397

a b

Figure 48. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 4681: (a) polish, rounding, and parallel striation (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) intermittent polish and rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 4695

Figure 49. Tool DkPi-2 4695 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 4695

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Probably fresh wood

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium material, most likely fresh wood

Notes (Figure 50): The scraping motion is determined by the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

398

The degree of polish development (B+) in regards to the light rounding suggests a medium material since a softer material would have more rounding for the degree of polish development and a harder material would have greater polish development.

Figure 50. Photograph Tool DkPi-2 4695: polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (400x magnification).

DkPi-2 210775

Figure 51. Tool DkPi-2 210775 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 210775

Motion of Use: Longitudinal

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting or sawing a soft material

399

Notes (Figure 52): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces and the acute edge angle; however, there is not enough evidence to determine if the longitudinal motion was cutting or sawing.

Based on the lack of rounding and polish development (only A to A+) for the medium degree of invasiveness on the dorsal surface, the material worked was most likely very soft, such as meat or vegetable matter, especially considering that the lithic material is fine-grained and would develop polish quickly.

Figure 52. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 210775: polish on dorsal surface (400x magnification).

400

DkPi-2 212569

Figure 53. Tool DkPi-2 212569 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 212569

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting a medium-soft material

Notes (Figure 54): The longitudinal action is assumed based on the presence of polish and flake scars on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the acute edge angle. The cutting action is inferred from the microflakes angled towards the distal end of the flake.

The material worked is predicted to be medium-soft due to the presence of primarily feather flake scars, with some step. In addition, the lack of polish invasiveness in conjunction with the very light edge-rounding and A+ to B polish development suggests a material slightly harder than a soft one, which would be expected to have less polish development for the invasiveness, and softer than a harder one which would be expected to have more polish development for the degree of edge-rounding.

401

a b

Figure 54. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 212569: (a) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 214096

Figure 55. Tool DkPi-2 214096 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 214096 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-hard

Worked Material: most likely seasoned wood, or hard wood

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium-hard material, possibly wood.

Notes (Figure 56): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear and flake scars on the edge of the ventral surface.

402

The hardness of the worked material is assumed to be medium-hard based on the abundance of step fractures/crushing on the used edge, the intermittent nature of the polish, and the B polish development and light to medium edge-rounding. If the material scraped were harder there would be greater polish development for the degree of edge crushing; if the material was softer there would be less crushing and step fractures, as well as a more continuous polish.

The polish development and rounding is similar to the poplar scraping experimental tool, suggest the material worked may have been wood.

Figure 56. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 214096 Edge 1: polish and edge-rounding (400x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 214096 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-hard

Worked Material: most likely a seasoned wood, or hard wood

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium-hard material

Notes (Figure 57): Data is the same as for Edge 1, so the interpretation is the same.

403

Figure 57. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 214096 Edge 2: polish development (400x magnification).

DkPi-2 217076

Figure 58. Tool DkPi-2 217076 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217076 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft

Worked Material: Unknown, but possibly a drier hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium-soft material

Notes (Figure 59): The scraping motion is deduced from the wide edge angle and the presence of polish on the edge of the ventral surface.

404

The material is predicted to be of a medium-soft hardness, based on the presence of small areas of continuous polish amongst the primarily intermittent polish, as well as the B to B+ polish development in regards to the light edge-rounding. This is because the edge-rounding is too light to be a soft material for the degree of polish development, and too heavy for a hard material.

Polish is more developed towards the lateral left edge when viewed from the ventral side and when combined with the presence of angled striations (Figure 59a), one might predict that if had been used to scrape a drier hide since the angled striations near lateral edges may be caused by the hide being pushed inwards, and would also cause the left lateral edge to have greater pressure applied to it by the worked material, resulting in greater polish development.

a b

Figure 59. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217076 Edge 1: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and angled striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (400x magnification); (b) polish and edge- rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

405

Tool No: DkPi-2 217076 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping hide

Notes (Figure 60): The scraping motion is inferred from the relatively wide edge angle, perpendicular striations (Figure 60a), and the presence of usewear on the edge of the ventral surface.

The material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish and the heavy degree of rounding for the B to B+ polish development.

The material worked is predicted to be hide because the data adheres extremely closely to that of experimental hide-scraping tools.

a b

Figure 60. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217076 Edge 2: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and perpendicular striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (400x magnification); (b) polish in both low and high area and edge-rounding (200x magnification).

406

DkPi-2 217077

Figure 61. Tool DkPi-2 217077 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217077 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 62): The motion is inferred to be scraping due to the relatively wide edge angle and the presence of usewear along the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material is predicted to be soft due to the light to medium edge-rounding in conjunction with the degree of polish development, which is too light for a harder material for that degree of edge-rounding. The continuous nature of the polish also indicates a soft material, even though the surface is flat, because all lithic material has slight protrusions which tend to create intermittent polish when working harder materials, although not always.

407

Figure 62. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217077 Edge 1: polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217077 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 63): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle, perpendicular striations (Figure 63a), and presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surfaces.

The worked material is believed to be soft primarily due to the continuous nature of the polish, even on an undulating surface. In addition, the B to B+ polish development is too underdeveloped for a harder material with the same light to medium rounding.

408

a b

Figure 63. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217077 Edge 2: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and perpendicular striations (indicated by arrows) on the ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on the ventral surface (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 217078

Figure 64. Tool DkPi-2 217078 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217078 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

409

Notes (Figure 65): The scraping motion is inferred from the relatively wide edge angle and the presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The hardness of the worked material is believed to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish, as well as the light to medium edge-rounding in conjunction with the A+ to B+ polish development, with the amount of polish development being too underdeveloped for a harder material. The difference in degree of polish development is attributed to the difference in the material coarseness along the edge.

a b

Figure 65. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 1: (a) polish and edge-rounding on coarse section of ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on medium section of ventral surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217078 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

410

Notes (Figure 66): The motion of use is predicted to be scraping due to the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish, even on a flat surface since harder materials still tend to be restricted to projections and higher points since the lithic material is not perfectly smooth at a microscopic level. In addition, the degree of polish development (A+ to B) for the presence of edge-rounding is not high enough to suggest a harder material. The convex curve of the tool edge would also be unconducive to scraping a harder material, or developing usewear along the entire edge.

Figure 66. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 2: polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217078 Edge 3

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium-soft material

411

Notes (Figure 67): The scraping motion is inferred from the relatively wide edge angle and presence of usewear along the very edge of the ventral surface.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be medium-soft due to the presence of intermittent polish that extends quite far along the sides of the projections along the edge. In addition, considering the light rounding, the B to B+ polish is more developed than would be expected from working a soft material, especially considering the coarseness of the lithic material.

Figure 67. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217078 Edge 3: polish and edge-rounding on projection on ventral surface: as you can see, the polish is not limited to the very tip of the projection but rather travels down the edges of the projection (200x magnification).

DkPi-2 217139

Figure 68. Tool DkPi-2 217139 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217139

412

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping soft material

Notes (Figure 69): The scraping motion is inferred from the relatively wide edge angle, perpendicular striations (Figure 69a), and the presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material hardness is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish, as well as the B polish development for the light rounding. This is because the polish development is less than would be expected for a harder material that had caused the same amount of rounding, especially considering the fine nature of the lithic material.

a b

Figure 69. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217139: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and perpendicular striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (400x magnification); (b) continuous polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

413

DkPi-2 217270a

Figure 70. Tool DkPi-2 217270a (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217270a Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Hide

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material, most likely hide

Notes (Figure 71): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and the presence of usewear along the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material hardness is predicted to be soft primarily based on the continuous nature of the polish. The worked material is most likely hide due the fact that the continuous polish has a fairly high degree of development (B to B+) for the light edge-rounding, which is in line with experimental chert hide-scraping tools.

414

Figure 71. Photograph of Tool DkPi-2 217270a Edge 1: continuous polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217270a Edge 2

Motion of Use: Cutting

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Hide

Most Probable Function: Cutting soft material, most likely hide

Notes (Figure 72): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the bifacial flaking of the edge, the presence of invasive usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces, and the presence of angled striations (Figure 72a). The cutting motion is inferred from the greater degree of polish development on the leading side of ridges that run perpendicular to the edge.

The worked material is predicted to be soft primarily due to the continuous nature of the polish, and the fact that the light rounding in conjunction with the B to C polish development is in line with that seen on hide-cutting experimental tools. Harder materials resulted in intermittent polish, no matter the degree of polish development, on the experimental tools.

415

The base probably led the cutting stroke, with the base penetrating the material first then the biface pulled towards individual, resulting in the asymmetric polish distribution, angled striations, and greater polish development on the distal portion of perpendicular ridges. The tool was also most likely held off of center, resulting in the ventral side coming into greater contact with the worked material.

a b

c d

Figure 72. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217270a Edge 2: (a) polish, rounding, and angled striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish that shows greater development towards distal end of the tool, indicating a cutting motion, on the ventral surface (200x magnification); (c) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (400x magnification); (d) polish and rounding on projection on dorsal surface (400x magnification).

416

DkPi-2 217270b

Figure 73. Tool DkPi-2 217270b (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 217270b

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a medium material

Notes (Figure 74): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and the perpendicular linearity. The degree of invasiveness is more than would be expected for a scraping motion, but if the tool was held at an acute angle, the polish could be more invasive than if the tool was held more perpendicular to the worked material.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be medium due to the intermittent polish distribution and edge flaking, which can be assumed to be caused by the worked material due to the presence of undetached flakes still present on the tool edge. There is the possibility that it may have been used to scraper a soft material and the intermittent nature of the polish is due to it being flaked away, although a soft material would be unlikely to cause a significant amount of flaking; however, the material is clearly different than the material that was scraped by 217270a.

417

a b

Figure 74. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 217270b: (a) polish, edge-rounding, and linearity (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish, edge-rounding, and undetached flake (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (400x magnification).

DkPi-2 218316

Figure 75. Tool DkPi-2 218316 (solid line indicates used edge; dotted line indicates hafted edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 218316

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Wood

Most Probable Function: Sawing a medium material, most likely wood

418

Notes (Figure 76): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the presence of bifacial flaking and invasive polish on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The presence of equal polish development on both sides of ridges that run perpendicular to the working edge suggests a sawing motion. The edge angle is quite wide for a sawing motion, but this is probably a result of the tool’s function, perhaps to create wide grooves.

The material hardness is predicted to be medium primarily due to the intermittent nature of the polish; in addition, for the high degree of invasiveness, the polish development (B+) is too low to be the result of working a hard material, but quite well-developed for a soft material.

The specific worked material is believed to be wood because the tool adheres extremely closely to the wood-sawing experimental tools.

The usewear on the opposite edge is most likely the result of hafting because it is extremely sparse, being restricted to a very few points, which could be the result of the tool moving in the haft. If the tool were used in a more regular, continuous motion, one would expect greater and more regular polish over the edge.

419

a b

c d

Figure 76. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 218316: (a) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface of working edge (200x magnification); (b) polish and rounding on high point on dorsal surface of working edge (200x magnification); (c) polish and very light rounding on high point on ventral surface of hafted edge (200x magnification); (d) light polish on high point on dorsal surface of hafted edge (200x magnification).

420

DkPi-2 219773

Figure 77. Tool DkPi-2 219773 (solid line indicates used edge; dotted line indicates hafted edge).

Tool No: DkPi-2 219773

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium-soft

Worked Material: fresh, soft wood

Most Probable Function: Sawing a medium-soft material, most likely wood

Notes (Figure 78): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the presence of parallel striations

(Figure 78a and c) and invasive usewear on the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The sawing motion is predicted based on the equal polish development on both sides of the ridges that run perpendicular the working edge. The edge angle is wide for a sawing motion, but this is most

421 likely the result of the tool’s function, such as creating wide grooves (this tool is extremely similar in morphology to tool DkPi-2 218316, but longer).

The worked material is believed to be of a medium-soft hardness due primarily to the intermittent nature of the polish, which tends to rule out a softer material, but it is not only restricted to the highest points or protrusions which suggests a material slightly softer than one of medium hardness. A harder material is ruled out due to the fact that the polish development

(primarily B) is not strong enough for the high degree of invasiveness.

The material is believed to be a fresh, soft wood since the sawing motion, inferred material hardness, and the morphology of the tool limit the number of materials it could have been used to work, making a soft wood the most likely.

As with tool DkPi-2 218316, the opposite edge was most likely hafted due to the extremely sparse nature of the usewear and its limitation to high points, but not all of them. The short angled and perpendicular striations on the dorsal and ventral surface are also consistent with the tool rubbing in the haft as there are few use motions that would create invasive polish with such striations, wedging being the primary one, of which there is no other evidence. In addition, the location of the usewear extending onto the base of the tool strongly suggests hafting wear.

422

a b

c d

Figure 78. Photographs of Tool DkPi-2 219773: (a) polish, rounding, and parallel striations (indicated by arrows) on ventral surface of working edge (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface of working edge (200x magnification); (c) polish, edge- rounding, and parallel striations (indicated by arrows) on the dorsal surface of the working edge

423

(200x magnification); (d) polish and angled striations (indicated by arrows) on the ventral surface of the hafted edge (400x magnification); (e) polish and rounding on the dorsal surface of the hafted edge (200x magnification).

DjPm-126 Tools

DjPm-126 23137

Figure 79. Tool DjPm-126 23137 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23137

Motion of Use: Piercing and cutting (one motion)

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Probably hide

Most Probably Function: Piercing and cutting a soft material, most likely hide

Notes (Figure 80): The piercing motion is inferred from the concentration and asymmetric polish distribution at the tip of the flake, as well as the pointed morphology of the flake. The cutting motion is inferred from the invasive usewear along one edge of the tool, as well as the flake scars which are angled distally, suggesting a pushing motion. In summary, it appears that the tip lead a piercing motion, and the tool was then pushed forward to continue in a cutting motion.

The worked material is assumed to be soft due the presumed motion of use, which would be an unlikely motion of use to work a material other than a soft one. In addition, the presence of

424 continuous polish on the tip of the tool, and the light degree of rounding and extreme invasiveness in conjunction with the B to B+ polish development also leads one to assume a soft material is likely. The step and hinge scars as well as the intermittent nature of the polish on the edge of the tool would suggest a harder material, but again, if the perceived motion of use is correct, this would be unlikely.

It is possible that a drier hide could create these features since it becomes quite rigid, but would still be yielding enough to create continuous polish on the tip, which would come into greatest contact with the material due to the resistance encountered in making the first cut. Hide is also assumed to be the specific worked material due to the nature of the use.

The ventral surface was most likely toward the material resulting in greater usewear development on the ventral surface.

a b

Figure 80. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23137: (a) polish and edge-rounding near tip of tool on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding near tip of tool on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

425

DjPm-126 23189

Figure 81. Tool DjPm-126 23189 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23189 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 82): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle, the primarily perpendicular striations, and the presence of usewear on the ventral surface of the tool. The usewear is quite invasive for a scraping motion, but the tool may have been held at an acute angle, creating greater invasiveness; this would also be expected for an obsidian scraper as it would decrease edge flaking which obsidian is prone to.

The material is difficult to determine but is tentatively assumed to be soft due to the light rounding and attrition. In addition, an obsidian tool would not be an ideal material type to scrape a hard material due to its very brittle nature, especially considering it is an exotic material in this region and therefore unlikely to be wasted doing a job it is not suited for.

426

Figure 82. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23189 Edge 1: edge attrition and primarily perpendicular striations, with some angled and parallel striations (200x magnification).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23189 Edge 2

Motion of Use: longitudinal

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probable Function: Cutting or sawing a soft material

Notes (Figure 83): The longitudinal motion is inferred from the presence of parallel striations and invasive usewear on both the ventral and dorsal faces of the tool; however, there is not enough evidence to suggest a cutting or a sawing motion.

The worked material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the usewear, in addition to light degree of attrition and rounding for the level of invasiveness. This is because both the level of attrition and rounding would be expected to be far greater if the tool was used to work a harder material for the long period of time necessary to achieve that degree of invasiveness, especially considering the brittle nature of obsidian.

427

The tool was most likely held off-centre resulting in the ventral surface coming into greater contact with worked material and therefore creating more usewear on this surface.

a b

Figure 83. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23189 Edge 2: (a) edge attrition and parallel striations (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) light edge attrition, polish (indicated by red arrow), and parallel striations (indicated by white arrow) on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

DjPm-126 23263

Figure 84. Tool DjPm-126 23263 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23263 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Sawing

Hardness of Worked Material: Hard

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probably Function: Sawing a hard material

428

Notes (Figure 85): The sawing motion is inferred from the acute edge angle, the presence of usewear on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces, and the presence of microflakes that are angled both proximally and distally.

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be hard due to the high degree of polish development (B to B+ with some C) for such minimal invasiveness, as well as the intermittent nature of the usewear.

a b

Figure 85. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23263 Edge 1: (a) polish and edge-rounding on the ventral surface (200x magnification); (b) polish and rounding on dorsal surface (200x magnification).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23263 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: probably hide

Most Probably Function: Scraping soft material, probably hide

429

Notes (Figure 86): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material hardness is assumed to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish and the B to B+ polish for the heavy degree of rounding; this is because one would expect C polish for this degree of rounding if the material was harder. In addition, the fact that there is continuous and equal polish and rounding on the convex edge suggests a yielding material, of which hide is the most likely material.

The C polish (Figure 86a) is most likely the result of grinding against stone, due to the nature of the polish and the presence of multidirectional striations, which was possibly done purposefully to remove a spur from scraper edge.

The specific worked material is believed to be hide as it adheres very closely to experimental hide-scraping tools.

a b

Figure 86. Photographs of Tool DjPm-126 23263 Edge 2: (a) C polish on ventral surface with multidirectional striations (indicated by arrows) which may have been purposefully ground away (400x magnification); (b) polish and edge-rounding on ventral surface (200x magnification).

430

DjPm-126 23348

Figure 87. Tool DjPm-126 23348 (solid lines indicate used edges).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23348 Edge 1

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Medium

Worked Material: Most likely wood

Most Probably Function: Scraping a medium material, probably wood

Notes (Figure 88): The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and presence of usewear on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The worked material is assumed to be of medium hardness due to the light degree of edge-rounding and the B polish, which is more developed than would be expected for a soft material for the coarseness of the material and less developed than would be expected for a harder one for the light degree of rounding. In addition, the intermittent nature of the polish also rules out a softer material.

The specific worked material is most likely wood because the data for this tool is almost identical to the petrified wood poplar-scraping experimental tool.

The step flaking and edge crushing is much less on this portion of the tool edge than on that indicated by Edge 2.

431

Figure 88. Photograph of Tool DjPm-126 23348: polish and edge-rounding on the ventral surface (400x magnification).

Tool No: DjPm-126 23348 Edge 2

Motion of Use: Scraper

Hardness of Worked Material: Hard

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probably Function: Scraping a hard material

Notes: The scraping motion is inferred from the wide edge angle and the presence of flaking and edge-crushing on the very edge of the ventral surface.

The material hardness is predicted to be hard due to the high degree of step flakes and edge crushing and the fact that polish did not develop, suggesting flaking and crushing happened quickly and frequently, preventing the polish from developing.

This usewear may be restricted to this portion of the edge due to the tool morphology; this is because this portion of the edge is flat, and the area that is designated as Edge 1 is separated by a convex change in edge direction. If the tool was used to scrape a hard material, it would not be yielding enough to equally affect both Edge 1 and Edge 2 due to the convex nature

432 of the edge. The step flaking and crushing on Edge 1 could have been the result of scraping this hard material for a minimal number of strokes, which would have happened if the hold on the tool was adjusted. It is also possible that the tool may have been used to scrape the medium material first, and the polish was removed by scraping the harder material after. If it is the case that the hard material was scraped second, and the flake scars and crushing on Edge 1 were the result of scraping this hard material, then it is possible that Edge 1 may have scraped a soft material and the degree of edge-rounding was diminished through edge removal.

DjPm-36

DjPm-36 9067

Figure 89. Tool DjPm-36 9067 (solid line indicates used edge).

Tool No: DjPm-36 9067

Motion of Use: Scraping

Hardness of Worked Material: Soft

Worked Material: Unknown

Most Probably Function: Scraping a soft material

Notes (Figure 90): The scraping motion is inferred from the stabilization of the edge creating a wide edge angle, which is further evidenced by semi-detached flakes whose platforms are on the ventral surface of the edge.

433

The hardness of the worked material is predicted to be soft due to the continuous nature of the polish and the high degree of edge-rounding for the relatively small degree of polish development (B to B+). In addition, the greater degree of polish invasiveness on the left lateral corner (which is most likely the result of how the natural morphology of the tool causes this corner to jut out when held in the hand, and therefore come in contact with the material first) without any greater polish development compared to the rest of the edge suggests a soft and yielding material.

Figure 90. Photograph of Tool DjPm-36 9067: polish, edge-rounding, and partially detached flake (indicated by arrow) on ventral surface (200x magnification).

434