Early Archaic/Early Holocene Lithic Technology in Southcentral Ontario, Canada
By
Jeffrey A. Bursey
A Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto
Copyright by Jeffrey A. Bursey, 2008 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44683-6 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44683-6
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada Early Archaic/Early Holocene Lithic Technology in Southcentral Ontario, Canada. By Jeffrey A. Bursey. A Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 2008.
ABSTRACT
In this study, I describe the lithic reduction sequence from a series of archaeological assemblages recovered from around the west end of Lake Ontario. All these assemblages were recovered in association with variants of the Kirk Corner-notched projectile point type and so these are inferred to represent debris produced during a single technological horizon from the
Early Archaic of the region. These assemblages appear to represent debris and tools discarded during manufacture and/or reworking. These types of deposits can therefore be used to analyse the technological system of manufacture.
I hypothesise that the reduction sequence described here was an integrated system designed to meet the needs of mobile hunter-gatherers as they traversed the landscape from the
Niagara Peninsula to the northeast of Lake Ontario. Attributes of this reduction sequence include the maintenance of cores and common patterns for the unidirectional detachment of flakes from both the cores and almost finished bifaces. I further argue that the detachment of flakes was done to produce tool blanks for less formal tool types that were relatively predictable in future utility; preforms ideal for transformation into a projectile point; and projectile points ideal for use as penetrating tools that were also easily maintained and resharpened. Variation in projectile points can be interpreted as resulting from these tools being produced from different trajectories of the reduction system and reworking after use. Three additional conclusions are offered from these inferences. First, no single assemblage appears to represent the full reduction sequence. Second, while the assemblages represent a continuum of lithic reduction, all produced the same kinds of tools. Consequently, lacking evidence of task specialisation, it is argued that all represent residential relocations.
Finally, I argue that some aspects of the mobility pattern of the Fluted Point Horizon appears to continue into the Corner-notched Horizon. Additional evidence of continuity with the Unfluted
Lanceolate Biface Horizon suggests that the changes seen through time may have occurred without a population replacement. However, this reduction system was very much dependant upon the nature of the raw material available for use.
in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Between the first test pit survey to find the Thornbush site and the final version of this dissertation, almost 20 years has passed. In that time I have worked with literally hundreds of people who have influenced my thinking to various degrees. Unfortunately, while I think I have a good memory, it is frequently short and I cannot remember everyone who has made a contribution. A few individuals however, can certainly be mentioned. First and foremost, I have worked with Andrew Murray every year since 1987 (talk about being in a rut!) and this has always been productive and entertaining. Andrew took most of the photos used in this dissertation and provided most of the graphics and maps. Additionally, Andrew provided access to the Upstairs site assemblage and copies of that report as well as many others. I cannot imagine how this dissertation could have been accomplished without his assistance and I find it difficult to conceive how I would have stayed in archaeology without being able to argue and joke with him. Andrew's partner, Jackie Dolling, joined MTO in 1990 and I have had the pleasure of working with her every year since. Jackie always takes a practical approach to fieldwork and report writing that ensures everything gets done with utmost efficiency and accuracy. I have opined many times that, individually or as a team, Jackie and Andrew are among the most competent and professional field workers in the discipline.
I first worked with Phil Woodley in 1985 and again for several years with MTO and now draw most of my income from his CRM firm. Phil's sense of humour and dedication to both archaeology and the people who decide to do this kind of work makes every project enjoyable and he always puts archaeological ethics at the top of his list of priorities. Phil also allowed access to assemblages like the Ringtail and Current sites, the Southampton Estates and Empire Greens assemblages. He also provided maps (by way of Andrew) that I was able to use. During the years of writing this dissertation, Phil was indulgent with my own priorities and flexible hours so I could manage to get this done. (Which I hope sounds more diplomatic than suggesting he just wasn't paying attention.)
I have also benefited from working with Dr. Gary Warrick over the years. Gary was the manager of the MTO archaeology crew when the Kipling cluster of sites was excavated.
Because of his flexibility, we were able to excavate these sites under optimal conditions, doing other chores and projects when the clay was too wet, etc. Gary also provided access to the assemblages so I could examine them repeatedly and in detail. Penny Young was also of considerable assistance here. Other assemblages used in this study include the Wellingdale cluster of sites as well as some isolated KCN projectile points that were made available to me by
Dr. R. Williamson and Bev Garner at ASI in Toronto. Dr. Neal Ferris and John MacDonald at
MCR, London, made the Cherry Orchard assemblage available.
I would not have initiated this study without some experience and interest in lithic technology and for that I must thank the rock heads and flint snappers I have run across. My interest in lithics (and bleeding, it seems) was initiated by Bill Fox (aka Guy (c'est un vieux)
Renard) who led the first series of chert chases I was able to go on. This, in turn led to meeting the inestimable Jack Holland and innumerable other chert chases crossing much on North
America. Jack also introduced me to Dr. Kevin Smith, then at the Buffalo Museum of Science, who provided some valuable insights into the early ideas for this dissertation. Jack also introduced me to Dan Long, a naturally gifted flint knapper. It was in the company of Dan (and
Andrew) that I first noticed and began thinking about the flaking pattern seen on KCN points. One the most long-lasting and important results of these early chert-chasing expeditions must be meeting the wild man in the backseat of that first chert trip. Fred (and later Jean)
Moerschfelder remains a highly dedicated avocational archaeologist and the flint snapper who has taught me the most. Fred joined in many a memorable chert chase (and at least one barely memorable border crossing, probably managed by Fox and Holland) and was instrumental in one extremely important lesson I learned: never flint knap in the bed you are about to sleep in, particularly if it is a waterbed. Flint knappers can do things to motel rooms that even Keith
Moon would have been impressed with. Fred and Jean always treated me like family and I spent many a day flint knapping in the sugar shack. I still think there is a viable research paper on the movement of bloodstained lithic artifacts as distributed by dogs. Exploring the thermal efficiency of sleeping under a sap-boiling pan, however, may require more of an inter disciplinary perspective than I can muster now.
Without question, my thinking on all things archaeological and anthropological has been profoundly and irreversibly changed by my time at the University of Toronto. I have found that every course I took over the years, from Max Friesen's course on hunters and gatherers to Lee and Chazan's course on anthropological paradigms has given me ideas (and a reading list) that I have returned to again and again. However, above all others, Dr. David Smith must stand out. I first worked for Dave in 1985 and first really started thinking about theory while debating David
Clarke's book in an abandoned house in the wee hours of the morning. Since then, whether at
Peachie's or Pizza Hut, he has always provided a productive sounding board during our arguin's.
Despite this dissertation appearing to be far removed from trying to decipher the scratches on burnt mud, Dave has been instrumental in everything accomplished here and I will continue to argue that the big questions are not really that much different.
vi Dr. Michael Chazan also tremendously influenced my thinking on this topic from the start. Whether or not he remembers, it was his comments that led this study away from being a tedious exercise in number crunching and "artifactology". This made me think from and beyond the simple observations and towards what lithic technology was really all about. Dr. Chazan literally opened doors for me to think more globally about lithic technology and his editorial work on this study both made this readable and will lead me to new areas of thinking.
Dr. Gary Crawford, the third member of my committee, has long been a solid source of advice and support. His door has always been open to me and he has been very generous with his time and attention in reading and critiquing this and other things I have written. Dr.
Crawford has always set the bar of scholarship high but always within reach if you are willing to pay attention and learn. What more can be asked?
Since her arrival at UTM, Dr. Heather Miller has also been an important contributor to my work and thinking since the day she gave her "job talk" at UTM. I can't say that my ideas about technology necessarily mesh with hers but there should be no question that she has had a dramatic and positive influence on me, and UTM, from "Day One." In particular, among the lessons I have learned is that in an institution such as the University of Toronto, whether you are doing research or teaching, the key to success is in the ability to transmit knowledge. Dr. Miller seems to be able to do this as naturally as breathing. Of course, through Dr. Miller, I met Dr.
Roger Lohmann and saw his great big bundle of arrows from New Guinea. Seeing things like these made it clear to me that I needed to be very aware that there are many things I can never really know or talk about so I needed to focus on what I can learn about the past.
The experience of being a graduate student, particularly at a big institution such as U of
T, offers many challenges that must be met if there is to be any hope for making it through. The
vii one challenge that can be the most difficult to meet is, in my opinion, dealing with the administrivia and the language of the bureaucracy (this being, at times, more difficult than the formal language requirement). There is no question in my mind that I would not have made it through this jungle without the help and assistance of Natalia Krencil, the graduate secretary. I cannot count the number of times I seemed to run into insurmountable problems that would vex me for days. And every single time when approaching Natalia, the answer would be a cheerful
"No problem. Done." On first entering U of T as a graduate student I was advised that the graduate secretary could be the most important person in my life as a student. I now consider that this was an extreme understatement.
The external examiner for my dissertation defence was Dr. Ken Sassaman from the
University of Florida. He insured I remembered that the sites I was looking at were merely the northern fringe of a projectile point stylistic distribution that spanned half the North American continent.
As I mentioned in the first sentence, in many ways I have been working on this dissertation for almost 20 years, and most of that time was prior to becoming a graduate student.
Therefore (obviously) I could not have accomplished much without the help and support of my family. My father was always an important source of support for me in every way possible. My mother passed away before I started my graduate adventure but she certainly gave me the determination I needed. Like all mothers, I suppose, she had many mottoes but one that certainly stuck and was applicable here was: "don't be a quitter." My father's new wife, Jean, has certainly made the home base as comfortable and welcoming as any (Newfoundland or other) place can be. In addition to my brother and his wife Sandra, I now have a new "baby" brother (Tony) and his wife (Jenn), a new "baby" sister (Nancy) and brother-in-law (Maurice) plus a whole slew of nieces and nephews to make Christmas, etc., a full pandemonium.
Of course, being from "the rock" and not that removed from the outports means that I have a large, extended family and kinship system that, at times, seems to span the continent, not unlike what you read about in hunter-gatherer studies. How can one possibly ignore these
"vines" or thank everyone? A complete list would probably end up being longer than this dissertation. Nonetheless, I must mention my Aunt Jean and Uncle Andre. They always took a keen interest in my progress and were there for me when I most needed it. Fortunately for me, they were a very strong link in the chain of operations that became this final product.
Finally, I have to mention the late Carl Murphy who passed away shortly before the first final version of this dissertation was submitted. Often called the "conscience of Ontario
Archaeology," Carl sometimes gets blamed for introducing me to archaeology and sometimes served as somewhat of a mentor. Carl directed the field survey that found the bulk of the Kipling sites in 1991. In some ways, he can also be credited with starting the ball rolling in my mind with a typical "Carlism". That survey resulted in the recovery of the first diagnostic projectile points and, when asked whether he agreed they looked like "Nettling" points, he responded:
"Nah, too far from the Nettling site. They must be Kirk Corner-notched." I choose to interpret this response to be an innate understanding that recognition of regional variation need not compromise over-arching taxonomic constructs. I can only hope that he would have approved of this work and I dedicate it to his memory.
To all of the above, I can only offer my thanks and appreciation for all of the help, support and sympathy. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract i Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents x List of Figures xii List of Tables xiv Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Early Thoughts on the Early Archaic 5 Questions of Taxonomy 8 Origins of the Model 11 Chapter 2: History and Context of Research 23 The Fluted Point Horizon 25 Unfluted Lanceolate Point Horizon 32 Side-Notched Point Horizon 44 The Kirk Corner-Notched Point Horizon 45 What is a Kirk Corner-Notched Point? 62 The Bifurcate Base Projectile Point Horizon 68 Chapter 3: Hunter-Gatherers and Archaeology 73 Ethnographic Analogy 73 Formation Processes 79 Ethnoarchaeology and Site Structure 82 Chapter 4: The "Core" Sites and Assemblages 93 Chert Procurement 97 The "Core" Sites 98 The Ringtail Site (AhGx-442) 105 Site Location, Environment and Context 105 Field Methodology 106 Artifact Analysis 107 Raw Materials 107 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 108 Formal Tools 115 Discussion of the Ringtail Assemblage 121 The Current Site (AhGx-445) 126 Site Location, Environment and Context 126 Field Methodology 127 Artifact Analysis 128 Raw Materials 128 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 129 Formal Tools 135 Discussion of the Current Site Assemblage 138 The Upstairs Site (AiGw-303) 143 Site Location, Environment and Context 144 Artifact Analysis 145
X Raw Materials 147 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 147 Formal Tools 149 Discussion of the Upstairs Site Assemblage 155 The Empire Greens Site Cluster 160 Empire Greens 1 (AgGw-23) (Find Number 1) 161 Raw Materials 161 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 162 Formal Tools 163 Empire Greens 9 (AgGw-29) (Find 9) 165 Find 16 (AgGw-34) 166 Find 19 (AgGw-37) 167 Empire Greens 20 (AgGw-20) 168 Empire Greens 23 (AgGw-40) 169 The Mount Hope Site Cluster 170 Kirk and Trimble Sites 170 Summary of "Core" Sites 174 Chapter 5: The "Biface" Sites and Assemblages 179 The Cherry Hill Site (AgGt-91) 179 Raw Materials 180 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 180 Formal Tools 181 The Kipling Cluster of Sites 186 Kipling 1 (AkGv-112), East Locus 187 Raw Materials 188 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 188 Formal Tools 190 Kipling 1 (AkGv-112), West Locus 192 Manufacturing Debris 192 Formal Tools 192 Kipling 2 (AkGv-113) 193 Raw Materials 193 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 193 Formal Tools 194 Thornbush (AkGv-90) 198 Raw Materials 198 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 198 Formal Tools 199 Wild Turkey Surprise (AkGv-117) 202 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 202 Formal Tools 203 Robert Johnson (AkGv-27) 204 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 204 Formal Tools 205 Other Components in the Kipling Cluster of Sites 206 Debitage Analysis of the Kipling Cluster of Sites 208
XI Flake Completeness 209 Flake Metrics 210 Platform Attributes 213 Flake Terminations 216 Secondary Flake Dorsal Morphology 217 Discussion of Flake Attributes 221 The Wellingdale Site Cluster 224 The Wellingdale Site (AkGw-57) 224 Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools 225 Formal Tools 225 AkGw-58 226 AkGw-59 228 Additional Isolated Finds 229 Discussion of the Wellingdale Site Cluster 230 Upper Grand River Sites 232 The Trail Site (AiHc-198) 232 Cambridge Area 233 Summary of the "Biface" Sites 234 Chapter 6: Synthesis and Discussion 237 The Reduction Sequence 243 Primary Top-Corner Flake Blanks and Narrow Bifaces 245 Generalised Bifaces 249 Core Reduction 251 Large Bifaces 258 Projectile Points 259 Other Tools 264 Scrapers 266 Drills 268 Summary of the Reduction Sequence 268 The Reduction Strategy 271 Synchronic or Interregional Variation 279 Diachronic or Intraregional Variation 285 Chapter 7: Conclusions 294 References 306
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Location of Kirk Corner-notched Sites around the East End of Lake Ontario 341 Figure 4-1: The Garth Trails Sites 342 Figure 4-2: The Ringtail Site (AhGx-442) Flake Distribution 343 Figure 4-3: Ringtail Site Chert Cores 344 Figure 4-4: Distribution of Cores and Tools Across the Ringtail Site 345 Figure 4-5: Ringtail Site Platform Tablet 346 Figure 4-6: Ringtail Site Platform Trimming Flakes 347
Xll Figure 4-7: Ringtail Site Finished Formal Tools 348 Figure 4-8: Ringtail Site Broad Bifaces 349 Figure 4-9: Ringtail Site Narrow Bifaces 350 Figure 4-10: The Current Site (AhGx-445) Flake Distribution 351 Figure 4-11: Current Site Chert Cores 352 Figure 4-12: Distribution of Cores and Formal Tools Across the Current Site 353 Figure 4-13: Current Site Utilised Flakes 354 Figure 4-14: Current Site Formal Tools 355 Figure 4-15: "Number 18" Site Artifacts 356 Figure 4-16: Distribution of Tools Across the Upstairs Site 357 Figure 4-17: Upstairs Site Unidirectional Flakes 358 Figure 4-18: Upstairs Site Small Bifaces 359 Figure 4-19: Upstairs Site Large Bifaces and Formal Tools 360 Figure 4-20: The Empire Greens Sites 361 Figure 4-21: Utilised Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site 362 Figure 4-22: "Retouched" Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site (Dorsal view) 363 Figure 4-23: "Retouched" Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site (Ventral view) 364 Figure 4-24: Empire Greens Site Cluster Diagnostic Artifacts 365 Figure 4-25: Empire Greens Additional Artifacts 366 Figure 4-26: The Kirk (AgGx-295) and Trimble (AgGx-299) Sites 367 Figure 4-27: Kirk Site Flakes 368 Figure 4-28: Trimble (AgGx-299) Site Surface Artifacts 369 Figure 5-1: Cherry Hill (AgGt-91) Site Artifacts 370 Figure 5-2: The Kipling Interchange Sites 371 Figure 5-3: The Kipling 1 (AkGv-112), East Locus, Flake Distribution 372 Figure 5-4: Kipling 1 Site Scrapers and Miscellaneous Bifaces 373 Figure 5-5: Kipling 1 Site Projectile Points 374 Figure 5-6: Kipling 2 (AkGv-113) Flake Distribution 375 Figure 5-7: Kipling 2 Bifaces and End Scraper 376 Figure 5-8: Kipling 2 Projectile Points 377 Figure 5-9: Kipling 2 and Thornbush Knives 378 Figure 5-10: Thornbush Site (AkGv-90) Flake Distribution 379 Figure 5-11: Thornbush Tools 380 Figure 5-12: Wild Turkey Surprise (AkGv-117) Flake Distribution 381 Figure 5-13: Wild Turkey Surprise Utilised and Retouched Flake Tools 382 Figure 5-14: Wild Turkey Surprise Site Projectile Points and Bifaces 383 Figure 5-15: Robert Johnson (AkGv-27) Site Flake Distribution 384 Figure 5-16: Robert Johnson Artifacts 385 Figure 5-17: Additional Kipling Interchange Artifacts 386 Figure 5-18: Secondary Flake Lengths 387 Figure 5-19: Secondary Flake Widths 388 Figure 5-20: Wellingdale Site Cluster 389 Figure 5-21: Wellingdale Cluster Artifacts 390 Figure 5-22: AkGw-58 Spall Tools 391 Figure 5-23: Cambridge Area Artifacts 392
Xlll LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Early Technological Horizons in Southern Ontario 393 Table 2-1: Count of Artifact Categories for Three Selected Paleoindian Sites 394 Table 4-1: Total Artifacts From the Ringtail Site 395 Table 4-2: Distribution of Flakes by Raw Material and Flake Type for the Ringtail Site 396 Table 4-3: Total Artifacts From the Current Site 397 Table 4-4: Distribution of Flakes by Raw Material and Flake Type for the Current Site 398 Table 4-5: Distribution of Utilised Flakes by Raw Material and Flake Type for the Current Site 399 Table 4-6: Total Artifacts From the Upstairs Site 400 Table 4-7: Distribution of Flakes by Mesh Size and Flake Type for the Upstairs Site 401 Table 4-8: Upstairs Site Unidirectional Flake Metrics 402 Table 4-9: Total Artifacts From the Empire Greens 1 Site 403 Table 4-10: Distribution of Modified and Unmodified Flakes by Flake Type for the Empire Greens 1 Site 404 Table 5-1: Total Artifacts From the Kipling 1 Site 405 Table 5-2: Kipling Cluster Flakes According to Major Flake Categories 406 Table 5-3: Total Artifacts From The Kipling 2 Site 407 Table 5-4: Total Artifacts From the Thornbush Site 408 Table 5-5: Total Artifacts From the Wild Turkey Surprise Site 409 Table 5-6: Total Artifacts From the Robert Johnson Site 410 Table 5-7: Completeness of Primary Flakes 411 Table 5-8: Completeness of Secondary Flakes 412 Table 5-9: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Lengths 413 Table 5-10: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Widths 414 Table 5-11: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Thickness 415 Table 5-12: Primary Flake Metric Data 416 Table 5-13: Secondary Flake Metric Data 417 Table 5-14: Primary Flake Striking Platforms 418 Table 5-15: Secondary Flake Striking Platforms 418 Table 5-16: Striking Platform Metrics for Primary Flakes 419 Table 5-17: Striking Platform Metrics for Secondary Flakes 420 Table 5-18: Primary Flake Terminations 421 Table 5-19: Secondary Flake Terminations 421 Table 5-20: Secondary Flake Stages 422 Table 5-21: Secondary Flake Types 423 Table 5-22: Patterns of Dorsal Flake Scars for Secondary Flakes 424
XIV 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The following doctoral dissertation is an examination of how a pattern of stone tool reduction, reconstructed from the manufacturing debris and discarded tools recovered from a series of excavated sites, can be used to inform us about prehistoric hunter-gatherer mobility. I will argue that these sites conform to a single, integrated but flexible reduction strategy that was designed to meet the anticipated and unanticipated needs of a small group of people who traversed a relatively large area. Most of the sites were found relatively widely dispersed, covering a large area of land around the west end of Lake Ontario (Figure 1-1). No single assemblage included the entire lithic reduction sequence but all included components of this sequence, allowing them to be identified as parts of a whole. I infer that this stone tool production sequence was at least partially designed to meet the demands of a highly mobile lifestyle, the demands of which changed as the supply of raw material was used.
All the assemblages examined here included projectile points that are variants of the Kirk
Corner-notched (KCN) (Coe 1964:69-70; Justice 1987:71-82) style of projectile point, attributed to the Early Archaic. Where this style of projectile point has been dated in relatively secure contexts in eastern North America, it has been found to have been manufactured and used in the first millennium of the Holocene or ca. 9800 to 8900 B.P. (Table l-l)1. All assemblages include
1 All radiocarbon dates and date ranges employed in this dissertation were published prior to the availability of recalibration curves for the northeast (e.g., Fiedel 1999). Because none of the arguments presented here are in any way dependant upon absolute calendrical dates, no attempt was made to correct for this factor. Therefore, it would be best to consider the chronology employed here as a form of relative dating scheme. 2 variation resulting from use and modification of the transported supply of raw material but exhibit little or no variation in the functional types of tools recovered.
In this study, I focus on describing the manufacturing sequence used to produce the chipped stone tools associated with these projectile points as well as the projectile points themselves. This manufacturing sequence must be inferred from an examination of discarded cores and fragments, flakes and tools recovered during archaeological excavations. My argument will be that an analysis of this refuse material allows insight into how the manufacturing sequence was a designed system of using a block of chert to produce all the stone tools required for various tasks. When examined in this way, specific classes of tools, including diagnostic projectile points, are not the main object of analysis but rather, more a by-product of a relatively long sequence of use and modification. It is this sequence or system of manufacture and modification of a chert block that is of interest here rather than any single aspect of it.
The approach I am taking in this dissertation is unique, at least in the lower Great Lakes region, in that it links a series of excavated flake scatters into an integrated whole. The study of stone tools does not have a long history in the northeast, primarily because much early interest was focused on large, late prehistoric villages, burial mounds and objects of aesthetic interest.
When a greater time-depth of human occupation was recognised in the northeast, interest did turn to examining some of the earliest occupants whose surviving material culture seemed to be entirely composed of stone tools. The analysis of stone tools then turned to the recognition of diagnostic tool-types that could be used to identify sites and assemblages to specific time periods and indicate some of the uses these tools were put to. The expansion of interest into the analysis of lithic technology to explore additional questions has been much slower. 3
Upon initiating this research, my interest was not directed towards any specific time period or technological horizon but was instead directed towards examining how a lithic reduction sequence was used to meet the demands of a mobile people. That the assemblages I examined could be assigned to any one specific horizon, then, was of secondary importance to whether these assemblages could all be assigned to the same horizon. All the assemblages examined had projectile points that were identified as being variants of the same type, which happened to be indicative of an early Holocene, Early Archaic time of occupation. However, it was also held as possible that this association might be coincidental, possibly resulting from reoccupation of the same site area. Consequently, my focus will be on the reduction system in its entirety and how tools were manufactured, not on the specifics of individual classes or types of tools.
Because my focus is on how a lithic reduction system was designed to meet the demands of a mobile people, I explore what the archaeological residues of mobile people may look like and how we can generate inferences about them from these residues. Therefore, below, I will examine some of the ethnographic information about mobile people, how ethnoarchaeology allows us to relate archaeological residues to this kind of lifestyle and how other sources of analogy, such as experimental lithic reduction, may help or, sometimes, hinder, these attempts.
Additionally, in order to maximise the utility of a study like this, it is important to understand as much as possible of the context of what is under study. Therefore, an important component of this study was to recognise, as precisely as possible, what the assemblages recovered represent. Therefore, I felt it vital to consider the sampling strategy employed to recover these assemblages and what was recovered through excavation in this way. Specifically
I argue that excavation has been focused on refuse dumps and that, as a result of this, the 4 assemblages represent waste from the manufacture of stone tools but do not necessarily provide a complete and representative sample of all activities undertaken while the site was occupied.
These considerations will be the focus of Chapter 3.
Considered at a broader level, context is also taken to include the culture-historical positioning of these assemblages. While many of the conclusions of this study could have been generated for any time period chosen for examination, placing these assemblages in a specific chronological horizon can generate some additional benefits. Therefore, since all the assemblages analysed produced projectile points from the Early Archaic, Kirk corner-notched
(KCN) projectile horizon, it will be helpful to review our current state of knowledge of this horizon. This will be the focus of Chapter 2.
As I mentioned above, I feel this study is unique in a number of important ways, not the least of which is the use of a series of excavated flake assemblages to infer an integrated lithic reduction system. Additionally, however, this study is the first detailed analysis of the lithic technological system of the early Archaic in the lower Great Lakes region. Although the earliest technological horizons in the region (i.e. the Paleoindians) have become relatively well known, recognition of the Early Archaic was much slower. To some degree this is likely a product of the lack of attention to low-density flake scatters but the history of investigation of Early Archaic horizons must also be taken into account. In the next section, I will examine how the Early
Archaic has been viewed by previous generations of archaeologists. This, then, will provide the
"springboard" for looking into how we see the Early Archaic of today (Chapter 2), how we generate inferences about mobile peoples from their archaeological residues (Chapter 3) and, ultimately, the assemblages I will be examining in this dissertation (Chapters 4 and 5). From that data, I will reconstruct the lithic reduction system, generate inferences about the relationship between that specific lithic reduction system and the demands of mobility (Chapter 6). Finally, from that perspective, I will return to the specific culture-historical context in order to illustrate how this kind of analysis provides us with a greater understanding of what happened in the specific context of this part of southern Ontario (Chapter 7). My argument is that, given the variability among mobile hunter-gatherers, in order to understand the contributions of any study, we must balance the specifics of the time and place against the patterns that are more broadly discernible.
Early Thoughts on the Early Archaic
North American archaeologists have had a long-standing interest in the earliest occupants of the continent. Almost immediately after the association between extinct fauna and certain varieties of projectile points was confirmed in the American west (Figgins 1927), interest in this time period or technological stage spread throughout the continent (e.g., Howard 1934; Jackson et al. 1987). This interest was aided, in part, by the fact that projectile points with a diagnostic channel flake or flute running the length of the biface are present and recognisable throughout the hemisphere. Although variation is acknowledged (Tankersley 1998), this pan-regional interest persists in published research examining variation in projectile point styles across the continent (Morrow and Morrow 1999). Using these data, debates on the timing of the first peopling of the continent (Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1999; Fiedel 2000), mechanisms of colonisation (Anderson and Gillam 2000, 2001; Curran 1999; Moore and Moseley 2001;
Surovell 2000) and even comparisons of cultural constructs between continents (Straus 2000) have been undertaken. Aiding this research is an impressive list of published site reports and 6 papers (see Deller and Ellis 1992a and b; Ellis and Deller 2000, 2002; Jackson 1998a; Storck
1979, 1997 for examples from southern Ontario alone).
By comparison, less attention has been directed towards many of the subsequent time periods, including for my purposes here, the Early Archaic. As will be discussed in this dissertation, the early Holocene occupants of the continent do not appear to have left distinctly different kinds of archaeological sites. Specifically, the surviving residues of their occupations are also widely distributed across the landscape and do not include deeply stratified deposits that could be used to argue that they had occupied these locations for extended periods of time or repeatedly returned to them. While archaeologists may not ever be able to fully determine the frequency, composition or distance of group movements (Morrow 1997:70), the indicators are that the assemblages attributed to these technological horizons reflect those of mobile hunter- gatherers who had a life-style very different from that of historically observed, fur trade hunter- gatherers of the boreal forest. Furthermore, the technology employed did not always produce significant accumulations of waste flakes, making the detection of such sites difficult and, when located, they are rarely excavated because of this low density of artifacts.
A number of factors are likely involved in creating this difference in scholarly attention.
Among these are the difficulties that were experienced in establishing a viable chronology prompted by the fact that there appears to have been increased regional diversity in diagnostic projectile point types through time. Additionally, for most early chronological horizons, large dense sites with abundant and relatively easily recovered material culture from a single technological horizon have not been commonly discovered and excavated. However, ready access to some large sites with rich assemblages from multiple technological horizons has led to less attention being given to the smaller lithic scatters that dominate the archaeological landscape 7 of the lower Great Lakes region. When excavated or at least surface collected, attention was given to the description and analysis of shaped tools and flaking debris was either ignored or not retained because it was assumed that it was not culturally diagnostic.
As I will argue in this dissertation, some Early Archaic technological systems were conservative in the use of chert and relatively little flaking debris was produced and discarded.
Consequently, these kinds of sites are less archaeologically "visible." Here, I will be describing a lithic reduction system that could only have been identified through the analysis of a number of archaeological assemblages that were recovered from relatively low-density sites. From this I infer aspects of the lithic reduction strategy that might have allowed Early Archaic hunter- gatherers to traverse the landscape at increasing distances from the chert sources.
The difficulty in establishing an Archaic chronology had a number of effects on the pace and nature of research into the Early Archaic of the lower Great Lakes region. One of the more prominent archaeologists in the northeast, W. A. Ritchie (1980:34-35) long expressed reservations as to whether an Early Archaic horizon would ever be recognised here and held the opinion that the region may have been largely abandoned following Paleoindian times. A presumed low carrying capacity was generally cited as being the ultimate cause (Fitting 1968;
Ritchie 1971a).
Although not in the lower Great Lakes region, well-preserved, stratified sites were ultimately identified and excavated on the floodplains of large rivers, particularly in the
American southeast. The most important result of these investigations was to provide an independent means of verifying the chronology established through the seriation of projectile point types used as "index fossils" (sensu O'Brien and Lyman 1999). In particular, the St.
Albans site in West Virginia excavated by Betty Broyles (1971), the "Flint-Run Complex" in 8
Virginia (Gardner 1974, 1977, 1983,1989) and a series of sites in Tennessee excavated by
Jefferson Chapman (1975, 1977, 1979, 1985) provided an indication of what the Paleoindian through Early Archaic sequence looked like. Relatively quickly, similar projectile points were recognised in the northeast (Tuck 1974) and southern Ontario (Wright 1978) although these were known primarily from surface collections and multi-component assemblages.
While research into the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene occupations of eastern
North America continued, leading to relatively substantial syntheses (e.g., Anderson and
Sassaman 1996a; Raber et al 1998; Reinhart and Hodges 1990; Wittkofski and Reinhart 1989), a similar intensity of research has not occurred in southern Ontario. To date, the most substantial
Early Archaic assemblage published is that from the Nettling site in southwestern Ontario (Ellis et al 1991) and this has served as the basis for syntheses of the region (Ellis et al. 1990; Wright
1995:76-80). Several smaller assemblages from the "Corner-notched Point Horizon" have been published, however, as well as several from the subsequent "Bifurcate Base" point horizon.
Together, these have provided much of the framework for our current understanding of the early
Holocene occupations of southern Ontario. The current state of knowledge of the early
Holocene in the eastern North America will be the focus of Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
Questions of Taxonomy
One of the central topics to be examined in this dissertation is how to identify and interpret a technological system in the archaeological record. In southern Ontario, artifact assemblages are routinely assigned to different time periods based on the presence of certain
"diagnostic" artifacts, such as projectile points, that are used much like geological "index fossils" 9
(O'Brien and Lyman 1999). There are, however, a number of problems that emerge from not considering the entirety of the assemblage in greater detail.
First, there is the problem of multi-component sites. Most archaeologists have at one time or another been confronted with locations that had been occupied repeatedly by groups using different "diagnostic" projectile points. Under such circumstances, some have simply described the artifacts recovered but were not able to offer more detailed interpretations of the various specific occupations because most of the recovered assemblage was considered to be
"non-diagnostic." Determining the association between flakes or scrapers, on the one hand, and diagnostic projectile point types, on the other, is frequently impossible. Consequently, as long as the analytical focus remains on bifaces, there is no method available for determining the entire suite of activities that were conducted during different occupations of the site unless the reduction sequence leading to the production of other tool types can be associated with the diagnostic bifaces. Simply, this is because many activities undertaken during the occupation at a site may have been accomplished using non-biface derived tools.
A second set of related problems arises with excavations that have either not produced
"diagnostic" artifacts or where there was some question regarding the association of diagnostic artifacts with the majority of the assemblage. Such examples might be described as assemblages that seem to be single-component when in actuality they were deposited during multiple occupations. Since, as I have argued above, different reduction sequences would have produced different kinds of debitage and other manufacturing debris, it should be possible to recognise the debris from different reduction sequences independently of any diagnostic artifacts recovered. In short, I would argue that, at least at times, the reduction sequence itself, or at least components of it, would be "diagnostic" and, consequently, at least some of the by-products of that reduction 10 sequence would be diagnostic. The channel flakes produced from making a fluted point could serve as an example here as could Upper Palaeolithic blade flakes on an otherwise Acheulian site.
The perspective adopted for this study is that artifacts such as diagnostic projectile points should be considered as one endproduct of a lithic reduction sequence that was designed to meet many needs. Because the very nature of the raw materials used to make stone tools allowed for a great deal of variation in how these tools were manufactured, and because each lithic reduction system was an integrated process, these lithic reduction systems are each potentially unique and at least potentially distinguishable from each other. Therefore, all endproducts of these reduction sequences are also potentially diagnostic. Fully understanding any lithic technology and how it was designed to meet the needs of its users, therefore, requires considering all aspects of that lithic reduction system and not just one of the final endproducts.
Other related questions may also be addressed. For example, in the past, different projectile point "styles" have simply been interpreted as reflecting the presence of different
"ethnic" groups or tribes (Dumont and Dumont 1979:39). Subsequent analyses, however, have indicated that some changes in tool morphology may actually result from entirely different factors such as the characteristics of the raw material (e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Kuhn 1995:135) or reworking of the projectile point due to breakage or wear (i.e., Flenniken and Raymond 1986;
Rondeau 1996). Furthermore, within the ethnographic literature, there are many now well- known examples of variation within a hunter's tool-kit caused by other, social reasons (e.g.,
Wiessner 1983). Here I argue that much of the variation in Early Archaic Kirk Corner-notched projectile points in the region under study is the result of differing reduction tactics (i.e., imposed by contingencies that occurred as the object piece was reduced) as well as specific histories of 11 modification to correct damage from use. Furthermore, I argue that the lithic reduction sequence was designed to allow for these kinds of variation.
As I will outline in the next chapter, the users of the specific lithic technological system under study here traversed a relatively large geographic region in order to procure necessary resources. Abundant, high quality chert was only available at one (i.e., the southern) end of this range. Consequently, they employed a lithic reduction system that was specifically designed for the raw material available and a knowledge of how the transported raw material could be used to meet anticipated and unanticipated demands as they traversed this landscape. This reduction sequence was designed so that there was a high degree of predictability in the products of further, future, reduction as well as flexibility to meet alternative requirements or opportunities as they occurred.
Origins of the Model
Below, when the assemblages are presented and discussed, the order of presentation will follow the reduction sequence of the Early Archaic, Kirk Corner-notched (KCN) projectile point horizon, at least as it was practised in south-central Ontario, not the order in which they were found and excavated. In fact, the order of presentation is close to the exact opposite of that in which the assemblages were recovered. Furthermore, many of the ideas and hypotheses included in this analysis were generated as a result of the specific history of investigation. Consequently, it may be of value to discuss this "history of investigation" in order to gain an understanding of how the author's conception of the research problem developed. 12
The first assemblages recovered that are used in this analysis were those of the "Kipling
Cluster" of sites (see Figure 1-1 for the location of sites or site clusters). During the fall of 1989, the Ageing Maple and Thornbush sites were discovered by test pitting and immediately excavated. While the Ageing Maple site proved to be a very small scatter of Onondaga chert flakes and one Hi-Lo projectile point manufactured from Bayport chert (Murray 1991, 1997), the
Thornbush site proved to be larger and included a more robust assemblage of tools in addition to chert flakes. Unfortunately, however, the only artifact approaching a diagnostic was a point base, which was not considered complete enough to be typed. Similarities were noted to another, isolated, projectile point recovered while test pitting leading to the initial assignment of this assemblage as belonging to the Late Archaic Small Point tradition.
In the spring of 1991, this area was returned to and five additional sites were discovered on ploughed portions of the same fields. Two of these sites were excavated that summer while another consulting firm excavated the remainder of the sites at a later date.
During the analysis of the two sites excavated during 1991, a number of significant observations were made. First, with the exception of the Hi-Lo projectile point recovered from
Ageing Maple, and the isolated Late Archaic projectile point discovered during test pitting, all diagnostic projectile points recovered on this property were Early Archaic Kirk Corner-notched points, not unlike those from the Nettling site located in south-western Ontario (Ellis et al. 1991).
Second, a corner-notched biface recovered from one of the sites excavated during 1991 proved to be nearly identical to one of the unnotched bifaces recovered from the Thornbush site (as will be discussed below, however, this is not a KCN biface although I will argue that it was a product of that technological system). Additionally, a number of projectile point bases were recovered during the 1991 excavations which matched both the more complete projectile points recovered 13 from these sites and the base recovered from the Thornbush site. While small, the Thornbush point base exhibited similar flaking patterns to the newly excavated points and was seen to differ from the isolated Late Archaic point. Finally, it was noted that by-products of bifacial reduction dominated the flake assemblages from all these sites. While primary flakes were also recovered, core reduction had not contributed to the formation of the assemblage as too few pieces of shatter and core reduction flakes were present.
From these observations a number of hypotheses were informally adopted. First, the
Thornbush site and the two sites excavated during 1991 all possess enough similarities in the overall assemblage to lead to the conclusion that all were deposited during the Early Archaic,
KCN projectile point horizon. Coupled with the fact that the three additional unexcavated sites had all produced similar projectile points during the surface reconnaissance, it seemed apparent that a significant cluster of Early Archaic sites was present on the property. Furthermore, since these sites appeared to be largely single component, significant insight into Early Archaic lithic technology could be gained by undertaking a more detailed analysis of the recovered artifacts.
Following the initial analysis to meet licensing obligations, it also became apparent that all of the assemblages represent a departure from "typical" chipped lithic assemblages recovered during similar kinds of excavations. Briefly, the chipped lithic assemblages appeared to indicate that a relatively limited but consistent assortment of chert artifacts had been deposited. It was concluded that the artifacts that had been brought to the site area and deposited included worn out and broken tools, biface preforms that had been transformed into replacement tools and relatively large primary flakes that could serve as preforms for a separate set of minimally modified flake tools. The large primary flakes had not been detached from cores at any of these 14 sites, however, but had been manufactured elsewhere and transported as unmodified primary flakes. As such, they could not be considered true expedient flake tools.
Finally, while the three analysed assemblages appear to be relatively consistent with each other, in total, there are some significant differences relative to the assemblage recovered from the Nettling site (Ellis et al. 1991). First, the diversity in assemblage composition could not be considered to be quite as robust as that from the Nettling site but this could not be easily discounted as being the product of sampling since the sites had been excavated as thoroughly as possible (see below). Thus, I conclude that the absence of such tool forms as drills and stone
"tubes" reflect real differences in assemblage composition. Additionally, comparison of the lithic raw materials used to produce these assemblages indicated little evidence of the use of the same kinds of cherts found at the Nettling site.
During the analysis of the Kipling sites, it was learned that another, similar, cluster of sites had been found in the Brampton area (the Wellingdale Cluster in Figure 1-1). Although artifacts from this cluster of sites were not examined until much later, news of this second cluster of sites seemed to indicate that the Kipling cluster of sites was not unique but may be representative of part of an Early Archaic settlement system.
Many years later, and as part of the research leading to this dissertation, an exploratory data analysis was undertaken of the flakes recovered from the Kipling sites. In order to maximise the sample size, broken and otherwise incomplete flakes were systematically
"mended" in order to increase the number of flakes with complete dimensions. Various attributes were then recorded, summarised and compared between the assemblages.
The results of this exercise, which will be presented in detail below, were both surprising and enlightening. A very high degree of similarity was noted between the assemblages in terms of platform metrics, for example. If it could be argued that this uniformity in flaking technique extended beyond what could be inferred to have been produced by one individual then it would be possible to argue that this high degree of uniformity was a component of the lithic reduction system itself.
Another intriguing result that I observed was a new category of biface reduction flakes.
Between 30 and 40% of the biface reduction flakes were observed to share certain, specific attributes. The defining characteristic of these flakes is a dorsal surface consisting of a ridge created by the previous removal of two (rarely three) flakes with parallel lateral margins. The flakes were of variable length with shorter flakes being almost round while longer flakes were progressively ovate to parallel sided. Additionally, many flakes extended farther than the pre existing dorsal flake scars, producing a "Y" pattern of flake scars on the dorsal surface near the termination. Finally, it was observed that in longitudinal profile, the majority of these flakes are flat, indicating that they would have been removed from a relatively wide, thin and flat biface.
These results led to the conclusion that flakes like these seemed most likely to have been produced during the production of bifaces with flaking patterns at least somewhat like parallel ribbon flaking. While such flaking patterns are often postulated for Late Paleoindian and Early
Archaic lithic technologies, none of the shaped tools recovered from the Kipling cluster of sites have this flaking pattern. Indeed, both the broader bifaces and the small projectile points have flaking patterns that could best be described as random. This relatively high proportion of unidirectional, or even "blade-like", biface reduction flakes seemed particularly striking when it is born in mind that biface reduction flakes rarely have been documented to dominate an assemblage. In fact, in my experience, the by-products of core reduction often dominate 16 excavated lithic assemblages although in some cases, core reduction and biface reduction may be equally represented.
A possible solution to this paradox was reached through the following line of reasoning.
I think it possible that the projectile points were randomly flaked because of long term curation and successive resharpening episodes: essentially the "Frison effect" (Jelinek 1976:22).
Fortunately, the archaeological literature contains reference to the results of resharpening of corner-notched projectile points, many of which appear quite similar to some of those found at the Kipling sites (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Rondeau 1996). I would infer then that the projectile points found at the Kipling cluster of sites were worn out after long periods of use and resharpening and thus discarded. Replacement points might have been manufactured from preforms transported to the site area and reduced through a specialised knapping sequence that produced the distinctive biface thinning and trimming flakes. Some of these bifaces may also have been transformed into other tool types such as hafted knives. The relatively large and thin, randomly flaked bifaces also recovered may then have been representative of these biface preforms but the specific examples recovered were rejected for some reason.
A second set of hypotheses was derived from a consideration of the primary flakes recovered from the Kipling sites. As stated above, the debitage assemblage from the Kipling sites was unusual in comparison to others I had observed in the relatively high proportion of biface reduction flakes recovered and the relatively few flakes from core reduction. However, all the assemblages included a small number of larger primary flakes, most of which were broken and/or exhibited evidence of use or modification. No cores or core fragments were recovered that are large enough to have produced these flakes nor are there many flakes that could be inferred to have been produced from trimming and shaping cores. In short, aside from the 17 presence of large primary flakes, there is no solid evidence of core reduction at any of these sites.
Two hypotheses could be offered to account for this pattern: either the sites' occupants had brought specialised cores that required minimal modification during the production of large primary flakes or the large primary flakes had been transported as preforms for smaller, specialised tools.
The resolution of these questions came about upon examination of the material recovered the Empire Greens cluster of sites from south of Hamilton, Ontario. While these sites were not completely excavated, enough was recovered to address some of the hypotheses raised above.
The KCN projectile points recovered from these sites were noticeably larger than those recovered from the Kipling cluster of sites and have a distinctive pattern of flake scars on both faces. These flake scars were produced by basal thinning, which left roughly parallel flake scars extending beyond the corner notches, and lateral thinning, which was also roughly parallel and often extended beyond the middle of the biface producing a relatively thin, plano-convex cross section. Such projectile points would have been thin enough to allow easy penetration and would have been relatively easy to re-sharpen. An unfortunate consequence of this relative thinness, however, would have been susceptibility to breakage. Looking at other examples of
KCN projectile points from a variety of other collections, including those from the Kipling cluster of sites, I noted that many of these points were snapped through the haft between notches.
Re-sharpening broken bifaces like these, particularly from the base to create new notches, would produce smaller points (there-by avoiding the question of "migrating" notches) and an increasingly random flaking pattern.
An additional interesting aspect of these sites is evidence of the production of primary flakes. One concentration of primary flakes, many of them bearing unmistakable evidence of 18 modification, was noted and an examination of the unmodified dorsal surfaces indicates that these had been struck in a parallel direction from the same core. Here, then, was evidence for the presence of specialised core reduction.
At this point, it became apparent that broader questions about the relationship between lithic technology and adaptive strategies could also be addressed. For example, Peter Bleed
(1986) proposed, based on engineering principles, that there might be a dichotomy between tools that were "reliable" vs. those that were "maintainable". In this continuum, tools that are
"reliable" for accomplishing a purpose may require the skills of a specialist for maintenance. On the converse, tools that are "maintainable" may be less efficient at any given task but could be maintained more easily. Seen from the perspective outlined above, the large but thin and flat
KCN bifaces could be considered both reliable in being efficient hunting weapons but also easily maintained. These and similar topics will be returned to in greater detail below.
During the fall of 2001 and the subsequent spring and summer of 2002, two additional
Early Archaic sites were discovered and excavated. Again, the assemblages recovered from these two sites provide insight into the Kirk Corner-notched lithic reduction strategy following the acquisition of chert from primary bedrock sources. Analysis of the material covered from the
Ringtail site (one of the Garth Trails sites in Figure 1-1), located in Ancaster, Ontario, indicates that the occupants of this site had visited a primary outcrop of Onondaga chert and had transported at least one large block of chert to this occupation area. Recovered core fragments and core trimming flakes both supported the inference that specialised primary flake production was undertaken and provided insights into how this was done. Additionally, the assemblage included broken and discarded "broad" bifaces that could have been early stages in the 19 production of the biface preforms mentioned above. Additionally, there are some examples of a
"narrow" biface form.
The narrow biface form proved to be of some interest and so will be discussed further. A small number of fire-shattered biface and flake fragments had been recovered during the excavation of the Kipling 2 site. Ultimately, the majority of these artifacts were mended to produce the distal end and mid-section of a relatively narrow but thick biface. This biface could not have been produced from the other biface preforms because of its obvious greater thickness.
Further, this biface had been heavily re-sharpened bilaterally so that it has an obvious twist when viewed in cross-section from the tip. Interestingly Jacqueline Fisher showed me a similar biface recovered from the excavation of a multi-component site near Cambridge, Ontario. This site had also produced small Kirk Corner-notched projectile points. Again, however, this biface appeared to be the only fire-shattered artifact recovered.
The narrow bifaces from the Ringtail site were thus further evidence for the production of another type of biface in addition to the relatively broad and thin form. Furthermore, unlike the randomly flaked, broad bifaces, the narrow bifaces from the Ringtail site exhibit the flaking patterns seen on Kirk Corner-notched projectile points. Specifically, both the lateral edges and the base of these bifaces were thinned by roughly flat, parallel thinning flakes. Unlike the flatter projectile point preforms, however, these narrow bifaces maintain a thicker, sub-triangular cross- section with the ventral surface having flake scars that cross the median. I suggest that this biface form was manufactured from a long, relatively narrow flake removed from the corner of angular chert blocks.
A second site, the Current site, was excavated a short distance to the north of the Ringtail site on the same property (Garth Trails sites in Figure 1-1). Like the Ringtail site, the Current 20 site assemblage appears to have been produced through the reduction of chert cores and bifaces but no evidence of recently obtained quarry blocks was noted. Core reduction appears to follow the same system observed at the Ringtail site but is inferred to be the result of a later stage in core reduction and the shaping of bifaces. Additionally, several lines of reasoning were followed leading to the conclusion that the site's occupants were maximising what chert they had, including the scavenging of refuse prior to relocation.
On a relatively flat and level portion of the property, just north of the Current site excavation area, a diffuse scatter of chert artifacts was surface collected and test excavated.
Among the artifacts recovered were several smaller projectile point fragments, which appear to be more heavily re-sharpened. Taking all these data into account, it is inferred that the Current site excavation area was a refuse dump and the flatter area to the north was the main occupation area. Given that the Ringtail site is so close to the Current site and that the Ringtail site assemblage can be argued to have been produced immediately following the transportation of at least one large, relatively unmodified block of chert, no argument can be offered that the Current site occupants could not have acquired more chert if they had so desired. Instead, it is argued that the site's occupants anticipated periods when chert conservation would be required and the reduction strategy were designed to make allowances for these periods. In other words, chert conservation was by choice rather than necessity.
In the course of analysing these assemblages, I also noted another peculiar flake "type".
These were struck across the top (i.e., laterally) of a core edge, producing a distinctive triangular cross-section. One side of the crest exhibits parallel, seemingly unidirectional flake scars with the other side of the crest forming the striking platform. The number and regularity of this kind of flake suggests these were not accidental. Re-examining the flakes from the Binbrook sites 21 revealed more examples there. The Ringtail site also produced two conjoining flakes similar to
"core tablets" with a similar striking platform margin along the distal ends. In total, the presence
of these kinds offtakes suggests deliberate patterns of core reduction were used.
One final large assemblage was acquired and analysed over the winter of 2003-2004.
Andrew Murray had informed me of an assemblage, excavated in 1998, which seemed to match those from the Kipling sites. Like the Kipling sites, the Upstairs site seemed to be dominated by biface reduction flakes and had produced a KCN projectile point. When I finally examined the
assemblage, I noted that the assemblage did seem to be dominated by flakes with a dorsal surface much like those from the Kipling sites although the size of the assemblage, at over 5000 flakes, was much higher. Upon closer examination, however, I made two discoveries that I view to be highly significant.
First, while the dorsal surfaces of these flakes do have flake scars indicating a unidirectional flaking patterns like the "Y" flakes from the Kipling cluster of sites, the striking platform, where present, is a flat, unmodified surface. These flakes had actually been removed
from a core in a unidirectional manner.
Secondly, the largest reconstructed biface exhibits parallel flake scars that cross virtually
the entire face of the biface, producing distinctive, flat surfaces. This biface, with minimal
further refinement, would have produced an ideal preform for the larger style of KCN projectile points. What was different, however, was that some of the edges do not have acute angles like bifaces, but are vertical relative to the thickness like core faces. As I interpret this artifact now, it
was a flat, tabular core that had been thinned and flattened by unidirectional flaking, probably to produce parallel-sided flakes for use as tools like those seen at the Kipling and other sites referred to above. However, when this core had been thinned so that the striking platform was 22 almost non-existent and further reduction would have compromised its structural integrity, it was simply transformed into a projectile point preform.
A few additional assemblages were added to this analysis but were not analysed in as great detail. The cluster of sites from the Brampton area, referred to briefly above, is included because they reinforce the pattern of artifacts described for the Kipling cluster. Unfortunately only surface collections are available. What is interesting about these sites is that some of the bifaces and biface reduction flakes were manufactured from a different raw material than the primary flakes. Possible implications of this observation will be considered in Chapters 5 and 6.
Finally, an assemblage from the Mount Hope area (Southampton cluster in Figure 1-1), located to the south of Hamilton, will be briefly examined because it, too, exhibits many of the patterns seen at the Ringtail and Current sites. Similarities include the presence of Kirk Corner- notched projectile points, a narrow biface, the production and use of blade-like flakes and the presence of the distinctive platform preparation flakes referred to above.
In the next section, I will review the literature regarding the history of investigation of the
Early Archaic, focusing on the Kirk Corner-notched (KCN) horizon. However, in order to provide some additional context for understanding the lithic reduction strategy of this horizon, I will also provide an abbreviated review of earlier (i.e., Paleoindian) lithic reduction strategies as well as discuss some of the relevant information concerning the following, Bifurcate Base point
Horizon of the Early Archaic. 23
CHAPTER 2: HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF RESEARCH
In this chapter, two main goals are accomplished. First, I establish the culture-historical context for the assemblages under consideration. Here I focus on the relative dating of the Kirk
Corner-notched (KCN) Projectile Point Horizon in eastern North America (Table 1-1). I also explore in more detail some of the potential problems of using one artifact type (i.e., projectile points) in order to identify assemblages that can be assigned to the KCN Projectile Point
Horizon. Second, I compare this to what has been learned or surmised about the lithic technology of previous, and to a lesser extent, subsequent, technological horizons.
Before proceeding to discuss the KCN Projectile Point Horizon, some consideration should be given to our current taxonomy of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene archaeological complexes in eastern North America. Relatively recently, a broadly based synthesis of the archaeological complexes of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition was published which proposed four main chronological horizons across this region (Ellis et al. 1998). The establishment and definition of these horizons relied on similarities in projectile point morphology over a large geographic area and referred to available chronometric dating to delineate these horizons. Briefly, the earliest is the Fluted Point Horizon, dating between 11,000 and 10,500 years B.P. (Ellis et al. 1998:155-159). Following this horizon is the Unfluted
Lanceolate Point Horizon, dating between 10,500 and 10,000 years B.P. (Ellis et al. 1998:159-
161). Together, these two horizons comprise what most scholars accept to be the Paleoindians.
Following, but to some degree over-lapping the Unfluted Lanceolate Horizon is the Side- notched Point Horizon, which dates between 10,000 and 9,500 years B.P. (Ellis et al. 1998:161).
Finally, the Corner-Notched (here KCN) Point Horizon dates between 9,500 and 9,000 years
B.P. (Ellis et al. 1998:161-162). These latter two horizons are normally attributed to the Early 24
Archaic but bifurcate-base projectile points are also included as well (e.g., Ellis et al. 1990:69).
In order to facilitate this discussion, I have added the Bifurcate Base Point Horizon to the taxonomy presented in Table 1-1 and simply state that this projectile point style and horizon post-dates the KCN Point Horizon (Woodley 1996).
One of the benefits of this taxonomy is that it is applicable over such a vast region.
Additionally, however, it provides a means of avoiding some of the ambiguities entailed by the
"traditional" assignment. Specifically, under the traditional culture chronology, there was considerable ambiguity over how to define the transition between the Paleoindian and Early
Archaic complexes. As will be discussed below, researchers have used a variety of criteria to define this transition.
Given the scope of the Ellis et al. (1998) paper, this classification might gloss over regional differences in assemblage composition, technology and dating. This, in fact, is a relatively common complaint of many (or even all) possible culture classification schemes, particularly when limited aspects of the behavioural repertoire are available or have been studied
(Williamson 1999). The issue of how best to undertake the classification of archaeological cultures/complexes certainly has a long history (e.g., Clarke 1978; Hill and Evans 1972) and is sure to remain a topic of considerable interest. In this dissertation, the use of classification schemes such as these are considered to be an asset in that they allow variation within and between these constructs to be highlighted and explored in more detail. 25
The Fluted Point Horizon
Throughout most of the 20 century, the Fluted Point Horizon has been considered to be the oldest confirmed occupation of the New World. While various sites and assemblages have been offered as representing older occupations (e.g., Raemsch and Vernon 1977 compared to
Cole et al. 1977), few have withstood the critical scrutiny necessary for their acceptance. One such site, the Sheguiandah site on Manitoulin Island, had been offered as being one of these
"pre-Clovis" occupation and quarry sites (Lee 1953, 1954, 1955, 1957) but a recent re examination of the site and the surviving artifacts found no support for this (Julig 2002a:300-
301). Thus, for my purposes, I will proceed from the premise that the Fluted Point Horizon can be accepted as the earliest occupation in southern Ontario.
Almost immediately after the association between extinct fauna and certain varieties of projectile points were noted in the American west (Figgins 1927), interest in this time period spread throughout the continent (Howard 1934). The distinctive "flute" or channel flake removed from the base of nearly finished projectile tips was recognised across the continent including southern Ontario (Jackson et al. 1987). Although there was somewhat of a waning of interest in the Fluted Point Horizon through the 1940's and 1950's, research did continue.
Interest in Paleoindians re-emerged with a synthesis published by R. J. Mason (1962). More geographically extensive surveys were published a decade later in Volumes 10 and 11 of the journal Archaeology of Eastern North America. In Ontario, a comparable survey was published by Charlie Garrad (1971) followed by a site location survey by Brian Deller (1976). Since that time, while site location studies have continued (e.g., Storck 1982), research has shifted to a more site-specific focus. 26
For the purposes of this discussion, research on the Fluted Point Horizon can be divided into two broad categories: technology and settlement patterns. My discussion of the first, technology, will be largely focused on what has been written on the manufacturing or lithic reduction sequence but will also devote some attention to inferences about the reduction strategy.
I distinguish between these two terms because the first, the reduction sequence, may be considered descriptive while the second, the reduction strategy, is interpretive. Included here will be some discussion of chronology since the recognition of sites from this horizon is based almost entirely upon material culture manufactured in specifically identifiable ways. The discussion of settlement patterns includes both the patterning of material culture within specific sites and the distribution of these sites across the landscape. Some attention will be given to subsistence here because it is primarily on the basis of site distribution that the mode of subsistence is inferred.
As noted above, the Fluted Point Horizon is defined as a technological horizon characterised by the presence of bifaces with channel flakes or "flutes" removed from the base.
While there is considerable variation in the plan-shape of these bifaces, the presence of fluted bifaces has now been recognised to span the hemisphere (Lynch 1983; Mayer-Oakes 1984;
Morrow and Morrow 1999). In North America, these bifaces are generally lanceolate-shaped, flaked from the lateral edges and have a flake of variable length removed from the base.
Some have argued that fluting is a product of equi-finality in that multiple different reduction sequences were used to arrive at the same final outcome (Bryan and Tuohy 1999:256;
Lepper 1999:371). While this observation does not allow us to directly refute any of the interpretations of the function of the flute, it does introduce the argument that specific reduction sequences may be useful in identifying different spatial distributions of technological "styles." 27
Whether these possible spatially delimited reduction "styles" represent shared norms for producing a common biface form (i.e., the fluted points) or are the product of some constraint such as the nature of the raw material, will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Certainly, in eastern North America, considerable attention has been given to the reduction sequence that resulted in the production of fluted bifaces (e.g., Callahan 1979) which, for Ontario, has been best described by Ellis (1984 but see also Deller and Ellis 1992a:30-34;
Roosa and Ellis 2000:83-86; Shott 1993:94-96 and Storck 1997:53-64). Of greater interest here, however, has been the discussions concerning how biface production was integrated with all aspects of core reduction and other tools were manufactured from specific by-products of these reduction sequences. In order to review what is known about the technology of the Fluted Point
Horizon, I will organise it in terms of the reduction sequence.
Almost from the beginning of studies of the Fluted Point Horizon in Ontario, it was recognised that fluted point producers had preferentially employed a distinctive chert type, known as "Collingwood" chert. While other raw materials such as Onondaga and Bayport cherts had also been used, the presence of Collingwood chert itself became almost a culture-historic diagnostic in some places (Deller 1979:6).
Following a focused search, outcrop locations of this material were located and documented and full descriptions of the raw material and its host rock formation have been published (Eley and von Bitter 1989; Storck and von Bitter 1981, 1989; von Bitter and Eley
1997). Although quarry sites have been found, there has as yet been no description of the actual quarry extraction process. As has been noted (Deller and Ellis 1992a: 13), primary reduction activities appear to be limited to sites in the immediate vicinity of the chert outcrops and at least one of these has been excavated (Storck et al. 1998). 28
Some statements can be made about the sequences of core reduction and tool production because of the banded nature of the raw material. The banding of Collingwood chert allows for the orientation of flakes and tools in relation to the original core to be reconstructed, thereby allowing the directions of flaking to be determined. Peter Storck (1997:47-51) has described the small cores recovered from the Fisher site as being exhausted flake cores, not intended to have become bifaces. Flaking on these cores was opportunistic with any suitable surface used as a striking platform. Nonetheless, it is evident that some planning went into the entire process of core reduction. We have two lines of evidence at our disposal here. First, there are repeated patterns of flake removal in relation to tabular surfaces of quarry blocks. Second, there are repeated patterns in the orientation of finished tools relative to the distinctive banding observable in Collingwood chert. This patterning is also seen on flakes produced during the refining and refurbishing of tools. These patterns have allowed several distinctive reduction sequences to be summarised and published (Deller 1989; Deller and Ellis 1992a:13-24; Ellis 1984:61-130; Ellis and Deller 2000:44-66; Shott 1993:94-103).
Perhaps the most significant conclusion drawn from this work is that the Paleoindians followed consistent patterns of lithic reduction but that they were also flexible and somewhat opportunistic. We can characterise the two of the goals of Paleoindian lithic reduction as the production of bifaces and the production of flakes that could be used as expedient tools or as blanks for the production of more formalised implements. I would also draw attention to the observation that biface blanks were produced from both reduced cores and from large flakes preferentially struck vertically down the face of a core (Roosa and Ellis 2000:79, 83-86).
Table 2-1 was prepared providing rounded off numbers of selected artifact categories for each of three published Paleoindian sites: Fisher (Storck 1997), Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000) 29 and Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a). "Undifferentiated" flakes dominate the Fisher site
(Storck 1997:16). It is likely that many of these undifferentiated flakes were produced through the reduction of the relatively exhausted cores to produce flakes usable as tool blanks or minimally modified flake tools (Storck 1997:276). On the other hand, the assemblages from
Parkhill and Thedford II, located at a greater distance from the chert outcrops, do not include any cores but are dominated by flakes derived from the production and maintenance of tools. Chert artifacts brought to these sites included the active tool kits and unfinished blanks and preforms to create replacement tools (see also Woodley 2004).
One question that can be raised is why unfinished tool blanks and preforms were carried to sites distant from raw material sources. Unfinished tools by definition include extraneous material (i.e., unnecessary weight) and have an inherent risk of breaking while being finished.
That there was risk is born out by the presence of artifacts that reflect manufacturing errors in the assemblages from Parkhill and Thedford II as well as some tools that actually broke during finishing. So the question then becomes, why were these not finished closer to the outcrops?
A number of reasons have been offered for why unfinished tools were transported distances away from the outcrops. First of all, unfinished tools have a greater mass in length, width and thickness which serves to make them sturdier and therefore more capable of withstanding accidental shocks and blows that can come about during travel. But there are other reasons as well. As noted by Kelly (1988), preforms can also serve as more heavy duty tools, such as choppers and cleavers (Shott 1993:96). Additionally, the reduction of these kinds of bifaces produces flakes that can serve as tools (Kuhn 1994). This prediction is born out by the recovery of utilised bifacial reduction flakes at both Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000:65) and
Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a:77). Furthermore, by not detaching them from object pieces, 30 no extra care is required to ensure that edges remain sharp and no commitment has been made as to which tool type will be produced. Thus, the extra weight and risk of failure is offset by the advantages of flexibility (Perles 1992; Schlanger 1994).
In general, this strategy is observable in assemblages from throughout the span of the
Fluted Point Horizon from the Gainy through to the Holcombe "substages" including very small assemblages (e.g., Jackson 1998a, 2001; Timmins 1994; Woodley 2004). As a strategy, it has also been widely reported throughout the Northeast (Morrow 1997; Mournier, et al. 1993; Speiss and Heddon 2000) and, accordingly, we can surmise that it was an effective one.
A point that I want to emphasise here is that "blanks" and "preforms" include two distinctly different kinds of artifacts. The most commonly discussed category here is the variably reduced bifaces, particularly those that were ultimately transformed into fluted bifaces.
As discussed by Kelly (1988), these could have served a variety of functions before being transformed into finished projectile points. Perhaps more common are flake blanks that were also transformed into tools. Given their overall abundance, clearly the use of these latter kinds of tools was also of importance in the subsistence pursuits of the Paleoindians.
A set of questions that seems to naturally follow from this line of thought relates to the relationship between flake-blank production and biface shaping. Clearly, when flakes are removed from bifaces, it is difficult to infer that their production is anything but a direct component of the manufacture and/or shaping of bifaces and advance planning for flake removal would have played a role in the design of the biface reduction strategy. This planning would have begun in the initial reduction of raw chert blocks. The corner flake blanks described in
Ellis and Deller (2000:48-49) provide a clear example of this as the removal of these corner flakes would have had an impact on all subsequent flake detachments from those chert blocks as 31 well as the bifaces produced. The removal of corner flakes allows for greater control of the size and shape of large spalls removed from the face of the chert block. However, flakes for use as tool blanks also appear to have been produced independently of biface production and the cores described by Storck for the Fisher site serve as examples here.
Ellis and Deller (2002:25-28) have raised the possibility that Paleoindians in southern
Ontario employed highly standardised core reduction systems that may, at times at least, be termed "blade" production. The definition here refers to planned unidirectional flake removal and does not imply any necessary relationship between length and width. This definition allows for blade production taking many forms (Ferring 1988, Yerkes 1994) and need not be confined to the use of cylindrical blade cores (e.g., Torrence 1979). (However, I will make minimal use of the term "blade" in this dissertation because, for many, the definition is too closely bound to the ratio of length and width, rather than the pattern of detachment, and I do not find this criterion to be informative.)
In addition to technology, we also have information regarding the spatial distribution of
Paleoindian sites. Many of the better-known Paleoindian sites actually consist of site clusters
(Spiess et al. 1998). While some of these clusters of artifacts may represent functional differentiation within a hunter-gatherer camp, comparison of assemblage diversity between clusters does not fully support this (Deller and Ellis 1992a; Ellis and Deller 2000; Storck 1997).
Consequently, these clusters probably indicate the presence of multiple occupations. If it can be argued that at least some of these separate occupations were contemporaneous, and not the product of serial reoccupation, then we can begin to explore ideas about group interaction.
Unfortunately, demonstrating contemporaneity at this scale is extremely difficult. 32
Aside from intra-site spatial patterning, we have the evidence of the distribution of sites across the landscape (Jackson and McKillop 1991). Since Brian Deller's (1976) paper discussing the location of Paleoindian sites in relation to pro-glacial lake shorelines, these kinds of environments became a focus in the search for fluted point sites. While many of the larger sites have been found near glacial features, other, usually smaller, sites have been found away from them (e.g., Timmins 1994). Documenting the range and location of Paleoindian occupations serves as a means of investigating the kinds of subsistence pursuits engaged in during this technological horizon (Storck 1982).
A considerable amount of attention has been given to the topic of raw material selection and the occurrence of "exotic" raw materials on Paleoindian sites. In Ontario, at times the selection of raw materials has been used to infer aspects of seasonality (Storck 2004:125-126).
Elsewhere, however, the nature of raw material selection has been used to interpret sites as representing colonising occupations (Curran 1999; Gramly and Funk 1990:8). I think it inadvisable to attempt to argue for either one or the other of these possible hypotheses, however, given the scarcity of surviving faunal and botanical remains (Storck and Speiss 1994).
Alternatively, the presence of exotic raw materials probably also reflects broader social factors such as creating and maintaining kinship ties over large areas (Anderson 1995; Service 1966:14).
In summary, the Fluted Point Horizon appears to represent the material culture of the earliest occupants of southern Ontario. Although population levels at this time may have been relatively low, occupations are identified based on the presence of distinctive styles of bifaces and, in some regions, the use of distinctive chert types. The specific selection of chert types probably reflects a number of constraints such as what was available, given water levels in the
Great Lakes at the time, and what sources were known, given that these were relative new- 33 comers to the region. The selection of chert types was also likely influenced by seasonal availability in that, if a seasonal round were followed, specific chert types simply may not have been at hand in some seasons.
Fluted Point manufacture has been argued to be the product of multiple reduction sequences and there is patterned variation that has been used to detect chronological variation.
As with many other parts of the continent, the primary subsistence focus of the Fluted Point
Horizon appears to have been "big-game" hunting (Mason 1962) although other resources were undoubtedly also exploited (Storck and Spiess 1994). Many of the sites assigned to this technological horizon have been argued to have allowed for the interception of migrating caribou herds (Jackson and McKillop 1991). In part, this may account for why some sites may have been reoccupied frequently despite a relative lack of other constraints on the location of settlements.
Unfluted Lanceolate Point Horizon
In comparison to the Fluted Point Horizon, the following Unfluted Lanceolate Point
Horizon is characterised by an increased regional diversity in projectile point styles. Below I will discuss the various regional point styles from south to north, emphasising the continuity and change with the Fluted Point Horizon.
Dalton projectile points are distributed throughout most of the southeast but appear to be rare in the east (Ellis et al. 1998:159; Justice 1987:35). None-the-less, examples of Dalton points have been reported from surface collections in New York (Smith, et al. 1998:10-11), the 34
"Delmarva" peninsula (Lowery 2002:39-40), Maryland (Wesler 1983:22) and Pennsylvania
(Custer 1996:129; Fogelman 1988:35).
Throughout much of the southern Great Lakes, the Late Paleoindian, or Unfluted
Lanceolate Projectile Point Horizon, is characterised by Hi-Lo points. The Late Paleoindian Hi-
Lo point type and associated complex was initially identified by James Fitting (1963 a, 1963b) at
an archaeological site in Michigan and the range of this point form was extended into Ontario by
Chris Ellis and Brian Deller (1982). While the Hi-Lo complex in Ontario is still known primarily from surface collections (Bursey 1998; Jackson 2004:30, 47-48), a small number of
excavated assemblages are now published (Deller and Ellis 2001; Ellis 2004a; Ellis and Deller
2002; Muller 1989; Parker 1986a, 1986b; Timmins 1995; Woodley 1997). Additionally, a
synthesis has recently been published (Ellis 2004b).
No Hi-Lo sites in stratified contexts have been excavated and there are no radiocarbon dates reported from Hi-Lo contexts. Dating of Hi-Lo, therefore, is based on morphological
similarities to the Dalton of the southeast and geoarchaeological reasoning. The geoarchaeological evidence, however, provides us only with terminus post quern dates (Ellis and
Deller 1986).
The similarities between Hi-Lo and Dalton have been summarised in depth (Ellis
2004b:70-72; Ellis and Deller 1982:16-17) and there is no need to repeat this. However, in the history of northeastern archaeology, similar kinds of arguments have, in the past, proven problematic. Specifically, the "Satchell Complex", which included a morphologically similar lanceolate point type made from argillite or greywacke (Fitting 1970:57-60), was initially placed in the Late Paleoindian on this basis. The "Satchell Complex" was subsequently found to date to the Late Archaic (Kenyon 1978, 1979, 1980a, 1980b), illustrating the danger of basing 35 chronology on point morphology alone. While I in no way dispute the assignment of the Hi-Lo complex to the Late Paleoindian, this example serves as a further cautionary tale about using biface morphology as a means of relative dating.
The general nature of Hi-Lo lithic technology has been summarised by Ellis (2004b) but some further insights can be offered on the basis of personal observations from various sources.
Specifically, I was involved in the analysis of the Witz and Koeppe II site assemblages (Woodley
1997); I am in the process of analysing a large assemblage of material from the Murray 2 site that has turned up since my initial report on this site (Bursey 1998); I have examined the tools and cores from the Allen site courtesy of Bud Parker (1986a, 1986b); and have examined a large number of avocational and CRM collections. A full description and discussion of this material is beyond the scope of this dissertation but I will provide some further details that may be of relevance.
As Ellis (2004b:59-61) has noted, Haldimand chert, quarried from Lower Devonian Bois
Blanc limestone, was the preferred raw material of this time period. Other cherts were also used, however, and Onondaga formation chert may even be slightly more common in assemblages further away from the Niagara peninsula.
The lithic technological system was oriented towards the manufacture and use of bifaces.
Bifaces are commonly heavily resharpened or transformed into other functional tool types (Ellis
2004b:62). Biface reduction flakes were also commonly recycled as minimally modified flake tools. Of note is the observation that resharpened bifaces and utilised flake tools exhibit little or no effort to remove the central mass of the biface, maintaining a pronounced biconvex cross section. Thus, while the detachment of flakes in order to resharpen the edge or tip occurred, it is also possible that bifaces and even hafted points may have served as cores for the production of 36 flakes (Ellis and Deller 2002). It should be noted, however, that the possibly ritually deposited bifaces from the Caradoc site may have been intended to be transformed into more mundane biface forms. In short, Hi-Lo bifaces may be an ideal example of the three potential functions of bifaces proposed by Kelly (1988) and evidence for this was observed on some of the Murray 2 bifaces (Bursey 1998).
In addition to bifaces and tools derived from bifaces, evidence of other reduction sequences is also present. The Murray 2 assemblage, for example, includes endscrapers manufactured directly from relatively blocky chert pieces. Given that this site is located a relatively short distance from Haldimand chert outcrops and the Allen site (Parker 1986a and b), it should not be surprising that there is abundant evidence of opportunistic use of chert pieces that were abandoned at the site. Minimally modified, perhaps in this case truly expedient, flake tools are also abundant in the Murray 2 assemblage, numbering in the hundreds. Indeed, we can predict that the more well made chert cores, blanks and preforms will be relatively under- represented because these would have been transported for use at more distant sites. "Distance" in this case should not be strictly equated with geographical distance, however, because Pearce
(2001, 2002) has been investigating a large site on the west side of Brantford that is also producing large amounts of Haldimand chert. That very large amounts of raw material were evident at this site suggests that the Late Paleoindian Hi-Lo using people were making effective use of the Grand River as a transportation corridor.
Ellis and Deller (2002:25-28) suggest that the Late Paleoindian knappers might have been deliberately shaping cores for the production of flake blanks that could have been used as tools.
The role of bifaces as cores was briefly discussed above and the presence of random-platform flake cores is recognised but the question of cores for unidirectional flake removal remains to be 37 addressed. Bud Parker's assemblage from the Allen site includes long, parallel-sided flakes that could be classified as blades. What is less clear, however, is whether these were produced through a standardised pattern of core reduction specifically designed to produce this kind of flake or whether these were produced as a by-product of the production of bifaces and/or random-flake cores. Haldimand chert tends to occur in small to medium sized blocky chunks, seldom more than 10 cm in maximum dimension so any attempt to thin and shape these blocks can easily produce seemingly long, parallel sided flakes. Nonetheless, these kinds of flakes were certainly exploited for tool production and tools made from this kind of flake blank are a regular occurrence in Hi-Lo assemblages.
The distribution of Hi-Lo sites appears to be confined to the drainages of the lower Great
Lakes. Stothers, for example, refers to Hi-Lo assemblages in Ohio but notes that Dalton points have been noted in the mid-Lower Maumee study area (Stothers 1996:178, 181, 188-194).
Unfortunately, the description of these assemblages is confined to the morphology of surface collected bifaces so little information on the lithic technology is available. A similar problem exists for the Hi-Lo projectile points identified in northeast Indiana (White 2006). To the north, possible Hi-Lo projectile points are illustrated by Quimby (1960:36) but there is little information on the relationship between these examples and the more northern Late Paleoindian technological systems to be described next.
The history of research on northern Late Paleoindians may be as long or longer than that of the Dalton horizon. Certainly, as mentioned above, Quimby (1960) referred to the "Aqua-
Piano" tradition or culture in the Upper Great Lakes and much of his synthesis was based on the earlier works of people like Greenman (1943, 1955), Lee (1953, 1954, 1955, 1957) and
MacNeish (1952). Since this time, research and publication has been sporadic but includes 38 important contributions by Fox (1975, 1979a), Julig (1984, 1994) and Hinshelwood (2004).
Outside of Ontario, studies include those of Harrison (et al. 1995) and Phillips and Hill (2004) in
Minnesota and Anderson (et al. 2004) in Michigan. Additionally, a large multi-disciplinary research effort was directed towards re-examining the Sheguiandah site on Manitoulin Island and clarified the dating of the earliest occupations of this site as being Late Paleoindian (Julig
2002b). Among the more interesting recent results has been the determination that the northern
Late Palaeo-Indians could have entered the Upper Great Lakes region as early as 9500 B.P. +/-
100 (Hinshelwood 2004:227; Phillips and Ross 1995) or earlier. Dates older than 8000 B.P. have been obtained from buried soil horizons containing artifacts (Pilon and Dalla Bona 2004) and human bone (Hamilton 2004) further to the north. Consequently it appears possible that at least some northern Paleoindians post-date the Hi-Lo occupations of southern Ontario and are contemporaneous with the KCN projectile point horizon, which is the subject of this study, and possibly later technological horizons.
Julig's (1994) study of the Cummins site provides the most detailed examination of the technological organisation for this tradition. The Cummins site was situated to exploit outcrops of jasper-taconite for the production of both bifaces and flakes for use as other tools and his study documents patterns in lithic reduction. Julig notes that there is a degree of opportunism in the production of bifaces with three alternate reduction sequences observed based on the object piece used: bifacial cores, tabular pieces and large flakes (Julig 1994:215). This is consistent with what was noted for both the Fluted Point and Hi-Lo reduction sequences.
In addition to bifacially retouched tools, Julig (1994:215) reports a large and diverse assemblage of unifacially retouched flakes. While there appears to be little use of bifacial reduction flakes as unifacial tools in this assemblage (Julig 1994:107), I would predict these 39 would be more commonly observed on sites more distant from the raw material outcrops. Julig does report the unifacial retouch of tabular pieces and blade-like flakes (Julig 1994:107) although he also notes that blade cores are rare (Julig 1994:99). A certain amount of caution is needed here because blade cores, if they were produced, may well have been selectively removed for exploitation at more distant sites or become more informally shaped cores through reduction.
Additionally, we should also be cautious about what we expect to find as blade cores. It is worth noting that cylindrical blade cores and blades were reported from the Sheguiandah site (Julig and
Mahaney 2002:117; Lee 1955:Figures 31-33) and so should not be unexpected for this technological horizon.
While above I have noted some similarities to Hi-Lo and other Paleoindian technological complexes, when considering the "style" of the northern Late Paleoindian projectile points, the strongest similarities are to the west with Late Paleoindian "Plano"-type points. Ritchie
(1980:16-19) had argued that Upper Great Lakes bifaces exhibited close similarities to those from more western assemblages and noted the presence of similar points in the St. Lawrence valley. Wright (1979:23-25) extended the distribution to the Gaspe Peninsula (see also Wright
1972:13-18; 1995:99-100) and suggested it was a result of an eastward migration along the edge of the glaciers. In southern Ontario, Piano-style projectile points appear to be clustered along the area now known as the Holland Marsh but other lone examples have been documented further to the southwest (Jackson 2004:31). While the mechanisms that led to this stylistic distribution may well be debated, there appears to be consensus that the northern Late Paleoindian point styles show their greatest similarities were to the west (Storck 2002:152) and not to Hi-Lo or
Dalton. While the three major technological traditions described above (i.e., Dalton, Hi-Lo and
Northern Piano) cover most of eastern North America, two additional point styles in the general study area are worth some consideration. The "Madina" complex was first described by Brian
Deller (1988:291-300) and has since been elaborated upon by Gordon Dibb (2004). On the basis of what little is known, the Madina complex appears to exhibit some continuity with the Fluted
Point horizon in terms of the over-all lithic technology. Stylistically, finished projectile points appear to constitute a blend between late Fluted Point Holcombe and Unfluted Lanceolate Piano styles.
Much less known are "Plainville" points (Jackson 1998b, 2004). Jackson notes that these points do not appear to closely resemble Hi-Lo points but instead resemble Holcombe forms
(Jackson 2004:46). Collectively, then, Madina and Plainville assemblages may reflect evolutionary trajectories from a Holcombe base that were somehow different from what led to the Hi-Lo style. To varying degrees, some form of stylistic diffusion from the northern Piano- users may be part of the cause of this variation. I would suggest, however, that we know too little at this point to fully evaluate these complexes.
While there seem to be major geographic variations in the style of projectile points seen in various parts of eastern North America, there are also similarities. While there are obviously different stylistic trajectories in the development of the different bifacial projectile points involved, all complexes appear to be derived from preceding Fluted Point styles. In all cases, researchers argue that early-stage bifaces may have served as bifacial cores for detaching flakes that could be used as tools. Later stage biface production, however, is more frequently characterised by the presence of smaller flake scars that appear to have smoothed the surface of the biface without removing the central mass. It is possible that this last series of small flake 41 scars was intended to improve the penetrating ability of the projectile point while still leaving it relatively thick in order to maintain a degree of durability. Hi-Lo points may represent a variation from this pattern in that some heavily reworked points exhibit relatively large flake scars allowing the suggestion that late-stage bifaces may have been used as cores for usable flakes.
Hi-Lo and the northern Piano technological systems, at least, also appear to have been somewhat opportunistic in the reduction sequences that produced bifaces. In both, bifaces appear to have been produced from bifacial cores, large flakes deliberately produced from core reduction and from the reduction of conveniently sized and shaped tabular pieces collected at raw material outcrops. Thus, while it can be inferred that a specific product (i.e., an appropriately reduced biface) was intended from the reduction system, there was considerable flexibility in how that product was produced.
The Late Paleoindian complexes in eastern North America are not fully biface-based technological systems however, in that flake tools are also of considerable importance.
Furthermore, while tools made from bifacial reduction flakes are certainly of importance (and I would suspect this would be more the case on sites situated further from raw material sources), many tools were manufactured in separate reduction sequences. Certainly, for both Hi-Lo and northern Piano complexes, tools made from conveniently sized and shaped tabular pieces are common but flake tools made from random and blade or blade-like reduction processes also occur. We should expect that these were likely heavily curated and that sites located at increasing distances from raw material sources would be characterised by less discarded material. The Area C component of the Welke-Tonkonoh site, producing only 17 unmodified flakes from 16 one-metre squares (Ellis 2004a: 14), serves as an example. We should also expect 42 that such sites would be less visible archaeologically or at least less likely to be excavated under conditions typical of CRM projects.
There is also clear evidence of divergence between the regions. While Dalton, Hi-Lo and the northern Piano styles all appear to be derived from earlier fluted point styles, each regional tradition reflects this origin in different ways. The northern Piano styles, for example, appear more similar to western plains' styles of Late Paleoindian projectile points while Hi-Lo and
Dalton appear to reflect in situ derivation. Why these style divergences appear is a different kind of question. Some of this explanation may be partly related to functional considerations.
Certainly while Late Paleoindians likely were still heavily exploiting "large package" migratory game animals, possibly including now-extinct or extirpated species, precisely which species were exploited would have varied between (and possibly within) these large regions. Thus, part of the explanation for the appearance of the regional styles may relate to other processes that cannot be fully accounted for through environmental factors.
Changes in the selection of raw material will also need to be taken into account. In southern Ontario, for example, Haldimand chert appears to have been intensively exploited for the first time during this horizon although the other main chert types, Onondaga and Bayport, had been in use since the Fluted Point horizon. Haldimand chert does not outcrop in massive deposits like at least some of the cherts used by Dalton point users so the same large sized projectile points and bifaces should not be expected (the large Caradoc bifaces (Ellis and Deller
2002) not-withstanding). This may have been why the thicker, more "chunky" style of the Hi-Lo point was adopted since these could have served as cores for flake tools.
My point here is that differences in the nature and availability of suitable raw material also needs to be considered in assessing the meaning of different projectile point styles. Why the 43
Late Paleoindian Hi-Lo point users chose to use Haldimand chert is a topic of continued interest in the northeast. We should expect the advantages of using new chert types would have been apparent to these people. Upon discovery of a new chert type, considerable less energy would have been required to exploit outcrop and secondary deposits of material. Quite simply, previously unexploited outcrops would require little intensive quarrying to obtain large supplies of relatively high quality material although this does not necessarily imply that the users would have been "wasteful" (Gramly and Yahnig 1991). This ease of exploitation does not preclude additional, possibly ideological considerations in the choice of chert types (Ellis 2004b).
Additional factors might also be taken into account for the increase in regional diversity in projectile point styles. The common use of fluting across the continent in the previous technological horizon does imply recent common origins as well as some possibility of shared norms of some kind and possible long-range lines of communication even though there is some evidence of fluting resulting from different reduction sequences {contra Bryan and Tuohy
1999:256). Still, by the Unfluted Lanceolate Projectile Point Horizon, there are distinctive regional differences in projectile point style, indicating that different reduction sequences and different attached "constellations of knowledge" (Sinclair 2000) had developed. As reduction sequences within and between these broad traditions become better described and discussed, we should develop more solid means of explaining these variations.
Before moving on, however, it is worth turning our attention to Ellis' (2004b:72-77) discussion of the appearance of shallow side-notches on some Hi-Lo bifaces. While Ellis rejected the idea of using the appearance of this trait alone as a rationale for classifying these sites as Early Archaic, he does note that there have been some suggestions that this might be advisable. The shallow side-notches observed on some Hi-Lo projectile points may indicate a 44 change in hafting technology but this might be debated given the absence of supporting evidence from the perishable hafts themselves. However, I do not believe it is advisable to use a single trait like this to support a taxonomic revision unless and until we have clear evidence that there were similar kinds of changes in other aspects of the surviving material culture. While taxonomic revisions may become necessary as we learn more about these time periods, such revisions to our classification systems need to be clearly thought through.
Side-Notched Point Horizon
Throughout much of eastern North America, an Early Archaic Side-Notched projectile point horizon follows the Late Paleoindian Unfluted Lanceolate Projectile Point Horizon (Ellis et al 1998:161). While this horizon is slowly becoming better known in the southeast (Sherwood et al. 2004; Wyckoff 1985), it is debatable whether this technological horizon exists in the lower
Great Lakes region as a discrete "phase" or "stage".
Several Ontario researchers have tentatively identified "diagnostic" Early Archaic side- notched projectile point types such as "St. Charles" (Justice 1987:57-58). For example, Jackson and Morrison (1997) identified several examples on a ploughed multi-component site in
Ancaster, Ontario. Similarly, Paul Lennox (2000) identified several bifaces as possible St.
Charles points from an assemblage that also includes Fluted Point Horizon flake tools.
Unfortunately, in neither case can we be sure that the bifaces represent a distinctive occupation of this chronological horizon because the sites are multi-component and it is possible that these are tools from other horizons that simply look like St. Charles diagnostics. 45
A similar kind of problem occurs with the evaluation of "Thebes points" (Abel 1990;
Justice 1987:54-57) in the region. Many, seemingly following the "Coe Axiom" (Dumont and
Dumont 1979:39) of "one point = one culture," argue that Thebes points represent a distinctive cultural/technological horizon probably best assigned to the Early Archaic Side-Notched Point
Horizon. However, there is growing evidence that at least some of the bifaces classified as
Thebes points are better considered to be another form of hafted biface that belongs with different technological horizons such as the KCN Projectile Point Horizon (Morrow 1996). As will be illustrated in Chapter 5 and discussed in Chapter 6, that is the interpretation of these bifaces preferred here.
In summary, the Side Notched Horizon is estimated to date between 10,000 and 9,500
B.P. However, given what little information we have regarding this time period it is possible that this horizon may not extend into the lower Great Lakes region as a discrete entity. At this time, we cannot rule out that some of the possible early side-notched bifaces may be other hafted tools associated with other technological horizons. Finally, it is also possible that some acceptable Early Archaic Side-Notched points may represent contact with more southern populations of hunter-gatherers.
The Kirk Corner-Notched Point Horizon
The Early Archaic Kirk Corner-notched (KCN) Projectile Point Horizon will form the main subject of this dissertation and so will be given greater attention here. In the decades since this technological horizon was first discovered and described there has been an explosion in the amount of information that has become available, particularly in the southeastern United States. 46
This dramatic increase in information has been employed in a number of regional syntheses and debates have emerged based on the inference of group territories and regional settlement systems.
As stated in the introductory chapter, the understanding of the Early Archaic occupations in the northeast was long hampered by the idea that the region may have been unoccupied following the (presumed) exodus of Paleoindians. Shortly after the recognition of the relative age of the Fluted Point Horizon, William A. Ritchie (1932) introduced the "Archaic" as a term in the northeast to describe an early hunting and gathering way of life following his excavations at the Lamoka Lake site in New York (see also Ritchie 1980:31). With so little known at the time about the "Early Man" or Fluted Point Horizon, however, syntheses tended to leave this stage or horizon out of the discussions and the Lamoka was often considered to be the first Archaic horizon in the northeast (e.g., Ritchie 1938:108-109 but see also Ford and Willey 1941). As initially conceived, this stage or horizon was relatively homogenous with relatively little change through time. In part this conception was the result of a paradigmatic outlook of the time (e.g.,
Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff 1974) but the general lack of knowledge regarding processes of change and a more refined chronology was certainly a major factor.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, evidence from excavations began to mount and variation between various Archaic complexes was noted. By 1959, Douglas Byers was able to state that "(t)he Archaic stage is no more a distinct and precise chronological unit with uniform continent-wide limits than is the period of contact with European explorers" (Byers 1959:234).
While most of Byers discussion dealt with variation across space, reference to Fowler's accompanying paper on the Modoc Rock Shelter in Illinois (Fowler 1959) led to the recognition of an Early Archaic horizon stratigraphically above a Late Paleoindian Dalton horizon. 47
An Early Archaic horizon was thus acknowledged in the mid-continent although researchers did not recognise its presence in the northeast. As recently as 1980, for example,
Ritchie would only extend the Archaic of the lower Great Lakes back to the Middle Archaic
Vergennes phase (Ritchie 1980:xviii-xix, xxx-xxi, 32-33). Both Ritchie and James Fitting, a prominent archaeologist based in Michigan, argued that the carrying capacity of the northeast was too low to support significant populations (Fitting 1970:67; Ritchie 1965:16; see also Fitting
1968; Ritchie 1971a). Nonetheless, some were suggesting that a relatively early, post-fluted point horizon characterised by corner-notched projectile points, might be present and either influenced or derived from southern sources (Shane 1967:130-133).
The publication of three monographs reporting on excavations of stratified sites in the eastern United States changed this perspective. First, Joffre Coe published data from three stratified sites in North Carolina with Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic components (Coe 1964).
Included in this study were detailed descriptions of a number of projectile point types including the Hardaway-Dalton, and Kirk and Palmer Corner Notched points. Additionally, a number of radiocarbon dates were included, establishing the respective ages of the associated assemblages.
In 1971, Bettye Broyle's monograph on the St. Alban's site in West Virginia was published
(Broyles 1971), again reporting on excavations of stratified deposits containing Early Archaic assemblages. These deposits also produced organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating.
Finally, in 1974, William M. Gardner published a monograph on a series of stratified sites in the
Shenandoah Valley in northern Virginia (Gardner 1974). These sites consisted of stratified deposits spanning the Fluted Point Horizon through to the Early and Middle Archaic.
Additionally, Gardner proposed a community and settlement pattern for the Fluted Point through to Corner-notched Horizons, based on a postulated tethering to chert resources. As a result, 48
Gardner considered all to belong to the same cultural pattern (Gardner 1974, 1977, 1983, 1987,
1989). Collectively, these sites established a stratigraphic relationship spanning the Fluted Point
Horizon through to the Middle Archaic and carbon dates for the Early Archaic Corner-notched
Horizon spanning from approximately 9,800 B.P. to 8,900 B.P. (not calibrated).
Once the Early Archaic projectile point types were defined from stratigraphic settings, recognition of these styles from surface contexts quickly spread throughout the northeast. James
Tuck (1974) provided a synthetic overview and speculated on how far north the distribution of some of these point types would be while James V. Wright (1978) extended the discussion into
Ontario. Enough interest in the Early Archaic was generated by this time to dedicate an entire issue of The Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological Association to the topic (Brennan
1979). While diagnostic bifaces from stratigraphic contexts were reported, opinions differed on how extensive occupations in the northeast might have been.
Large-scale excavations further south, particularly those targeted towards late Pleistocene and early Holocene deposits, continued to provide a rich body of data. Excavations conducted in advance of the construction of the Tellico Reservoir on the Tellico and Tennessee Rivers in eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1994) revealed stratified deposits with occupations dating from the
Early to the Late Archaic (Chapman 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1985). The results of these excavations did much to further the understanding of Early Archaic assemblage composition and provided more radiocarbon dates to help refine the chronology. One additional, significant result of these investigations was the questioning of the stratigraphic relationships between varieties of
KCN projectile points. Broyles (1971) and Coe (1964) had proposed that chronological subdivisions of the Early Archaic KCN deposits at St. Albans were possible on the basis of the size of projectile points. More recent investigations have found that these chronological 49 relationships do not hold (Kimball 1996:157-158; Smith 1995) and, hence, the size of projectile points could not be used as a criterion for establishing relative chronological subdivisions within the KCN Horizon.
Although in southern Ontario KCN and similar point types were being recognised in surface collections (e.g., Roberts 1985), the first publication of a large assemblage of Early
Archaic, KCN materials was the surface collections from the Nettling site (Ellis et al. 1991).
While no excavations had been undertaken there, a large assemblage of materials had been recovered over the years by an avocational archaeologist and this has served as the core of knowledge about this time period in southern Ontario (Ellis et al. 1990:73-78). Excavations from several smaller sites have been published since (Dodd 1997; Ellis and Deller 1991; Wilson et al. 1997) but there has been no synthesis of the results of these investigations beyond site- specific contexts.
The Nettling site is located in southwestern Ontario not far from the north shore of Lake
Erie (Ellis et al. 1991). Over 1600 tools of various types have been collected and reported (Ellis et al. 1991) and more detailed analyses of aspects of the assemblage have begun to appear
(McMillan 2003). Because the Nettling site material was recovered from ploughed contexts without either secure stratigraphic context or associated radiocarbon dates, dating of the assemblage was based on the presence of specific attributes found in common with other Early
Archaic artifact assemblages (Ellis et al. 1991:23-24). While some of the artifact forms, such as the projectile points, may share some attributes with those of other time periods (e.g., Kenyon
1989), the chronological placement of the Nettling site material was based on multiple tool types
(Ellis et al. 1991:24). Consequently, it can be said that the dating of this assemblage was based on the over-all technology rather than specific "type fossils". 50
A brief discussion of the geographic setting and geomorphological changes that were taking place during the early Holocene would also be helpful. The KCN Projectile Point
Horizon is widely distributed throughout eastern North America so it would be impossible to attempt to explain any part of this horizon in terms of a specific environment. However, all hunter-gatherers from Paleoindian times on would have been influenced to at least some degree by environmental constraints so these must be at least considered in any attempt to interpret their technology.
Glaciation had a profound impact on the lower Great Lakes. Although the region never had mountain ranges like areas further south and east, and is part of the stable cratonic interior, glacial ice further flattened and remodelled the landscape. Indeed, a few traces of the topography remaining from prior to the last glacial advance are present in some areas but these are rarely prominent features in the landscape. Consequently, there are no significant barriers between major river systems and the river systems themselves are post-glacial in configuration.
Physical geographers have been able to deduce that all the significant river systems around the eastern end of Lake Ontario appear to have been incised rather rapidly following the retreat of the glacial ice fields (Coakley and Karrow 1994). Thus, there were no significant topographic barriers to impede population movements between river systems. Since there are no geomorphological impediments to travel across the southern Ontario landscape, it is difficult to use topography as an a priori means of segmenting the distribution of assemblages.
Other consequences of the glaciation of the region, however, can be considered. Changes in lake levels, specifically lower water levels in Lake Erie, allowed for easier access to southwestern Ontario from more southern and western directions. Clearly, group territories would have included areas now under water and at least some archaeological sites would now be 51 submerged and largely inaccessible despite some notable recent efforts to explore some of these areas (Janusas et al. 2004). Furthermore, as mentioned above, river systems were not stable because they appear to have undergone rapid down cutting following the retreat of the glacial ice. Thus, the combination of relatively unstable river bottoms and higher sediment load may not have allowed rivers flowing into Lake Ontario to support reliable stocks of anadromous fish.
Any model of Paleoindian and Archaic subsistence patterns which relies on the premise that fishing provided an integral component of the seasonal resources should be held in suspicion for two reasons. First, there is little or no direct evidence for the presence of fishing technology this early (Ellis, et al 1990; Johnson and Cassavoy 1977). Indeed, the earliest direct evidence of fishing in the northeast may be netsinkers recovered from a layer that included bifurcate base points at a site on Staten Island (Dumont and Dumont 1979:46).
Second, arguments have recently been made that peoples relying on a diet of lean red meat after a winter of subsisting on winter kills or stored meat, may not have been able to digest fatty fish (Malainey, et al. 2001). As discussed above, it is believed that earlier populations of hunter-gatherers in this region would have been heavily dependant upon the hunting of large game animals and so would most likely have been subsisting on stored red meat over the winter months in particular.
Our understanding of the environment from this time has also undergone considerable change over the last few decades. For example, it is now relatively well established that it is unlikely that there was an extensive tundra-zone south of the retreating glaciers. Instead, basal pollen cores from the from the lower Great Lakes indicate that boreal forest rapidly colonised the region, differing from the modern boreal forest in the absence of pine in the earliest horizons
(Holloway and Bryant 1985:236). Published pollen diagrams for southwestern Ontario, 52 however, indicate that red and jack pine dominated between 9,000 and 10,000 B.P. while the presence of white pine reaches a maximum around 9,000 B.P. (Crawford and Smith 2003;
Karrow and Warner 1990:30; McAndrews 1994). Birch, elm and maple are also present in these early pollen profiles but were less common than in more recent times. Karrow and Warner's
(1990:29) environmental reconstruction would thus hold that an open jack/red pine forest probably dominated well-drained uplands with poorly developed soils while eastern white cedar, tamarack, black spruce and possibly balsam fir would have occupied lowland areas. These conditions may well have prevailed until approximately 9,000 B.P., which corresponds reasonably well with the end of the KCN Point Horizon. Furthermore, the timing of these changes and conditions are in conformity with what is seen further to the south (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1985:19). Consequently, the early Holocene environment appears to have been undergoing relatively rapid change, with biotic "provinces" not as well delineated than those found today.
Some consideration should be given to the distribution of the archaeological phenomenon under study. The Kirk Corner-notched Point Horizon extends from southern Ontario (Roberts
1985; Wright 1978) south to Florida (Bullen 1968; Justice 1987:72) and consequently encompasses a larger area and more biotic provinces than any comparable modern ethnic group.
Accordingly, any detailed understanding of this technological horizon must take into account that it cannot be mapped onto any specific kind of environment. Indeed, perhaps the only environmental attribute in common across this broad region is that it was undergoing relatively rapid change following the end of the Pleistocene.
The Early Archaic "Corner-Notched Horizon", following Ellis et al (1998:161-162), exhibits a number of significant changes from the Unfluted Lanceolate Horizon. The "type" 53 diagnostic of the time period is a corner-notched projectile point with typically serrated lateral edges. Descriptions of the diagnostic projectile points and other artifacts include publications by
Broyles (1971), Coe (1964), Lewis and Lewis (1961) and various monographs by Chapman (e.g.,
1975, 1977 and 1979). For the study area employed in this dissertation, I have also examined hundreds of excavated and surface collected projectile points identified by CRM consulting firms and avocationals and identified by them as belonging to the KCN projectile point horizon1.
Assemblages with KCN points have been reported throughout eastern North America. In
Ontario, the most detailed assemblage description and analysis is that of the Nettling site in southwestern Ontario which includes a discussion of why this assemblage has been assigned to the Early Archaic KCN projectile point horizon (Ellis et al. 1990:73-78; Ellis et al. 1991).
Ontario assemblages are best considered as being representative of the period in its entirety (Ellis et al 1990:71) and I will argue below that variation in the size and shape of these projectile points may be better interpreted as resulting from resharpening and reworking these bifaces.
The finished corner-notched projectile points of this horizon can be characterised as being relatively thin compared to Hi-Lo points and more finely flaked. Both the thinness and fine flaking indicate that these bifaces would not have served as bifacial cores for the removal of utilisable flakes. Quite simply, flake scars from the faces of these points are far too small to have produced usable flake tools and the removal of large thick flakes would have substantially compromised the strength and structural integrity of these tools. Furthermore, the presence of serration along the blade edges indicates that some effort was made to maintain these features and that the edges would not have been suitable for many tasks (Hughes 1998:358-359; Parry
1 The question of whether these are or can be classified as "Kirk Corner-notched", or locally "Nettling" points following Fox (1980), is a central topic of this dissertation and one that will be returned to later in this chapter. For 1989:31). In comparison to Hi-Lo points, KCN points would not have served well as heavy chopping tools. Thus, it can be argued that these points were actually more of a specialised tool and may well fall within the category of "reliable" systems as employed by Bleed (1986).
However, a degree of caution is required here in that bifaces that were manufactured to such a consistent degree of thinness thereby become relatively easy to retouch and resharpen and thus also become "maintainable" in Bleed's dichotomy. Production of KCN projectile points may well have required a specialist but the subsequent maintenance of these tools could have been accomplished by less proficient flint-knappers. The arguments made by Ahler and Geib (2000) for the strategy behind the production of Folsom fluted points certainly applies equally well to
KCN bifaces.
End scrapers also exhibit a departure from previous Hi-Lo assemblages. While Hi-Lo end scrapers do not appear to have been significantly modified beyond their production from flakes, KCN Point Horizon end scrapers frequently exhibit a greater degree of modification of the lateral edges, suggesting they might have been hafted (Ellis et al. 1991:9-14; McMillan
2003). One variant known as "tear-drop" end scrapers, have one face completely flaked. The investment of energy and planning that went into producing these tools indicates that they were also specialised and "reliable."
As noted above, in eastern North America, excavations on the Roanoke, Pee Dee and
Yadkin River basins of North Carolina (Coe 1964) and the St. Albans site in West Virginia
(Broyles 1971) provided the first unambiguous evidence of the material culture of this time period. These sites produced a large number of artifacts from well-defined stratigraphic contexts and a suite of radiocarbon determinations indicating an early Holocene temporal placement. Few
present purposes, I simply want to emphasise that these identifications were not made by myself. 55 additions to the dating of the Early Archaic KCN projectile Point Horizon have been published since but these do include an uncalibrated date of 8940 +/- 70 B.P from wood charcoal and carbonised hickory nut shell from a layer immediately below KCN tools (Daniel 2002:10). In central Pennsylvania, excavation of two deeply stratified sites produced KCN tools in association with charcoal dated at 9165 +/- 210 B.P. and 9430 +/- 310 B.P. (Carr 1998a:51, 53).
Since this time, however, similar assemblages have been reported from throughout much of eastern North America (Anderson et al. 1981:90-91; Anderson and Sassaman 1996b;
Chapman 1994; Funk 1977; Lowery and Custer 1990; Nance 1986, 1987; Sassaman 1993a;
Wesler 1983). While some attention has been directed towards examining questions like the intra-site distribution of artifacts (e.g., Carr 1974, 1992; Morrow 1996; Sassaman 1993a:240-
243) more attention has been given to generating models of Early Archaic settlement systems to explain the distribution of these sites across the landscape (Anderson and Sassaman 1996a;
Cable 1996; Custer 1990; Pagoulatos 2003; Sassaman 1994).
One of the first detailed attempts to examine the settlement system of the Early Archaic
KCN Point Horizon occupants of eastern North America followed the excavation of the Flint
Run complex of sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Gardner 1974, 1977, 1983). In these papers, Gardner argued that all the occupations from the Fluted Point Horizon to the Early
Archaic KCN Horizon, were exploiting the chert raw material in the same manner and band territories were similarly centred on or "tethered" to these resources. Gardner found the association and settlement system to be so uniform throughout these horizons that he postulated that all should be considered Paleoindian (see also Custer and Wallace 1982).
Evaluating Gardner's hypothesis raises questions about the means by which prehistoric settlement systems can and have been investigated. In particular, Gardner's analysis was based 56 on excavations at a limited number of sites and did not examine other components found outside the fioodplain of the Shenandoah River. While Gardner did make mention of these additional sites (Gardner 1977:258-260), they were not investigated in detail and their function was determined solely on the basis of their location and with reference to ethnographic analogy.
Consequently, because such high importance was attached to this single techno-economic variable (i.e., the chert source), this model has been more recently categorised as "lithic determinism" (Anderson and Sassaman 1996a:23-24).
Initially, criticism of this model came about rather indirectly. A paper published by
David G. Anderson and Joseph Schuldenrein (1983) provided details about an Early Archaic assemblage recovered from the Savannah River in Georgia and explored the interpretation of this material in light of the expanding literature relating to hunter/gatherer mobility and lithic use strategies (i.e., Binford 1979, 1980). Similar kinds of arguments were offered in a paper that examined the distribution of raw materials used to make projectile points diagnostic of the entire
Archaic from the same area (Sassaman et al. 1988).
There has been an increased use of regional distribution maps of diagnostic artifacts to describe and interpret patterns of landscape exploitation and group interaction in the archaeological record. Specific to the topic under consideration here are papers by Anderson and
Hanson (1988) and Daniel (1996, 1998, 2001) but many additional examples can also be cited, such as papers by Futato (1983) and Wall (1992) as well as many from the broader archaeological literature (e.g., Brantingham 2003; Jones, et al. 1983, 1989). These studies quantify the total number of surface collected, temporally diagnostic projectile points according to raw material and county of recovery and use this data to infer group territories and interaction patterns. Three problems can be identified that indicate the need for caution in the use of this 57 kind of data. First, there is a growing recognition of the dangers of simplistically drawing parallels between any aspect of material culture and group identity (i.e., Jones 1997). This is particularly true when considering hunter-gatherers who have a relatively low population density
on the landscape because such groups often maintain very loose territorial boundaries and ethnic
distinctions as a risk management device (e.g., Harpending and Davis 1977; Hitchcock and
Bartram 1998; Peterson 1976).
Secondly, projectile points represent a very small part of the total cultural repertoire of hunter-gatherers and much of the surviving material culture may not be equally diagnostic at
least without detailed contextual analysis (usually only obtained following excavation). Given the high degree of variation in projectile point form that can result from reworking (Flenniken
and Raymond 1986; Rondeau 1996), care needs to be taken in considering exactly which projectile points are indeed "diagnostic" as well as in recognising where these diagnostic, as opposed to the more heavily reworked, and perhaps not as diagnostic, artifacts are deposited.
Here we need to be concerned as to whether projectile points recovered in or near a cluster of artifacts actually belong with that assemblage or whether they may be accidental inclusions
deposited before or after the main site occupation. In at least some cases, these may indeed be truly isolated projectile points that happened to become incorporated in an assemblage deposited
at a different time. Alternately, it is also possible that the projectile points recovered may have been discarded and replaced with new ones manufactured from recently acquired raw materials.
In this case, the debris from the manufacture of the new projectile points may be an entirely
different raw material from the diagnostic specimens used in the tabulations.
A related question is exactly how representative the sample actually is of the "total population" for those regions under consideration. A study undertaken by Ian Kenyon and Paul 58
Lennox (1996) indicated that, on sites excavated after being discovered on ploughed fields, only between one and two percent of the artifacts recovered had been found on the surface.
Furthermore, the surfaces of sites are more intensively examined after discovery and prior to excavation. Therefore, individual pedestrian surveys may recover less that one percent of the total number of diagnostic artifacts present in any given field. Consequently, results obtained
from surface collected assemblages may reflect sampling error as much as anything else.
Finally, because detailed chronological variation within the Early Archaic Corner
Notched Point Horizon has not been satisfactorily identified, studies such as these require treating a 1,000+ year span of the region's prehistory as a uniform, static horizon without allowing for variation within that time period. In other words, it must be assumed that territorial boundaries and interaction patterns did not change within that time span otherwise the patterns would be "blurred".
This is not to say that the above should be taken as reasons to reject this kind of analysis.
Rather, what is suggested here is that such lines of evidence need to be considered as only a small part of the total body of data and evidence that is available and that the implications of this must be considered in context. Thus, for example, in terms of temporal scale there are two extreme possibilities: first, that the patterns detected represent a relatively short period of time, leaving open the question of what was occurring over the remainder of the temporal horizon; or, alternatively, that the patterns indicate a long period of stability in land-use patterns. It is also possible that both kinds of processes resulted in the patterns observed and that the differences between given data sets result from either differences in geographic scale or real differences in past behaviour between the different regions studied. This is all, of course, assuming that the differences are not simply a reflection of the small sample size. 59
Referring to the expanding literature dealing with hunter-gatherer mobility and lithic tool design (to be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3), Anderson and Schuldenrein (1983:201) argued that the low incidence of hafted bifaces and formal unifaces on Early Archaic assemblages indicated that these were not curated toolkits but that informal bifaces were important in being both cores for the production of expedient flake tools as well as preforms for finished tools. In a subsequent paper, Anderson and Hanson (1988:267) argued that a seasonal round existed and that logistically provisioned fall camps were present. This would indicate that the Early Archaic peoples were closer to Binford's (1980) "collectors" than to "foragers" (see also Carr 1994 and Sassaman 1994). Anderson's model suggested that Early Archaic social organisation was at the band/macroband level and that territories were centred on the watersheds of larger rivers (Anderson and Hanson 1988). Resources in these watersheds would have met some or all of the resource needs of the populations although biocultural interaction across watershed boundaries would have also been important. Sassaman et al. (1988) concurred with these conclusions but postulated that these Early Archaic hunter/gatherers were non-specialised foragers, and thus not logistically organised (Sassaman et al. 1988:86 but compare to Sassaman
1994:112). The presence of other stone tool raw materials within the proposed foraging territory, such as quartz, was cited as a conditioning factor.
As an alternative to this type of model, Daniel has proposed a return to the raw material based model of Gardner (Daniel 1998, 2001). On the basis of a reanalysis of Coe's Hardaway site, which included data from more recent excavations as well as broad regional surveys, Daniel argued that raw material sources were the "tether" to which social groups would have been tied.
As noted by Sassaman (1999), such a model would have allowed much less flexibility than the
Anderson model. 60
Data from southern Ontario may inform these debates and suggest new directions for research. First, by its very remoteness from the southeastern U.S. cases, the presence of the
KCN technological horizon in Ontario forces more of a macro-regional perspective. There is an increasing understanding of the environmental changes that occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene with the retreat of the glaciers (Anderson 2001). Following the most recent summary for the area, the Unfluted Lanceolate Horizon appears to coincide with the onset of the
Younger Dryas which was initiated by a rapid drop in average annual temperatures, leading to a period of harsh, cold climate (Anderson 2001:155). In contrast, the initiation of the Early
Archaic appears to coincide with the end of the Younger Dryas when average annual temperatures rose by 7 degrees C. in 10 to 40 years (Anderson 2001:156-157). It is impossible, however, to argue that the conditions would have been exactly the same throughout the range extending from the lower Great Lakes to the Southeast. Therefore, there may not be any direct analogues to the environment of today, and the only thing in common to the areas under consideration may be the rapid pace of change.
This would raise the question of why, or perhaps if, the apparent similarities between the regions exist. As noted above, stylistic similarities between the regions during the Fluted Point
Horizon may well be the result of relatively recent genetic association. In other words, the dispersal of the populations involved may have been too close in time for local variation to have emerged. However, Anderson (2001:155-157) argues further that the homogeneity of Fluted
Point styles reflects a highly adaptive strategy for exploiting mobile big game resources while the increasing regional variation seen in the Late Fluted Point Horizon results from decreased mobility and the consequent increased social isolation. The following Unfluted Lanceolate Point
Horizon exhibits exactly this type of variation. If both Dalton and Hi-Lo biface styles are a 61 variation of the technological style of the fluted points, perhaps with an increased emphasis on attributes of curation as discussed by Kelly (1983), then the variation between Dalton and Hi-Lo may well be explained as an expression of variation caused by increasing social distance.
Indeed, it is then possible that the Hi-Lo style may have been favoured as a local adaptation to the more boreal conditions that followed the retreating glacial fronts while Dalton served as a component of a more generalised adaptation to more temperate environments further south.
How then do we account for the re-emergence of a pan-regional horizon characterised by serrated edge, corner-notched projectile points? The KCN Horizon in southern Ontario does possess abundant attributes in common with more southern manifestations (Wright 1995:76-77).
It seems unlikely that independent invention can be posited. However, explaining this technological change as the result of a massive population movement also should be treated with caution since only one technological system (i.e., the organisation of the chipped lithics) can be identified. I would note, however, that the Nettling site raw material data suggests that some population movements were occurring.
The Nettling site assemblage is dominated by cherts from Ohio with low frequencies of local chert. Since it has been observed that all the Onondaga chert from the Nettling site assemblage appears to have been obtained from local secondary sources, it does not appear that any chert was imported from the Niagara Peninsula. It can also be noted that less than 1% of the artifacts from the Nettling site were manufactured from Kettle Point chert (Ellis et al 1991:7).
Consequently, it is possible that the Nettling site itself may represent a new group entering the region and that later and/or other groups in the area during this time may have participated in the exchange of cherts from further east. Thus, it is possible that the Nettling site may represent a staging area for a newly arrived colonising population, following Curran (1999) and that later 62 populations did, in fact, make greater use of local cherts.
What is a Kirk Corner-Notched Point?
The sites that finally led to the acceptance of an Early Archaic horizon in the northeast were stratified and produced radiocarbon dates that were internally and externally consistent. At both the St. Albans site (Broyles 1971) and the series of sites reported by Chapman (1975, 1977,
1979), there is considerable overlap in the dates assigned to Early Archaic KCN Horizon assemblages/deposits. The accuracy of these dates is also supported by the dates assigned to assemblages stratigraphically above and below the KCN Horizon. While dates further to the northeast are much more rare, those published do support the over-all chronological scheme. For the purposes of this dissertation, I follow the dates suggested by Ellis et al. (1990:73) rather than
Ellis et al. (1998) because the latter had to be applicable over a broader region. As noted above, not all the technological horizons present in the southeast are necessarily present in the northeast.
Ellis et al. (1991) identified the projectile points and certain scrapers from the Nettling site as variants of the stratigraphically and radiometrically-dated KCN projectile points based on the presence of specific attributes such as corner-notches, edge serration, basal thinning, etc. It was also on this basis that the radiocarbon date for the Blue Dart site (Lennox 1993) was found to be acceptable. Therefore, ultimately it is our assignment of specific projectile points to types that requires the most scrutiny because it is the presence of these "index fossils" that has served as chronological markers in the lower Great Lakes region, not the context of their recovery.
However, we must be cautious about dating only on the basis of morphology. Above, I referred to the controversy over the placement of the "Satchell complex" as an example of how this 63 problem can occur but numerous other examples can be cited. In short, wherever possible, multiple independent lines of evidence are required.
As a means of addressing this problem, I undertook an examination of as many different projectile points identified as Kirk Corner-notched (sensu stricto and variants following Justice
1987:71-82) and/or "Nettling" (Fox 1980) as I could access. My intent here was not to undertake a detailed attribute analysis of the many surface-collected examples available or those recovered from multicomponent excavations, but instead to ascertain how other researchers were making these determinations. This might be rephrased as an attempt to discover the local norms of Early Archaic projectile point identification.
While many of the researchers I talked to referred to specific attributes in their identifications (e.g., serrations, corner notches, basal thinning, etc.), I observed that these attributes were not uniformly present. For example, serrations are not always present, some points may be reworked to such an extent that the corner-notched hafting area may resemble side-notches or even stemmed points and basal thinning flakes are rarely as evident or obvious as many might argue. Indeed, the range of variation now recognised as possible from reworking similar kinds of bifaces (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Rondeau 1996) can lead to multiple different projectile point types being identified. Nonetheless, of all the projectile points I examined that had been "typed" by others, very few were identifications I disagreed with. It would appear that the norm for identifying these points is widely shared and independent of the authors of the Nettling site report as, to the best of my knowledge, none of the examples I examined had also been examined by any of the authors of that report. To the best of my knowledge, the individuals who identified the projectile points I examined had not directly examined the Nettling site materials. Quite simply, there has emerged an intuitive norm of what 64 a Kirk Corner-notched projectile point should look like in southern Ontario.
I would point out that, after the spread of the "New Archeology", some attempts were made to analyse projectile points using discrete attributes (e.g., Borstel 1982). These attempts rarely, if ever, achieved the desired goals of surpassing or even duplicating the more intuitive types and studies like these are simply no longer being attempted. I would argue that, at least in part, this failure is the product of not recognising that the choice of specific attributes or types is always dependent upon the questions to be asked of the data (Adams and Adams 1991). For my purposes, accepting the intuitive type assignments made by others worked sufficiently well to exclude assemblages associated with potential "look-alike" projectile point types such as those that are Late Archaic, Small Points (e.g., Kenyon 1989). Presenting a detailed attribute analysis and comparison of "look-alike" projectile point types would be a worthwhile exercise but, in the context of this study, I would argue that this should follow the establishment of independent means of verifying these assignments. Since a major goal of this dissertation is to argue that the entire reduction sequence can be viewed as a culture-historical diagnostic, one product of this dissertation, which could be called an opportunity for future research, would be to compare projectile points produced through different reduction sequences and determine precisely what distinguishes them. This, however, is clearly beyond the scope of what this dissertation can hope to accomplish.
My impression from examining the many examples of Kirk Corner-notched projectile points was that these can be loosely sorted into two categories of "large" and "small". These categories can be correlated with flaking patterns remaining on the bifaces and interpreted as representing stages in the reworking/resharpening of the biface. I will describe these two loose groups as "types" but it will become clear that I interpret these to be ends of a continuum. 65
Consequently, I will not include specific metrics but instead provide relative measures of size, etc., for comparative purposes.
The larger bifaces are rarely intact but frequently exhibit breaks across the notches and/or have lost the tip. Nonetheless, on the basis of surviving width, these larger points appear to overlap considerably with large bifaces such as Genesee Points (Ritchie 1971b:24-25). In thickness, however, these bifaces are usually considerably thinner and are more in line with the thickness of Meadowood and Fluted bifaces. The cross section can be described as flat, plano convex or slightly biconvex. My explanation for the general flat, thin cross-section was found in an examination of the flake scars remaining on the central mass of the biface. Commonly these flake scars are wide (i.e., frequently more than 1 cm), have low ridges between them, were struck perpendicular to the long axis of the biface, cross the middle of the biface and exhibit little longitudinal curvature. Subsequent lateral edge trimming (i.e., not necessarily crossing or even reaching the mid-line of the biface) tends to remove much or all of these flake scars, obscuring the original pattern. Basal thinning flakes tend to be as wide and similar in form to the lateral thinning flakes, extending beyond the notches and added after the lateral thinning flakes.
The smaller version of the Kirk Corner-notched (or "Nettling") type can be as small as
Late Archaic Small Points but tend to be thinner while broader. The dominant flake scar patterns are more randomly oriented but do not as commonly cross the midline of the biface. Thus, they can appear to have a greater thickness relative to width. More intact pieces tend to be among the smallest but frequently lack serrations and more often have unretouched impact fractures at the tip and/or are missing stems and/or corners. Breaks across the notches appear to be the most common type of fracture to occur.
It is my hypothesis that these bifaces in toto reflect a continuum of resharpening and 66 rejuvenation episodes. Preforms were relatively broad, flat bifaces characterised by large, parallel-struck flakes that crossed the mid-line of the biface. It is likely that this form of biface was used as a form of core for the removal of large, blade-like flakes that could be used as blanks for the creation of other tools.
Upon exhaustion of the "core", some longer flakes may have been removed to flatten any prominent ridges between previous flake scars. These detachments may have been made to improve the ability to penetrate when used as a projectile. Two or three large basal thinning flakes were then removed, possibly also for use as tool blanks. The lateral edges were trimmed with less invasive flakes, and corner-notches and small, lateral serrations added. Unlike projectile points described elsewhere (e.g., Smith 1995), flake scars from the application of edge serration are rarely invasive enough to be considered part of the edge trimming or resharpening.
Among the collections of Early Archaic Corner-notched bifaces I have examined, the most common kind of fracture is a break between the ends of the notches. Due to the overall evenness and thinness of these bifaces, subsequent thinning of the base and extending the remnants of the notches would easily repair the remaining biface blade. Thus, as the biface became smaller, the notches would "migrate" inwards towards the centre. Reworking in this manner would also selectively remove remnant flake scars from the original preform.
Resharpening tips broken during impact would also progressively remove some of these flake scars as the blade became smaller. Examples of larger bifaces that exhibit evidence of "tip-only" damage are rare but, where discernible, subsequent reworking appears evident as a relatively shorter blade length relative to width and hafting element. Further, because of this shortening, the remaining tip sections remain relatively thick.
There is, of course, any number of potential ways of testing and evaluating the hypothesis 67 outlined above. I could, for example, undertake a detailed statistical examination of surface- collected projectile points and evaluate trends in metrics and nominal attributes in relation to distance from the chert source. But this approach would be problematic for a number of reasons.
Among the under-lying premises would be the assumption that all the bifaces selected for comparison are actually members of the same technological/chronological horizon (and are thus comparable); that geographic distance will serve as correlated variable; and that the sample available for study is representative of the total. Perhaps even more important, for my purposes, is the premise that projectile points alone have the capacity to provide us with much information about the people of the chronological horizon under consideration.
In fact, as will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, I consider projectile points to be a relatively minor component of what is available to study and their main use is as a potential, but undemonstrated, diagnostic marker for assigning assemblages to the horizon of interest. Indeed, one of my interests is in developing other means of identifying chronological placement. Accordingly, in this dissertation, I will be attempting to look at lithic technology in a more holistic manner and the associated projectile points will be used more as an illustrative device for some of the ideas to be presented. In the following chapter, therefore, I will examine other ideas about Early Holocene hunters and gatherers that can, and in some cases perhaps cannot, be addressed with surviving archaeological remains. I would argue that a detailed attribute analysis and comparison of projectile points associated with the two kinds of assemblages to be discussed in chapters 4 and 5, respectively, as well with "look-a-likes" from different horizons should be undertaken to test my hypotheses. However, in order to avoid circular arguments, I would argue that these tests must be undertaken independently of this analysis and, ideally, by others. 68
The Bifurcate Base Projectile Point Horizon
The synthesis of the early Holocene technological complexes provided by Ellis et al.
(1998) did not include any from the periods following the Early Archaic KCN projectile point horizon but the terminology used in that study is extended here for the sake of consistency. In southern Ontario, the Bifurcate Base Projectile Point Horizon is accepted as following the KCN horizon (Ellis, et al. 1990:78-80).
Although it had been discussed earlier (Fitting 1964), the Bifurcate Base Point Horizon became best known following the publications of Broyles (1971) and Chapman (1975, 1977,
1979). The distinctive "split-base" of the projectile point was easily identifiable in collections further to the north and were quickly reported from both surface collections (Kinsey 1972;
Ritchie and Funk 1971, 1973; Wright 1978) and excavated contexts (Funk 1979, 1998). In
Ontario, only three excavated assemblages from single component sites have been reported in print: the Kassel and Blue Dart sites (Lennox 1993) and the Laphroaig Site (Woodley 1996). It is worth noting that the Blue Dart site produced a charcoal sample that was AMS dated to 8320
+/- 60 B.P (Lennox 1993:20). This date is certainly consistent with expectations for the time period including a date of 8405 +/- 65 B.P. reported for a bifurcate base point site from eastern upstate New York (Ferguson 1995:2).
Aside from the obvious difference of the "style" of the hafting section of the projectile point, there appear to be both continuities and differences between the assemblages of the
Bifurcate Base point Horizon and those of earlier time periods. The Kassel site produced the largest assemblage of tools including 18 scrapers, two drills and four retouched bladelets. The 69 scrapers do not appear to have been modified for hafting but Lennox (1993:10-12) suggests that these were nearing the point of exhaustion. As near as can be determined, it appears that most, if not all, were manufactured from core reduction, rather than biface reduction, flakes. Lennox notes, furthermore, that given the assemblage recovered from the Kassel site, the primary flakes appear to have been manufactured elsewhere and transported to the site for use as tool blanks
(Lennox 1993:6). Of some interest is the description of four "bladelets" although according to
Lennox's (1993:8) description it appears that their morphology was a product of retouch rather than initial manufacture. This should not be considered too surprising, however, in that blades or blade-like flakes have been previously reported with bifurcate base points (Dumont and Dumont
1979:46) as well as in later contexts (Johnson 2000).
The Laphroaig site also produced two biface types in addition to the projectile points.
One relatively long, narrow but thick biface (Woodley 1996:45) appears to be somewhat similar to examples reported from the Nettling site (Ellis et al. 1990:74,75; Ellis et al. 1991:10) as well as "backed bifaces" from Fluted Point sites (Deller and Ellis 1988:258-260; Ellis and Deller
1988). These bifaces were likely produced through a different lithic reduction sequence but the question remains whether they performed similar functions, a question that can be best addressed through use-wear analysis. Additionally, a large side notched biface was also recovered and, as noted by Woodley (1996:47), this may have been a large hafted knife analogous to the Thebes biface and an example to be described below (see also discussion in Chapter 6).
There are, however, also some departures in lithic technology evident in this horizon.
First, there appears to have been a wider selection of raw materials used. For example, while the occupants of the Nettling site appear to have made use of smaller, secondary sources of chert,
KCN and earlier occupants of the Niagara Peninsula made more use of massive, high quality 70 cherts. On the basis of surface collected projectile points, Ancaster chert first appears to have been exploited in significant amounts during the Bifurcate Base horizon. Additionally, Selkirk chert may have been increasingly exploited (Lennox 1993:5).
In terms of the reduction sequence leading to projectile points, both Kassel and Blue Dart produced bifacial preforms indicating that serial reduction of bifaces from transported preforms was practised (Lennox 1993:12, 14, 21-24). However, two of the projectile points recovered from Kassel appear to have been manufactured directly through the expedient flaking of large flakes or spalls (Lennox 1993:14, 15). This shift to a more expedient reduction system during bifurcate base point times, including the use of a wider variety of lower quality raw materials
(Carr 1998a:56-57) and the direct manufacture of projectile points from large flakes or spalls, has been noted elsewhere (Carr 1998b:80).
In summary, the Bifurcate Base Projectile Point Horizon, which follows the KCN
Projectile Point Horizon, exhibits both continuities and changes relative to earlier technological horizons. While there are definite changes in the style of the hafting section of the projectile point, there also appears to be continuity in the reduction sequence.
The most pronounced difference from the earlier KCN horizon appears to be in the use of a wider variety of lower quality cherts during the Bifurcate Base Horizon. While there is reason to be cautious about extrapolating from the published examples discussed above, because the
Kassel and Blue Dart sites were located outside the Niagara Peninsula, this trend is evident in the surface collected examples I have been able to examine. Specifically, in the Niagara Peninsula region, while Onondaga chert appears to be the most common chert used during this horizon, noticeable numbers of bifurcate base points manufactured from Ancaster chert have also been observed. 71
The use of a wider variety of low-quality cherts in turn creates two results that must be borne in mind when considering the relative abundance of sites attributable to this horizon. First, one consequence of the use of lower quality cherts is the production of smaller projectile points.
While some relatively large, broad bladed bifaces, including projectile points, have been noted for the Bifurcate Base Horizon, most of the examples are relatively small (Carr 1998a:57). It follows that smaller projectile points can be resharpened less frequently and, all other things being equal, must be replaced more often. This would not have a problem for the more opportunistic Early Archaic flint knapper because lower quality replacement chert was more easily obtained because it is more widely distributed. Accordingly, projectile points will enter the archaeological record more frequently and produce more tool-rich assemblages and, potentially, more identifiable sites (i.e., more assemblages with diagnostic projectile points).
Secondly, by employing lower quality cherts and a more opportunistic lithic reduction system, more debitage will be created. First, the lower quality cherts will produce more unusable debitage because of the greater amounts of flaws and faults within the rock. The benefit seen here is in the ability to use more locally available cherts and in the production of smaller sized bifaces through the use of more opportunistic reduction systems. A consequence of this is that the sites from such a lithic reduction system would be more frequent (when "sites" are defined in terms of the number of visible artifacts) and more likely to be excavated. Therefore, caution must be urged when attempting to extrapolate population trends on the basis of archaeological visibility because different numbers of sites will be produced by different lithic reduction systems even when population is held constant.
In this chapter, I provided an outline of the culture-history of southern Ontario taking into account some of the information available from other regions of eastern North America. My 72 intention here has been to provide context for my own research, focusing particularly on aspects of the lithic reduction systems as well as some of the arguments regarding the distribution of sites across the landscape. In the next chapter, I will explore some of the sources of analogues used to explain and interpret the behaviour of hunter-gatherers. I will examine some of the broader ethnographic literature on mobile peoples as well as the various sources used specifically in the study of lithic technologies. In this way I hope to develop and explore ways to examine and critique inferences generated about the manufacture, curation and discard of stone tools. 73
CHAPTER 3: HUNTER-GATHERERS AND ARCHAEOLOGY
In this chapter I will turn to the question of what precisely we can learn about the early
Holocene, or Early Archaic KCN point-using hunter-gatherers. My intent here is to explore different possible approaches to the archaeological record of the Early Archaic in order to provide a viable and focused direction for the following chapters. In short, what I intend to accomplish in this chapter is to identify those avenues of analysis that may best inform us about life at that time.
Ethnographic Analogy
The value of the ethnographic literature has long been acknowledged in archaeology because the study of "living" peoples has always proven to be the richest and most powerful source for identifying and interpreting at least some of the behaviour that produced the archaeological record. This process of relating artifacts and archaeological patterns to social and cultural behaviour is known as ethnographic analogy and has been masterfully discussed by
Alyson Wylie (1985), among many others, and thus need not be repeated here.
It is equally important to point out that the ethnographic literature is incredibly large and diverse and it must be borne in mind that this literature was generated to meet a variety of purposes and much of this information may not be suited for reconstructions of the past. Hunter- gatherers exist today, in diminished numbers and shrinking areas but obviously the literature describing the struggles of hunter-gatherers in the face of "modernity" has limited potential for enlightening us about the more distant past. Interactions between egalitarian peoples and state- 74 level societies may have begun relatively early in the Holocene but were limited to specific places in the world whereas now, these kinds of interactions are the norm, particularly with the rise of nations and colonialism.
There is another reason we need to exercise caution in our use of ethnographic analogy.
As several scholars (e.g., Shott 1991, 1992; Wobst 1978) have pointed out, over-reliance on the ethnographic record as a source of explanatory analogies can lead to a misunderstanding of the past. Conditions existing at the time of the creation of the archaeological record may not exist in the present. For example, although we can accept the fact that the Early Archaic hunter- gatherers under consideration here were far from being the first people to have occupied the region, their population density was, in all likelihood, relatively low compared to that of later populations based on the number and size of sites documented. Consequently, we should be able to infer that competition for resources such as game or chert would have been less intense than during later time periods. Furthermore, it is quite likely that regions occupied would have been larger and less intensively exploited than that documented for more recent hunter-gatherers.
An additional variable to consider is the nature of the environment. Our collective understanding of the early Holocene environment in eastern North America has changed considerably in the last few decades (see discussion in Chapter 2). However, even if we were able to generate a precise model of what the environment was like, we know that some groups that live in even the more marginal environments and who are similar in many other ways, may actually move around and exploit these environments in "opposite" ways (Barnard 1992:229).
The limitations of the ethnographic record are further compounded when considering potential game resources that could have been exploited by these hunter-gatherers. In southern
Ontario, it is possible that all four species of large cervids (i.e., deer, elk, moose and caribou) 75 were present as well as now extinct species whose behaviour we do not know. The tactics and strategies employed in capturing such a diversity of resources may then have been more varied and/or generalised than seen among any modern group that relied on one or two such species.
For example, it may have been that early Holocene hunter-gatherers employed a wider variety of specialised techniques for procuring resources or, alternately, fewer but more flexible techniques.
We also have reason to question the value of specific ethnographic analogies derived from relatively modern populations observable in generally comparable environments. The most commonly employed source of direct analogues for archaic hunter-gatherers of the lower Great
Lakes has been subarctic/boreal forest groups documented during the 17th through 20th centuries.
An assumption is that these historic hunter-gatherers often spent springs fishing at reliable fish spawning grounds on major rivers after spending the winters exploiting dispersed in land resources.
I would argue that we have reason to suspect the applicability of this hypothesis for the
Early Archaic. As mentioned above, early Holocene rivers may not have been stable enough to support significant populations of anadromous fish and hunter-gatherers who had gone a winter living primarily or exclusively (if stores of dried fruit, etc. were exhausted) off dried red meat may not have been able to digest fresh fish. Furthermore, as noted by Richard Nelson for the
Kutchen in the interior of eastern Alaska, the demand for fish noted for historic hunter-gatherers may well have been a direct response to the fur trade (Nelson 1973:280; see also VanStone
1965:42-43). Specifically, the advent and intensification of the fur trade led to greater demand for winter mobility, which led to an increased reliance upon dog teams, which in turn, led to increased demand for fish to feed the dogs. Quite simply, some interior peoples are not fond of fish, especially dried fish, and generally reserve it for dog food unless conditions become dire 76
(Nelson 1973:69). Following the introduction of the snowmobile, sled dogs were not relied upon as much for transportation and, consequently, demand for fish decreased in some places
(Jarvenpa 1980:23).
Returning to the question of seasonal rounds, the winter portion is also worth some consideration. Seasonal models of hunter-gatherers in the northeast often refer to the winter as being a time of dispersal by family groups as they pursue individual exploitation of the uplands.
This, in effect, is a generalised description of the exploitation of trap-lines in that this market- driven sector of the economy rewards the products of individual labour. But relying too heavily on this interpretation implies that other options, such as co-operative hunting of migrating or yarding cervids and/or living off stored resources were not practised (e.g., Brumbach and
Jarvenpa 1997:436; Smith 1981:276).
One observation to be borne in mind here concerns the exploitation of beaver. In a review of the archaeology of northeastern Ontario, John Pollock (1975:25) argued that beaver was "the dominant subsistence animal from the Archaic through to historic times". While the exploitation of this species may have increased due to the demands of the fur trade, it is also possible that change in exploitation of this mammal would be reflected more in the intensification of procurement during the winter months when the pelts were in their prime.
Prior to the fur trade, it is likely that beaver was hunted more equally throughout the year. Of course, if we bear in mind that there is a striking difference in the amount of surface water (i.e., rivers and lakes) between southern Ontario and the Canadian Shield, we do need to exercise caution regarding the role this mammal would have played in the subsistence patterns of hunter- gatherers in southern Ontario. While beaver may have been far more plentiful than they are 77 today in southern Ontario, they probably would not have been as plentiful as they are and were further north where surface water is more abundant.
Obviously, evaluating these alternate hypotheses relating to a seasonal round requires an ability to identify sites occupied during different seasons. The most common means of identifying seasonally occupied sites, however, is through the identification of seasonal indicators in the recovered plant and animal remains. This, in turn, requires acceptance of three assumptions: 1) that sites from all seasons will be identified and adequately sampled during excavation; 2) that seasonal indicators will be preserved and identified at these sites; and 3) that the effects of stored and transported resources can be mitigated. The second and third assumptions require that seasonal indicators recovered be directly related to the season of occupation of the site and were not discarded after months or years of storage. These will be ignored here, however, because of the absence of floral and faunal material in the assemblages employed in this dissertation.
Identifying and excavating seasonally specific sites may, in fact, be one of the more significant problems faced when trying to reconstruct past life ways of hunter-gatherers. First of all, there is the question of deciding where to look for these sites. A commonly cited criterion for predicting site locations is the presence of potable water. While the presence of potable water may be a highly deterministic variable in arid country or during warm seasons, it is less of a problem for winter camps located in the northeast of North America. Max Friesen (personal communication, 2003) noted that, while arctic hunter-gatherers prefer to get water from lakes, they will commonly melt snow if a lake is not handy. In southern Ontario, lakes are relatively scarce but snow is quite common and abundant in winter. It should also be noted that smaller, tertiary streams are often frozen solid in winter while the ice on larger rivers can be treacherous. 78
Consequently, we should not expect that distance to water would be a constraint on the location of winter sites as obtaining water from snow drifts, etc., may be easier and safer than attempting to obtain water from rivers of lakes.
Assuming, then, we know where to look, a second problem concerns identifying winter sites when we find them. We might propose that winter sites would be identifiable by the presence of seasonally specific gear. This could include equipment used in one season but not another. This assumption rests on the premise that there are discernible differences in seasonal exploitative patterns. This also assumes we will not be confused by refuse produced during the maintenance of gear used in other seasons. Winter may have been a period when tool maintenance or craft production was intensified as a means of whiling away long hours of inactivity. Thus, for example, fishing nets may have been produced or repaired on winter sites, assuming winter fishing did not occur and nets and/or netsinkers were deposited there precisely because they were not in the water.
Lithic tool production could also be cited here although this rests on the embedded assumption that stores of raw material were readily at hand. Indeed, it is quite possible that during winter, when travel over long distances might have been relatively difficult and even dangerous, stores of lithic raw material were sparse and jealously guarded and conserved. Under these conditions, it is quite possible that winter camps were characterised by low densities of lithic debris and fall below those used to determine whether a site warrants excavation. Thus, use of the ethnographic record requires us to take into account a broad array of behavioural patterns observed and documented among comparable groups, an even broader array of behavioural patterns that may not have been observed or survived into the ethnographic present as well as questions about how these patterns may or may not have been preserved in the 79 archaeological record. Consequently, because there is tremendous potential for diversity both within and between regions, however defined, spanning the millennia from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene, I would prefer to avoid assuming that observations made in one region can be applied to another or even that observation from one technological horizon (e.g., the
Paleoindian) can be held constant through time (e.g., Meltzer and Smith 1986). This latter point leads us to the questions of how the archaeological record was created and how archaeological techniques of data recovery may impact upon our interpretations.
The questions raised above lead us into the realm of what has become known as ethnoarchaeology. Varying definitions of ethnoarchaeology are available (e.g., David and
Kramer 2001:12) but, for the purposes of this discussion I will define it simply as the observation of modern peoples in order to gain ideas about how the archaeological record was formed and modified. The breadth of this definition allows for the inclusion of observations of the formation processes of the archaeological record, ethnographic observations of people living a similar kind of lifestyle and various kinds of "experimental" archaeology. These will be described in somewhat greater detail.
Formation Processes
Relatively little will be said on this topic here because more detailed and generalised statements are available elsewhere. Specifically, many of the principles of how artifacts enter the archaeological record are contained within Schiffer (1976 and 1987). Given the length of time since the KCN Horizon, it should not be surprising that little remains of the material culture of the time. Although impressions of some portions of the more perishable remains are 80 occasionally preserved (e.g., Sherwood and Chapman 2005), these are rare and nothing of this nature was recovered from the study area. Similarly, faunal remains have been recovered from a
Paleoindian site in southern Ontario (Storck and Spiess 1994) but, as has been noted, it would be dangerous to extrapolate from these the full subsistence strategy of the Fluted Point Horizon, let alone attempt to apply this to the KCN Horizon.
Consequently, the information we have in hand is composed entirely of chipped lithic artifacts and their distribution across space. Consideration of this kind of data, then, will form the entirety of the subject matter of this dissertation. In the sections to follow, the sub-discipline of ethnoarchaeology will be consulted to gain some ideas of how chipped lithic artifacts may have been distributed spatially, both intra and inter-site and experimental archaeology will be consulted to gain ideas of how chipped lithic artifacts were produced. For the remainder of this section, however, I will simply focus on some questions of what may have happened to the distributions of chipped lithic artifacts after they were deposited.
The majority of the assemblages to be considered in this dissertation were recovered during the excavation of flake scatters found in ploughed fields during routine CRM reconnaissance. Others were found during test pit surveys of areas such as bush lots.
Consequently, in addition to the decay of perishable material culture through natural processes, we need to be aware of precisely what processes might have impacted artifacts since deposition.
As noted, the entirety of the material culture assemblage to be considered in this dissertation consists of chert artifacts. Chert can undergo some modification through time but, as a rule, this is minimal. As an example, chemical leaching in acidic soils, can alter chert but the specific cherts identified in these assemblages appear to be relatively impervious to this kind of decay. Some chemical leaching of some of the soluble materials in the cortex and lower quality 81 chert of one assemblage will be discussed but not to such an extent that flake scars, etc., were obscured.
Another source of modification is mechanical abrasion or damage. Damage to chert artifacts can occur due to trampling, movement through the soil from frost, water action or bioturbation (Gifford 1981). These types of transformation to the edges and surfaces of artifacts can have an impact on the interpretation of microscopic patterns resulting from use-wear but rarely impact gross morphology.
More visibly obvious modification can result from impact from plough blades or even excavation tools (i.e., trowel or shovel damage). In informal examinations of chert artifacts damaged during excavation, as well as gross morphological damage from trampling on hard surfaces, I have not seen cases where recent damage closely approximates that seen on older modified artifacts. Simply, the minute flake scars on recent damage do not appear to be as uniform in flake size and spacing as on older specimens. Additionally, on artifacts with known recent damage, many of the flakes are not fully detached. In contrast, on older modified flakes, only rarely are undetached flakes present and these tend to have thicker attachments. While only offered as a hypothesis to be tested, I would suggest that most smaller undetached flakes would have had, over time, some water seep into the crack which would then freeze and expand over the winter, finishing the detaching of the flake. I will further add that, given the direction this research has taken, the potential sources of damage noted above will not impact on the interpretations to be offered. 82
Ethnoarchaeology and Site Structure
For several decades now, archaeologists have studied living peoples for the express purpose of gaining insight into how the archaeological record is created and much has also been devoted to questions about site layout or structure (e.g., Gamble and Boismier 1991; Graham
1994; Kroll and Price 1991; Staski and Sutro 1991) and it is to this literature that I will now turn.
First of all, the artifacts that will be examined in the next two chapters are chipped lithics, specifically chert. In fact, most are not actually tools per se but rather the by-products or waste from the production of tools. Our examination of the ethnographic literature, then, should begin with some consideration of the processes of manufacturing tools among hunter-gatherers and what they did with "waste". This, then, can be extended into the broader question of how hunter- gatherers organise their occupation sites.
One of the first and most influential studies of hunter-gatherer settlement organisation was John Yellen's (1977a) monograph on the !Kung San. One observation offered by Yellen
(1977a: 125) was that !Kung San sites can be characterised as being "ring-shaped" with the outside area composed of debris. While it was almost immediately noted that not all hunter- gatherers organised their camps in circles (e.g., Griffin 1979:186), the observation of deliberate refuse disposal is of direct importance to the substance of this analysis. A similar observation of deliberate site maintenance and specialised areas for refuse disposal was made nearly simultaneously by Lewis Binford (1978a: 146) who noted that some refuse dumps may have been specialised in order to allow for scavenging. Given that Binford (1980) and others (e.g., Griffin
1979) later expanded upon the range of variation in hunter-gatherer settlement patterns, that many practised deliberate site maintenance is significant (see also Murray 1980). 83
Observations of modern flint-knappers have provided further support for the practise of deliberate collection and disposal of waste materials. Modern-day Mayans, although by no means hunter-gatherers in the strictest sense, do still practice flint knapping. While some of this flint knapping involves modern materials such as glass (Deal and Hayden 1987) and some is directed towards the tourist markets (Clark 1991a), both of which represent departures from past processes, there are still insights that can be gained from consideration of these cases.
Clark's (1991a) examination of several modern flint knappers among the Lacandon
Maya, for example, offers significant insights into the disposal of lithic debris as well as an ethnoarchaeological account of site abandonment. Modern Mayan knappers will set up screens to catch flakes during knapping and these flakes may be wrapped up and disposed of away from paths, buried in pits or dumped in rivers or streams (Clark 1991a:73-74; Deal and Hayden
1987:285-290; Sutro 1991:17). Variation can occur, however, in relation to how much
"dangerous" material is produced (Kamp 1991:27), how long the site is anticipated to be occupied (Kent and Vierich 1989) and perhaps even the season of occupation (Chang 1991:57).
Among other things, Clark found considerable variability in how well maintained workshop areas were. While the use of a drop cloth was employed by two of the knappers Clark observed, there was diversity in how diligent each was in terms of disposal of lithic refuse.
Some of the knappers, at least, took care to sweep up larger flakes and debris, along with broken or discarded knapping tools, and deposit this material as discrete dumps off main paths (Clark
1991b:258-259). Some smaller debris was left behind, often falling into small cracks in the earthen floor, and some material was carried away by children (Clark 1991b:254).
Additional material found at abandoned sites included finished but crude arrow heads made by another knapper and various other tools and raw materials that was not moved to the new site for unexplained reasons (Clark 1991b:258). A significant debris pile was noted in one abandoned house and Clark noted that such piles would likely represent final stages in a house's occupation (Clark 1991b:254). Of some note, John Whittaker (1987:1, 1994:212) similarly describes abandoned rooms at Grasshopper Pueblo, in Arizona, as containing heaps of flint- knapping refuse including broken and abandoned bifaces and projectile points. Consequently, we can add abandoned structures to the list of possible locations for dumping debris.
Just as interesting as where material was left, from our perspective at least, is what material was left at any given site. Not surprisingly, usable flint blanks, manufacturing tools and finished artifacts were significantly under-represented in the remaining assemblages. On the contrary, however, material from initial core trimming and, presumably, maintenance made up an inflated proportion of the refuse assemblages (Clark 1991b:263-264). Usable pieces were, of course, used to make finished tools that were then distributed elsewhere.
An archaeological perspective on this problem can perhaps first be attributed to Robert
Whallon (1973) who introduced many of the ideas and techniques used to investigate differences in the spatial distributions of artifacts. Arthur Jelinek characterised lithic sites as those that had primarily been devoted to manufacture, those with selected by-products of use and those with remains from both manufacture and use. Sites on which little or no manufacturing debris is present yield primarily exhausted or broken tools and larger flakes (Jelinek 1976:21).
Certainly, it had been previously noted that worn out and discarded tools may be more commonly found around hearths (Gould et al. 1971:152). Typically, however, unless the site was reused repeatedly, the relative density of material tends to be low and archaeological studies have suggested that the most abundant artifact class may consist of small retouch flakes that escaped efforts to clean the occupation area (Hull 1987). On the other hand, lithic refuse dumps 85 may be characterised by massive deposits of waste material (Shafer and Hester 1983) which can include proportionately larger pieces (Healan 1995). Given the way the archaeological record is sampled under the context of CRM in southern Ontario, it is now necessary to consider how these assemblages were recovered in order to consider what kinds of questions can be addressed.
Typically, in southern Ontario, archaeological reconnaissance involves one of two methods of locating sites. Test-pitting consists of excavating shovel-sized pits at five metre intervals, down to sterile subsoil, and screening the contents through 6 mm (manufactured at !4") mesh screen. Obviously, small retouch flakes will not necessarily be recovered using this procedure. Furthermore, a questionnaire circulated to licensed consultant firms in the province indicated a wide diversity of answers regarding how much material was required to warrant further investigations of a site (Ferris 1998). Since the questionnaire and the results favoured excavation units producing higher quantities of artifacts, lower density sites and lower density parts of sites will be less likely to be encountered and sampled.
The other method more commonly applied in this region is surface reconnaissance or
"pedestrian transects" of ploughed fields. Simply, cultivated fields are "walked" looking for artifacts on the exposed surface. Following discovery of an archaeological site, one-metre square excavation units are dug across the site area to determine the richness of the site. Since decisions to excavate further are based on the amount of material recovered, artifact density- dependant biases will again favour sites or parts of sites with greater densities of artifacts.
Obviously, waste disposal areas will be favoured while maintained site areas may be over-looked if the density of artifacts per square falls below a "cut-off of artifacts per square.
Because of these density-based biases, caution must be exercised when deciding how to frame questions for the analysis of recovered materials. Since we cannot be sure that entire 86 occupation areas have been fully or reliably tested, we cannot assume we have a representative sample of all artifacts that may have been deposited during the occupation. Similarly, since used and broken tools may have been deposited across the occupation or activity areas in densities too low to warrant cleaning up, use-wear analysis may similarly be biased towards tool types that were found with the debris. Thus, excavation of higher density areas on a site would result in the recovery of materials relating to activities that produced greater quantities of discarded artifacts.
While these assemblages may not be fully representative of all activities that occurred during the occupation, they should be representative of manufacturing activities or at least those that produce relatively larger kinds of debris. Consequently, while many questions directed towards assemblages recovered in this manner might not be addressable due to unreliable sampling practises, we may be in a stronger position to address questions relating to manufacture.
Since an initial plea by Robin Torrence (1983), a considerable amount of literature in archaeology has been directed towards exploring the relationship between stone tool manufacture and hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Specifically, lithic reduction sequences have been studied with the aim of using this information to infer strategies of meeting the demands of hunter-gatherer mobility, particularly when they may travel considerable distances from raw material sources. Different strategies may have evolved based on local knowledge of the location of alternative chert sources (their history of use and resulting abundance and technology of acquisition), the location of other peoples at the time and, simply, tactics that were successful.
There is, however, much of value in the ethnographic literature that can aid us in our consideration of material culture at a more general level. A series of papers published by Robin
Ridington (1982, 1983) on the Dunne-za or Beaver Indians, an Athapaskan speaking people on the Peace River of northern British Columbia and Alberta, argued that material culture need not 87 have been the most directly important resource in meeting subsistence needs. Traditionally, the
Dunne-za valued knowledge of the environment, encoded in various oral traditions, over actual objects. Indeed, much of the more valuable material culture was manufactured on site from locally available materials. Knowledge was "light-weight", could not be lost and, most importantly, allowed for considerable flexibility in exploiting opportunities (Ridington 1983:57).
Such an attribute was of considerable advantage in exploiting a wide range of environments and a diversity of faunal resources. We might consider that knowledge of how chert objects could be flexibly modified to serve a variety of potential functions could similarly act to lighten the travelling load by reducing the demands for a wide variety of specialised tools.
Unfortunately, we know that the richness of traditional knowledge is not preserved in the archaeological record. Considering that oral traditions do change or adapt to meet the needs of current situations (Dongoske et al. 1997), anthropologists have become wary of attempting to extend the interpretation of oral traditions into the remote past. This caution may also be argued from the varying dangers of both the Direct Historic Approach and ethnographic information in general (Binford 1968). However, inferring flexibility from surviving material culture may be more accessible. Indeed, one point to be made in this study is that the design of the Early
Archaic, KCN lithic technology would have allowed for considerable flexibility in taking advantage of opportunities as they presented themselves.
Other areas of research have considered more specific behavioural patterns that could have impacted on how the archaeological record of hunter-gatherers was formed. As mentioned above, prominent among these have been the relationships between lithic reduction strategies and group mobility. Research by Lewis Binford may be cited as key to the awakening interest in stone tool technology among archaeologists studying hunter and gatherers. Specifically, 88
Binford's seminal (1980) paper on hunter/gatherer mobility patterns argued that there was greater diversity in adaptive strategies than implied by Yellen (1977a) and several papers
(Binford 1977, 1978b, 1980) considered some of the relationships between mobility and toolkit composition. Subsequent papers by other authors (e.g., Bamforth 1986; Bleed 1986; Kelly 1983,
1988) examined other dimensions along which stone tool variability could be explained.
To begin the consideration of hunter-gatherer mobility, it would be helpful to consider the variability Binford was referring to. Yellen, as part of a multi-disciplinary research project studying the !Kung San of southern Africa (see Lee and DeVore 1976) had noted that, although there were seasonal fluctuations in the availability and distribution of resources, the !Kung San tended to be rather generalised in their subsistence pursuits and would relocate to where the resources were most abundant (Yellen 1977a:38, 1977b:270). In contrast, Binford argued that the Nunamiut of Alaska were more prone to establish specialised, logistically organised special purpose camps where resources would be procured and partially processed before being returned to base camps (Binford 1980, 1983). Such "logistic" camps, therefore, could be predicted to produce a more specialised assemblage of artifacts, not fully reflective of assemblages recovered from the excavation of "base camps" and likely not as densely occupied (Emerson and McElrath
1983). However, I would argue that the dichotomy of "specialised" vs. "generalised" is elusive and not easily equated with specific kinds of lithic reduction sequences. For example, I would note that the production of uniform blades or bifaces may be identified as "generalised" and requires the expertise of a skilled flint knapper. However, once produced, these can be transformed into specialised tools by even a relatively unskilled knapper.
Frank Cowan (1999) provides an illustrative example of the nebulous relationship between a specific technological strategy and mobility in a study of small sites from western 89
New York. Cowan compared the overall assemblage composition and debitage characteristics of
small sites attributed to the Late Archaic, Early Woodland and Late Woodland of this region and attempted to associate inferences generated from these cases with expectations of group mobility. Since I disagree with some of the assumptions used by Cowan, I will review and reinterpret this example in some depth.
The Late Woodland in western New York is the designation for the late prehistoric
Iroquoians who were horticulturists and most often lived in relatively large, semi-sedentary villages (Snow 1994). As such, we can conceive of the village as being analogous to a base camp while the smaller sites Cowan examined would be analogous to logistic procurement sites1.
As would be expected following Cowan's argument, the Late Woodland assemblages exhibit considerable diversity between sites reflecting differences in the activities conducted at each specific location.
In contrast, Cowan discusses assemblages from two other culture-historical horizons that are mobile hunter-gatherers. The Late Archaic is characterised by Cowan as being foragers
(following Binford 1980) with high residential mobility (Cowan 1999:595). While their lithic technological organisation is characterised as being a mixed strategy, consisting of "bifacial tool production along with the production of simple flake tools from cores" (Cowan 1999:602),
Cowan also found a high degree of consistency between sites (Cowan 1999:604). These results appear to conform well to expectations for foragers from Binford's (1980) model.
In contrast to the Late Archaic are Early Woodland Meadowood sites. Meadowood lithics are well known to be oriented around the use of bifaces that can be modified and/or
1 Although, granted, some may have been cabin sites (e.g., Bursey 2004), which would be more akin to "base camps". 90 recycled to produce a wide variety of functional forms (Granger 1978:18). While Cowan characterises the Early Woodland hunter-gatherers as being "logistical" (Cowan 1999:596), assemblages examined "exhibit a high degree of consistency among components" (Cowan
1999:604), more along the lines of expectations for foragers. It should be noted, however, that
Cowan (1999:604) did discuss an exception in the case of one Meadowood site that produced a greater number of flake tools produced from locally available pebble cherts (see MacDonald
1997 for a similar example). These exceptions may indicate that local abundance of cherts played a role in lithic use strategies.
Cowan does note that there are examples of larger Early Woodland base camps with additional artifact types such as pottery. However, it should be noted that there is no a priori reason to conclude that similar Late Archaic site types do not exist where similar functions occurred using more perishable (i.e., non-pottery) forms of material culture. Certainly, examples can include baskets or bags, as well as steatite vessels (Sassaman 1993b). Thus, I am sceptical that the difference in site-types reflects anything other than differential preservation of container technology. The point of this discussion is that while there may well be variation along the spectrum of residential mobility for hunter-gatherers, in this case it is possible that technological strategies of lithic reduction vary independently of residential mobility. The availability of chert
It should be noted that MacDonald (1997:93) referred to the raw material as Gull River, Collingwood and
Onondaga. Further, the majority of the utilised flakes were manufactured from Collingwood chert (MacDonald
1997:91) and that the Collingwood chert was derived from secondary outcrops (MacDonald 1997:92). The author of this paper participated in an archaeological survey of the same general area as MacDonald's site in 2001 and observed abundant pebble chert that was virtually identical to Collingwood chert. Accordingly, it is here suggested that MacDonald's "Collingwood" chert is actually locally abundant pebble chert. 91 does not play as significant a role in this context since all sites examined are in roughly the same geographic locations relative to chert outcrops.
Finally, some attention can be redirected towards the terminology employed in this study.
Cowan (1999:604) refers to Meadowood biface production as being "specialised." However, these bifaces can also be characterised as being "generalised" in that they could be relatively easily modified to serve a wide variety of different functions. In contrast, Late Archaic lithic technology is generalised in the greater use of flake tools but, again, this strategy could also be characterised as producing more "specialised", perhaps even use-specific (i.e., expedient) tools.
My intention in bringing forth this critique is not to focus on any one specific problem present in the theoretical literature on lithic technology. A number of heuristic dichotomies have been forwarded and considered in searching for correlations between lithic reduction and use strategies and hunter-gatherer mobility patterns. I would argue that many or most of these dichotomies may be of tremendous value in interpreting lithic reduction strategies. However, what becomes key is recognising precisely what these dimensions of variability are telling us. If we allow that there is room for re-interpreting residential mobility in the case discussed above,
Cowan's analysis can be argued to indicate that flake-based vs. biface-based technologies are not necessarily directly correlated with variation in residential mobility but both may be used by different groups practising the same kinds of mobility.
In the next two chapters, I will describe and discuss a series of assemblages recovered from archaeological sites in south central Ontario. Excavations at all of these sites produced projectile points assigned to the Kirk Corner-notched or Nettling type and so can be considered representative of the Early Archaic of southern Ontario. The focus of this dissertation is not to be these "diagnostic" artifacts, however, but the description of the specific reduction sequences 92 evident in these assemblages. These reduction sequences are argued to have been an integrated set of decisions spanning the selection of chert blocks at quarries, the production of flakes for use as tools, and the strategy for ensuring bifaces and projectile points could be easily and reliably resharpened in order to maximise their use-life. Because this approach explicitly requires acknowledging that all aspects of this reduction sequence will probably not be represented in all assemblages produced by this reduction strategy, the assemblages selected were those that appear to highlight different stages or points along a continuum of this reduction sequence.
Consequently, the precise methodology for organising and describing these assemblages will vary from case to case. Different parts of this reduction sequence will be highlighted in each assemblage.
Elucidating how these stages along this reduction sequence represent a continuum may be considered a major goal of this dissertation in that it can be argued that the reduction sequence is at least somewhat diagnostic of the specific Early Archaic technological system. However, I will also attempt to infer the reduction strategy. Specifically, I will attempt to infer why this pattern of lithic reduction was employed for close to a millennium in this region. To do this, I will argue that specific aspects of the reduction sequence provided a number of benefits. Indeed, I will argue that many of the dichotomies in the literature are not mutually exclusive but can be used to elucidate different dimensions of the decision making process. Therefore, in the concluding chapters, once the entire lithic reduction system for the Early Archaic KCN horizon in this part of southern Ontario has been summarised, I will return to the broader literature on lithics and hunter-gatherer mobility. 93
CHAPTER 4: THE "CORE" SITES AND ASSEMBLAGES
It now remains to introduce and discuss the actual archaeological assemblages and data that will form the core of my reconstruction of the Early Archaic Corner-notched Point Horizon in south-central Ontario (Figure 1-1). Before embarking on this exercise it would be worthwhile to consider what I hope to achieve.
Chipped lithic tools and the by-products of their manufacture and maintenance form virtually all of the material culture remains we have from the early Holocene occupants of southern Ontario. The most common diagnostic artifact of this technological horizon is the serrated, corner-notched projectile point know as the Kirk Corner-notched (KCN) (Coe 1964:69-
70), or more locally, the Nettling point (Fox 1980). It is to be argued here, however, that there may be other means of recognising assemblages from this technological horizon. Given that projectile points may assume a number of different forms (due to reworking, breakage, and variation in the competence of individual flint knappers) as well as appear similar to those of other time periods, finding other means of identifying assemblages from this time period would be highly desirable. Furthermore, it is possible that at times no diagnostic projectile points may be recovered from areas excavated and/or that projectile points may been deposited during different occupations. In cases like these, other attributes of the assemblage may well be more informative than just the projectile points (e.g., Boisvert and Bennett 2004).
Of course, examining the entirety of the reduction sequence and its by-products has other advantages as well. In this dissertation, I am arguing that the reduction sequence is a coherent, organised system whereby the staging of each set of actions or operations that transform the lithic artifacts is undertaken for a specific purpose but is flexible enough to meet unforeseen contingencies. Indeed, I hope to demonstrate that all aspects of the lithic reduction sequence, 94 from obtaining the core to discard of exhausted projectile points, are inter-related and need to be considered holistically. In this way, we may be able to recognise by-products of parts of this reduction sequence whether or not there are "diagnostic" artifacts present.
In this and the next chapter, I will be introducing and describing a number of assemblages of the Early Archaic KCN Projectile Point Horizon around the east end of Lake Ontario. These sites were excavated in advance of construction in this region (i.e., through "Cultural Resource
Management") and a review of the provincial database of registered archaeological sites undertaken in 2003 indicated that these were all the excavated KCN sites available. I argue that each of these components, or groups of components, sheds light on different parts of a single, inter-related lithic reduction sequence. I argue that two kinds of site are represented in these assemblages and that variation reflects, in part, the length of time since the chert supply was replenished and the anticipated length of time before the next supply will be obtained. I argue, in fact, that the chert reduction system was intended to be conservative in the use of raw materials and that periods of chert scarcity were anticipated.
In order to meet the goals of this section, I will fully describe each component in turn, taking care to identify the excavation strategy employed at each site. Because each site has unique characteristics as well as some in common with other assemblages, the analytical methodology will vary, at times, in order to focus attention on those aspects of the specific assemblages that are of greatest interest.
It should be emphasised that in no way do I intend to suggest that any of these sites are contemporaneous or reflect the activities of one single group of people. Given that the KCN
Point Horizon is suspected to have lasted as much or more than a millennium, no two of these sites may even belong to the same generation. Instead, I am arguing that these assemblages all 95 represent different segments of a single technological system and that this system was in use at least as long as the time period encompassed by these sites.
That no single site identified so far has an assemblage that includes all the stages in the lithic reduction sequence should also be considered carefully. There has been some debate about whether lithic reduction should be considered as a continuum or can be considered as having discrete "stages" (see, for example, Short 2003). As I will argue further below, for the Early
Archaic KCN Horizon at least, I think it most likely that something analogous to discrete stages was a part of the adaptive strategy. These stages will be described separately in this and the next chapter. Base camps used to provision logistic forays may ultimately be found to be a component of the settlement pattern of some technological horizons, including this one.
However, even in these cases, we should expect that some activities may have occurred only at logistic sites and thus not be recognisable at the base camp. In these cases, obviously, samples from these logistic sites would need to be considered before any claim can be made of having a complete sample of the reduction system. This argument will not be made here because I have no way of knowing whether all types of logistic sites were sampled. That would require a confidence level in archaeological methods that cannot be guaranteed at this time. Critiquing the archaeological methodology and consequent database for southern Ontario would be a desirable project but far beyond the scope of this dissertation.
While admittedly I am providing a highly normative view of lithic technology I argue that this is actually a strength of the approach used here. Once this normative reconstruction is developed, we may then be able to look more closely for variation within this system and possibly even relate at least some of this variation to other variables such as change through 96 time. Indeed, this is, in essence, how Paleoindian specialists such as Deller and Ellis have managed to refine the culture/chronology of the late Pleistocene.
In this chapter, I will be focussing on assemblages that exhibit evidence of chert blocks or cores that were reduced to manufacture large primary flake blanks and bifaces. These assemblages will be examined to reveal how chert blocks or cores were strategically flaked to produce artifacts that could be transported elsewhere prior to being shaped into specific tools. I will argue that specific patterns of flake detachment can be observed and that these can be seen in discarded debitage, including core maintenance debris, tool blanks and the final tool forms. In this way I hope to demonstrate that the reduction sequence, rather than the specific artifacts, can be used as a kind of "index fossil" (sensu O'Brien and Lyman 1999). Furthermore, this patterning can also serve as a guide to understanding the strategy of lithic reduction employed during the Early Holocene to meet the anticipated demands of a mobile lifestyle.
In the following chapter, a second set of assemblages will be discussed that differs from the "core" sites described here. As will be shown, these "biface" sites produced little or no evidence of core reduction. Instead, these assemblages appear to have been produced by the use and modification of the tool blanks produced at the "core" sites. Most of these sites were further removed geographically from the chert outcrops but one exception to this generalisation will be included to demonstrate that the lithic reduction strategy was not entirely determined by geography. 97
Chert Procurement
Obviously, chert suitable for the production of tools had to be procured. As will become apparent in the discussion of the Ringtail and other assemblages, there is evidence of chert having been acquired from primary outcrops but relatively little evidence of the exploitation of chert from weathered, secondary sources. I suggest that the KCN Point users in the Niagara region selected raw material from primary sources that were relatively massive as well as reliable
(i.e., predictable) in their ability to produce large core blocks. Furthermore, based on the assemblages to be discussed below, the quality of the material selected was relatively high. This assessment, while unavoidably subjective, is based on the observation that the chert recovered from the sites examined in this dissertation was smooth and glossy with relatively few internal flaws compared to that of some other technological horizons. In large part, this evaluation is based on the author's extensive experience procuring and knapping Onondaga chert.
Despite ready access to abundant chert sources, the KCN people in southern Ontario employed a reduction system that allowed for extended periods between replenishment episodes.
This inference is analogous to that described by Gramly and Yahnig (1991) for the Fluted Point
Horizon in Kentucky. Indeed, as will be argued below for the Current site, both curation and scavenging of lithic refuse deposits were components of this system.
What, then, can we say about actual visits to chert outcrops other than that they occurred?
These visits could have been either logistic forays for the purpose of acquiring chert (Gould and
Saggers 1985:120), or embedded within other activities such as hunting expeditions as argued by
Binford (1979; see also Meltzer 1989:13). Based on evidence from the Ringtail site to be discussed below, such visits may not have involved core reduction at or near the quarry site 98 unless these sites were also residential camps at which other activities also took place. Certainly it is possible that quarrying equipment might have been cached at the quarry (see Nelson 1987 for an interesting discussion of an ethnoarchaeological example) but it is highly unlikely that any evidence of such behaviour would have survived the subsequent 9000 years. Indeed, even if such caches had survived, it is also very unlikely that any of these tools would possess attributes that could attribute them to this particular technological horizon. John Clark, for example, described quarrying activity among the Lacandon Mayans and noted that much of the activity involved digging and testing but that this would be difficult to detect. In fact, some of the residue left behind from testing cobbles, etc., would not necessarily even be identifiable as being the product of deliberate human activity (Clark 1991b:64).
Identifying quarry locations as residential locations, however, is also difficult. Michael
Gramly (1980) has proposed that the worn-out tools often noted at quarries were more likely to have been discarded from active toolkits as replacement material was procured. It would be wise, then, to not assume that quarry areas were also residential locations without solid evidence for these kinds of occupations.
The "Core" Sites
Core sites are dominated by debris produced during core reduction. In terms of the reduction sequence, these sites will be described in an order that reflects time from chert acquisition. The reduction sequence proposed here for the KCN Point Horizon is intended to reflect a continuum, with individual sites producing assemblages from different points along that continuum. Consequently, the analytical methodology is not held entirely constant and the 99 analysis is designed to highlight some of the key aspects of each assemblage. However, the overall system of artifact classification employed throughout this dissertation will be constant so
I will present the definitions here. The artifact analysis for each assemblage will include three main sections: 1) raw materials; 2) manufacturing debris and informal tools; and 3) formal tools.
The section on raw materials will include a description of the chert types identified in the assemblage according to the geological source of the material and most common terms used to describe the material.
"Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools" consists of three categories of artifacts.
Cores are defined as one kind of object piece from which debitage or flakes had been detached
(Andrefsky 1998:9-11). Cores would have been modified or shaped at various points in their reduction trajectory but this is inferred to have been done in order to control subsequent flake detachment. While cores or core remnants might have been employed as expedient or informal tools (see below), shaping cores for use as tools is not necessarily considered to be a primary goal of core reduction. Instead, the main goal of core reduction is inferred to have been the production of flakes that could be used for various purposes.
Many attempts have been made to discover regularities in core reduction and consequent core "types." Throughout most of Ontario's archaeological past, however, flint knappers appear to have employed an expedient reduction strategy, striking any available platform in order to detach a flake suitable for immediate use or further shaping. Exceptions to this pattern have been noted, however, from other places in North America. Some Middle Woodland flint knappers, for example, have long been known to produce highly standardised cores from which long, thin blades of chert were struck (e.g., Pi-Sunyer 1965). More recently, a very similar reduction strategy has been noted from some Paleoindian assemblages (e.g., Stanford 1999:294, 100
295) and a similar reduction pattern is now at least suspected to be present in Late Paleoindian assemblages from southern Ontario (Ellis and Deller 2002:27). Part of the research agenda of this study is to put forward and evaluate the hypothesis that a regularised reduction strategy was employed for the production of standardised flakes that could be used as blanks for various types of tools. This standardised flake reduction system has many of the attributes of a blade industry but may be a new variation of this kind of system.
Debitage or flakes are chert artifacts that had been detached from object pieces. Other than use as informal or expedient flake tools (to be described below), many flakes are not considered to be the desired end-product of lithic reduction but were detached in order to shape the object piece. Flakes may be a by-product of a number of different lithic reduction processes and often retain attributes that allow inferences to be generated about the object piece before and after the flake was removed. This in turn allows us to address questions of why the flake was detached. Attributes of the striking platform and the dorsal surface offtakes will differ according to what the object piece looked like before the removal of those flakes. Consequently, two general broad categories of debitage or flakes are recognised on the basis of the morphology of the object piece they were detached from. In this study, Primary Reduction flakes are those that are inferred to have been detached from a core. In contrast, Secondary Reduction flakes are inferred to have been detached from formal tools (to be described below), either in the production of these tools, in their maintenance or perhaps for use as expedient flake tools.
Primary Reduction flakes have several attributes in common. First, platforms tend to be simple and relatively unmodified with few or no facets produced by flake removal from the platform surface. Furthermore, the angle between the platform surface and the dorsal surface tends to be relatively obtuse, often approaching or even exceeding a 90-degree angle (Callahan 101
1984). Caution must be exercised here, however, because relatively unformed bifaces may have steeply bevelled edges in order to allow relatively flat intrusive flakes to be detached. Biface thinning flakes detached from this kind of platform may therefore appear remarkably similar to
Primary Reduction flakes. The dorsal surfaces of primary and early-stage biface reduction flakes also have relatively few flake scars from previous flake removals and these surfaces do not conform to the characteristics of more refined tools. Finally, on average, these flakes are often larger and thicker than those included below as secondary reduction flakes. Consequently, distinguishing between core reduction flakes and early biface reduction flakes may be difficult or impossible, at times, and this may indicate that there is no unambiguous distinction between cores and early stage bifaces.
Secondary Reduction flakes are those inferred to have been removed from a formed tool or tool preform, either a biface or a uniface. Identification of this class offtakes is most commonly made on the basis of the morphology of the striking platform, which is usually at an acute angle to the long axis of the flake as measured from the dorsal surface to the face of the platform. Striking platforms may also be faceted either from preparation of the striking platform or removal of flakes from the opposite face of the biface. On many Secondary Reduction flakes, however, the striking platform has been crushed from the pressure and/or impact force used to remove them. In some cases, however, these can still be identified as Secondary Reduction flakes on the basis of overall shape of the flake, and the dorsal flake scar morphology.
It should be made clear that the sorting of flakes into the above categories requires some subjective evaluation. As discussed in Chapter 2, a variety of reduction sequences have been documented for different assemblages. For example, the production of tools from relatively thin, tabular pieces can often be detected by the presence of finished tools with varying amounts of 102 weathered surface on one or more faces or edges. Clearly, then, even "late-stage" biface finishing flakes may have a considerable amount of cortex on their dorsal surfaces. Similarly, although Secondary Reduction flakes are often defined on the basis of platform angle, "late- stage" bifaces may retain a right-angle, unmodified lateral edge that, when used to thin the biface, may produce Primary Reduction-like flakes. Consequently, flake types like those used in this analysis must be considered a heuristic device used to direct enquiry rather than a final classification.
Debitage was further sorted into categories on the basis of a variety of attributes. First, debitage lacking evidence of a striking platform was grouped into two categories: fragments and blocky shatter. The latter is defined as thick, rectanguloid chunks of chert produced through either uncontrolled breakage of the core or exposure to rapid temperature changes. Fragments can include secondary or bifacial reduction flakes that lack the striking platform. This was done as a means of controlling quantification problems; i.e., double counting broken flakes.
Primary Reduction flakes were subsequently grouped into the more specific categories of primary decortication and secondary decortication flakes, which were produced during the removal of cortex and/or low quality material from the object piece. The difference between the two depends upon the relative amount of cortex remaining on the dorsal surface with the former usually having more than 50% on the dorsal surface. Core trimming flakes are those produced by shaping and trimming cores.
Primary flakes are those inferred to represent a desired result of core reduction, i.e., the production of flakes for the purpose of serving as flake tools or tool preforms. Since primary flakes will possess many of the same attributes as core trimming flakes, identifying primary flakes requires making a subjective evaluation informed by a familiarity with the kinds of flakes 103 actually used to produce formal tools. It is assumed that the primary flakes recovered would not be a representative sample because the better specimens would have been used as tools and transported off the site.
Bifacial Reduction flakes were sorted into four categories based on degree of completeness: complete, platform, midsection and distal. An additional category of bifacial retouch flakes was included to distinguish flakes I infer to have been produced from re- sharpening bifacial tools. I distinguish these kinds offtakes on the basis of evidence of use-wear on the dorsal surface or, less commonly, on the small size. Very few of these were recovered, however, because these flakes are normally too small to be recovered with 6 mm mesh which was the smallest size of screening used to recover most of the assemblages employed here. An additional factor that should be considered, however, is that these flakes tend to be missed during site maintenance activities due to their small size. As will be discussed below, the majority of the sites excavated probably did not include any activity areas where these flakes would have been produced and discarded.
Additional attributes used to sort flakes include raw material and evidence of exposure to heat. Once the flakes had been sorted, count and weight was recorded for each provenience unit.
Informal tools are defined as pieces of debitage with small, regular flake scars along one or more lateral edges. These flake removals, however, do not modify or regularise the overall shape to any noticeable degree. There is substantial debate amongst lithic analysts (Shen 1999,
2000) as to what caused this flaking, what function, if any, it served, and whether macroscopic methods are adequate for identifying all artifacts that should be included as "utilised flakes". It is acknowledged that small flake scars may have been placed to serve other functions, such as
"backing" a blade. However, for the sake of consistency with other analyses, here they will be 104 treated as the working edges of expedient flake tools. Because this research project is directed towards understanding the reduction sequence and not the actual function of the tools produced, it is sufficient to note that such artifacts are present and that they have not been shaped into more formal tools. Thus, the identification of "tool type" is offered as a morphological evaluation but should not be confused with actual function as might be determined by a use-wear analysis.
Formal Tools are defined as those that have been deliberately flaked in order to modify their overall shape. This flaking is generally inferred to have been undertaken in order to provide more efficient and/or specialised use of functional edges, to allow the tool to be hafted in a handle or larger composite tool and/or to allow for greater control in resharpening. Formal
Tools are further subdivided into unifaces and bifaces.
The above definitions are offered to provide an overview of how artifacts were sorted and put into a framework to guide the analysis. However, each assemblage was chosen for analysis on the basis of its ability to inform my research on specific aspects of the overall lithic reduction sequence. Other assemblages were also considered while I undertook this research but were not included because they had limited potential to offer additional insights. In other words, I considered these to offer only redundant data. On the other hand, because each of the assemblages included here offered different insights, my manner of presentation and discussion of the acquired data will vary somewhat for each assemblage. This was done in order to highlight the specific aspects of each assemblage that are of primary interest.
Following will be a description of the sites used in this analysis as well as the assemblages recovered from them. Since very few of these assemblages have been previously published, I will describe the sites and excavations in detail. This is done in order to establish 105 the excavation methodologies employed and thereby allow the sampling strategies to be made explicit.
The Ringtail Site (AhGx-442)
The Ringtail Site (AhGx-442) was discovered during a routine Cultural Resource
Management (CRM) assessment of an 80 acre development property, Garth Trails, in the City of
Hamilton (N.D.A. 2002) (Figure 1-1). The site was discovered during a test pit survey of a bushlot in the fall of 2001. Testing of the site consisted of excavating one metre square excavation units at five metre intervals until no more material culture was encountered. This was accomplished in 2002 and, given the relatively high concentration of artifacts recovered, more intensive excavation was undertaken during July and August of 2002. Since all relevant details of that excavation are repeated here, no further reference to the CRM report will be made.
Site Location, Environment and Context
As stated above, the Ringtail Site (designated AhGx-442 under the Borden Site designation system applied to Ontario (Garrad 1967)) was located on Lot 3, Concession 1
(Glanford), in the former Township of Glanbrook, now in the City of Hamilton (N.D.A. 2002:1)
(Figures 1-1 and 4-1). As such, it was within the Haldimand Clay Plain physiographic region
(Chapman and Putnam 1984:190-196), approximately 5.5 km south of the Niagara escarpment.
The property consisted of a rolling topography incised by tributaries of Twenty Mile Creek 106 dissecting the clay loam soils. The Ringtail Site itself was located on the western side of a bushlot bordering the south end of this property on a small knoll.
In terms of the broader archaeological context of this site, 37 sites were identified on the property, three of which were ultimately identified as belonging to the Early Archaic KCN
Horizon. Of these three, two were the subject of more intensive excavations while the third had artifact densities too low to warrant further investigation. It will be argued, however, that this third site was likely the living area for the Current site to be discussed below.
Field Methodology
The site area was "gridded" using an optical transit and metric tapes with wooden stakes inserted at five metre intervals with the grid oriented using magnetic north. Excavation units, consisting of squares measuring one metre to each side, were labelled in reference to their southwest corner and using a six-digit number where the first three digits refer to the distance
"easting" and the second three digits refer to the distance "northing".
Excavation was undertaken by shovel with the soil from each one-metre unit screened through 6 mm (1/4") hardware mesh. As is routine in CRM projects in southern Ontario, excavation limits were determined by artifact density with limits established at 15 artifacts per one-metre square. In other words, once artifact densities fell below 15 artifacts per one metre square, no further excavation was undertaken. All artifacts recovered in this manner were bagged separately by "square". Thirteen one-metre squares were excavated during the initial testing and 103 additional squares were subsequently excavated for a total of 116 squares at this site. The majority of these squares were in two clusters: one cluster of squares, the largest, on 107 the south side of a small knoll; and one cluster on the northwest side of the same knoll. Other squares were distributed so as to test the surrounding area for additional deposits that might have been missed.
Artifact Analysis
A total of 2575 chipped lithic artifacts were recovered during the excavation of the
Ringtail site. The distribution of artifacts according to the categories described above is presented in Table 4-1. Two additional artifacts, both broken projectile points, will also be discussed individually because they were recovered in the general vicinity and may relate to the occupation.
Raw Materials: The Ringtail site assemblage is dominated by the presence of chert from the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation (Eley and von Bitter 1989:17-18). This chert outcrops along the north shore of Lake Erie and is the most common chert type used by the prehistoric inhabitants of southern Ontario. This popularity is assumed to be because of its relative abundance, its occurrence in relatively massive form, its ease of workability and its ability to hold a sharp edge.
While direct quantification of the exterior surfaces was not undertaken, unweathered and angular surfaces were observed to be present on the majority of artifacts with surfaces not completely modified by flaking. This observation is taken to indicate that most of the raw material was extracted from a primary chert outcrop. Chert with weathered and rounded surfaces was observed on a few artifacts but secondary chert deposits are also present in the same general 108 area as the primary outcrop so some of this may have been procured from streambeds or exposed soil either around the outcrops or closer to the site.
The other identified raw material is Ancaster chert from the Middle Silurian Lockport
Formation (Eley and von Bitter 1989). Where exterior surfaces were present, this chert appears to have been pebbles that were minimally altered, most likely simply to obtain expedient flake tools since no formal tools or well-formed bifacial reduction flakes were observed in the assemblage.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: Only two objects were considered to be cores, sensu stricto, although several of the bifaces discussed below could be considered as such. However, several core-trimming flakes also reveal information about the treatment of cores and so will be discussed in this section although they are tabulated with the unmodified flakes.
The two cores are both pieces of Onondaga chert and both retain some primarily coarse, grainy cortex. Both are remnants of unidirectional cores (Andrefsky 1998:13-14) in that the majority of the flake scars originate along one edge. On both pieces, the longest dimension remaining would consist of the vertical height of the chert as it was geologically deposited. This is indicated by the presence of a distinctive cross-bedded, sedimentary structure, observable on some Onondaga chert. The larger and more complete of the two cores measures just over 61 millimetres in height, 35 millimetres in width and 22.5 millimetres in thickness but only the thickness can be considered complete as the other dimensions are terminated by fractures (Figure
4-3a). The smaller fragment has no complete dimensions but the remaining segment measures
33 mm in height, 19 mm in width and 18 mm in thickness (Figure 4-3b). 109
The striking platforms on both cores are unmodified planar surfaces produced by natural breaks in the chert. On the larger piece, two flakes were struck approximately 25 mm apart, producing relatively wide flake scars. Lengths of the flakes cannot be estimated because of breakage of the cores. It can be noted, however, that the flake scars are relatively consistent in size, have a small impact fracture and pronounced bulb of percussion. The distribution of cores across the excavated site area is illustrated, along with that of other tools, in Figure 4-4.
An examination of several of the core trimming flakes also allows for some observations to be made about the manipulation and reduction of cores. Two conjoining flakes, for example, appear to have been struck in order to remove the original striking surface which was unmodified
(Figure 4-5). The dorsal surface of these flakes was the striking platform of the core and the distal end of these flakes removed an acute angle caused by earlier flake removals. The core was at least 50 mm wide and 42 mm thick when these flakes were removed.
Sixteen core trimming flakes are triangular in cross-section and have a pronounced central ridge (Figure 4-6). One side is an unmodified surface while the opposite has flake scars struck perpendicular to the long axis of the flake. In other words, the dorsal ridge of these flakes was actually the edge of a striking platform. The flake illustrated in Figure 4-6g is similar in that it removed the striking platform although it was struck from the bottom of the core face rather than laterally along the edge of the platform. While not common, Larry Kimball (1993:99, figure 31) illustrates a similar flake from the Early Archaic Bifurcate-base stratum at Rose Island in Tennessee and refers to it as a blade core rejuvenation flake.
Six hypotheses can be offered to explain the presence of these flakes. First, these flakes could have been detached to rejuvenate the platform by removing an acute edge formed by bulbs of percussion. A second, related, possibility is that the removal of these flakes is analogous to the 110 grinding seen on obsidian cores from some Mayan sites (Trachman 1999). Given the form and position of these flakes, it is not possible that these flakes would have functioned in the same manner as hypothesised by Trachman. However, it is possible that the removal of these flakes would have prevented platform tablet flakes like those described above from "plunging" down the face of the core when these were detached. The weakness of this argument, however, is that far too few tablet flakes were recovered from this or any other excavation reported here to account for this practise. Caution must be exercised, however, because platform tablet flakes may have been selected for use as flake tools.
A third possibility for this kind of flake would be to change the orientation of flake removal. Little support can be offered for this hypothesis, however, because no flakes with dorsal flake scars running perpendicular to the long-axis of the flake were noted. Fourth, it is possible that these flakes were removed as part of the process of transforming the core into a biface. Removal of these flakes would aid in transforming the previous striking platform into something approaching an acute angled biface edge. A fifth possibility is that these flakes were themselves actually tools or regularised blanks for a specific type of tool. Finally, another possibility is that these flakes were removed in order to eliminate a projecting sharp edge. This might have been desirable if the cores were being prepared for transport and these projecting sharp edges were known to cause cutting and abrasion of the container the cores were transported in. Unfortunately, no flake scars resulting from similar kinds of flake detachment have been identified from cores, primary flake-tool blanks or early stage bifaces so the precise function of these flake removals must remain in doubt.
The core trimming flakes discussed above were detached from along the edge of the platform, possibly in order to remove and thus repair a pronounced acute angle. This acute angle Ill was produced by the series of parallel-struck flakes with pronounced bulbs of percussion. The relatively uniform size and orientation of these bulbs of percussion allow the inference that they were planned and relatively well controlled impacts with a hard-hammer technique. The flake scars on the core remnants also conform to this observation and the author has produced very similar kinds of flakes and cores using direct hard-hammer percussion. The attributes for inferring that a hard hammer was used are the relatively pronounced bulb of percussion and that the flakes were driven from a striking platform with a close to 90 degree angle to the long axis of the flakes.
A total of 2,510 unmodified flakes, weighing 1801.5 grams, were recovered during the excavations at the Ringtail site (Table 4-2). The distribution offtakes across the excavated area is presented in Figure 4-2. Over 99% of these were Onondaga chert artifacts. Those of Ancaster chert likely represent the products of testing local pebbles.
While not quantified, it can be noted that the Onondaga chert recovered at Ringtail included some with joint fracture surfaces and poor quality material. This poor quality material, however, was most apparent on modified and/or unweathered surfaces that would have been inside the mass of the chert block before it was flaked. It would appear that one or more of the site's occupants had visited an Onondaga chert primary outcrop just prior to or during the site's occupation and had returned with a quantity of lightly trimmed, blocky material. Because of the presence of this low quality material and the abundance of joint fractures, I would infer that relatively little time had been spent trimming or testing the chert block(s) at the quarry site.
Consequently some relatively unusable material had been included in the transported load. This in turn suggests the visit to the outcrop had been of a logistic nature, perhaps not involving the entire social unit of the site. 112
Fragments comprise a relatively high percentage (34%) of the flake assemblage from the
Ringtail site. The relative proportion of Primary Reduction flakes is slightly higher at over 60% of the assemblage of which core trimming flakes are the most common and constitute a large
(i.e., >40%) proportion of the assemblage. In contrast, decortication flakes are uncommon, totalling less than 4% of the assemblage. In large part this is probably because quarry blocks were selected for transport based on their being relatively free of coarse, low quality material.
Consequently, pieces with weathered, exterior surfaces may have been, on average, of high quality. Additionally, in terms of a simple ratio of exterior surface to mass, larger blocks would have had proportionately less exterior surface attached.
Bipolar flakes were not noted in the assemblage. If bipolar reduction was used as a means of conserving a scarce resource (Binford and Quimby 1972; Goodyear 1993; Shott 1989), then the absence of this reduction practise would be in conformity with the premise that chert was not considered scarce by the occupants of this site.
Secondary Reduction flakes are relatively less common than primary flakes, totalling only slightly more than 4% of the assemblage. This small percentage indicates that although biface production occurred, it contributed far less to the assemblage than core reduction. As will be discussed below, the biface assemblage from the Ringtail site consists of rejects from the early stages of production rather than the later stages when bifaces were refined. The flakes from these stages of biface reduction may, at times be less distinguishable from those produced during core reduction.
One basal thinning flake bears some consideration. While basal thinning is a noted feature of KCN bifaces (Ellis et al. 1991:8), the identification of these flakes can be difficult.
The identification of basal thinning flakes requires the presence of dorsal flake scars oriented at 113 right angles to the long axis of the flake, i.e., flake scars originating from the lateral edges while the flake itself was struck from the base. The one basal thinning flake identified has dorsal flake scars struck perpendicular to the direction from which the flake was struck. The flake is long enough (i.e., 48 mm) that at least five rows of flake scars are present on the dorsal surface, at least two of these being "over-shot" flakes that crossed the median line, another common feature of KCN bifaces (see below). The platform, however, is nearly right angled and therefore would have been relatively robust so as not to collapse during removal. Although I cannot be entirely confident with this identification, I think it likely that this flake may have been produced during the manufacture of a narrow biface, to be described below.
In summary, the flake assemblage appears to be dominated by the by-products of shaping, trimming and reducing cores and/or early stages of bifaces from chert blocks recently obtained from a primary outcrop. Three observed attributes of the assemblage support this inference. First, a relatively high percentage offtakes with attributes of tabular fracture planes are present. These fracture planes are common in cores and blocks obtained at primary outcrops.
Their presence on flakes in this assemblage indicates that relatively little trimming of the cores was undertaken at the quarry beyond the removal of some of the obvious poor quality cortex material. Tabular planes were employed as striking platforms and were also commonly observed on the dorsal faces of flakes as weathered surfaces.
Secondly, a noticeable amount of the raw material was of poor quality chert. This material is relatively grainy which can impede controlled flake removal. It is inferred that this material was present inside chert blocks and was inadvertently brought back to the site. This in turn supports the inference that quarry blocks were returned to the site without extensive testing 114 or reduction. On the other hand, testing and reduction was undertaken at this site in order to remove this material so as not to continue transporting unreliable material further.
Finally, the large size of many of the flakes recovered indicates that relatively large cores and blocks were present. Many flakes measuring in excess of 5 cm in length were noted, indicating that the cores had not been reduced through extended use. Furthermore, the presence of these larger flakes indicates that the assemblage had not been picked through in order to scavenge usable pieces for later use. In other words, instead of any perceived shortage of raw material, the occupants of the Ringtail site appear to have been willing to discard chert even though many of these pieces would certainly have worked as usable tools in other contexts.
Again, a fresh supply of chert seems to have been available for the site's occupants.
The Ringtail assemblage included 42 flakes with utilised margins. Only one of these had such use wear on more than one margin. All were manufactured from Onondaga chert and none exhibited evidence of exposure to heat. Of the 42 flakes, only two were classified as biface thinning flakes while 37 were the product of core or early-stage biface production flakes (the remaining three flakes consisted of two fragments and one piece of shatter).
In terms of inferred tool-type, 40 of the worked edges appear to have been simple unifacial scrapers. Twenty five of these were located along a long, lateral edge of the flake, and so were classified as side scrapers while 14 of the worked edges were located on a shorter margin and so were classified as end scrapers. The final flake in this group is simply classified as a generalised scraper. Two additional edges had a concave shape and were thus identified as notches or spokeshaves. Finally, one flake was classified as a graver because it has two worked edges that meet at a point although the angle is actually obtuse. However, this "point" may have been produced through a fortuitous meeting of two worked edges. 115
The utilised flakes recovered during the Ringtail site excavations appear to represent true expedient tools. If the nature and extent of continuous edge flaking can in any way be taken to represent the extent of use, then the tools discussed here appear to have been very lightly used prior to discard. With the exception of the possible graver mentioned above, none appear to have been the product of long-term use and modification. Additionally, given that utilised flakes, as defined here, represent a lower proportion of the overall assemblage than seen at the Current site
(see Table 4-4), then whatever activities led to the production of this artifact category must have been proportionately less intensively practised during the site's occupation. Therefore, if domestic activities include the processes that produced this artifact type, then domestic activities must have contributed less to the formation of the Ringtail assemblage. Conversely, since it has already been argued that core trimming and reduction contributed the bulk of the flake assemblage, the production of utilised flakes are less likely to have been related to this type of lithic reduction. The most likely explanation, however, is that the better tools were curated and transported off the site for later use. The distribution of these artifacts is illustrated in Figure 4-4.
Formal Tools: The distribution of formal tools is illustrated in Figure 4-4. One unifacially retouched scraper was recovered during the excavation of the Ringtail site (Figure 4-8a). This tool was manufactured from an expanding primary flake of Onondaga chert with a relatively thick (4.5 mm) but narrow (7.3 mm) faceted platform. The scraper is 29 mm in length, 23.8 mm in width just proximal to the worked edge, 14.5 mm wide at the proximal end and has a maximum thickness of 5.9 mm also at the proximal end.
The dorsal surface of the scraper has two large flake scars, parallel to the long axis, that cover most of the surface and relatively large retouch flake scars overlain by smaller flake scars, 116 which often end in hinge terminations, modified the distal, working end. Both lateral edges are also flaked with less regular flake scars and the junction between the sides and "working" edge is made apparent by a relatively abrupt change in angle on the left side and a small spur on the right. These attributes combined support the inference that this tool was hafted and was discarded because relatively little of the tool remained emerging from the haft.
Twenty biface fragments were recovered but mending reduced the number to a maximum of thirteen. All were manufactured from Onondaga chert. The bifaces will be described in three groups: broad bifaces, narrow bifaces and fragments. The first two groups appear to represent the reduction sequence of two different functional forms while the third group is simply a "catch all" for pieces too small to otherwise classify.
Three bifaces belong to the "broad" grouping. The most complete was manufactured from a relatively large flake of Onondaga chert (Figure 4-9a). The dorsal surface has not been fully flaked but retains some of the original tabular surface and a remaining portion of the striking platform indicating that the original flake was struck vertically down the face of the core.
Although the raw material is relatively coarse and porous, it is possible that this is in part due to post-depositional, chemical weathering. Alternately, it is possible that the knapper had continued to work the piece in the hope of removing this poor quality material but abandoned it when it became apparent that the poor quality material was throughout the mass of the artifact.
This biface has a length of slightly over 66 mm, a width of 59 mm and a thickness of 21 mm. As mentioned above, only part of the dorsal surface has been flaked but the ventral surface has been more extensively worked with relatively large, randomly oriented, flake scars, many terminating in deep hinge fractures. These hinge fractures may also have contributed to the 117 decision to abandon this artifact. The edges have some small flake scars suggesting this tool might also have been used as a rough chopper or cleaver.
The second broad biface is represented by two pieces recovered from the same one-metre square (Figure 4-9b). One of the pieces is actually a flake struck high on the platform. Although this flake succeeded in removing a couple of hinge scars, much of the mass of the biface was detached with the platform. The distal end of this flake appears to have been used as an expedient scraping tool.
This biface was also produced from a large flake. The chert is of much higher quality than the biface discussed above although there is some coarse, porous material at and near the original striking platform and around the platform of the detached flake. The length of the biface is slightly over 65 mm, the width is 50 mm and the thickness is 26 mm (both the latter measurements with the flake re-fitted). The presence of small, hinged flake scars along the lateral edges may be evidence that this biface was used as a chopper or cleaver.
The third broad biface is also represented by two pieces but is not complete (Figure 4-9c).
The remaining surfaces of the original flake suggest the width may have been greater than the length but that the flake split in half. The length was about 48 mm and the width of the remaining section is about 40 mm. The remaining thickness is 12 mm indicating that this rough biface was relatively thin when broken.
The three bifaces were at an early stage in the production of generalised broad bifaces.
Bifaces like these could easily have been further refined to become like those recovered from other sites to be discussed in this dissertation. At least some of these early stage bifaces appear to have been used as choppers or cleavers. Additionally, these bifaces may also have served as bifacial cores for the production of expedient flake tools. 118
The second group of bifaces is a narrow form that appears to have been manufactured from relatively large flakes detached vertically from the corner of a chert block (see, for example, Deller and Ellis 1992:Figure 8c and d). The larger of the two in this category was reconstructed from four pieces but one middle fragment was not recovered. Most of the fractures occurred within a section of relatively coarse material running through the centre of the biface
(Figure 4-10a).
This biface measures approximately 80 mm in length, 35 mm in width and 17 mm in thickness at a "hinge stack". Elsewhere on this biface the thickness is approximately 12 mm.
While broken and discarded during initial stages of flaking, this biface has a pronounced plano convex cross section and has flaking scars similar to those seen on larger KCN projectile points.
Specifically, flake scars originating from the lateral edges are most often perpendicular to the long axis of the biface while flake scars originate from one end of the biface appear similar to basal thinning flakes seen on finished KCN bifaces.
The second narrow biface is complete after being mended from three fragments (Figure
4-10b). Again, the long axis of this biface runs vertical in relation to the orientation of the original core and approximately one third of the length of this biface consists of coarse, grainy and cross-bedded, cortex. What appears to be the distal end (based on the flaking patterns described below) may have been broken off but it is just as likely this actually represents the unfinished tip.
This biface measures slightly over 60 mm in length, 32 mm in width and averages 10 mm in thickness, which is relatively uniform. The sides are parallel, the presumed base is squared off and there is slight rounding towards the tip. The flat flake scars originating from the lateral edges of the dorsal surface extend almost to the opposite edge while the ventral surface is much 119 more flattened, producing a plano-convex cross section. On the dorsal surface, parallel flake scars originate from the presumed base and extend 20 mm along the length of the biface. Again, this flaking pattern resembles both the flaking pattern seen on the biface discussed above and the relatively large, complete KCN projectile points.
These two narrow bifaces appear unlikely to have been intended to become projectile points as they are considerably more narrow but thicker than larger KCN projectile points.
Furthermore, given their relative thickness, thinning them enough to conform to the dimensions of finished projectile points would have narrowed them to such an extent that they would not have conformed to known examples of the type. It is also difficult to dismiss these bifaces as being the product of a poorly skilled knapper. Flake scars lack evidence of flaws such as pronounced hinge stacks, etc., that can be equated with poorly placed strikes.
Alternatively, bifaces recovered with several other assemblages to be discussed below
(Figures 5-7b, 5-23a), which are considerably thicker and narrower than the relatively broad bifaces, could well have been produced from bifaces such as these. It is possible, therefore, that the narrow bifaces recovered from the Ringtail site represent preforms for a specialised butchering tool which may be characteristic of KCN tool assemblages.
Finally, eight biface fragments were recovered during the Ringtail site excavations. Due to their fragmentary nature, relatively little can be said about these pieces other than that they were all manufactured from Onondaga chert and that all but one appear to have broken off bifaces relatively early in the reduction sequence. The exception is an edge fragment that was more finely flaked and may have been from either a finished projectile point or a knife.
Two broken Kirk Corner-notched projectile points were recovered during the investigations that may relate to the Ringtail site occupation. The first and most complete of 120 these was found on the surface just east of the excavation area after it had been logged and the stumps pulled (Figure 4-8b). It was close enough, however, to be recorded on the Ringtail grid, approximately 30 metres east of the southern most of the two excavation areas. Since the area this point was found in is contiguous with the excavated areas, since the overall size of this area would be well within the ethnographically documented size of hunter-gatherer camps and since there is no evidence for any other occupation of this area, the association appears warranted.
The projectile point is missing its tip and base but is otherwise complete. The tip appears to have been snapped off, probably due to an impact fracture. Similarly, the base was snapped across the notches in a manner similar to that commonly observed on KCN points. The size and flaking pattern of this point indicates that it was a relatively large point prior to breakage and had been retouched minimally, if at all. The flake scars originating from the lateral edges are nearly parallel in orientation and remnant basal thinning flake scars are still visible between the notches.
The edges near the tip may have been retouched, an inference supported by a slight twist characteristic of bilateral edge bevelling. There is also some indication of edge serration but, for the most part, the projections had been shorn off. Intact dimensions include a maximum width of slightly over 33 mm, an inter-notch width of approximately 16 mm and a thickness of almost 7 mm. Total blade length can be estimated at around 50 mm.
The second point was recovered from the surface of the ploughed field but a considerable distance to the east (Figure 4-8c). Consequently, this point can not be considered to be directly related to the Ringtail site occupation. It is mentioned here, though, because it too appears to have been a relatively large, unretouched point that also has a broken tip and base. Its size and flaking pattern are almost identical to that just described and thus appears to have been freshly 121 made from a specialised preform. Unfortunately, no intact dimensions remain other than the thickness of 5.5 mm.
Discussion of the Ringtail Assemblage
Aside from the projectile points, which were outside the excavation area of the Ringtail site, a total of 2,575 artifacts were recovered. All are chert artifacts and have been described above. Various aspects of this site and assemblage will be elaborated upon so as to derive a better understanding of this assemblage when viewed in a broader context.
Most commonly on aceramic sites, age is inferred on the basis of the style of recovered projectile points. Only one projectile point was recovered in association with the Ringtail assemblage but it was 30 metres away. This projectile point is, however, a classic example of a large KCN projectile point although the tip and base had been broken off.
The relatively broad bifaces cannot be considered chronologically diagnostic. Wide, randomly flaked bifaces are characteristic of many time periods, not just the Early Archaic. The narrow bifaces, on the other hand, may be more informative. These two bifaces, particularly the smaller more complete and well-flaked example, possess parallel lateral and basal flake scars most like those seen on KCN projectile points. Examples of similar narrow bifaces have been recovered from several of the assemblages to be described below. The presence of these bifaces from the Ringtail site can be argued to support the inference that this assemblage was deposited during the same time period although functionally analogous bifaces are known from other technological horizons (Spence and Fox 1986:Figure 1.4a, g, m; Woodley 1996:45). T would argue that the potentially diagnostic feature of these bifaces is a flaking pattern that consists of 122 broad but relatively parallel-sided and parallel-oriented flake scars originating from the lateral edges and base. This pattern of flaking is similar to that found on large KCN preforms such as the one described here and others to be discussed below.
The suggestion that the Ringtail site assemblage was deposited during the Early Archaic,
KCN horizon is tenuous but appears to be the best explanation available. I will argue that the diagnostic attributes of this assemblage are to be found in the technological choices used in shaping the cores, the production of flakes and the flaking patterns used to produce and shape bifaces. A number of core trimming flakes were recovered and discussed within the section of the cores and attributes of these flakes indicate that specialised core preparation was a feature of the reduction strategy. These core trimming flakes indicate that deliberate core trimming and reduction was undertaken in order to produce regularised flakes that could have been used as tool blanks like those seen at other sites to be discussed below.
I argue that the production of regularised flakes for use as tools blanks and expedient flake tools is also an integral component of this distinctive technological system and thus the chronologically diagnostic attribute is the reduction sequence itself. Various attributes discussed above are associated with the KCN technological horizon and the assemblage in both selected parts and its entirety is consistent with this interpretation. Of course, I cannot suggest that this pattern, or at least parts of it, cannot also occur in assemblages from other time periods. So far, however, except as otherwise noted, none of the attributes discussed above have been noted in assemblages from other time periods.
The Ringtail site excavations consisted of two main excavation areas separated by slightly more than ten metres (Figure 4-2). The northeastern excavation area consisted of 36 one-metre squares as well as a few out-lying test units. It was located on the northeastern side of 123 a low, flat hill on relatively steeply sloping ground and centred around a small hollow. The larger, southern excavation area consisted of 58 one-metre squares and out-lying test units located on more gently sloping ground that falls off toward the south. The area between these two excavation areas is the relatively flat top of the hill that extends to the east and includes the area from which the projectile point was recovered 30 metres away. Test units placed across the top of this hill, particularly between these two excavation areas, produced artifact densities too low to warrant further investigation.
The recovered assemblage consists of material produced during the reduction of chert cores and the production of a variety of tool forms. At some point immediately prior to or during the site's occupation, an unknown number of chert blocks was transported to the site and used as cores. The abundance of unmodified tabular surfaces, particularly on debitage, indicates these were relatively unmodified chert blocks from which only coarse cortex was removed prior to transport. However, given that a relatively large amount of coarse, poor quality material was evident within both the flakes and broken bifaces, it would appear that these chert blocks were not well tested prior to transport back to the camp. This in turn offers some evidence regarding the residential mobility of the site's occupants. If the chert blocks were not significantly modified prior to transport, then it would follow that it is relatively unlikely that much debris identifiable to the time period would be evident at either chert outcrops or local "staging" areas near the quarry. Consequently, we can characterise expeditions to the quarry as being more logistic and/or that core reduction was, at least at times, delayed until specific products were required. In other words, cores may have been left unmodified so as to allow for some flexibility in how they were to be reduced but with the risk of containing hidden flaws or poor quality 124 material. This in turn implies either that there was a high degree of confidence in the quality of the material or that any problems encountered could be mitigated during reduction.
It can thus be inferred that the specific mode of chert acquisition implies a logistic element to the mobility pattern because this chert acquisition event did not entail any evidence of residential mobility. Specifically, if the entire domestic unit had been located closer to the outcrop, why, then, was further testing and reduction of the chert blocks not undertaken at that site? I suggest here that the chert acquisition event involved only a logistical foray to the outcrop
(located over 30 kilometres to the south) (Gould and Saggers 1985) with only minor trimming and reduction undertaken prior to transport. Further reduction was undertaken at the residential site, probably to produce specific tools that were needed and perhaps loosely analogous to the example of modern quarrying activity documented by Hayden (1987a) and Nelson (1987). This does not imply a "collector" mobility strategy in Binford's (1980) terms, however, because even classic "foragers" employed some logistic forays, including over-night expeditions, in their
"rounds".
It is argued that the recovered debitage and other artifacts indicate three kinds of reduction. First, aside from flake fragments, the largest category of debitage observed was core trimming flakes. While core trimming can be considered an almost universal requisite for any reduction sequence, specific flakes and flake types discussed above can be pointed to as indicating that one of the goals of the reduction sequence employed by the site's occupants was the production of large primary flakes. These primary flakes could have been saved and used later as various forms offtake tools. Two kinds of flakes were observed that would have removed the edges of the striking platform when they had become concave due to the bulbs of 125 percussion from previous flake removals. Collectively, these suggest that cores were carefully maintained for flake production and possibly transported away from the site for later reduction.
Two flake types observed in the assemblage can be inferred to have met this functional requirement. First, and seemingly most common, are flakes that were struck perpendicular to the preferred striking platform. A minimum of 14 such flakes were noted in the assemblage and discussed in the section dealing with the recovered cores. Secondly, two flakes, which conjoin, were also noted which were struck across the top of a core's striking surface. The distal end of these flakes removed an acute angled edge that had been produced by the bulbs of percussion from previous flake removals. Consequently, it can be concluded that a significant proportion of the lithic reduction that had occurred during the site's occupation was the preparation and maintenance of chert cores for the removal of primary flakes. These primary flakes, in turn, would likely have been curated and transported away from the site in order to serve as ready- made flake blanks for use as tools. As will be discussed below, tools made from flakes such as these are a common feature of assemblages producing KCN projectile points.
The second lithic reduction activity that was performed at the site appears to have been the production of broad bifaces. These could have served any number of functions, as indicated by Robert Kelly (1988) including use as a relatively heavy chopper or cleaver and/or as a core for the production of smaller expedient flake tools. Ultimately, however, these bifaces would most likely have become preforms for the manufacture of the relatively distinctive KCN projectile point or, alternatively, the hafted bifacial knife type such as the one found at the
Kipling 2 site (see below and Figure 5-7a).
Finally, it appears that a third reduction sequence represented in the Ringtail site assemblage involved the production of a relatively narrow biface form. This biface form is 126 narrower and thicker than the previously described biface form but has the same distinctive flaking pattern of parallel lateral and basal flaking as that seen on larger, finished KCN projectile points. Other examples of this biface type will also be described below.
In summary, while it can be questioned whether KCN projectile points have indeed been recovered in association with the Ringtail assemblage, the over-all lithic reduction patterns observed within this assemblage appear to conform well with those seen in other assemblages to be described. It is argued that understanding the KCN lithic reduction sequence and strategy, however, requires a consideration of multiple assemblages.
The Current Site (AhGx-445)
The Current Site (AhGx-445) was discovered during the same project as the Ringtail Site discussed above (i.e. Garth Trails in Figure 1-1) (N.D.A. 2002). The site was encountered during a survey of the ploughed portion of the property (Figure 4-1). Excavations were completed during June of 2002. As will be discussed, the Current Site displays both similarities and differences with the Ringtail site and these combined are of great value in reconstructing the
KCN Projectile Point technological horizon.
Site Location, Environment and Context
As stated above, the Current Site (AhGx-445) was located on the same property as the
Ringtail site and more general information on the site location is provided in the discussion of that site. The site was located in a low-lying area at the base of a slope on the north side of one 127 of the now desiccated tributaries that ran across the property (Figure 4-1). Considered in isolation, this location might have been suitable for a winter habitation in that the site area has a south-facing exposure and is protected from winds coming from the north and west.
Furthermore, this location would have been relatively damp or even wet in warmer weather and the ground has a pronounced slope, therefore making it seem relatively uncomfortable as a habitation area. Indeed, during the excavation of the site, active crawfish burrows were encountered in some of the excavation units despite the fact that there was almost no running water in the stream bottom. However, as also will be discussed in greater detail below, to the north and west of the Current Site was another Early Archaic KCN site, designated "Number 18"
(AhGx-452) (Figure 4-1). This site consisted of a relatively thin scatter of artifacts spread across a relatively flat section of the field. Since this area was separated from the limits of the Current
Site excavations by less than ten metres, both sites will be discussed together.
Field Methodology
The site was initially found while walking the surface of the ploughed field. The grid and grid numbering was extended to site "Number 18" but no attempt was made to reconcile this grid with that of the Ringtail site. Like Ringtail, excavation limits were determined by artifact density with limits established at 15 artifacts per one-metre square. Fourteen one metre squares were excavated during the testing and 98 additional squares were excavated during the excavations for a total of 112 squares (Figure 4-11). One additional artifact, a flake, was recovered from the surface of an adjacent square not excavated. 128
Artifact Analysis
The analytical procedures used for this assemblage follow those used for describing the assemblage from the Ringtail site above. Specifically, the same artifact categories described and employed for that site will be used here. The distribution of artifacts according to these categories is presented in Table 4-3.
Raw Materials: Like the Ringtail site, the Current site assemblage is dominated by
Onondaga chert. Other identified raw materials include Ancaster chert and Haldimand chert from the Lower Devonian Bois Blanc Formation (Eley and von Bitter 1989). Where exterior surfaces were present on these latter cherts, they appear to have been pebbles that were minimally altered, most likely simply to obtain expedient flake tools since no formal tools or well-formed bifacial reduction flakes were found. One departure from the Ringtail assemblage is the presence of one large pebble or nodule of Reynales chert. The piece was compared to reference material recovered from the Reynales formation in New York, collected by J. Holland and housed in the reference collection of the Buffalo Museum of Science and found to be identical. The material appears virtually identical, however, to Balsam Lake chert (von Bitter and Eley 1984) from the upper member of the Middle Ordovician Bobcaygeon formation which outcrops along the Trent River system, macroscopically differing only in being a paler grey than
Balsam Lake chert. Similar material is frequently found as secondary deposit pebble chert throughout the eastern end of Lake Ontario and, consequently, can be considered local. 129
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: Examination of the cores and unmodified "chunks" recovered from the Current Site excavations provides some insight into aspects of the lithic technology. However the treatment of chert differs according to the nature of the raw material.
The largest piece of chert recovered during the excavations is a piece of Reynales or
Balsam Lake chert (Figure 4-12a). This piece is not obviously worked and may therefore not belong to the assemblage in that it might have been a chance inclusion in the soil matrix.
Five pieces of Ancaster chert were also recovered. All have weathered surfaces and likely derived from local, secondary sources in that such pieces are common in the till. None of the pieces recovered appear to have been extensively worked but, given the presence of Ancaster chert in the flake assemblage, it would appear that local cherts were exploited to produce expedient flake tools.
The largest number of artifacts in this category, however, consists of six artifacts of
Onondaga chert. The largest of these is a relatively small angular piece with a few, small, randomly oriented flakes removed from the sides (Figure 4-12b). The presence of rough, cortex and weathered angular surfaces suggest this piece was recovered at or near a primary outcrop but its' intended purpose cannot be determined. Two other smaller angular pieces were included in this category although these could also have been classified as blocky shatter. The presence of unweathered, adhering bedrock, however, offers further support for the suggestion that primary outcrops were exploited.
The remaining three artifacts of Onondaga chert can be classified as bipolar pieces. The larger complete piece measures approximately 36 mm between parallel ridges and was only lightly battered before being discarded (Figure 4-12c). Of the two smaller fragments, one has a 130 striking area that is a short ridge (Figure 4-12d) while the other has more of a "point" (Figure 4-
12e).
Artifacts exhibiting evidence of bipolar battering have been the subject of many debates in the archaeological literature. In short, different processes can produce similar results.
Elsewhere (Bursey 1997) I have argued that similar artifacts were used as wedges on a 17th century Petun site. Here, the argument will be made that these objects were more likely cores for the removal of flakes. As will be discussed below, the rationale for this determination at the
Current site is the overall evidence that the Current site refuse deposit was scavenged for recyclable chert objects suggesting chert was relatively scarce during the occupation.
Finally, while not classed as a core per se, one core trimming flake does provide further insight into the nature of the cores exploited by the site's occupants (Figure 4-12f). This flake exhibits three parallel flake removals from an unmodified striking platform as well as a hinge termination from a flake struck from the opposite direction. The flake itself was removed from a lower point on the core, most likely to rejuvenate the platform and remove the hinge. In fact, this flake is much like the platform edge, core trimming flakes described for the Ringtail site above (Figure 4-6). This artifact can be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that prepared cores were present and used for the production of primary flakes. However, given the absence of such cores from the assemblage, either they were removed from the site upon its abandonment, reduced to the bipolar cores recovered or deposited in a part of the site area not sampled during these excavations. The distribution of cores is presented in Figure 4-13.
A total of 1,590 flakes, weighing 967.4 grams, were recovered. The distribution of flakes according to raw material and flake type is presented in Table 4-4 and the frequency distribution of chert flakes across the excavation area is presented in Figure 4-11. First, in considering raw 131 material, Onondaga chert clearly dominates followed by Ancaster chert. Haldimand and
Reynales chert are present only in trace amounts. Also, only the Onondaga chert required direct procurement from a quarry site while the other varieties could have been collected locally as pebbles since all may be found in the local glacial till and all have weathered exterior surfaces
(where visible). Furthermore, all bifacial reduction flakes were Onondaga chert or, in very low frequencies, Ancaster chert debitage. Accordingly, it is inferred that all the Haldimand and
Reynales material and most of the Ancaster flint knapping was the result of testing the material or possibly reduction for use as expedient flake tools.
A total of 11 flakes, weighing 4.3 grams, exhibit evidence of being exposed to heat. In both count and weight, burnt flakes account for less than 1% of the total. It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that some effort was made to keep flaking debris separate from cooking and heating hearths where they might have been accidentally exposed to heat. Similarly, it can be suggested that the refuse deposit was not burned to sanitise and/or reduce odours. It would not be as safe to infer that this reflects a seasonal difference, however, as this might simply reflect a different manner of organising the domestic site. Thus, it is argued that this lack of burnt chert results from a site arrangement where some activities were kept apart from each other.
Debitage derived from primary reduction and fragments dominate the assemblage. The percentage classified as primary reduction flakes is nearly identical to that of the Ringtail site assemblage although the average weight per flake is slightly higher. On the other hand, although fragments constitute a similar percentage of the total, the average weight is much lower: the fragments from Current appear to have broken into smaller pieces.
The percentage of biface reduction flakes is slightly larger than that of Ringtail, the difference seeming to be within the category of broken flakes with platforms. The total 132 percentage would have been slightly lower if distal and midsections were included with the fragments, although not by a great deal (combined, these additional categories constitute only slightly more than 1% of the total assemblage). A tentative interpretation of these differences is that the bifaces that were reduced at this site were at least slightly more refined than those at the
Ringtail site, resulting in both the platforms and the distal fragments being more recognisable as such.
It would thus seem that, like the Ringtail assemblage, core maintenance and possibly primary flake production were the main activities that produced the debitage. Biface production and maintenance likely also occurred but produced lower frequencies of debris. Overall, there does not appear to be much departure from the Ringtail assemblage based on these data.
Another aspect of the flake assemblage worth noting is the overall size and shape of the debitage. Very few large pieces of chert were recovered and, of those that were, the larger pieces were of relatively poorer quality material and of irregular shape. While it is possible that mechanical breakage from ploughing was at least partially responsible, this would not account for the absence of relatively more robust pieces of chert, such as larger biface sections or cores, that frequently do survive prolonged ploughing. Similarly, being located in a ploughed field, it is possible the site has been picked over by modern relic collectors. However, while this argument could be invoked to account for the relative low frequency of projectile points, formal bifaces or unifaces, relic collectors rarely remove broken bifaces or core fragments. Furthermore, such collection is rarely intensive enough to completely strip a site of the more desirable artifacts. For example, complete projectile points and other prized artifacts were abundantly recovered during the surface examination of the subject property. Consequently, it is proposed that the artifact deposit might have been scavenged prior to site abandonment with large and recyclable pieces of 133 chert preferentially removed by the departing occupants for later use elsewhere. Thus, it is possible to speculate that the site was occupied at a period when there was an anticipated period of chert shortage foreseen for the near future.
As for the Ringtail assemblage, utilised flakes were defined as being debitage or flakes that have some modification of one or more lateral edges but not enough to substantially modify the shape of the flake. Using this criterion, 97 flakes were identified as having been utilised.
The distribution of these flakes by raw material and flake type is presented in Table 4-5. Two other unmodified chunks of Ancaster chert were also identified as utilised but since these reveal little information other than that they appear to have been used, they are not considered further.
Both had utilisation facets leading them to be classified, functionally, as side scrapers.
Comparing Tables 4-4 and 4-5, it can be seen that primary reduction flakes constitute a higher proportion of the utilised flakes than of the total flake assemblage. In particular, core trimming flakes appear to have been favoured for use as expedient flake tools. Since the proportion of bifacial reduction flakes is relatively equal, the difference appears to be in the lower number of fragments that have evidence of utilisation. Accounting for this disparity is actually fairly straightforward: in order to be utilisable, a flake needs to be large enough to be hafted or held and manipulated. All other things being equal, fragments are broken flakes and therefore will be, on average, smaller than complete flakes. This is borne out by the observation that the average weight of all flakes is about 2/3 of a gram while the average weight of utilised flakes is close to two grams.
Utilised flakes were also examined in order to obtain some idea of function. This decision was based on location and morphology of the utilisation flake scars. Of the 97 utilised flakes, 87 have one discrete area of utilisation or working edge, nine have two and one has three such areas for a total of 108 worked edges. For the most part, the utilised flakes appear to fall comfortably into the category of expedient flake tools. Sixty-nine of the utilised flakes have the area of use along a longer, lateral edge. Consequently, these were classified as side scrapers. On
24 flakes, the utilised edge is located on a narrower end and thus classified as end scrapers. On
12 artifacts, the utilised edges have a distinctive concave shape and are classified as a notch or spokeshave. On two specimens, two worked edges meet to define a graver-like spur (these are treated as single worked edges). Finally, one flake is a combination spokeshave and scraper.
While in total, this assemblage appears fairly typical of utilised flake assemblages, some insight can be gained by examining a few of the artifacts in greater detail. Two of the larger utilised flakes are illustrated in Figure 4-14:a and b. Figure 4-14a illustrates a secondary decortication flake that may have been discarded because of the presence of relatively coarse material near the proximal end. The presence of poor quality material like this can make the artifact relatively weak and prone to collapse under pressure thus making it a relatively risky tool to transport. The artifact in Figure 4-14b, however, is another end scraper but this one is made on a primary flake. Nonetheless, the size and shape of this flake suggest it had been detached from a relatively small core. Given that this artifact would still seem to have had some potential use-life, it is difficult to account for its abandonment other than as an accidental loss.
The artifacts illustrated in Figure 4-14:c-f are examples of small simple utilised flakes.
For example, Figure 4-14c is a simple end scraper on a core trimming flake. Figure 4-14d was manufactured from a core trimming flake and has three working edges: a side scraper and an end scraper with a notch dividing the two. Figure 4-14e is a small end scraper on what is inferred to have been a primary flake, now exhausted as a tool. Finally, the artifact illustrated in Figure 4-
14f was manufactured from a primary flake and the two straight worked edges on the distal end 135 meet at an angled "point". While this artifact was classified as a graver on the basis of the
"point", it is possible that this was fortuitous and resulted from a simple meeting of two straight working edges.
In summary, the utilised flakes in the assemblage appear to be simple expedient tools that were selected and used because they were convenient. They may have been discarded and not scavenged or curated because of their small size and/or structural weaknesses. A small number of these tools, however, may have been larger tools that were simply exhausted.
Formal Tools: The distribution of cores and formal tools is illustrated in Figure 4-13. Only one unifacial tool was recovered. This artifact (Figure 4-15a) was manufactured from a primary flake of Onondaga chert with a relatively large (16x5 mm.), flat, unmodified platform oriented at approximate right angles to the long axis of the flake. The flake expands from the platform although it is irregular along the left lateral edge. Maximum length of the flake is approximately
33 mm., maximum width is approximately 29 mm., and the thickness is just over 7 mm. The distal working edge is convex but irregularly retouched. Smaller flake scars, many terminating in hinge fractures, are also irregularly present along the distal edge.
Overall, this tool is consistent with retouched flake tools found in KCN assemblages in having been manufactured from a primary flake. The light use, lack of lateral retouch or trimming, and that it was discarded, however, may be explained by the presence of a band of coarse, granular cortex near the proximal end of the tool. The presence of this material would have made the tool prone to breakage through this band and therefore unreliable as a curated artifact. Consequently, it may only have been used in an expedient manner before being discarded. 136
Aside from two projectile points and a small fragment to be discussed below, only three bifacially flaked artifacts, all manufactured from Onondaga chert, are present in the assemblage.
The smallest of these (Figure 4-15b) appears to have been the proximal (platform) section of a primary flake or spall that had been further flaked, removing most of the striking platform before itself being broken off. A second, larger piece (Figure 4-15c) also appears to have been an end- section of a larger, more coarsely flaked, biface.
The third biface (Figure 4-15d) is relatively complete with one basal corner broken off and is approximately triangular in shape. It measures 37 mm long, greater than 25 mm in width at the base and 7.5 mm thick, also at the base. The base is also steeply bevelled on one side, possibly to set up a platform for basal thinning. While extensively flaked in a random pattern, some argument can be made that the flaking pattern approximates that of larger, KCN projectile points. Specifically, some of the flakes appear to be almost parallel and several flakes were removed from the basal edge on one side. This observation, plus the overall irregularity of the shape of the biface, offers the possibility that this piece might have been the product of a juvenile or inexperienced flint knapper.
Three artifacts are classified as projectile points or fragments and all were manufactured from Onondaga chert. Two are extensively flaked on both faces and have notches suggesting they were hafted. None, however, have the full suite of attributes of KCN projectile points. It is argued, however, that the two more complete artifacts have enough similarities in flaking pattern to projectile points of that technological horizon to warrant their identification as such.
The most complete artifact in this category (Figure 4-15e) was relatively crudely flaked and has a plan shape that could be described as expanding stemmed, or either side- or corner- notched. The maximum length of the point is 40 mm, the maximum width is 26.5 mm and the 137 maximum thickness is 9.8 mm. Inter-notch width is 20.9 mm and the length of the hafting area is approximately 11.5 mm.
Both faces have been flaked from the lateral edges and base but the terminations of many of the last series of flake removals were hinge fractures resulting in hinge stacks, or islands, on both faces. Attempted flake removals from the base, if they had been successful, would have produced the basally thinned point style diagnostic of the KCN horizon. Similarly, the attempted flake detachments from the lateral edges would also have produced the KCN flaking pattern as well as the plano-convex profile commonly found on KCN points. There are no indications of serrations but this may well have been because the artifact was not completed. The haft configuration most likely resulted from the extensive attempts to remove the hinge stacks from the lateral edges, removing the tangs that would have defined the corner notches. In short, this artifact appears most likely to represent a failed attempt to manufacture a KCN projectile point.
The second point (Figure 4-15f) is broken with the tip and one side missing. Much of the base, the majority of one corner notch and a portion of one lateral edge remain, however. The only remaining measurable dimension is haft length, which measures approximately 9.5 mm.
The flaking pattern again indicates that basal thinning flakes were removed and flaking from the one lateral side produced a plano-convex cross section characteristic of the KCN technological horizon although hinge fractures are also present from both basal and lateral flake removals. No evidence of serration remains. Again, the interpretation offered is that this projectile point was also a failed attempt to produce a KCN point.
Finally, one small edge fragment was recovered. While only 18 mm in length, this artifact has the same flat, parallel flaking patterns seen on KCN projectile points but lacks evidence of either grinding or serration. While it is impossible to be certain that this was either a 138 lateral or a basal fragment (since flaking patterns from both are identical at the edge), fractures of the type that would produce this shape of artifact are relatively common on basal sections of projectile points and are interpreted as being impact damage to the haft. Consequently, this artifact is interpreted as having been deposited after returning a damaged projectile to camp while the base was still in the haft.
Discussion of the Current Site Assemblage
Only two projectile points were recovered and both are considered to have been rejects discarded during the manufacturing process: one is relatively complete but is believed to have been discarded because of a failure to thin the point properly while the second was discarded because of breakage. Neither possesses the full suite of attributes found on finished KCN projectile points but both possess flaking patterns similar to those documented for the time period and other points found on the subject property. Indeed, it is this flaking pattern which distinguishes the Current site projectile points from other similar point types such as Brewerton
Corner-Notched (Ritchie 1971b:16).
Additionally, other artifacts from the assemblage also support this identification. For example, the core trimming flake illustrated in Figure 4-12f, suggests the presence of prepared cores from which regularly shaped primary flakes could have been removed. Cores like these would have been able to produce regularly shaped flakes such as that illustrated in Figure 4-14b.
Many of these same flaking patterns are the same as those discussed for the Ringtail site assemblage. Therefore, while not conclusive, the overall evidence seems to support the 139 inference that the Current site assemblage resulted from an Early Archaic, KCN Horizon, occupation. This question, however, will be returned to.
Following the arguments forwarded for the Ringtail site, it is argued that the Current site excavations were focused on a refuse dump of materials produced during the maintenance of cores, the production of primary flakes for use as tools and a lesser amount of biface production and maintenance. Aside from the utilised flakes, few of the artifacts recovered appear to have been finished tools removed or lost from an active toolkit. Additionally, the placement of the excavation area does not conform well to expectations of hunter-gatherer settlements. The excavation area is relatively low, making it prone to damp or even wet conditions at any time of the year except winter when much of the ground water would have been frozen. While the excavated area would have allowed for a southern exposure, shading from trees to the south would have lessened this advantage. Furthermore, while the excavated area would have had some shelter from winds from the northwest, this placement would have made the excavated area subject to accumulations of drifting snow. Finally, the ground around the excavated area is sloping, also seemingly making it relatively uncomfortable.
Instead, the higher, flatter area to the northwest of the excavation area might have made a more suitable area for habitation and associated activities. Indeed, a relatively larger but less dense scatter of artifacts was observed in that area. Designated "Site Number 18" (AhGx-452), artifacts were recovered during the reconnaissance and testing but at a density too low to warrant more intensive excavations. Examination of the debitage recovered indicates that these artifacts do conform to the KCN technological pattern in that both biface and primary reduction flakes are present and the primary flakes have been preferentially utilised. However, low sample sizes must be taken into account. 140
Of greater interest for this discussion are two recovered biface fragments. The first of these is a biface tip (Figure 4-16a), that is not quite complete enough to be considered diagnostic.
However, the size and shape of this biface fragment is consistent with relatively heavily reworked KCN projectile points and includes the attribute of bilateral edge bevelling. It is quite likely that this biface was actually a projectile point tip that had broken off after striking prey and was returned to camp within the meat. It is also possible, however, that this tip snapped off a hafted knife during butchering.
The second biface is a broken projectile point, manufactured from Onondaga chert, with enough attributes remaining to be much more confidant that it was a KCN projectile point
(Figure 4-16b). The tip is missing due to a fracture that is commonly attributed to being the result of impact (e.g., Cleland and Peske 1968; Whittaker 1994:165). Additionally, the base and one corner tang have also been lost, again in a manner consistent with many other KCN projectile points inferred to have broken in the haft. Edge serration is present on both lateral edges and the biface has bilateral edge bevelling commonly observed on reworked KCN projectile points. Finally, some of the flake scars on both faces appear to be typical of larger points in being of the "over-shot" flaking pattern while there are also more randomly oriented flake scars consistent with smaller, more heavily curated points. In short, this point appears consistent with many examples approaching functional exhaustion and not possessing enough remaining chert mass to warrant further curation and reworking.
Overall, the recovered assemblage from "Site Number 18" appears to be consistent with that of other KCN assemblages. The low density of artifacts spread over a relatively wide area appears analogous to a planned and maintained hunter-gatherer encampment. Occupations of such encampments frequently include midden or refuse dump areas for the disposal of offal or 141 messy materials, typically in less heavily travelled areas. Within this pattern, then, the Current site excavations would fit well as having sampled an associated refuse dump. It is even possible to suggest that this dump was located just off a path leading down to the low-lying wet area where water was obtained and/or other local wetland resources procured.
While it would be premature to suggest that a "seasonal round" can be constructed for the
Early Archaic KCN peoples of southern Ontario, I think we can now begin to consider some aspects of the Early Archaic use of the landscape. With respect to "what went before", several lines of evidence can be offered to suggest that site's occupants had not recently acquired chert from high quality outcrops. The overall high quality of chert recovered, for example, suggests that the poor quality material that may have been contained in untested chert blocks, such as seen at the Ringtail site, had been discarded prior to the occupation of this site. I would argue that the
KCN peoples were competent enough to recognise the quality of chert and that they would have relatively quickly used and discarded any poor-quality material rather than carry it around with them. By doing so, the increased risk of failure from using this kind of material would not have been a factor in situations when tools might have been less easy to replace.
A second line of evidence employed here is based more on a subjective evaluation of raw material size and reduction history. Specifically, recovered cores, core fragments and core trimming flakes seem to indicate that the cores brought to the site were relatively small and, in some cases, nearly exhausted. Again, this inference seems well supported in comparison to the
Ringtail assemblage. Bipolar chert reduction was identified in the Current site assemblage but not at Ringtail. Bipolar chert reduction is frequently cited as a strategy used to conserve chert.
Finally, the tools recovered from the Current site excavation are argued to have been rejects discarded in the process of manufacture. In contrast, the small number of artifacts 142 recovered from the "Site Number 18" area appear to have been heavily used and curated, consistent with artifacts lost during routine domestic activity or objects discarded because their use-life was exhausted. Taken in total, the above lines of evidence indicate that the occupants of the Current site area had not recently acquired any significant amount of chert from primary outcrops. The presence of some pebble chert, however, probably acquired during localised exploitation of the site's broader cachement area (i.e., embedded in routine domestic and subsistence activity), can be noted. It appears, however, that this material did not contribute significantly to material needs beyond, perhaps, some expedient flake tools.
In addition to inferences generated about "what went before", it is also possible to hypothesise about "what came after." The relative high quantity of core trimming flakes suggests that some effort had been made to maintain cores for further reduction. Based on a subjective evaluation of some of the core trimming flakes, as well as other lines of evidence discussed above, it can be argued that the site's occupants were planning to make do with what chert they had in their possession. Such efforts at conservation are not all that unexpected given that Gramly and Yahnig (1991) have documented a similar example of conserving chert among
Paleoindians when there were abundant nodules for replacement.
Further, it was argued that there is some reason to suggest that the occupants, prior to abandonment of the site area, may have scavenged the Current site excavation area. Specifically, very few of the recovered artifacts appear to have been large and massive enough to be of further use. While it is possible to argue that ploughing may have contributed to the observed size differences through mechanical breakage, it should be borne in mind that larger, thicker and more massive artifacts are less susceptible to this kind of breakage. In comparison to the
Ringtail assemblage, the discarded Current site artifacts appear to be, and have come from, 143 noticeably smaller artifacts. It is therefore inferred that the Current site occupants attempted to recover as much reusable material as possible prior to abandoning the site area. Given that both the Ringtail and Current sites are approximately the same distance from the primary chert outcrops, it is possible to conclude that the site's occupants could have replenished their chert supply, probably through a logistic expedition, but chose not to. An obvious corollary of the above is trying to account for why there are a few larger chert artifacts from "Site Number 18". I would argue that it is likely that there were larger pieces scattered about the site area but these were either discarded because they were of no further use, they were truly lost and/or they were too scattered to warrant searching for, unlike the concentrated debris in the midden.
Despite the relatively meagre nature of the Current site assemblage, then, a number of observations are possible. An hypothesised Early Archaic KCN reduction strategy, consisting of both serial biface reduction as well as specialised primary flake production appears supported.
Furthermore, this lithic reduction system appears to have been planned for extended periods of
"making do" without replacing chert through a logistic expedition to a quarry. A consideration of the broader pattern in artifact distribution, particularly in relation to the "Site Number 18" investigations, indicates that some degree of site planning was employed by the occupants, again quite consistent with ethnographically and archaeologically generated observations of hunter- gatherers.
The Upstairs Site (AiGw-303)
The Upstairs site had been discovered and reported upon in advance of a highway construction project. The principle investigator of the project, Andrew Murray, had noted that a 144
KCN projectile point had been recovered and that there were unusual regularities in the assemblage and one highly distinctive biface. Accordingly, I was able to examine the assemblage and discovered that the debitage and bifaces recovered provide an example of the transition from core reduction to biface reduction (see Chapter 5) characteristic of this horizon.
Site Location, Environment and Context
The Upstairs site was initially discovered during a test-pit survey of a proposed highway corridor where it crosses Bronte Creek, in the City of Burlington, approximately 10 km north of
Lake Ontario (A.M.A. 1999a:l) (Figure 1-1). Test and mitigative excavations resulted in the excavation of 157 one-metre squares (Figure 4-17). The specific location and context of the site is of some interest and thus warrants further consideration.
As noted earlier, following the retreat of the glacial ice fronts and the consequent isostatic rebounding of the north shore of Lake Ontario, the streams and creeks flowing into the north shore of Lake Ontario appear to have rapidly incised through the bedrock. Local variations in water flow as well as the resistance of some rock strata resulted in some lateral migrations of the watercourse on resistant surfaces, creating and leaving terraces after down cutting resumed. At this place on the eastern side of Bronte Creek, two such terraces were created.
Currently, the elevation of Bronte Creek is approximately 130 metres above sea level. To the south of the site there is an active flood plain, approximately one metre above the creek bed, that is scoured by seasonal flooding. To the north of this flood plain there is an elevated terrace approximately 10 metres above the current level of Bronte Creek. Excavations undertaken concurrently with those described here produced archaeological deposits ranging in age from the 145
Early Archaic Bifurcate-base Point horizon to the Early Woodland Meadowood point horizon
(A.M.A. 1999b). The Upstairs site was located on a still higher terrace, 25 metres above the current creek level, immediately to the north and five metres below the top of the valley. While very circumstantial, this location offers some support for the chronological placement of the site in that it was on a higher, and therefore earlier, terrace of Bronte Creek. No materials relating to this technological horizon were located on the lower terrace.
The precise location of the site allowed longer exposure to sunlight, due to a lower elevation of the river valley to the immediate west, as well as good visibility down the river to the south. Two potential features were identified and carefully excavated but although these features contained artifacts, it was determined that they were recent disturbances caused by tree throws and subsequent burning.
Artifact Analysis
The artifacts recovered from the excavation of the Upstairs site consist almost entirely of chipped lithics (Table 4-6). One piece of sedimentary rock, probably Grimsby Formation sandstone, with a "pecked" facet in the centre of one face was found. Normally these are considered to be anvilstones for smashing either chert nodules or other tough objects like nuts.
However, there is no other evidence of bipolar battering from the assemblage so no satisfactory link to the lithic reduction system can be offered at this time and it will not be considered further.
Unmodified flakes dominate the assemblage. This was exaggerated by the use, at times, of fine screens. Specifically, some deposits, particularly the feature contents, were floated and 146 thus debitage was caught in the smaller mesh employed while one square was screened through
1/8" mesh after being passed through %" mesh.
The flake tallies reported here will be found to depart from Murray's (A.M.A. 1999a) counts for two reasons. First, I undertook some mending of broken flakes while they were being reanalysed. All such mends, however, were confined to fragments from within the same excavation unit. Secondly, while over 99% of the assemblage was re-examined, some of the smaller flakes (<5mm) were not. These were samples of smaller retouch or edge finishing flakes and flake fragments recovered from the 1/8" mesh. Since little discussion is made of these smaller flakes, the flakes not re-examined would have nothing further to offer.
The larger flakes, i.e., those that would have been recovered with lA" mesh, were sorted and tabulated using the same categories as employed above for the Ringtail and Current sites.
One addition to the flake categories, however, was that of "unidirectional" flakes (Figure 4-18).
As the sorting and tabulating of the debitage progressed, it became increasingly clear that the reduction strategy employed by the site's occupants produced a large amount of parallel-struck or unidirectional flakes. This will be discussed in greater detail below. I would note that this observation was made part way through the analysis and I decided not to re-examine bags already tabulated. In actuality, the vast majority (I would estimate approximately 75%) of all flakes in the assemblage had been detached in a direction parallel to previous flake removals while the remainder appear to have been produced during the trimming of cores. The goal of this analysis is the discovery of the over-all reduction system employed and that, I hope, will be accomplished by other means. 147
Raw Materials: Other than one flake fragment of greywacke, all artifacts were manufactured from relatively high quality Onondaga chert. Since greywacke was also recovered from the neighbouring Downstairs site (AiGw-302) (A.M. A. 1999b), it is possible that this flake represents contamination from a later occupation so will not be considered further.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: A total of 4521 flakes, weighing 2502.7 grams, was examined for this analysis. Evidence of heat exposure was observed on 608 flakes, or 13.45% of the total assemblage (274.6 grams or 11% by weight). Most of these burnt flakes were found in association with what is presumed to be a recent tree disturbance and "burn."
The results of sorting by flake type and mesh size are presented in Table 4-7. Over 90% of the flake assemblage was recovered with lA" mesh screen, making it comparable with other assemblages examined in this dissertation. The finer mesh screens recovered primarily smaller flake fragments and bifacial retouch flakes.
Overall, flake fragments dominate the assemblage. Given that the site was not disturbed by ploughing, fragmentation cannot be easily attributed to post-depositional processes. This high percentage of flake fragments is consistent with the relatively high percentage observed at the
Ringtail site, which was also not ploughed. Taking a closer look at the primary reduction flakes, however, offers some interesting insights. Core trimming flakes still dominate the assemblage but not as much at the Ringtail site. Compared to Ringtail, decortication flakes are noticeably rare. In fact, the quality of the chert is relatively high overall and the cores appear to have been well maintained.
Both core trimming and primary flakes exhibit dorsal flake scar patterns that are key to understanding the reduction strategy employed. An extremely high percentage of these flakes 148 appear to have been produced through unidirectional flaking of the core(s). A sample of some of the larger examples, including all those illustrated in Figure 4-18, were measured and presented in Table 4-8. The dorsal flake scar pattern indicates that flakes were removed from the object piece in an orientation parallel to previous flake removals. In longitudinal cross-section, these flakes are very straight and flat, almost at times appearing to be slightly concave along the dorsal surface. Striking platforms are flat, unfaceted and unmodified, and exhibit a high degree of uniformity in the angle of the platform to the interior of close to 60 degrees.
The unidirectional flakes from the Upstairs site are relatively thin in relation to width and many have irregular lateral edges. My interpretation of this is that these flakes were removed from a flat, non-cylindrical core. Because the face of the object piece was flat, there was a greater tendency for the lateral flake edges to be influenced by irregularities on the dorsal surface and for the flakes to be relatively thin relative to the width. This relative thinness also contributed to the tendency for flakes to fragment directly from the force of the blow struck to detach them. Taken in total, the tendency for these flakes to be relatively thin, exhibit a unidirectional, dorsal flake scar pattern and have a platform angle of noticeably less than 90 degrees accounts for why these were initially interpreted to be biface reduction flakes. Within the context of this assemblage, a relative lack of distinction between core and biface reduction, in fact, is key to understanding this lithic reduction system.
Biface reduction flakes are slightly more frequent than core reduction flakes in this assemblage. Many of the biface reduction flakes have a similar dorsal flake scar morphology to the primary flakes. Specifically, the dorsal flake scar pattern appears to indicate that biface flakes were also unidirectionally detached although this may be less surprising for bifaces.
While the recovery of smaller retouch flakes, enhanced by the use of finer mesh screens, 149 contributed to the bifacial flake sample, the added frequency is only slightly more than 1%.
Based on this evidence, biface production appears to have been the more significant process contributing to the assemblage while the retouch flakes were produced from the refinement of these bifaces rather than reworking them after use. Supporting this inference is an outrepasse flake with the distal edge appearing to be from a relatively fine, thin biface. As will be elaborated upon, I argue that distinguishing between core reduction and biface reduction in this assemblage may be an arbitrary distinction.
The identification of utilised flakes followed the same methodology as described above.
A small number of utilised flakes were identified, totalling 34 or 0.75% of the total sample. Four utilised flakes are bifacial reduction flakes, four are unidirectional, eight are core trimming flakes and eighteen are flake fragments. Two flakes had two utilised edges making a total of 36 edges.
Six edges were identified as side scrapers, three as end scrapers, two as notches, one a graver and the remainder as general scraping edges. This overall low incidence of utilised flakes supports the contention that this artifact deposit resulted from manufacturing debris rather than domestic refuse.
Formal Tools: In addition to debitage, 38 bifacially flaked artifacts were recovered. Mending reduced this tally to 34. Two are classified as projectile points while the remainder are less refined or "rough" bifaces. Five of these are complete enough to discuss as complete bifaces while the remainder are fragments of lateral edges. Included among these artifacts are several that, more accurately, could be considered flakes but have enough attributes to provide information about the object piece from which they were struck. 150
One flake, in fact, provides valuable information for interpreting the other 26 fragments of edges and bases. This artifact (7.1 g) was an outrepasse flake that plunged at the distal end, removing approximately 4 cm of the opposite edge of the biface from which it was struck
(Figure 4-19a). The remaining length of the flake is 48 mm and it was centred on a relatively flat ridge left by three previous flake removals and one from the opposite side that had left a small hinge termination. The flake may have been intended to serve as a tool blank. The platform of this flake is small, approximately 4 mm in width, has a slight lip but a somewhat more pronounced bulb of percussion. The remaining edge of the biface at the distal end is predominantly (i.e., more than 2/3) an unmodified tabular surface at close to a 60 degree angle with the remainder being a more acute, bifacially flaked edge.
There are a number of insights to be gained from this flake. First, this appears to be an example of a flake that was removed from the face of the object piece with enough force to have crossed the middle of that surface. Flake detachments had traversed the object piece in both directions but parallel to each other. The distal end indicates that opposing striking platforms were generally on a relatively flat plane in relation to the long axis of the flakes removed.
However, the distal edge also indicates that the striking platform was not necessarily close to right angles to the long axis of the flake and that, if the proximal edge was like the distal edge, the object piece may have been somewhat triangular in cross-section. Too little of the distal edge remains, however, to determine whether this triangular shape is only apparent at the edges of flatter, more tabular object pieces. In many ways, then, it cannot be determined whether this flake was struck from a biface or a core. Given the direction of the force of the detaching blow, however, this flake does help explain the relatively high frequency of lateral edge fragments in the assemblage. 151
Twenty-six fragments, weighing 157.4 grams, are portions of lateral or basal edges. All have sinuous edges, produced by alternating large flake removals from the edge and/or the presence of unmodified tabular surfaces and so can be considered fragments of early stage or
"rough" bifaces. Many of the ventral surfaces indicate that a blow was struck high up on the striking platform and they can be considered collapsed platforms. It would be difficult to explain this kind of fracture as being accidental unless the edge had been close to the plane of the intended flake to be removed. The flake described above indicates that this was at least sometimes the case and that enough force was given to the striking blow to detach flakes that traverse the width of the object piece. Clearly, then flake detachment involved a relatively high degree of force and flakes removed from biface-like edges were intended to be of a size compatible with the unidirectional flakes described above.
Five bifaces are relatively complete and exhibit a considerable amount of variation. Two were flakes with lengths of 47 to 51 mm, widths of 46 to 38 mm and thickness' of slightly over
10 mm (Figure 4-19b and c). Both are approximately ovate in shape and have been shaped by the detachment of relatively randomly placed large flakes. These appear to have been moderately large, flat flakes, slightly over a centimetre in thickness, that were in the process of being transformed into bifacial tools. The only formal tool type discussed so far that could have been produced from these flakes would have been the smaller variant of the projectile points.
Another biface is a base that is 41 mm wide and 12 mm thick (Figure 4-19d). In cross- section, this biface resembles the narrow bifaces described from the Ringtail and Current sites in being slightly convex on the ventral surface but much more so on the dorsal surface. The sedimentary structures in the chert indicates the object piece was oriented vertically relative to 152 the geological orientation of the core and the presence of an unmodified tabular surface on the dorsal right side suggests this might have been a corner flake.
The dorsal surface is covered with relatively randomly placed flake scars originating from the base and the left lateral edge. One flake scar, struck from the left basal corner, removed a considerable amount of chert mass from the centre of the biface. Both lateral edges, however, are relatively straight and in line with the ventral surface. The majority of flake scars on the ventral surface originate from the lateral edges but one prominent flake scar originated from the base and flattened the ventral surface. In fact, it was probably this flake removal that amputated the biface from "end shock."
The largest biface in the assemblage is relatively unmodified but illustrates the process of converting a very large flake or core into a biface (Figure 4-20a). The two ends of the biface possess cross-bedded sedimentary structures in the chert mass indicating that the object piece would have been vertically oriented relative to the original bedding of the chert. One end of the biface was broken off but indicates that the biface was approximately eight centimetres in length while the width is almost six centimetres and the thickness is two centimetres.
The tip appears to have been broken off due to the detachment of a long flake driven from the base that plunged into the mass and thus produced an outre passe flake. The basal end has a relatively robust, bifacially flaked striking platform "raised" close to the plane of the dorsal surface so that further flake removals could have followed. One lateral edge retains an unmodified tabular surface while the opposite has been steeply flaked and both edges form a near plane with the ventral face.
As noted above, the proximal end of the ventral surface has prominent flake detachments oriented vertically to the mass of the object. However, these flakes were relatively short and 153 curved, with the effect that the edge was raised towards the dorsal surface to create a bifacially flaked edge. Approximately 25 mm distal from the proximal/basal edge, large parallel-sided flakes were driven across the ventral face from the bifacially flaked lateral edge. Based on the size and shape of the remaining flake scars, these flake detachments were large, straight and flat enough to have served as tool blanks. It can be noted here, furthermore, that continued flaking in this pattern would have produced a face virtually identical to that seen on larger variants of the
KCN projectile points found throughout this region.
The final rough biface/core in the assemblage illustrates the same flaking pattern but more completely transforming the core into a biface (Figure 4-20d). This artifact was mended from three pieces but this fragmentation resulted from fire-shattering. The length is 7.5 cm, the width 5.5 cm and the thickness just over one centimetre.
Like the previously described biface, this artifact was vertically oriented in relation to the original chert block and retains some coarse, grainy sedimentary material at the tip. The dorsal surface is slightly convex and has some remaining prominent flake scars that were detached parallel to the long axis of the biface. However, additional flake scars originating from the lateral edges, particularly near the tip, suggest that the final series of thinning flakes had been initiated. As with the last biface, the basal edge had been steeply bevelled towards the dorsal face bringing it in line with the plane of this face.
On the ventral surface, long flat flakes had been driven from the edges at right angles to the long axis of the biface. Again, the flakes producing these scars appear to have been identical to the unidirectional flakes that were commonly used as tools. Also like the last biface, the overall patterning of these flake scars matches that seen on large versions of the KCN projectile points in having large flat flake scars that cross the mid-line of the biface leaving a flat cross- 154 section. This biface, in fact, would have been very near to completion as a projectile point preform and the overall flat profile would have allowed it to be relatively easily flaked into a final form and just as easily reworked in order to mend any damage resulting from use.
Finally, the lateral edges bear some discussion. On the dorsal right side, it appears that the lateral edge may have been completely bifacially flaked although fire-shattering has removed some of this. On the dorsal left, however, approximately 2.5 cm of the edge near the middle of the biface retains a flat, tabular surface nearly perpendicular to the plane of either face. This edge had been used as a striking platform but appears to have been in the process of being removed by the detachment of short flakes. Nonetheless, it appears that this biface may well have been a core that itself was used for the production of flake tool blanks. If so, then the function of the core as a source of potentially usable flakes would have been at least coincident with the production of a flat, thin biface that would have served as a projectile point preform.
The last two bifaces to be discussed are a complete projectile point and a projectile point base. The most complete projectile point (Figure 4-20c) is missing the tip but its length can be estimated at approximately 34 mm. The maximum blade width is 2 cm, the thickness is 5 mm and the inter-notch width is 1.2 cm. The lateral edges are serrated and there is relatively pronounced bilateral edge bevelling. The base is rounded in plan view and bevelled in cross section towards one face with some basal thinning flakes removed. Otherwise, the faces have more randomly placed flake scars. In all respects, this biface conforms to the smaller variants of the KCN Projectile Point type found in the region.
The point base (Figure 4-20b) was snapped slightly above the notches with the morphology of the break being symmetrical and apparently caused by force originating from the tip. Thus, I would interpret this as a projectile point that broke from impact and this base was 155 returned in the haft. The remaining section suggests this was a medium to large variant of the
KCN type with an inter-notch width of 18 mm. The basal edge has thinning flake scars originating from both faces but these are truncated by lateral flake scars that cross the midline of the biface. Thus, the flake scar pattern conforms to that described above.
Discussion of the Upstairs Site Assemblage
Like the sites discussed above, the excavation of the Upstairs site sampled the areas with the densest concentrations of lithic artifacts, primarily flaking debris. Therefore, it will be assumed that the assemblage represents a refuse dump or midden of manufacturing debris. In the following sections, then, emphasis will be placed on discussing the manufacturing process and linking that to the sites discussed earlier.
There were two projectile points recovered with the assemblage and both conform to the
KCN projectile point type. However, these were not in sealed deposits so some measure of caution must be exercised in attributing these to the remainder of the assemblage. The projectile point base, however, does appear to have been manufactured from the same variant of Onondaga chert as the bulk of the assemblage. Onondaga chert exhibits a high degree of variation between and even within specific outcrops in terms of colour, mottling and consistency. As noted for the
Ringtail and Current site assemblages, the Onondaga chert from the Upstairs site is relatively high quality material but it also exhibits a high degree of consistency in terms of colour and mottling. The vast majority of the assemblage, including the point base, appears to be consistent with what could be produced from the reduction of one block of chert. Various attempts have been made to identify cherts from specific outcrops (e.g., Jarvis 1990; Parkins 1977) with some 156 success in Ontario (Lennox 1990). Although this kind of study has not been undertaken with any of the assemblages examined in this study, all of the assemblages discussed above have the appearance of being derived from a single block of chert (see also Wilson et al. 1997 and below).
More compelling is the flaking patterns evident in the assemblage. The shape and dorsal flake-scar morphology of the debitage from this assemblage is predominantly unidirectional with the exceptions appearing to be from attempts to correct irregularities from previous flake removals. This pattern can be attributed to successive removals of flakes in a direction parallel to previous flake removals. The variation, however, appears to be greater than that seen in assemblages from "typical" blade and blade-core assemblages. I would attribute this difference to the object pieces because they have a flatter platform margin than seen on the cylindrical blade cores common throughout the world. This difference would result in less pronounced ridges produced from previous flake detachments and consequently less regular lateral edges of removed flakes due to the force of the detaching blow dissipating along the edges of the flakes.
Quite simply, the object piece is a relatively flat biface, not a cylinder or cone shaped core. Also, while not directly observable, greater variation in flake size and shape may have resulted from using a different technique of detaching flakes such as not using indirect percussion.
Two other sources of variability in the flakes can be summarised in terms of the size and morphology of the platform. Approximately equal numbers of flakes appear to have been struck from unmodified striking platforms and faceted, biface-like platforms. In Table 4-7,1 attempted to maintain the distinction between core reduction and biface production flakes primarily on the basis of striking platform morphology. However, examination of the biface fragments in turn revealed that even relatively finished bifaces frequently retain an unmodified surface along one or more of the lateral edges that were used as a striking platform for the removal of flakes. Even smaller flakes appear to have been struck from unmodified platforms as part of the refining or finishing of these bifaces. Consequently, the distinction between cores and bifaces is difficult to maintain in this assemblage. Quite simply, flat unidirectional flake removals transformed cores into bifaces and the same kind offtake removal shaped bifaces while the detached flakes still would have served as potential blanks for tools.
It appears, in fact, that the Upstairs assemblage was produced through the reduction of whatever stocks of chert were in hand to produce a variety of tool preforms. The uniformity of the colour, mottling, etc., of the chert suggests that virtually all of the assemblage could have been derived from a single block of chert, much like observed for the Ringtail site. Blade-like flakes removed during the thinning and shaping of this block would have been quite suitable for use as flake tools like those found in all the assemblages discussed in this study. This would include both the expedient utilised flakes and more formal curated types like the end scrapers.
Those recovered, of course, would have been those considered less suitable for curation but many are virtually identical to the utilised flakes and blanks found in other assemblages to be described below.
The most dominant contribution to this assemblage, however, appears to have been by products from the production of bifaces. On the basis of the rejected and discarded examples recovered, large flakes or spalls used to manufacture bifaces were vertically struck from cores and often retain unmodified surfaces on at least one lateral edge. These unmodified surfaces were in turn used as striking platforms for the detachment of blade-like flakes struck from the lateral edges. This pattern repeats that seen in the Ringtail assemblage, differing primarily in being a little further along in the reduction process. In this assemblage, this kind of flaking produced a relatively flat surface that I referred to as the ventral face. The dorsal face, on the 158 other hand, generally is more convex and frequently exhibits more vertical unidirectional flake removals, probably from the original core. The base usually appears to have been bevelled by flaking to bring it almost in line with the plane of the dorsal surface. After the dorsal face had been flattened, additional flakes were struck (horizontally) from the lateral edges. These, of course, would have removed most of the longitudinal flake scars but would have resulted in the distinctive flaking pattern seen on the larger projectile points of the KCN Horizon in this region.
Other biface forms also appear to have been manufactured in the formation of this assemblage. One potential narrow biface was noted. More common, however, are smaller rough bifaces. These appear to have been produced from smaller flakes than those that were used to manufacture the bifaces just described. Again, they were thinned and shaped by flake detachments that traverse the length and/or width of the biface but in a less consistent, more random, pattern than seen on the larger bifaces. These appear to have been another means of maximising the remaining stock of chert by direct manufacture of the smaller version of the
KCN projectile point. Simply, these smaller pieces were too small, from the outset, to produce flakes usable as blanks for tools. If this inference can be supported, then again it is clear that the two variants are indeed the product of the same lithic reduction sequence but derived from different reduction trajectories. As argued earlier, some smaller KCN points would be the product of long-term curation and reworking of larger KCN notched bifaces with randomised flaking patterns produced by the contingencies of fixing broken or worn points. Other examples of the smaller version would simply be the product of a more direct production of projectile points from smaller flakes. In these cases, the less standardised flaking pattern reflects the smaller size of the initial object piece and the shorter reduction sequence necessary to produce a final, usable object (Kuhn 1995:83). 159
Above, three assemblages were described in detail. All three assemblages are dominated by debitage resulting from the reduction of chert blocks or cores. The Ringtail site assemblage was described and interpreted as a refuse dump of material produced through the reduction of a fresh block of high-grade chert brought to the site in a relatively unaltered state. The reduction sequence resulted in the production of a number of different types of tool blanks or preforms that would have been curated and transported for use at other locations. The Current site assemblage,
I argue, reflects this pattern but more temporally removed from the acquisition of chert. This assemblage follows the pattern of curating cores for the removal of primary flakes at a later point in time in order to ensure the integrity of these tool blanks when they were be needed (Kuhn
1994:437). The Upstairs site assemblage, in contrast, appears to reflect the more complete dismemberment of a chert block in order to produce flake blanks and bifaces for transport elsewhere. Since the bifaces do not appear to have been fully finished at this site, it would appear that subsequent occupations by this group would be characterised by the use of primary flakes as tools and the finishing of bifaces as other, perhaps more specialised, curated tools.
Before turning to assemblages that reflect the modification and use of this lighter travelling kit, however, I will examine some additional assemblages that can provide further insight into these kinds of "core" sites.
The Empire Greens Site Cluster is a group of sites, many attributed to the KCN Horizon that was tested but not intensively block-excavated. Further interesting insights into the lithic reduction system can be gained from these assemblages, however. The Southampton Estates sites provide additional insights regarding the reduction sequence as well as supporting some of the inferences offered above. I will argue that the Trimple and Kirk sites allow for the 160 identification of KCN lithic reduction debris in a potentially multi-component deposit as well as supporting the recognition of spatial separation of occupation and midden areas.
The Empire Greens Site Cluster
Approximately 20 kilometres southeast of the Ringtail and Current sites, another cluster of sites included a number of components assigned to the Early Archaic, Kirk Corner-notched
Projectile Point Horizon (NDA 1999a and 1999b) (Figure 1-1). Unfortunately, investigation of these sites did not extend beyond testing. However, three of these sites produced small collections of artifacts that add further insight and support for some of the hypotheses I am forwarding in this dissertation. All of the Early Archaic KCN material recovered during the investigations will be discussed here, however, because it adds to what little is currently published for this technological horizon in this part of Ontario.
The property consists of 40 hectares located within the former Township of Seneca in the
Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (Figure 4-21) (NDA 1999a). This is within the
Haldimand Clay Plain physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1984:156-159) on land that had been cultivated and used for farming. The land can be described as flat to gently rolling, the topographic relief having been caused by incising by tributaries of the Welland River. The sites were found by walking the exposed surface of the property at five metre intervals and at closer intervals when artifacts were encountered. Testing involved the excavation of one-metre squares at five metre intervals.
For the following discussion, I have reviewed the unpublished reports prepared for the project and examined all the artifacts recovered. In the following, I will briefly describe the 161 individual sites that can be assigned to the Early Archaic KCN Horizon and the artifacts available for analysis. It should be noted that not all the artifacts observed on the surface were collected so that only diagnostic bifaces and selected other tools are available. Consequently, limited information can be offered here. I will present the sites in the researcher's order of discovery and discussion (N.D.A. 1999a, 1999b).
Empire Greens 1 (AgGw-23) (Find Number 1)
The first site that was found on this survey is located on the north end of the property beside a small stream. Thirteen flakes were observed over a seven-metre by ten-metre area, of which two were retained. Test investigations involved the excavation of eight one-metre squares, screened through V" mesh hardware cloth. The total number of artifacts recovered during the investigations is presented in Table 4-9. Given that the one-metre square test units virtually covered the entire extent of the surface flake scatter, this assemblage can be considered to represent approximately 4% of what is present in the area of the scatter.
Raw Materials: The entire assemblage recovered from this site was manufactured from
Onondaga chert. Where exterior surfaces are present, chert appears to have been procured from primary outcrops as no weathered or rounded surfaces were observed that would indicate exploitation of secondary deposits. While colour and texture can be highly variable within
Onondaga chert, all the material recovered from this site appears to be relatively uniform in appearance. Again, this uniformity in the material recovered is consistent with the assemblages 162 from the Current, Ringtail and Upstairs sites in that it could all have been produced from one or a small number of chert blocks acquired from the same quarry site.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: No cores or core fragments were recovered but one core trimming flake fragment is very similar to those described for the Ringtail and Current sites.
Like those described above, the right side of the dorsal surface of this flake fragment is an unmodified tabular surface while the left side is almost entirely composed of negative flake scars with a pronounced bulb of percussion, probably from a hard hammer. Again, the occurrence of this flake fragment is consistent with the Current and Ringtail assemblages.
The proportion of the total assemblage composed of unmodified chert flakes is actually the lowest encountered so far at just less than 75% but this could be easily explained as being the product of the sample size. This concern for the sample size is further supported when it is born in mind that 19 of the 31 modified flakes were recovered from one square.
The same analytical categories employed for the sites above were used for the analysis of the flakes recovered from Empire Greens 1. Table 4-10 presents the distribution of the flake types for both unmodified and modified flakes. Of note is the low incidence of bifacial reduction flakes while fragments and primary reduction flakes dominate the assemblage. By-products of core reduction and maintenance clearly dominated the lithic reduction processes at this site.
Greater insight into the nature of the assemblage, however, can be gained through an examination of the utilised or modified flakes. Nearly one quarter of the assemblage is composed of flakes that have been used or modified in some manner. Furthermore, the majority of the used or modified flakes are primary flakes, a proportion that would increase when it is taken into account that most of the modified flake fragments appear to have been flakes of this kind. Additionally, most of the unmodified primary flakes are also broken and are included in this category because of the presence of the striking platform. In short, at this site, flakes were not only being produced but they were also being used heavily.
A closer examination of the utilised or modified flakes also provides some interesting insights. As discussed very briefly above, one criterion often used to distinguish utilised from retouched flakes is the length of the flake scars measured back from the edge. Twenty-three of the modified flakes have flake scars that extend less than two millimetres back from the edge
(Figure 4-22).
On the other hand, of the eight flakes with flake scars extending more than two millimetres from the edge, all appear to be relatively large primary flakes struck unidirectionally and possibly from the same core. This last observation was based on the identical nature of weathered surfaces on the dorsal surface of the flakes (Figure 4-23) as well as high degree of similarity in colour, texture and mottling on the ventral surfaces (Figure 4-24). Interestingly, most of the utilised flakes and all of the "retouched" flakes with longer flake scars have the modification along lateral edges rather than an end. Two of the latter may be classified as unifacial side scrapers although the variation in the extent of edge modification appears to be clinal. Given the number of modified flakes found during the limited testing and the fact that the presence of these distinctive artifacts extend across at least five metres, clearly the activities that led to this artifact deposit involved the production and use offtakes at a scale not seen in the other assemblages discussed in this dissertation.
Formal Tools: Other than the "side scrapers" just discussed, only one formal tool was recovered during the investigations of the Empire Greens 1 Site: a projectile point fragment (Figure 4-25c). 164
This biface is highly fragmented but retains enough attributes to consider it a KCN projectile point.
Manufactured from Onondaga chert, this biface is missing the tip and portions of the left side of the base. The tip appears to have broken off across the mid-blade. It is difficult to determine whether this was a bending fracture, a perverse fracture perhaps initiated during resharpening of the point, or a burination fracture from lateral impact such as using this biface in a chopper-like manner . The left edge of the fracture appears to have been used as a graver and immediately proximal to this edge is a ten-millimetre unifacially flaked notch. These notches are often functionally interpreted as being spokeshaves, perhaps to scrape or shave a wooden shaft.
The maximum width of this biface can be estimated at about 32 mm, and the maximum thickness at about 5 mm. The cross section is plano-convex caused by unifacial edge trimming of the dorsal surface while finishing or reworking the point. Flake scars on the ventral surface cross the midline of the biface, giving it its flattened shape. The base is concave with a concavity depth of about 2 mm, but basal thinning, while present, does not extend to the notches, being relatively short for points of this type. Inter-notch width is 19 mm, with a base length of
7.6 mm. Base width cannot be estimated. The corner notches, lateral cross-section and flaking pattern, particularly on the ventral surface, allow for the typing of this point.
The density and distribution of artifacts are fairly concentrated, probably representing a midden or refuse deposit. As with the sites discussed above, core maintenance and reduction
1 My own experimental work has found these fracture types are not always distinctive.
21 rarely refer to dorsal and ventral surfaces on bifaces because such distinctions are usually arbitrary on symmetrically flaked artifacts. In this case, however, I took advantage of the observation that this artifact has a plano-convex lateral cross-section resulting in one face being relatively flat and one face slightly more convex. The flatter face is treated as ventral and the convex face is dorsal. 165 appears to have contributed most of the debris. However, there is an unusually high number of utilised or modified flake tools compared to the other assemblages examined suggesting a greater intensity of tool use.
Empire Greens 9 (AgGw-29) (Find 9)
During the surface survey, two isolated projectile points were discovered approximately ten metres apart in the north central section of the property. No further materials were discovered then or during the subsequent investigations.
The first projectile point was assigned to the "Nettling" type, which is one of the local equivalents for the KCN type (Fox 1980). This point can be described as corner-notched to expanding stemmed, probably because of damage and reworking of the base (Figure 4-25f). The tip has been broken off in what appears to be a bend-like fracture but this kind of damage can occur due to impact. Basal thinning flakes are present although they are more evident on one face than on the other. Many of the flake scars originating from the lateral edges conform quite well to the flaking patterns observed on KCN bifaces in being perpendicular to the long axis of the point and crossing the mid-line, creating a relatively flat, thin point. Serrations are absent although this is not uncommon on points of this time period. Additionally, the lateral edges are unusually straight but this is not unheard of.
The projectile point was manufactured from Onondaga chert. A maximum length of 45
(+/- 5) mm can be estimated by extrapolating from the straight lateral edges. Maximum width is estimated at 28 (+/- 2) mm (not complete due to damage to one corner). Maximum thickness is 166
4.4 mm between the notches. Inter-notch width is 13 mm and basal width is estimated at approximately 15 mm. Basal length is 10.8 mm.
The second projectile point was described in the initial report as a serrated Daniels triangular projectile point, assignable to the late prehistoric or Historic Neutral. As a personal communication, Phil Woodley expressed slight reservations about this, however, and wondered whether this point could be a heavily reworked KCN point. On re-examining the point (Figure
4-25g), I agree in that there are variations in the flaking pattern and thickness near the base of this point that could derive from reworking this artifact from a smaller, KCN point. Therefore, while I agree with Woodley that it is possible this is an unusual example of an Early Archaic
KCN point, I think this cannot be argued strongly at this time and will accept his written judgement. This identification may be challenged in the future, however, if and when we can find other examples reworked like this from better contexts.
Findl6(AgGw-34)
Find 16 is an isolated projectile point found in the central portion of the southern half of the field (Figure 4-25e). Manufactured from Onondaga chert, this biface is nearly complete, missing only portions of the base. One side of the basal blade edge has a relatively sharp tang, suggesting a corner-notch while the opposite appears to have been reworked enough to appear more like a side-notched point. This kind of modification is not uncommon on relatively heavily reworked points. Most of the flake scars appear to be randomly oriented and the lateral cross- section is biconvex. I am of the opinion that this smaller form of KCN biface is the product of extensively reworking/recycling broken biface fragments, in this case, a snapped off tip section. 167
Most of the dimensions of this point fragment are available. The total length is 35.5 mm of which 27.4 mm is blade length and 8.1 mm is stem length. Maximum width is 26.1 mm and inter-notch width is 11.7 mm. Maximum thickness is 5.1 mm slightly distal of the notches. The base is lightly ground and there are remnants of serrations along the convex blade edges. In sum, this projectile point conforms well to the smaller version of KCN point found at sites like those from the Kipling Interchange, to be described below.
Find 19 (AgGw-37)
Find 19 is another isolated projectile point fragment found beside a small stream in the southern portion of the property (Figure 4-25a). No other artifacts were found in the vicinity of this point. Also manufactured from Onondaga chert, this point is missing much of the tip and the coiners of the base. The hafting element could be described as being intermediate between corner-notched and stemmed, leaving a very short stem. The cross-section is biconvex but the flaking pattern on both faces conforms to the pattern seen on larger KCN points with relatively wide, flat thinning flakes removed from the base and similar flakes removed from the lateral edges, although oriented towards the base.
Length is difficult to estimate but could have been in excess of 50 mm, extrapolating from the straight edges. Stem length is 4.9 mm. Maximum width is 29.7 mm, and inter-notch width is 20.1 mm. Maximum thickness is 7.1 mm slightly proximal to the break. Basal thinning is prominent, on one face extending well over 19 mm which is considerably beyond the notches.
Serrations are present and unusually fine. The flaking that produced these edge serrations do not extend more than one or two millimetres. 168
Empire Greens 20 (AgGw-20)
The Empire Greens 20 Site was initially recorded as a small scatter of nine flakes over an area of 12 metres by 15 metres, and a projectile point fragment (Figure 4-25b) of which only the latter was retained. The report (N.D.A. 1999a) mentions 18 flakes on the surface as well as the excavation of two one-metre square test units. Excavation of these units produced only a small number of flake, all of Onondaga chert, so no further work was recommended for this site. Only the projectile point will be discussed here.
The projectile point is fragmentary, again missing the tip, and was manufactured from a light coloured variant of Onondaga chert that is actually of rather poor quality. Most of the flake scars are randomly oriented although a few others, originating from the lateral edges, conform to the typical Kirk Corner-notched pattern. The base is also rather unusual in not being fully finished and thinned. In fact, the shape of this edge appears similar to a bending or impact fracture so it is quite possible that this point was recycled from a large snapped-off tip section.
There were, however, some basal thinning flakes removed from this base. One corner of the blade is missing but has been unifacially flaked, suggestive of use as a scraping tool measuring approximately eight millimetres long.
While length cannot be estimated, width appears to have been between 37 and 38 mm and inter-notch width appears to have been 15.7 mm. Maximum thickness is 8.4 mm slightly distal from the notches and base length is 8.6 mm. The blade edge serrations are relatively deep and wide and the flake scars that produced these serrations extend as much as 10 mm from the blade edge. 169
Empire Greens 23 (AgGw-40)
The Empire Greens 23 site was initially identified on the basis of nine flakes and a projectile point, of which only the latter was collected. Five one-metre squares were excavated during the testing of the site and a small assemblage of artifacts was recovered. For the most part, these were flakes consistent with those described above, including the presence of a few unidirectional flakes. One retouched flake clearly conforms with those recovered from Empire
Greens Site 1 and so is illustrated in Figures 4-23e and 4-24e. Two additional artifacts will be referred to below.
The projectile point recovered during the initial surface collection (Figure 4-25d) is missing the tip and base, having been snapped across the notches. Nonetheless, the remaining section is relatively plano-convex with the more convex face partly produced by hinge stacks.
The sides are relatively straight and are coarsely serrated. This point conforms with the smaller variant of the KCN projectile point. An additional projectile point fragment, specifically the barb directly above a corner notch, was recovered but offers little additional insight at this time.
One additional biface fragment was recovered that appears to be similar to some of the smaller bifaces discussed above (Figure 4-26a). Flaking along the lateral edges has produced a steeply convex surface on one face while the other is flat or slightly concave. This biface could certainly have become a small to medium sized KCN projectile point.
In addition to the sites discussed above, a number of additional sites and findspots were recorded. Some were not investigated further due to low densities of artifacts or are not discussed here because they were found to be multi-component, date to different time periods or 170 did not produce any diagnostic artifacts. At this point I will mention a drill recovered in one of the surface collections (Figure 4-26b). This drill may be from the Kirk Corner-notched horizon but I can offer no certainty. I include it here because, with the exception of one to be mentioned in the next chapter, it is the only example I can suggest belong to this technological horizon.
The Mount Hope Site Cluster
Another CRM project near the town of Mount Hope (identified as Southampton in Figure
1-1), to the south of the City of Hamilton, produced evidence of KCN occupations. The property was a slightly rolling field, in heavy clay, dissected by largely ephemeral streams. Prehistoric remains represent a variety of time periods spanning from the Early Archaic to the Late
Woodland. Two sites will be discussed, but not in detail, and it should be noted that additional find spots and sites attributable to the Early Archaic were noted but will not be discussed further.
The sites to be discussed are the Kirk (AgGx-295) and Trimble sites (AgGx-299). For reasons that will be made clear below, these will be discussed together.
Kirk and Trimble Sites
The Kirk site (AgGx-295) excavations focused on a dense scatter of chert debitage located on a saddle between two knolls of uneven elevation (Figure 4-27). The western limits of the excavation area were along the edge of a relatively long flat knoll running approximately north-south. The Trimble site (AgGx-299) was located to the south along the top of this knoll.
The eastern limits of the Kirk site excavated area included a second, lower knoll while to the 171 southeast, the ground dropped to a small, south-flowing stream. This stream had running water throughout most of the summer. My impression was that the area of the Kirk site was located on a natural and easy route from the higher ground to the stream.
The excavation of the Kirk site produced a relatively large assemblage of flakes, the vast majority Onondaga chert, but relatively few tools beyond the ubiquitous "expedient" flake tools.
Several features were excavated but, other than a historic disturbance, the most likely prehistoric feature was a distribution of flakes into the subsoil lacking visible outlines in plan or profile. My impression was that this assemblage was from a deposit of waste material dumped along the side of a path, perhaps in part using a natural depression such as a tree-throw. The saddle provided the most natural, easy path from the knoll down to the stream.
Numerous flakes with weathered surfaces are present. In many cases, it can be observed that chert cores brought to the site were quite variable in size. Furthermore, on the basis of dorsal flake scar morphology, it could be observed that a variety of reduction sequences had been employed. Biface reduction had also contributed to the assemblage and the bifaces and fragments appeared to represent both early and late stages of biface production.
A number of flakes conform to the morphology of core reduction debitage observed on some of the sites discussed above. Examples of unidirectional flake removal are abundant and some of these exhibit evidence of subsequent modification (Figure 4-28a and b are examples of notches or spokeshaves). Additionally, examples of platform preparation and platform edge/corner removals were also observed (Figure 4-28c - f) much like those from the Ringtail site. Collectively, however, these appear to account for a relatively small proportion of the assemblage and the majority of the flakes appear to have been produced through other reduction sequences. 172
It is quite possible none of the debris recovered was produced during an Early Archaic occupation. Lacking any traditional diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points, it is possible that the artifacts I identified as being the products of an Early Archaic reduction sequence were just chance by-products of other reduction sequences. This possibility would be quite difficult to disprove. In short, to do so I would have to be able to refer to other reduction systems in the region that resulted in at least some similar by-products and eliminate them as candidates.
Succinctly, as with the problem of "look-alike" projectile points, the possibility of equifmality in at least some of the by-products of different reduction sequences cannot be ruled out. To date, this level of analysis of lithic reduction sequences has not been undertaken for other technological horizons in this region except for Paleoindian. Additionally, there are two other possibilities that should be considered.
The second possibility is that all the debris recovered from the Kirk site was produced by
KCN flint knappers. If this was the case, then reduction sequences for this technological horizon may be more variable and opportunistic then I have proposed. This possibility also cannot be ruled out but neither do I think this assemblage would provide the best case for this kind of argument.
The explanation I prefer is that this location was used more than once as a refuse deposit.
In short, I suspect the Kirk site is multi-component. In order to support this contention, we need to look beyond the limits of this excavation. As noted above, the long flat knoll running east and south of the excavated Kirk site deposits was designated the Trimble site (AgGx-299). A thin scatter or artifacts was recovered from surface collections, consisting mostly of tools. Test excavations, however, produced too few artifacts per one-metre square to warrant more intensive excavations. 173
Examining the surface-collected artifacts from Trimble more closely, a relatively high proportion of discarded tools was recovered. While among these are non-Early Archaic diagnostics, there are also some that belong to the KCN technological horizon. For example, one projectile point (Figure 4-29a) was identified as a broken KCN point. Relevant attributes include parallel lateral flake scars, bilateral edge bevelling and pronounced basal thinning flake scars. A second projectile point (Figure 4-29b) recovered about a metre away, is more ambiguous but has the pronounced plano-convex profile characteristic of the horizon despite bilateral edge bevelling. A third projectile point from the field is remarkably thin due to deeply invasive thinning flakes although the base is not completely finished (Figure 4-29c).
Additional artifacts that conform to the KCN reduction pattern discussed in this dissertation include a biface tip that had relatively long thinning flakes driven off steeply bevelled lateral edges (Figure 4-29d). The narrow biface illustrated in Figure 4:29e was manufactured from a corner removal spall and exhibits a morphology, including flaking patterns, identical to the narrow bifaces recovered from the Ringtail site discussed above. Finally, one retouched flake (Figure 4:29f) appears to have been removed from a core or large biface that had been flaked in a unidirectional manner. While perhaps the least convincing of the artifacts recovered, this artifact type is consistent with KCN assemblages in the region.
My interpretation of the Trimble site is that it was a briefly occupied living area during the Early Archaic KCN horizon. The nature and density of material is consistent with that recovered from "Site Number 18" near the Current site. The Kirk site appears to be a deposit of manufacturing debris with few tools beyond some expedient flake tools, analogous to the Current site itself. Again like the Current site, flakes consistent with the KCN reduction sequence were recovered. However, the Trimble site also produced projectile points diagnostic of other 174 technological horizons, indicating that this site area was found suitable for occupation more than once. I propose that at least one of these later occupations decided to deposit lithic refuse along the path leading from the higher occupation area down to the water supply.
Testing, of course, will be required before these hypotheses are fully accepted. However, my reasoning for using this site in this analysis is that it does offer support for the interpretation offered above for the Current site. Hopefully, this discussion will inspire more detailed investigations in other cases. However, I also suggest that, when a more thorough analysis of lithic technology is applied, even multicomponent assemblages lacking traditional diagnostic artifacts can be assigned to technological horizons. These sites will then add to the repertoire of site locations and can be used to inform us of land-use patterns.
Summary of "Core" Sites
In this chapter, a series of assemblages were discussed that are dominated by the by products from the reduction of chert blocks or cores. While the data is limited, it appears that chert blocks were extracted from quarry sites and transported back to residential sites with minimal modification other than the possible removal of adhering bedrock. At the Ringtail site and, to a lesser extent the Upstairs and Kirk sites, many flakes were observed to have a tabular surface. Additionally, some poorer quality coarse material was observed on flaked surfaces. In total, I suggest this material was within the chert mass and not found until the block was being reduced because I would assume that if this material was visible on the exterior, that block would not have been transported. 175
After being transported to the base camp, chert blocks were reduced to produce a variety oflarge flakes that would be used to manufacture various tool types. One of the first sets of flake detachments would have been relatively large, linear flakes struck vertically (relative to the geological orientation of the chert bedding) from the corners. These corner-struck flakes were preferentially selected for the manufacture of a narrow form of biface that is relatively thick relative to width and appears to have been a bifacial tool-type distinct from projectile points.
Nonetheless, these narrow bifaces exhibit a flaking pattern very similar to that found in other tool-types found in the assemblages. Specifically, this consists of relatively wide flakes that were detached in a parallel manner and cross the mid-line of the biface, at least on the ventral surface. Similar flakes were detached from the base.
In addition to the narrow bifaces, larger and wider spalls were struck from the faces of the chert blocks. The smaller of these may have been randomly flaked to produce projectile points or preforms. Examples of this could include smaller bifaces at the Upstairs site and in the
Cherry Hill site to be discussed next. The larger spalls, however, may have been treated somewhat more like bifacial cores with flakes detached reserved for use as blanks for flake tools.
While ultimately, most of these relatively wide and thin bifaces were destined to become projectile points, other hafted bifacial types may also have been produced and it is possible that unfinished bifaces might have also been used as choppers and cleavers. The flake detachment from thinning these larger spalls, however, followed the same pattern seen on cores in being unidirectional or parallel to each other.
The cores themselves were also reduced in a distinctive manner. Simply, flakes were detached in a unidirectional manner producing highly uniform flakes. Certainly the detachment of the large flakes referred to above would have left some irregularities on the face(s) of the 176 cores and correcting these irregularities would account for the less regular core trimming flakes in the assemblage. The majority of the flakes detached, however, were relatively parallel-sided and these would have made ideal preforms for the vast majority of non-bifacial tools. Many examples will be described and illustrated in the next chapter. While virtually any suitably shaped flake could be used as expedient flake tools, more heavily retouched and presumably curated, unifacial tools were manufactured from these flakes. To at least some degree, it can be inferred that the production of these potential tool blanks was likely an explicit goal of this reduction system.
That a certain amount of care and planning was invested in core reduction can be inferred from two lines of evidence. First, there were flakes recovered that indicate that striking platforms were carefully maintained. The Ringtail site produced platform tablets where an acute angled striking platform edge was removed through flake detachment originating from the opposite side of the core's striking surface. More common are relatively long, linear flakes detached along the edge of the striking platform. I have discussed these at length above and one hypothesis suggested was that these might have been intended to remove a sharp edge on the core in order to reduce abrasion on the carrying bag or container during transport.
That cores were at least occasionally transported after some reduction is best inferred from the Current site. While it is possible that the reduction of chert cores or blocks that had been previously reduced elsewhere produced the Upstairs site assemblage, this inference is based only on the distance from the chert sources. It is equally possible that the Upstairs site assemblage was produced from the reduction of a relatively unmodified block like that seen at the Ringtail site. The Current site, however, appears to have been occupied by people with a more exhausted supply of chert. A variety of lines of evidence were offered in support of this 177 hypothesis but of relevance here is the evidence of smaller cores being reduced. I would suggest that, at least on occasion, some cores were curated and transported for further reduction at a later time.
At least some cores appear to have been reduced to leave a different end product than an exhausted nucleus. A biface from the Upstairs site appears to have been in the process of being transformed from a core into a distinctively flaked preform for a bifacial tool. This flaking pattern mirrors that seen on larger KCN projectile points in that it resulted from the detachment of long, parallel-sided flakes. The transition from core to preform on this specimen appears to be relatively continuous. From this observation, two inferences can be generated. First, flake detachment was highly controlled and regularised so that flakes detached from cores and early stage bifaces were relatively long, thin and straight and ideal for use as flake tools. Second, the resulting biface from either the reduction of large spalls or core remnants was wide and flat, with a relatively even thickness throughout. This kind of biface would have been relatively easy to resharpen or rework (Ahler and Geib 2000) throughout its use-life making it relatively predictable in terms of functional requirements (Bleed 1986).
One notable feature of this reduction system, therefore, is that it was highly integrated and efficient in chert use in that a wide variety of tools and preforms or blanks were produced as by-products of the reduction of a single block or core of chert. This is based on the observation that a wide diversity of usable tool blanks were produced from the same block of chert.
Onondaga chert, which dominates the assemblages discussed here almost to the point of exclusivity, is of a highly variable nature so that cherts from different outcrops or even within one outcrop, can be distinctively different. However, the assemblages recovered exhibit a high degree of internal consistency, while generally very different from each other, in macroscopic 178 characteristics. Certainly, as we would expect, tools recovered included some from different raw material sources, but these can be explained as being remnant, curated tools from previous chert procurement forays. The recovered manufacturing debris from sites like Ringtail and Upstairs, as well as the Empire Greens sites, is internally consistent and appears to all have been produced from the reduction of single chert blocks. Testing this hypothesis through geo-physical methods is certainly a viable question for future research.
In sum, the debris produced during the reduction of chert blocks or cores dominates the assemblages discussed in this chapter. I argued that this block or core reduction was highly patterned and regularised to produce a small number of blank or preform types that would have been transported in anticipation of being finally used as tools. In the next chapter I will discuss a series of assemblages that I argue reflect occupation areas where these blanks and preforms were transformed into finished tools. Since the object pieces transported to these sites were smaller in size (i.e., because most of the chert mass was detached and discarded at the core sites discussed in this chapter), the resulting assemblages are smaller and some may be argued to be too sparse to warrant further investigation. Nonetheless, where these assemblages were more intensively investigated, regular patterns of lithic reduction are observable. I will argue that the sites to be discussed exhibit multiple similarities and continuities with those described above, not just in the discarded tools recovered, but in the reduction sequence employed to produce replacement tools.
As I will argue, there is no evidence of any difference between the kinds of tools manufactured, used and discarded. Instead, the only significant difference between the assemblages discussed in this chapter and those discussed in the next is in the nature of the object pieces transported to the sites and flaked there. 179
CHAPTER 5: THE "BIFACE" SITES AND ASSEMBLAGES
In the last chapter I described several assemblages that appear to have been produced primarily through the reduction of chert blocks or cores to produce tools or preforms for tools.
In this chapter, my focus will be on assemblages dominated by tools and the debitage produced as a by-product of making them. Sites of this kind tend to be less commonly represented in the archaeological record because most of the chert in the travelling kit had already been discarded.
Furthermore, flakes produced through the shaping and resharpening of tools may be smaller in size and less likely to be recovered in V" mesh screen. Consequently, these sites are more difficult to discover and may have artifact densities too low to warrant excavation when found.
The Cherry Hill Site (AgGt-91)
The Cherry Hill site (AgGt-91) was located in the Niagara Peninsula near Fonthill
(Figure 1-1). The site location is on the highest elevation in the Niagara Peninsula. The site is described as being stratified with a Late Archaic Lamoka component on top (Wilson et al. 1997).
A total of 106 square metres were excavated, 35 during the initial test excavations and 71 during the block excavations.
One observation made by the authors of the published paper was that debitage from the
Early Archaic component might be identifiable because the same material was used to make the tools. Since a pattern of producing entire tool kits from the same block of chert is one that is common in the assemblages described in the last chapter, I decided to examine this assemblage. 180
The Cherry Hill assemblage was therefore borrowed from the Ministry of Culture in London and all the tools and the flakes from the Early Archaic stratum were examined.
Raw Materials: Of the artifacts examined all except one projectile point were manufactured from Onondaga chert. The single exception is a projectile point that was manufactured from
Ancaster chert from the Goat Island Formation (Figure 5-lg). On the basis of macroscopic inspection of the flakes and shaped artifacts, the vast majority do indeed appear to have been derived from the same block of raw material. This assessment is based on a high degree of similarity in the mottling and the presence of poorer quality, slightly grainy, reddish tan cortex like material throughout the mass of the chert. One end scraper appears to have been manufactured from a slightly darker, less mottled, higher quality piece of Onondaga chert and may have been curated from an older supply of chert (Figure 5-lb).
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: No cores or core fragments were included in the assemblage. A total of 190 flakes identified as being from the Early Archaic stratum, primarily on the basis of stratigraphy, were examined and grouped into categories compatible with those used in the last chapter. One flake was too fragmentary to be identified as either the product of core or biface reduction. Of the remainder, 28 were identified as being the product of primary or core reduction. Of these, two exhibit evidence of having been utilised: one as a spokeshave or notch and one as a generalised scraper. The remaining 161 flakes were identified as having been the product of biface reduction. Virtually all appear likely to have been produced by the removal of long, thin and relatively straight-sided flakes (often inferred to be pressure flakes) from 181 bifaces. Only one of these flakes appears to have been utilised, in this case as a generalised scraper.
Formal Tools: Three flakes were modified and worth closer attention. One appears to be a fragment of a corner-struck flake. Relatively more invasive flake scars are located on opposite, alternate edges as though one corner of the flake had been inserted into a haft and the piece rotated in a counter-clockwise manner. The proximal end of the flake has a fracture consistent with the tool having broken while being twisted.
The second tool in this group is a relatively long, primary reduction flake, measuring 4.1 cm in length, 1.9 cm in width and 5 mm in thickness. On both dorsal edges, approximately at mid-way down the length of the flake, 1.5 cm lengths of the sides were heavily used and/or retouched to produce concave side scraper edges (Figure 5-la).
Finally, another primary reduction flake, manufactured from the slightly different variant of Onondaga chert described above, was recovered. This tool is 3.3. cm in length, 2.2 cm in maximum width just proximal of the distal end and 7 mm in maximum thickness. Flaking has modified virtually the entire perimeter of the artifact with the exception being the area around the striking platform (Figure 5-lb).
Seven artifacts are bifacially flaked. Three can be considered bifaces broken during manufacture while the remaining four are finished tools that were discarded. I will deal with the unfinished bifaces first. The first and largest is an ovate-shaped, bifacially flaked spall virtually identical to the smaller examples described for the Upstairs site (Figure 5-lc). The length of this biface is 6 cm, the maximum width is 3.8 cm and the maximum thickness is approximately 1 cm.
This biface was thinned by the removal of relatively flat flakes that often extend entirely across 182 the biface, in some cases clearly being outre passe flakes that removed some of the opposite lateral edge. Some platforms were set up by small retouch flake removal and grinding in order to line up the edge of the platform with the plane of the face of the biface, as described for the
Upstairs assemblage. Whether by chance or by design, the plunging termination of some of the outre passe flakes also served this purpose. The biface appears to have been abandoned when a perverse fracture snapped it in half.
A second, smaller preform has much narrower and finer flake scars indicating that shaping was more advanced when it too was snapped by a perverse fracture (Figure 5-Id). This biface is triangular in shape and measures 5 cm in length, 3.4 cm in width near the base and 7 mm in maximum thickness. One surface has been very finely flaked to remove most of the more prominent ridges between flake scars and is slightly convex. The flake scars are relatively invasive, however, and cross the mid-line of the biface. The alternate face has more deeply invasive flaking that was thinning the biface before it snapped near the tip. Closer to the base, the longitudinal cross-section is almost concave in places although this would have been relatively easy to flake to trim the edges. In fact, aside from the break, very little further flaking would have been necessary to transform this biface into a fully functional projectile point.
A third biface fragment is the tip of a larger biface. This artifact is relatively thick and less well refined but would be consistent with late stage bifaces, including knives.
Of the "finished" bifacial tools, one is the base of a drill with most of the shaft snapped off (Figure 5-le). The proximal end is not finely flaked like the base of projectile points so may have been produced through reduction of either an unfinished biface or a large suitable flake.
Drills are relatively rare in the assemblages examined for this study. It is possible that these 183 were rarely used and discarded by the Early Archaic peoples of this region or that this rarity is due to the sampling strategy of focusing excavations on refuse dumps.
Three broken KCN projectile points were also recovered during the excavations. The largest is missing the tip, possibly due to an impact fracture, but had a length that can be estimated at just over 5 cm (Figure 5-If). The maximum width is 3.2 mm and the thickness is 8 mm. The cross-section is plano-convex, highly characteristic of the type, with some irregularities due to the presence of poorer quality material throughout the mass of the artifact.
Otherwise, the over-all flaking pattern is virtually identical to that seen on larger variants of the
KCN type found in this region, including the presence of basal thinning.
A second, smaller projectile point was manufactured from locally available Ancaster chert (Figure 5-lg). The tip is also missing due to an impact fracture but the length can be estimated at 4 cm. The maximum width is 2.5 cm and the thickness is 6 mm. The lateral edges are coarsely serrated, the base is slightly convex and it is corner-notched. Although the biface is biconvex, the flaking pattern, including basal thinning appears to be fairly standard for the type although there is little or no evidence remaining that large flakes had been removed from the preform. It is quite likely, therefore, that this projectile point was manufactured from a smaller preform and flaking, while still following the over-all pattern of being long, relatively flat flake removals, was intended just to shape the tool, not to produce usable flakes.
Finally, one small base of a projectile point was recovered (Figure 5-lh). This appears to be from a notched projectile point that snapped between the notches. Presumably, this break happened while the projectile point was in use and returned to the site in the haft only to be discarded when the weapon was re-armed. This artifact type is relatively common on sites assigned to this technological horizon, particularly those discussed in this chapter. 184
The assemblages discussed in the last chapter were dominated by debitage produced through the reduction of chert blocks or cores. In contrast, the sites to be discussed in this chapter are dominated by debitage produced during the reduction and shaping of bifaces.
Although core reduction flakes are present, there is little direct evidence that cores were flaked at these locations. The Cherry Hill assemblage provides an illustrative example of this pattern in being dominated by debitage produced through biface reduction.
A second pattern revealed by the examination of the assemblages in the last chapter is that of a large number of artifacts being produced through the reduction of one chert block.
Chert blocks appear to have been transported to site locations distant from the chert out-crops before being reduced. At these locations, relatively large flakes were detached that could be transformed into bifaces. These were then flaked so that the biface reduction flakes could be used or modified into flake tools. Smaller flakes were directly manufactured into projectile points. This kind of reduction dominates the Cherry Hill assemblage.
Relatively large primary flakes were also produced directly from unidirectional core reduction. These could be transported and modified as needed to produce a variety of additional tools. The key point is that the planned reduction of a single block of chert produced a wide variety of tool preforms that were not completely finished but were transported for further modification and use at a later time.
The Cherry Hill site illustrates this pattern in being an assemblage that is dominated by biface reduction debris, rather than core reduction debris. As noted by the original investigators of the site, the vast majority of the artifacts recovered appear to have derived from the reduction of a single block of chert. The majority of the debitage recovered appears to have come from the reduction of these transported bifaces. Of course, artifacts from other sources, including 185 different chert types, are present representing curated objects from previous chert acquisition episodes which may include opportunistic recovery of smaller flakes, etc., that could be used to produce specific, individual tools.
The Cherry Hill site assemblage provides an illustration of how the artifact types produced at sites like Ringtail and Upstairs may be transformed into more specialised, finished tools. In particular, the Upstairs assemblage included examples of the production and preliminary shaping of smaller bifaces. The Cherry Hill assemblage illustrates how these smaller bifaces may then be further modified to produce finished projectile points. The flake scars on two of these bifaces are very similar to those removed from the bifaces and cores observed in the last chapter in that the flakes were relatively long, parallel-sided and flat in longitudinal cross- section. On the larger biface discussed here, the flakes removed would certainly have been comparable, if not identical to, many of the informal flake tools described throughout this study.
On the smaller biface, however, while the flakes are nearly identical in orientation and shape, they would have been too narrow and thin to produce any of the informal flake tools documented from any assemblages considered here. Thus, I argue that the pattern of object piece reduction is the same as seen on the cores and large bifaces. The difference is that the flakes removed from the late stage preforms were too small to be usable as tools. Otherwise, the patterning of flake removal is the same.
Another important distinction between these bifaces and some of the larger ones discussed in the last chapter is that the pattern of parallel flake removal would have been less obvious based on dorsal flake-scar patterning of the debitage. Simply, early stages of the production of smaller bifaces modified the shape of the initial object piece which was a flake.
Later stages of reduction were directed towards producing a refined tool. What is missing from 186 these bifaces are "middle" stages where truly parallel-sided, unidirectional flake removals occurred. I argue that this is analogous to Steven Kuhn's (1995:83) argument that the reduction sequence appears to be abbreviated because a smaller object piece was being worked. In the next set of assemblages, I will be describing debitage that included flakes with dorsal ridges parallel to the flake edges because they would have been produced from larger bifaces.
The Kipling Cluster of Sites
The Kipling Cluster was located on a level plateau overlooking the west side of the
Humber River valley near Woodbridge, Ontario (Figure 1-1, Figure 5-2). The first site attributable to the cluster was recorded in 1985 (Mayer, Poulton and Associates 1989). A test pit survey of the margins of an overgrown field was undertaken in 1989, resulting in the discovery of two sites that were immediately excavated (Warrick 1994). One of these, Thornbush (AkGv-
90), produced a relatively large assemblage recovered from the excavation of 56 square metres
(Murray 1991). Lacking, however, were any diagnostic projectile points. Initially, this left the cultural/chronological affiliation of the site uncertain.
A smaller site, Ageing Maple (AkGv-91), produced 98 chert flakes of Onondaga chert and one Late Paleoindian Hi-Lo point manufactured from Bayport chert from Michigan (Murray
1997). Nineteen square metres were excavated but, since this component produced a diagnostic artifact from the Late Paleoindian, Hi-Lo, horizon, this assemblage is not considered further here. The larger site, Thornbush (AkGv-90), was located approximately 30 metres north of the
Ageing Maple site (Murray 1991). It will be described in greater detail here. 187
In 1991, the fields were ploughed and the site documented in 1985 was relocated along with four new sites and several find spots (Warrick 1994). Two of these were excavated in 1991
(Bursey 1993) and the remaining three were excavated by another consulting firm in 1992
(Dillon 1996). Spacing between the sites within this cluster, as measured from their centres, ranged from 30 to 100 metres. One of these sites produced projectile points and other artifacts attributable to the KCN Horizon but in association with a large quantity of Late Archaic burnt bifaces. Thus, while it is possible this site location was occupied during the early Holocene, it is also possible this material was collected and returned to this location by the later occupants.
Thus, this assemblage will not be discussed further here.
All sites were excavated in one metre squares with soil screened through 6 mm (%") mesh. Excavation proceeded until the number of artifacts per square dropped below arbitrarily defined densities, which varied from site to site. Below I will describe the assemblages in greater detail.
Kipling 1 (AkGv-112), East Locus
After the excavation of the Thornbush site, it was realised that sites like it could be easily missed by test pitting, even at five metre intervals. Therefore, the same field was strip-ploughed in the fall of 1990 and allowed to weather over the winter. During the following spring, 20 flakes were found in a relatively tight cluster on the surface of one of the ploughed strips.
Extending the excavation grid from the Thornbush site, this cluster was located just over 40 metres west of Thornbush and 15 metres north. A second cluster of surface artifacts was located 188 nearby and will be described below as the "West Locus" although it is most likely a related component of this site.
The excavation of 58 one-metre excavation units (Figure 5-3), including peripheral test units, produced an additional 363 artifacts. Excavation continued until excavation units produced fewer than five artifacts. The total artifact count from the site is presented in Table 5-
1. After the initial reports were prepared, subsequent examination of this and all other assemblages from this cluster of sites included mending of all artifacts including flakes. Thus, in the more detailed discussion of artifact classes like flakes, lower counts are used because some of the broken flakes were mended, lowering the total.
Raw Materials: As with the assemblages discussed in the last chapter, Onondaga chert dominates the assemblage. This material appears to be of relatively high quality and is consistent in terms of colour, lustre, mottling, etc. Two exceptions are fragmentary flakes of
Upper Devonian chert from the Kettle Point Formation (Eley and von Bitter 1989:15-16). While little can be said about this small number of artifacts, particularly given their incomplete nature, the presence of this raw material type suggests some form of contact with contemporaneous populations in southwestern Ontario.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: Six pieces of Onondaga chert are considered to be cores or chunks of Onondaga chert. However, all are relatively small and irregular in shape.
Some are equivocal as to whether they were actually culturally modified. I suspect that these pieces may have been casually collected from secondary chert sources, such as stream beds, and 189 kept as auxiliary sources of sharp flakes. Two, however, have unidirectional flake scars so may be exhausted nuclei from the standard core reduction.
A total of 361 flakes were recovered of which 39 exhibit evidence of having been modified or used as expedient flake tools. Below I will discuss specific attributes of the debitage in greater detail so here I will simply provide an overview.
Table 5-2 presents the debitage, including the flakes used as expedient flake tools, in categories that indicate the object piece from which they were detached and for all sites from this site cluster. In departure from the assemblages discussed in the last chapter, the vast majority of flakes were identifiable as having been detached from bifaces rather than cores. It should be noted, however, that most fragments lacking striking platforms were readily identifiable as belonging to one category or the other on the basis of dorsal flake scar patterns, size, shape, etc.
In fact, there appears to have been little overlap between the two categories. Little or no evidence of core reduction is present and cores may not have been present. In particular, there were few or no flakes that could be attributed to core trimming or modification. Instead, large primary flakes were brought to the site detached from the core and the few recovered appear to be those that broke during use or were abandoned. The majority of the assemblage was produced via the modification of bifaces.
The assemblage of modified or utilised flakes reinforces this interpretation. The larger, more complete flakes appear to have been detached in a unidirectional manner from large cores or blocks. Two primary flakes were classified as end scrapers. Thirty-two are primary flakes and have evidence of modification along a lateral edge and are classified as expedient side scrapers. Five of these have two worked edges which, in comparison to the "core" sites, suggests a slightly more intensive use of expedient flake tools than was found at sites where 190 waste flakes were more common. Only seven flakes with evidence of utilisation were produced during secondary or biface reduction. All have simple modification on a part of a lateral edge.
Formal Tools: Five formal end scrapers were identified in the assemblage. Four are relatively large primary flakes with dorsal flake scars indicative of unidirectional detachment in a manner like that observed in the "core" site assemblages. One of these scrapers was also flaked along the lateral edges suggestive of having been modified for hafting (Figure 5-4b).
One end scraper is unique in the assemblages examined for this study (Figure 5-4a). This uniface is distinctively tear-drop shaped with a length of 34 mm, a width near the bit of 22 mm and a thickness of almost 7 mm. The most remarkable attribute of this scraper is that the dorsal surface is entirely covered with fine, well-executed flake scars. Ellis et al. (1991:14) suggest that these scrapers might be considered a diagnostic of the Early Archaic although the rarity of this artifact type indicates limited utility.
A total of eleven bifacially flaked artifacts were identified in this assemblage. Two appear to be fragments of refined bifaces, broken during manufacture (Figure 5-4c and d). Both are very thin and finely flaked and both have relatively long, narrow and parallel flake scars.
Both could be tips or corners of projectile points, broken by perverse fractures (Crabtree
1972:82; Johnson 1979:25).
The majority of the bifaces recovered, however, were projectile points or fragments. Five of these are complete enough to type as small variants of KCN projectile points (Figure 5-5a - d, h) and four others are small fragments of stems (Figure 5-5e - g). The five more complete projectile point fragments exhibit a considerable amount of diversity, but not beyond what has been documented experimentally from the use and maintenance of similar kinds of projectile 191 points (Flenniken and Raymond 1986). Two are missing their tips, suggestive of having been damaged from impact. This interpretation also allows for the explanation of the high number of stem fragments recovered. These, too, could have been broken in use and returned to the camp still in the haft and discarded while re-arming the projectile (Cross 1999:68-69; Gramly 1984;
Rainey 2005:135).
As will be discussed in greater detail below, all the sites in the Kipling Cluster exhibit a high degree of similarity to each other in terms of assemblage composition. To illustrate this, below I will undertake more detailed comparisons of the debitage. I can note here that projectile points and fragments dominate the formal tools. The debitage is dominated by debris from the reduction of bifaces, which I argue represents the replacement of discarded projectile points.
In addition to the biface reduction debris, a smaller amount of material consists of various scraping and/or cutting tools including fragments of larger, primary reduction flakes. Slightly more than 75% of the primary flakes exhibit evidence of utilisation. It can be inferred that fragments of larger flakes lacking evidence of modification might have been parts of flake tools broken due to mechanical stress. Consequently, it can be argued that the remainder of the assemblage was probably produced from the processing of game or other acquired resources using large but simple flake tools transported to the site. Consequently, the entire assemblage can be described as representing three types of artifacts: tools that were in active use such as projectile points, scrapers and minimally modified flake tools; preforms including generalised bifaces and large primary flakes; and the debris from manufacturing replacements. Certainly flakes produced at the site from biface reduction, etc., would also have been expediently employed for various functions and discarded when finished. 192
Kipling 1 (AkGv-112), West Locus
During the surface survey, a small cluster of six flakes was discovered approximately ten metres grid southwest of the main concentration. Ultimately, seven one-metre squares were excavated around this cluster producing a small assemblage of artifacts, all Onondaga chert.
This cluster was initially treated as a potentially separate or unrelated component during analysis.
Manufacturing Debris: Combining the surface collected flakes with those recovered during excavation, a total of 47 flakes was recovered from this locus. Mending broken flakes reduced this total to 35 flakes. As illustrated in Table 5-2, the majority of these flakes were produced by secondary or biface reduction.
Formal Tools: In addition to the flakes, one projectile point tip was recovered (Figure 5-5i).
Although not intact enough to be definitively assigned to a type, this point fragment was compared to all other bifaces recovered from the site cluster. Although no mends were found, the projectile point tip is identical to other Early Archaic, KCN projectile point tips found and so the locus is considered to be potentially related to the main (east) locus of the Kipling 1 site.
The limited spatial distribution of artifacts allows for the interpretation of this locus as a possible "dump" of manufacturing debris. The projectile point tip may have been returned to the site embedded in a game animal, raising the possibility that this locus was a true midden with offal disposed here. However, if so, the organic contents of this midden have long since decomposed. The flakes will be included in the comparisons below. 193
Kipling 2 (AkGv-113)
The Kipling 2 (AkGv-113) site was initially identified by the discovery of nine chert flakes on the surface of the ploughed field. Ultimately, 100 one-metre squares were excavated in an area measuring 15 by 8 metres (Figure 5-6). The centre of the cluster was approximately 130 metres due (grid) west of the Kipling 1 site. The site was approximately 20 metres from the southern edge of the plateau and at the edge of the cultivated portion of the field. The total artifact count for Kipling 2 is presented in Table 5-3.
Raw Materials: The assemblage is dominated by Onondaga chert. Also recovered were one flake of Kettle Point chert and 11 flakes and one projectile point of Haldimand chert. The latter is found in the Lower Devonian Bois Blanc Formation which caps the Onondaga escarpment throughout the Niagara peninsula and can be readily recovered near Onondaga chert outcrops.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: No cores or chert chunks were recovered during the excavations. A total of 755 artifacts were identified as flakes. Extensive mending of flakes, including some identified as fragments of a fire-shattered biface, reduced the tally to 730. The distribution of flakes according to inferred stage of reduction and the nature of the object piece is presented in Table 5-2. Biface reduction flakes clearly dominate the assemblage with lesser numbers of primary flakes and flake fragments also being present.
While a detailed discussion of the flakes will be undertaken below, my impression of the flakes was that distinctions between the primary and secondary reduction flakes were very pronounced. The secondary flakes certainly appear to have been produced from the careful 194 refinement of bifaces. Primary flakes, however, were produced during early stages of core reduction as the dorsal surfaces have relatively uncomplicated flake scar patterns. Large primary flakes were detached in a more or less unidirectional manner.
Fifty-two flakes were identified as being modified in some way based on macroscopic inspection. Twenty-six of the flakes were identified as being the products of primary reduction,
20 from biface reduction and the remaining 6 are fragments. Three flakes have multiple worked edges for a total of 56 edges. Eleven of the modified edges would be classified as end scrapers,
34 would be general side scrapers, and ten are notches or spokeshaves. The remaining flake is finely serrated and would be considered a denticulate.
Formal Tools: One end scraper was recovered (Figure 5-7c). A small section of weathered, patinated surface remains on the dorsal side of this uniface while the majority of the remainder of this surface has a flake scar originating from the side. The distal 20 mm of this scraper was modified to produce a 2 cm ovate working bit with a maximum width of 24 mm. The proximal
12 mm of the scraper has been retouched along the lateral edges, allowing for the suggestion that this was a hafted scraper.
Fragments often bifaces or fragments were recovered. Most appear to be fragments broken during manufacture. One biface appears to be a large flake modified by fine pressure flaking. This type of expedient manufacture of a finely flaked biface from a primary flake, rather than serial biface reduction, appears to be relatively unique but can be offered as another example of the potential flexibility inherent in large flakes.
A second biface is rectangular in shape and 25 mm long by 22 mm in width. While one section of an edge appears to have been not quite finished or at least fully thinned to a bifacial 195 edge, this biface is not a fragment of a larger, broken tool. This artifact is somewhat unique in that no other complete bifaces this small have been encountered in the assemblages examined with the exception of a few very small projectile points. However, this is also one of the few artifacts manufactured from Haldimand chert (in this case the relatively glossy "Port Colbourne" variety described by Fox (1979b)) and so may be associated with the Haldimand chert projectile point to be described below. Finally, the third is a fragment of the lateral edge of a relatively early stage biface that had a thickness of approximately one cm.
Two relatively complete bifaces are worth closer attention. Nine fragments were mended to produce a long narrow biface that had been fire-shattered (Figure 5-7b). The mending of these fragments, in fact, accounts for virtually all the heat-exposed chert recovered during the excavations, including some that were initially identified as flakes. This biface would have been over 9 cm long, 3.5 cm wide (near the base) and 1 cm thick. It had been relatively finely flaked and then retouched so that bilateral edge bevelling had twisted the blade, at the distal end, approximately 45 degrees. While the extensive reworking makes identifying the original flaking patterns difficult to discern, this biface appears to be an example of the narrow bifaces described for some of the "core" assemblages. Similar examples have been described for the Nettling site
(Ellis et al. 1991:9, 10) but analogous forms are known for earlier (Woodley 1997:157) and later
(Woodley 1996:45, 50) assemblages.
A second, larger biface was mended from two fragments (Figure 5-7a). This artifact has relatively straight lateral edges producing a trianguloid blade with corner notches into the convex base. Flake scars on both faces are relatively random in orientation but some originating along one lateral edge of one face appear to have been initiated in a parallel direction into the mass of the biface but were terminated by hinge fractures. Initially, this biface was considered to be a possible Late Archaic diagnostic although it did not conform well to any known type. The most similar are some Late Archaic forms that are normally stemmed, not corner-notched. Furthermore, direct comparison to one of the bifaces recovered from the Thornbush site (see Figure 5-9, Figure 5-1 lg) indicate that this example is virtually identical except for being slightly more finely flaked and having the hafting modification. It is therefore concluded that this is another form of hafted biface used by the
Early Archaic KCN people.
The existence of a slightly thicker, randomly flaked bifacial tool helps explain why unfinished bifaces were transported and not finished at the sites described in the last chapter.
Simply, transporting unfinished broad bifaces may have fulfilled the several functions mentioned above (Kelly 1988). First, they could have served as a core for the detachment of flakes to be used as expedient flake tools. (It is worth noting here that a third of the expedient flake tools were identified as being detached from bifaces.) Second, their thicker, unfinished nature may have better withstood the wear and tear of a mobile lifestyle. Thirdly, by being unfinished, there was flexibility in what the final, finished biface could have been. In this case, the biface preform appears to have been transformed into a hafted biface different from projectile points.
In addition to the above, there are two complete projectile points and fragments of three others. One complete projectile point is a fairly typical example of the small variety of KCN projectile point type (Figure 5-8a). A second is represented by two fragments but is missing the base (Figure 5-8b). Although both remaining fragments of this projectile point were recovered from the same square, the distal (tip) fragment had been unifacially flaked along the break as though it had been used as a scraping tool. Finally, two small bases, like the examples from 197
Kipling 1 and Cherry Hill, were recovered (Figure 5-8c and e). Again, these pieces conform well to the size and shape of the bases of the more complete KCN projectile points recovered.
The second complete projectile point in the assemblage departs from those discussed above. This biface was manufactured from Haldimand chert and has been resharpened heavily so that the projectile point type can no longer be determined (Figure 5-8d). Simply, it may have been a KCN projectile point but it could as easily have been deposited at another time and its inclusion in this assemblage may be coincidental. Consequently, this artifact will not be considered further.
The assemblage from the Kipling 2 site is very similar to that of Kipling 1. As with
Kipling 1, this kind of assemblage is different from that of the "core" sites where the majority of the manufacturing debris appears to have resulted from the manufacture of non-specific tool blanks for future needs. There were no cores recovered and, while biface reduction flakes were used as expedient flake tools, large primary flakes are slightly more abundant in this artifact category. It is likely is that core reduction occurred elsewhere and large primary flakes were transported as either tools in the active tool-kit or as unmodified flake blanks. The large size and the dorsal flake scar morphology suggest that these primary flakes were produced from core reduction like that seen at the Ringtail and Upstairs sites.
Although small, the assemblage of formal tools adds new insights into the Early Archaic lithic reduction system. The presence of two small KCN projectile points supports the identification of the assemblage as belonging to this technological horizon. The presence of two bases, snapped between the notches, supports the possibility that this assemblage was produced during weapon re-arming and tool replacement as a result of meeting immediate needs. 198
Thornbush (AkGv-90)
The Thornbush site (AkGv-90) was the first site in this cluster to be fully excavated. In the fall of 1989, 56 square metres were excavated approximately 50 metres east-southeast of the
Kipling 1 sites (Figure 5-10). The site had been found by test pitting and during excavation, it was noted that the topsoil was relatively shallow, there were no plough scars and large pieces of decayed wood were intact in the soil. Consequently, it was inferred the site may have been undisturbed prior to excavation. The total artifact count is presented in Table 5-4.
Raw Materials: All recovered artifacts were manufactured from Onondaga chert. As with some of the assemblages discussed above, all could have been produced from the same block of chert.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: Five small, blocky pieces of Onondaga chert were recovered that could be classified as core fragments. Like the similar fragments from the Kipling
1 site, none of these are large enough to have produced any but the smallest of flake fragments used as tools. While these could have been pieces of blocky shatter or exhausted nuclei, it is also possible these were opportunistically collected in the hopes of producing small usable flakes or other purposes. For example, one has battering around the edges similar to chert blocks used in the manufacture of pecked and ground stone tools. Another may have been a fragment of a large, early-stage biface that was subsequently further modified. In either case, I cannot offer any further insights on the Early Archaic lithic reduction sequence from these artifacts.
Five hundred and forty-one flakes were examined from this site (Table 5-2). By-products of secondary or biface reduction dominate the flake assemblage with a minority of core reduction flakes being present. The small number of fragments consists of broken flakes that could not confidently be assigned to either category.
Eighteen flakes exhibit evidence of utilisation. Fifteen of these are primary reduction flakes, two are fragments and one is a biface reduction flake. In terms of functional categories, five of the flakes can be classified as end scrapers, one has multiple working edges and the remainder are simply utilised on lateral edges (Figure 5-1 lb - d). Most of the utilised primary flakes are large primary flakes like those reported for other assemblages and some of these appear to have been transported and curated after production elsewhere.
Formal Tools: One large primary flake was modified into an end scraper (Figure 5-1 la).
Although the platform is intact, the remainder of the flake has been retouched to produce an end scraper. The remaining length is 3 cm, the width is 2.4 cm and the thickness is almost uniformly
5 mm.
A total of 9 bifacially flaked artifacts were recovered. Two are fragments of unfinished bifaces. One appears to have come from a bevelled edge like those described from the Upstairs site. Another is a fragmented large spall that was in the early stages of bifacial flaking when abandoned. While there is no evidence that the flake was detached at this site, one of the small flakes recovered in the same excavation unit was found to refit with this object piece. One lateral edge has evidence of utilisation. Thus, it would appear that this was a large spall that was transported and used as a flake tool before being recycled into a biface. I can offer no argument as to why it was abandoned. The remaining fragments offer no further insight.
Three relatively intact bifaces support some of the inferences about biface reduction out lined above. One, measuring just over 5 cm long, 4 cm wide and 1 cm thick, has flaking patterns that include flat flake scars that cross the mid-line and edges that had been bilaterally edge bevelled by flaking to line up with the plane of their respective surfaces (Figure 5-1 le). Again, this matches the early-stage bifaces described from the Upstairs site although in a smaller artifact. A second ovate and much smaller biface, measuring 4 cm in length, 3.6 cm in width and
1 cm in thickness, exhibits many similar attributes but with the longer, more intrusive flake scars terminated in hinge fractures (Figure 5-1 If).
The third biface is roughly triangular in shape though part of the lateral edge and one corner are broken off (Figure 5-1 lg). This biface is also unusual in having been manufactured from relatively coarse-grained, poor quality chert. Compared to many of the other bifaces described in this dissertation, as well as the larger projectile points, the flake scar pattern on this biface is random although a few flake scars appear to have been relatively long. The length of 7 cm, projected width of 4 cm and thickness of 1 cm, corresponds closely to the corner-notched knife identified from the Kipling 2 site (Figure 5-7a). Aside from the broken edge, the main differences between these two artifacts are the lack of refinement in flaking and lack of notches on this example.
Finally, three small fragments of projectile points were recovered. One is a basal section identical to the haft sections discussed in previous assemblages. Like the others, it was snapped off between the notches and probably returned to the camp within the haft of the projectile and discarded when the weapon was re-tipped. The two remaining fragments appear to be minute edge fragments of serrated bifaces. One appears to be the barb between the lateral edge and a notch. While too small to be certain, these appear entirely consistent with edge fragments of
KCN projectile points and may have been returned to the site embedded within game animals. 201
Overall, the assemblage recovered from the Thornbush excavation matches well with those discussed above. The same kinds of object pieces were transported to the site and the debitage discarded was derived from modifying unfinished bifaces and reworking them or discarding worn out or broken tools. An early problem encountered in the interpretation of the
Thornbush site assemblage was the apparent lack of diagnostic "index fossil" artifacts. The most commonly accepted form of "diagnostic" is complete, or largely complete, projectile points but the only artifact initially identified as such was a base that could have been identified to other horizons as well. Subsequently, two small fragments of serrated edges were also identified but, while these are certainly consistent with portions of Early Archaic, KCN projectile points, they are too small to be considered diagnostic of this type. Thus, it is necessary to consider other lines of evidence to support the contention that this assemblage is Early Archaic.
Some attributes of the other bifaces recovered appear to be very similar to the reduction sequence observed elsewhere. Specifically, the bevelling of edges of bifaces, through flaking, in order to "set up" striking platforms so that they are on a plane with one of the faces of the biface, was seen in the Upstairs site assemblage. Relatively long, narrow flake removals also conforms to this pattern. Additionally, it was noted that one biface appears almost identical to a notched bifacial knife from the Kipling 2 assemblage and can be inferred to have been a preform for that tool type. Below, I will argue that a detailed study of the debitage attributes further supports the identification of this assemblage as belonging to the same lithic reduction sequence and strategy.
For now, I will simply note that lithic assemblages may not always contain traditional diagnostic artifact types but that other attributes of the assemblage can be used in this manner. Wild Turkey Surprise (AkGv-117)
During the initial surface reconnaissance of the ploughed fields in 1991, a number of isolated find spots were identified. These were tested and, where appropriate, excavated by an independent consulting firm in 1994 (Dillon 1996). Ten squares excavated around one of these isolated projectile points (registered as AkGv-117) produced six positive excavation units. An additional 41 excavation units were excavated in the area using an artifact density of five as a
"cut-off (Figure 5-12). The total of artifacts recovered is presented in Table 5-5.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: One small, blocky piece of chert was recovered that can be considered a core fragments. It is too small, however, to offer further information.
After extensive mending of flake fragments, a total of 195 Onondaga chert flakes were available for detailed attribute analysis. As with the other assemblages examined in this dissertation, flakes from secondary or biface reduction dominated the assemblage (Table 5-2).
The by-products of core reduction are minimally represented.
Thirteen flakes have evidence of utilisation on one or more edges. Two non-specific scraping edges were identified on a biface reduction flake and a flake fragment while the rest are primary flakes. Of these latter, one was identified as an end scraper (Figure 5-13b), one was bifacially flaked, one was retouched along both ventral edges (Figure 5-13d), one had both a concave unifacially flaked edge and a non-specific utilised edge (Figure 5-13e). The remainder were simply unifacially flaked edges Figure 5-13a and c). 203
Formal Tools: Three fragments of bifaces and 2 projectile points were recovered. Two of the three biface fragments are finely flaked with one possibly being a projectile point tip (Figure 5-
14c) and the other, although unnotched, possibly being from a corner (Figure 5-14d). Neither, however, is serrated and both have the appearance of being "late stage" but unfinished. The third biface fragment appears to be a stem, again snapped between the notches but too incomplete to be certain of this identification.
Additionally two projectile points were identified. One, recovered from the surface, is missing the tip, possibly due to an impact fracture (Figure 5-14b). The second, also with impact damage at the tip, may be one of the smallest examples assigned to this point type with both length and width barely exceeding 2 cm (Figure 5-14a).
Although in total, nearly as many squares were excavated from this site as at the Kipling
1 and Thornbush sites, the assemblage is smaller and less diverse. Absent, for example, are any formal unifaces and many of the bifaces and fragments found in other assemblages. However, the assemblage appears to be very similar to the others described above, particularly in terms of the debitage, so it is likely that this variation in sample richness is the result of variation in sample size (Jones et al. 1983, 1989). Given that the site was located in the middle of a cultivated field, it is possible that the assemblage might have been as large and robust as any of the other assemblages included here but was distributed over a larger area by mechanical cultivation. Further, since this wider distribution would have resulted in fewer artifacts per one- metre square and since the excavation strategy employed was density-dependant, this would account for the lower total assemblage size and the variation in sample richness. In other words, the Wild Turkey Surprise site may have been an assemblage much like Thornbush or Kipling 1 but dispersed by ploughing and consequently less extensively sampled because of the lower density of artifacts per square.
Robert Johnson (AkGv-27)
The Robert Johnson site was initially identified in 1985 as part of a regional, archaeological survey and an Early Archaic projectile point had been identified at that time. An attempt was made to relocate this site in 1991 and another Early Archaic projectile point was found. It was therefore concluded that this location was the Robert Johnson site. However, the
1991 survey also encountered an additional new site (see Figure 5-2), designated then as Kipling
3 (AkGv-114) that included numerous fire shattered biface fragments. Since the 1985 survey report also noted fire shattered biface fragments at the Robert Johnson site and since the Kipling
3 excavations produced Early Archaic projectile points, it is possible that the 1985 Robert
Johnson site became the 1991 Kipling 3 site. Since the 1985 artifacts were not available for inclusion in this analysis, however, this possible confusion between sites is not relevant here.
Thirteen one-metre square test units were initially excavated at five metre intervals producing a small number of artifacts. Seven additional units were excavated in the area of densest artifact concentration producing a small assemblage (Dillon 1996) (Figure 5-15). The artifacts recovered are listed in Table 5-6.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: Included in the assemblage is one artifact that was identified as a core fragment. Inspection of this artifact, however, revealed that it has an identifiable ventral surface and that it is a flake that had been removed from a larger core. This flake, however, is almost an equilateral triangle in cross-section. The dorsal right surface is an unmodified tabular surface that had been used as a striking platform. The dorsal left surface has fairly pronounced bulbs of percussion from flakes that had been detached at right angles to the long axis of the flake before the flake itself was detached from the larger object piece. This flake, then, was a core-trimming flake virtually identical to those recovered from some of the sites described in the last chapter. The main departure from those, however, is in the larger size.
Given that there is little other evidence that core reduction occurred at the site, I suspect that this flake was transported as a potentially usable flake-blank for a tool. There are flake scars originating from the ventral surface removing some of the original flake scars but I can offer little in the way of interpretation for what was intended with this flaking.
A relatively small sample of 39 additional flakes was recovered (Table 5-2). Three of these flakes are Ancaster chert, from the Goat Island Formation. These three flakes are one each of primary and secondary reduction flakes and a fragment. Of the assemblages in this cluster of sites, the Robert Johnson site had the highest percentage of primary reduction flakes but this could be a product of the small sample size.
Eight of the flakes exhibit evidence of utilisation. Six of these are primary flakes and two are secondary flakes. The latter include an end scraper and a generalised scraper. The utilised primary flakes include an end scraper, a concave side scraper (Figure 5-16d) and four generalised utilised edges (Figure 5-16c) (including one of Ancaster chert).
Formal Tools: Only two bifaces were identified in the assemblage (Figure 5-16a and b). Both are projectile points with damage to the stem but easily attributable to the KCN type. Both are small examples so I infer they were too small to be reworked and were thus discarded. Despite the small sample size, the recovered assemblage appears to conform to others obtained during the investigations of these fields. As with the other assemblages, the excavation of the Robert Johnson site produced broken and discarded tools and debitage produced by the reduction of bifaces. The relatively low sample size is certainly partially a product of the relatively small number of squares excavated. However, it is difficult to interpret the lower density of artifacts as being strictly the result of differential dispersal from ploughing as there is no reason to suggest that this site was ploughed any more intensively than any of the others in the field. The lower artifact density, then, can be related to differences in the occupation.
However, neither can the difference in artifact density be simplistically related to length of occupation. Tens or even hundreds of flakes can be produced from the reworking of even one biface and this total would be multiplied by the mechanical breakage of flakes due to cultivation.
Thus, the small sample from the excavation of the Robert Johnson site may well simply be the product of reworking one or two bifaces which, in turn, could simply have been the result of variation in just one day's hunting.
Other Components in the Kipling Cluster of Sites
Other archaeological components were identified on the same property or in the immediate vicinity of the Kipling Cluster of sites that may relate to the occupations described above. For example, Murray (1997) has described an assemblage of 98 Onondaga chert flakes recovered in association with a Late Paleoindian, Bayport chert, Hi-Lo point, from an excavated area approximately 30 metres south of the Thornbush site. These flakes were identified as being
65 biface retouch flakes, 31 fragments and 2 primary flakes. The ratio of primary to biface reduction flakes appears similar to that observed in the other assemblages discussed here and the difference in raw material between the diagnostic projectile point and the flakes allows for the possibility that the association between these is spurious. Unfortunately, these flakes were not available for inclusion in this analysis. I suspect, however, that this might have been a discrete
"dump" of manufacturing debris not unlike that of the Kipling 1, West Locus.
The Kipling 3 assemblage, as noted above, included some Early Archaic, Kirk Corner- notched projectile points but was dominated by later-dating diagnostic artifacts. It is possible that an Early Archaic component was present at the same location but it is equally possible that the
Early Archaic bifaces were collected by the later occupants from this field or from elsewhere.
No resolution to this question can be offered here.
Finally, a number of isolated artifacts, including a diagnostic Early Archaic projectile point (Figure 5-17a), were recovered from these and some of the surrounding fields. Others, such as the end scraper illustrated in Figure 5-17b, are not diagnostic of the technological horizon but are consistent with it and so may be reflective of activities that occurred outside the excavated areas. However, caution must be exercised as some artifacts from later technological horizons, such as the Late Archaic "Small Point" illustrated in Figure 5-17c, were also recovered. While inclusion of these artifacts could be useful in examining variation in projectile point variation or in an analysis of settlement or land-use systems (assuming variables such as survey methodology, differential weathering, experience of personnel, etc., could be accounted for), neither is strictly the goal of this dissertation. Below, some potential implications of this cluster of sites will be considered but a full consideration of KCN Horizon land-use patterns is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, these artifacts will not be considered further here. Debitage Analysis of the Kipling Cluster of Sites
This cluster of sites and the assemblages recovered from them appears to represent the debris from a consistent pattern of lithic reduction. Specifically, a small fraction of these assemblages appear to be tools that were accidentally lost or discarded because they were broken or resharpened beyond further utility. The remainder of the assemblages is manufacturing debris produced through the production of replacement tools. This inference is based on the observation that the majority of the flakes recovered were not produced during the flaking of chert cores or blocks but rather from the reduction of bifaces.
Inferring that all these sites represent an approximately equivalent stage in a reduction sequence, however, does not establish that they are all representative of the same reduction sequence. As noted in the discussion of fluted point assemblages, there is reason to conclude that Paleoindians traversed the landscape with a similar kind of lithic tool kit consisting of finished tools and biface and flake blanks that could be transformed into tools as needed. Thus, we would expect that, at least potentially, there may have been other technological horizons that employed a similar strategy for meeting the needs of mobility (Parry 1989:31).
Nonetheless, in the process of examining the debitage that forms the bulk of these assemblages, certain regularities in flake size and morphology became apparent and it was decided to examine these flakes more closely. The analytical importance of debitage has been acknowledged for some time in Ontario (e.g., Jamieson 1977) but, beyond some fluted point assemblages, little further analysis has been attempted with this class of artifacts. Consequently, the following is offered as an exploratory effort. In order to maximise the effectiveness of this analysis, the debitage from each site was laid out on a table and broken flakes were manually compared to each other in order to "mend" as many as possible. Flakes, particularly those that are relatively long and thin, are easily broken and this can occur during detachment from the object piece or at any time after including during the excavation process. The immediate concern for this study was to maximise the information obtainable from each flake.
Upon completion of the mending operation for each assemblage, individual flakes were examined in order to record specific attributes from each. Metric attributes were measured using digital slide callipers while non-metric attributes were recorded according to specific attribute states that will be described and explained as I proceed.
Flake Completeness: The first attribute recorded for each flake was an approximation of how complete each was. Each flake must have a striking platform, midsection and termination to be considered complete. Incomplete flakes could have either one or two of these sections present although a combination of platform and distal section (termination) only would not be possible.
Table 5-7 presents the primary flakes from each site according to their "completeness".
In all cases, complete flakes predominate. As will be explored below, primary flakes are larger in all dimensions than secondary flakes and are thus more resistant to breakage. This forms the essence of Sullivan and Rozen's (1985) analytical scheme and the underlying dimension of their interpretive framework. However, if primary flakes were preferentially used as relatively unmodified tools such as knives or scrapers, then we should expect that they would be more likely to have been broken prior to discard. The high proportion of complete flakes from these assemblages, however, can be explained by the fact that some attempt was made to mend broken 210 flakes and because of their size, primary flakes were successfully mended more often than secondary flakes.
The distribution of secondary flakes according to this measure of completeness is presented in Table 5-8. The distribution for the four larger assemblages is remarkably similar with nearly half of the assemblage being composed of complete flakes. The exceptions are seen in the smaller assemblages, R. Johnson and Kipling 1 West Locus. The former exhibits a distinctively higher frequency of complete flakes but, considering the limited extent of excavations at this component, sampling error may be cited. In contrast, Kipling 1 West Locus was more completely excavated and so, other factors will need to be invoked. This question will be returned to later.
It can also be noted that the relative frequencies of complete flakes does not depart highly from those of primary flakes as seen in Table 5-7 although the frequencies of complete flakes appear to be slightly lower. This presents a departure from the implications of Sullivan and
Rozen's (1985) argument in that it was proposed that biface reduction would produce more broken flakes. Flake mending cannot be cited as a cause for this because less than 1% of the flakes from any assemblage were successfully mended. Mechanical cultivation cannot account for any significant differences in flake completeness either. Simply, measures of completeness are close to equivalent between those assemblages that were ploughed and those that were not.
Flake Metrics: The maximum length, width and thickness of each flake was measured with a pair of digital callipers and dimensions recorded to the nearest tenth of a millimetre. It can be argued that utilised flakes need not have been complete to serve as functional tools. However, in this analysis, the goal is not to examine tool use but rather to focus on reduction strategies. Thus, 211 only complete dimensions will be used. Fragmented flakes can provide some partial measures such as width or thickness if enough of the flake is present to indicate that the maximum measure was present. One measure of uncertainty is introduced by the fact that some thin secondary flakes, and more rarely primary flakes, may break during detachment. In these cases, breaks may take a form similar to step or hinge fractures.
Additionally, while flakes were considered complete if there was a continuous span from platform to termination, occasionally these flakes might have a longitudinal section broken off.
In such cases, length could be recorded but the width would be incomplete. With incomplete flakes, the attributes of width and thickness might be observable if it could be determined that the observed flake section appeared to possess the maximum dimension of the complete flake.
Since most of the complete flakes appear to have a relatively regular plan shape (see below), a relatively high degree of confidence could be attached to these judgements.
The distributions of primary flake length, width and thickness are presented in Tables 5-9 to 5-11. The data is presented as back-to-back "stem-and-leaf' plots (Drennan 1996:10) because, for small numbers of observations, these plots have the advantage of presenting more information in the histogram. Summary statistics for this data is presented in Table 5-12.
These data present some interesting results. First, the primary flake lengths from the
Kipling 2 site appear to have a roughly normal distribution with some upward skewing (Table 5-
9). Because of this, the mean of 19.1 mm appears to be higher than the modal distribution within the 10 to 14.9 mm category and the median point of 15.5 mm. The primary flakes from Robert
Johnson may follow this pattern but the low sample size (n=4) precludes much confidence.
The primary flakes from Kipling 1 East Locus and Thornbush may have a bimodal distribution. Both assemblages appear to have peaks in the distribution between 15 and 24.9 mm 212 and possible secondary peaks between 35 and 39.9 mm at Kipling 1 East and between 40 and
44.9 mm at Thornbush. The primary flakes from Wild Turkey Surprise appear to mimic this distribution but a smaller sample size precludes confidence in this assessment. Primary flake width and thickness appears to have a relatively normal distribution although with some upward skewing.
From these results, it may be possible to suggest that primary flakes were produced through two kinds of processes. First, shorter primary flakes may have been produced through trimming and careful reduction of prepared and highly curated cores. Larger primary flakes, as discussed above, would have been those purposely struck to be used either as less formal flake tools or as initial stages in the production of more formal bifacial or unifacial tools. These larger flakes would have been curated and would not necessarily have entered the archaeological record at this site unless accidentally lost or broken during use. Therefore, where earlier it had been suggested that core reduction did not occur at these sites, it is now possible to suggest that, while the by-products of core reduction do not dominate the assemblage, it may have contributed to it.
Core reduction, however, would have occurred at a low level of intensity, perhaps only as needed to replace flake tools.
The distribution of secondary flake length, and width, corrected for differences in sample size by converting to percentages, is presented in Figures 5-18 and 5-19. Flake thickness is not presented because the distributions are far more tightly clustered and thus offer little information.
The data are presented here as histograms because there were too many observations to present as a "stem and leaf plot like those used above. The secondary flake summary metrics are presented in greater detail in Table 5-13. 213
Flake length and width appear to have normal distributions for the four larger assemblages (Wild Turkey Surprise, Kipling 2, Kipling 1 East Locus and Thornbush). The mean length, width and thickness are all within one millimetre of each other and have similar small standard deviations. Statistically, there appears to be little to differentiate between the assemblages. The assemblage from R. Johnson, being a smaller sample of the population, also appears to fit with the results from these sites.
The Kipling 1 West Locus assemblage, however, departs from the others. First, the sample shows that larger flakes are present and examination of the flakes with incomplete measurements supports this. Sampling error cannot be invoked in this case because it is believed that this locus was completely excavated and there are flakes with larger dimensions than found on other assemblages. Instead, it is inferred that the Kipling 1 West Locus consisted of a small number of larger biface reduction flakes, possibly from a single knapping episode. This question will be returned to later. At this point, I will simply note that there appears to be a high degree of similarity between the assemblages on the basis of overall flake size.
Platform Attributes: Attributes of the striking platform were also recorded where visible. The three primary attributes of the platforms examined were the nature of the striking platform and its width and thickness. Alternate states for the nature of the striking platform were simple
(where the striking platform is a single surface), faceted (where the striking platform exhibits multiple flake scars from either platform preparation or flakes having been removed from the opposite surface of the object), and crushed (where the platform was destroyed during impact).
The frequency distribution of platform types is presented in Table 5-14. Simple and crushed platforms are less frequent than faceted platforms. These dominate in all assemblages 214 except the Kipling 1 West Locus where only one platform was present on a primary flake. In this case, it is possible to argue that the high frequency of faceted platforms is most likely the result of careful preparation of the core prior to flake removal in order to ensure that chert was not wasted due to a poor striking surface. Kurt Carr (1998b) predicted that, in areas where chert conservation was critical, Early Archaic lithic technology employed highly prepared and curated cores.
It is worth noting, however, that "prepared core" need not necessarily refer to an object like a cylindrical blade core. In fact, in many cases, a bifacial core can be considered in the same way with the added attribute that the exhausted bifacial core may then be recycled into a preform for a bifacial tool. This was a conclusion of the last chapter. Detaching flat, parallel flakes from two faces thinned the cores into flat, tabular object pieces. In relatively late stages of core reduction, in order to obtain and maintain a biface-like object piece, lateral edges were bevelled by flaking so as to line up the striking platform with the plane of the next flake to be removed.
These bifacially flaked, bevelled lateral edges will produce flakes with faceted platforms.
Furthermore, we might predict that bifacial cores would be more likely to be curated and transported because of their greater potential as blanks or preforms for bifacial tools.
The distributions of platform types for secondary flakes is presented in Table 5-15.
Faceted platforms account for the majority in all assemblages except Robert Johnson where the three platform types appear in nearly equal amounts. Comparisons with Table 5-14 suggest the distribution of platform types does not depart noticeably from those of primary flakes.
In addition to platform morphology, platform dimensions were recorded, again using digital callipers with sizes recorded to the nearest tenth of a mm. A summary of the metrics of the striking platforms for primary flakes is presented in Table 5-16. Differences in the count 215 between platform width, which was measured across the platform parallel to the width of the flake, and platform thickness, which was measured at right angles to the width, is accounted for by either broken or crushed platforms. Mean and standard deviation was not calculated for the
R. Johnson primary flakes because of the low frequency. It can be noted that three of the flake widths were between 5.1 and 6.7 mm while the other two were considerably wider.
Despite the presence of some obvious high outliers, there is a considerable amount of consistency in the platform dimensions of the primary flakes. In particular, the mean platform widths among the three larger assemblages are within one mm of each other. The relatively high standard deviation reflects the presence of some large outliers.
Platform metrics for secondary flakes are presented in Table 5-17. Inspection of the means and standard deviations presented in this table indicates a high degree of conformity between the samples, particularly in the platform thickness. The presence of three high outliers accounts for the slightly higher standard deviation on the Kipling 2 site but the average of the platform widths at the Kipling 1 West Locus is the only value greater than 4.6 mm.
At this point, it might be worth noting that platform metrics appear to be a better criteria for distinguishing primary flakes from secondary flakes than platform morphology. I had previously examined flakes from the Middleport site, a Late Woodland village site partially excavated by the Ministry of Transportation, and observed that neither platform morphology nor angle of the platform served as a reliable indicator of primary vs. secondary flakes. Indeed, I had observed that many relatively "late" stage bifaces and biface thinning flakes were struck from a primary-like (i.e., core-like) surface and that this attribute was not a reliable indicator of stage of reduction in some assemblages. Consequently, attributes of the striking platform were not used to distinguish primary from secondary flakes in this analysis. Instead, I relied on an evaluation 216 of the overall flake morphology. Comparison of Tables 5-16 and 5-17 shows that while there is over-lap between the dimensions of primary vs. secondary flakes, as populations, they are relatively discrete.
Flake Terminations: The nature of the distal termination of flakes was also recorded. This attribute would reflect the ability of the knapper to judge the amount offeree necessary to detach a flake from the object piece. Various knapping errors can occur when the amount of force used is mis-judged and the termination of flakes provides one measure of assessing this skill.
The alternatives used in this analysis are: "feathered" where the flake thins relatively gradually and produces a sharp terminus; "hinge" where not enough force was exerted to drive the flake entirely through the mass of the core and thus produces a rounded terminus after the crack rebounded and rose to the surface; "outre passe" where the force of the striking blow was great enough to cause the flake to remove some of the opposite edge; "step" where too little force was present to fully remove the flake and it snapped off; and "hinge stack" where flakes were struck from the opposite side of an object with the (successful) intent of removing previous hinge scars.
The distribution of primary flake terminations is presented in Table 5-18. In all assemblages, a feathered termination dominates. Also present in relatively high frequencies are hinged terminations. While traditionally these are considered to be "mistakes" it should also be born in mind that such terminations also result in relatively thick distal ends which may have been considered advantageous for some purposes such as the creation of end scrapers.
The termination of secondary flakes is presented in Table 5-19. Feathered terminations again dominate with lesser numbers of other forms also being present. Hinge and hinge stack 217 terminations are both present in low frequencies. While not specifically measured, it can be noted that both hinged flakes and the hinge stack terminations seldom appeared to be as much as a millimetre in thickness and on hinge stack terminations, no more than a single hinge termination was observed. From this it can be concluded that the Early Archaic flint knappers exercised highly controlled flaking and that when errors occurred, they were relatively minor and easily fixed.
Secondary Flake Dorsal Morphology: As outlined at the end of Chapter 1, during the initial examination of the flakes from this cluster of sites it was observed that there appeared to be a high degree of regularity in comparison to other assemblages I have examined. The precise nature of this perceived regularity, however, was not immediately apparent. Attempts were made to examine these flakes and discover the source of this regularity until the morphology of the dorsal flake scar pattern was considered. The following reflects the process to discover and explicate the regularities noted on the dorsal surface of secondary flakes.
First, an arbitrary scheme was devised for this analysis to attempt to infer the degree of refinement of the bifaces that were being shaped at each of the components. Three possible stages of bifaces were considered on the basis of the morphology of the flake's dorsal surface.
Stage 1 flakes were defined as being those with relatively high ridges between flake scars and a small number of flake scars relative to the area of the flake. Stage 2 flakes exhibit less pronounced flake scars. Finally, Stage 3 flakes appear to have been removed from finished bifaces in that the ridges are not pronounced and there is a more complex pattern of flake scars on the dorsal surface. It was not intended that these attribute states directly reflect Callahan's
(1979) stages of bifaces. 218
Table 5-20 presents the distribution offtakes according to this arbitrary scheme. Since the criteria used to assign these flakes to stages were subjective, some caution must be used to interpret the data. The majority of flakes were struck from relatively early-stage bifaces but these should not necessarily be interpreted as being "crude." There is no evidence to suggest that finished formal bifaces or tools were being reworked but it is also possible that such flakes would have been too small to have been captured with the mesh size employed. Alternatively, as described in the last chapter, at least some larger late stage bifaces and projectile point preforms may not have had complex dorsal flake scar patterns because of the way they were manufactured through the detachment of long, parallel thinning flakes. The resulting thin, flat biface is characterised by fewer flake scars and as a result, subsequent reworking of these biface preforms would not produce many flakes with complex dorsal surfaces.
Another method of attempting to gain greater insight into the kinds of stone tool reduction that produced the flakes recovered from the assemblage is to examine the secondary flake "types". In some analyses, secondary flakes are simply classified as biface thinning flakes without any consideration of whether the flake appears to have actually "thinned" the biface. In this analysis, the term biface thinning flake is reserved for flakes that bear evidence of actually crossing the middle of the biface. This could be determined either on the basis of the curvature of the flake seen in profile or in having dorsal flake scars that appear to have originated from the opposite side of the biface. Biface trimming flakes are defined as those flakes that do not appear to have crossed the middle of the biface and so cannot be inferred to have actually thinned the biface. Biface reduction flakes are those flakes for which this determination could not be made, usually because of breakage. Obviously, the distal sections of the dorsal surface of flakes may be the most informative section for making this determination. 219
Other, more specialised, types of flakes recognised in this analysis include: basal trimming flakes which have dorsal flake scars oriented at right angles to the long axis of the flake; notching flakes which have a distinctive semi-circular shape indicating the platform was located on a concave edge of the biface; retouch flakes which appear to have been removed from the edge of finished biface in order to rejuvenate the edge; and scraper retouch flakes which appear to be the same but detached from a uniface rather than a biface. Hinge stacks have already been addressed but since these are a specialised category of biface thinning flakes they were simply included with the biface thinning flakes.
The distribution of secondary flakes according to these types is presented in Table 5-21.
Biface trimming flakes dominate all assemblages with the exception of Kipling 1 West Locus were biface thinning and undifferentiated biface reduction flakes appear to be equally represented. Given the low relative frequencies of biface thinning flakes, it may be inferred that the bifaces worked at these sites were already thinned and the primary task undertaken at the sites was to trim or shape relatively finished bifaces.
A third attribute of secondary flakes examined in this analysis was the pattern of flake scars on the dorsal surfaces offtakes. While examining the flakes from these sites, certain regularities or patterns were observed that might be of further value in attempting to gain insight into how biface reduction was approached and organised. The best and most controlled method of thinning and shaping bifaces is to "centre" flake removal along the ridge between two previous flake scars and to attempt to "run" the flake along this ridge. Initially, ridge flakes were subdivided on the basis of whether the ridges were relatively pronounced, flat or multiple ridges but these distinctions were abandoned because they were at least partially redundant with the flake stage category and prone to the same subjectivity. During the analysis, it was observed that a number of flakes appear to belong to a subset of the ridge category. These flakes also follow the ridge as with the previous category of flakes but extend beyond the length of previous flake removals so that the dorsal flake scars produce a distinctive "Y" pattern towards the distal end. The flake scars on either side of the dorsal ridge would have been struck from the same edge as the flake under observation but the terminal flake scar could either have originated from a different direction or would be from an unmodified surface. It was further reasoned that one possible result of this type of knapping could be something resembling parallel ribbon flaking, a characteristic of many Paleoindian and Early
Archaic biface assemblages.
Other dorsal patterns included flat, complex and unknown. The former may consist of dorsal flake scars that run at oblique or right angles to the long orientation of the flake, may have been centred on previous flake scars or may have been removed from an unmodified surface.
Complex flake patterns are characterised by a random arrangement of dorsal flake scars and can be inferred to have come from relatively late stage or finished bifaces.
Table 5-22 presents the distribution of flakes according to the categories described above.
"Ridge" flakes dominate all assemblages with lesser numbers of"Y", flat and complex flakes in approximately that order. From this I infer that the flint knappers at the Kipling sites were using relatively controlled techniques to remove flakes and, rather than orient the flakes randomly, centred flake detachment on the ridges between previous flake scars.
There are, however, other implications of this kind of flaking pattern. First, it can be noted that these flakes have a high degree of similarity to the unidirectional detached flakes observed on the "core" sites. Both the "ridge" and "Y" dorsal flake scar patterns can only occur if flake removal is consistently done in a parallel direction. Given that flakes with a "ridge" or 221
"Y" dorsal flake scar pattern appear to also have parallel lateral margins, it is also safe to infer that the resulting biface will have a parallel flake scar pattern.
Of interest is the observation that none of the bifaces recovered have this sort of pattern.
In fact most are relatively randomly flaked. Nonetheless, it has been repeatedly argued that parallel flake detachment is a common, if not potentially diagnostic, attribute of early technological horizons. My argument is that relatively randomly flaked, early stage bifaces are the most common type produced and transported. This flake scar pattern may not be substantially modified in the production of other hafted bifaces such as the knife from the
Kipling 2 site. When these bifaces are transformed into large projectile points, however, then a more parallel-sided flake removal pattern may be employed. Consequently, in this reduction sequence, the first flakes removed may have relatively random dorsal flake scar patterns.
However, as this reduction proceeds, subsequent flakes will have the "ridge" or "Y" dorsal flake scar pattern. In fact, examples of this kind offtake removal will be described below. I would argue that the reason why these bifaces were not recovered is because they were removed from the site for use elsewhere. The projectile points recovered, however, were discarded after being used and reworked extensively.
Discussion of Flake Attributes
First, the flakes recovered exhibit a high degree of uniformity in size and morphology. A majority of these flakes appear to have derived from the refinement and finishing of bifaces.
While some of these may have served as hafted bifaces such as knives, I would argue that most were derived from the production of replacement projectile points. Projectile points were by far the most common form of biface recovered from these sites and it is a straight-forward proposition to infer that these were the most in need of replacement. In fact, the most complete of the recovered projectile points are among the smallest examples of the KCN type I have examined. I would argue that these were literally too small to have been of further utility. I argue, then, that the replacement of projectile points was the dominant contributor of debitage to the recovered assemblage.
An hypothesis offered is that debitage can serve as a diagnostic marker of lithic technological complexes. Quite simply, if projectile points can serve as reliable "index fossils" of technological horizons, then the debitage that produced them may be as diagnostic. In fact, the debitage may be even more so because the debitage should reflect a more encompassing lithic reduction strategy than any one end product that may have been altered through more expedient resharpening episodes.
The problem with exploring this hypothesis is that too little comparative data is currently available. This level of detail is available for fluted point assemblages if the defining attribute of fluted points is taken into account. Relatively early-stage biface reduction flakes may be described as having a length and shape at least somewhat determined by the nature of the object piece and the skill of the knapper. However, one goal of this early-stage biface shaping was setting up a ridge for the removal of the channel flake. Therefore, pre-fluted bifaces would have been at least slightly more biconvex than KCN preforms so as to retain a ridge to direct the detachment of channel flakes. Channel flakes were then set up to be detached from the base and to run along at least some of the length of the biface. Channel flakes, in fact, have very distinctive dorsal flake scar patterns that reflect this reduction sequence. 223
Final biface finishing flakes might have been somewhat more like those recovered from these sites but the terminations of these flakes would have been predetermined by the presence of the flutes. Either these flakes would have a "T-shaped" dorsal flake pattern where the flake removed some of the margin of the channel flake, or they would have been shorter and not crossed the margins of the flute. Consequently, because so much of the lithic reduction strategy employed in manufacturing fluted points was contingent on the successful detachment of the central flutes, we would expect to see this in the dorsal morphology of the flakes.
It was immediately recognised that the assemblages recovered from the Kipling cluster of sites bore a strong resemblance to each other. The various classes of formal tools certainly can be used to argue that all the sites belong to the same technological horizon based on the presence of common archaeological "index fossils". Furthermore, it is possible to propose that the occupants of all the sites in this cluster may have been engaged in common kinds of activities although a use-wear analysis would be useful in testing this hypothesis. A direct result of the debitage analysis is the recognition that similar kinds of artifacts were transported to the site.
Furthermore, these were flaked in similar ways, resulting in the excavated assemblages of discarded waste material sharing distributions of attribute states. Here I will simply argue that the debitage analysis presented above supports the contention that all these assemblages were the product of the same kind of reduction sequence.
Throughout this dissertation I have attempted to maintain the distinction between the lithic reduction sequence and the lithic reduction strategy whereby the former can be used to infer the latter. Specifically, I have argued that the KCN technological horizon travelled with an active tool kit and an assemblage of generalised bifaces and flake blanks that could be transformed into a variety of formal tool types on an as-needed basis. This can be considered a 224 component of the lithic reduction strategy. However I have also implied that part of this strategy was also used during the Paleoindian technological horizon(s). Therefore, common lithic reduction strategies can be arrived at through multiple lithic reduction sequences. The detailed analysis of the Kipling cluster debitage, however, has indicated that the occupants of these sites shared a lithic reduction sequence as well as strategy.
The Wellingdale Site Cluster
In 1992 130 hectares were surveyed by a CRM firm in the City of Brampton (ASI1992)
(Figure 1-1). Seven prehistoric sites were identified based on surface scatters and isolated findspots (Figure 5-20). Limited test excavations were undertaken in or around the surface scatters in 1994 (ASI 1994). The property surveyed is located approximately 12 kilometres due west of the Kipling Cluster. Like the Kipling cluster of sites, the Wellingdale cluster is located on heavy clay soils but on undulating topography near a tributary of the West Branch of the
Humber River. Because the diagnostic artifacts recovered were all identified as Early Archaic
KCN projectile points and because this group of sites appears to represent another cluster like the
Kipling cluster, it was examined for this dissertation.
The Wellingdale Site (AkGw-57)
The Wellingdale Site is reported to have been located on a small rise, 30 metres north of the West Humber tributary (ASI 1992:8). One surface collection was made in the spring of
1992, a second collection was made in the fall of that year and a third in 1993. Seven excavation units, consisting of five one-metre squares and two 50 cm squares, were excavated in the fall of
1993. Artifacts recovered from these investigations are combined here. Given the low sample sizes, however, I will discuss specific assemblages after all have been described.
Manufacturing Debris and Informal Tools: One relatively small blocky piece of Onondaga chert appears to be a randomly flaked core remnant. While most of the surface of the core is covered with flake scars, there does not appear to be any consistent pattern in flake removal. Non-flaked surfaces are weathered and rounded, indicating this piece was recovered from a secondary source, not a primary bedrock outcrop.
Forty-five chert flakes were recovered. Only 8 of these are Onondaga chert. Two were identified as primary flakes, 3 as biface reduction flakes and 3 as fragments. One of the primary flakes is somewhat square in plan view and was heavily utilised on a number of lateral edges.
The Onondaga chert flakes do not appear to reflect any form of cohesive reduction sequence and certainly do not appear to have been produced through core reduction. My evaluation of these flakes is that the primary flakes were manufactured elsewhere and transported to the site. The secondary flakes may reflect a less intensive refinement or re-working of tool blanks, perhaps as part of a retooling event.
The remaining 37 flakes are all Haldimand chert. All are identifiable as being the products of secondary, or biface, reduction. One of these was utilised along the distal edge. The
Haldimand chert flakes, then, appear to have been produced during the refinement or replacement of Haldimand chert tool blanks.
Formal Tools: Three artifacts were identified as being deliberately shaped artifacts. One is a fragment of a somewhat rough biface with steeply bevelled edges that was manufactured from
Onondaga chert. While one of the edges may have been used as an end scraper, overall this fragment appears most like the smaller biface preforms described for the Upstairs site assemblage.
A second biface appears to have been a flat, primary flake that was finely pressure flaked
(Figure 5-2 la). The distal end can be identified as the more extensively flaked part of this biface although most of the other margins appear to have been at least minimally modified. One possible interpretation of this artifact is that it was a practise piece worked by a juvenile or apprentice flint knapper. An alternate interpretation, however, is that this was an expediently flaked projectile point, as proposed by Odell (1988).
The final formal tool is a Kirk Corner-notched projectile point manufactured from
Haldimand chert (Figure 5-21b). This is a relatively small example of the type but has a flaking pattern, including basal thinning, that conforms to many of the larger examples described above.
There is damage to the tip that can be described as impact damage that may explain why this specimen was abandoned.
AkGw-58
Neither this site nor any of the remainder were given specific site names so they will be referred to by their Borden numbers. This site was located on a slight rise 80 metres from the tributary of the West Humber River and 60 metres north of the Wellingdale site. Like the
Wellingdale site, three surface collections were made followed by the excavation of four one- metre squares and two 50 cm squares. 227
Unmodified chert flakes consist of eight primary flakes of Onondaga chert, one biface reduction flake of Onondaga chert and two biface reduction flakes of Haldimand chert. Four other primary flakes of Onondaga chert appear to have been heavily utilised as minimally modified flake tools. Seven additional large flakes or weathered chunks of Onondaga chert had been flaked somewhat, possibly with the intent of using them or manufacturing various kinds of tools (Figure 5-22). An additional rough biface manufactured from a weathered, secondary source piece of Selkirk chert from the Dundee Formation (Eley and von Bitter 1989) was also recovered. Finally, the assemblage includes one projectile point manufactured from Haldimand chert (Figure 5-21 c). In size and shape, this artifact resembles the one recovered from the
Wellingdale site except for being slightly larger is size. Like that example, this projectile point is missing its tip, possibly due to impact damage.
While caution must be exercised due to the low intensity of the investigations, two observations about this assemblage can be made. First, although there is some evidence of a unidirectional reduction sequence, there a number of artifacts that were derived from secondary- source material including several manufactured from Onondaga chert. In short, the occupants of this site appear to have exploited a larger number of chert sources but many of these produced poorer quality material. Considered alone, it is possible that sources of better chert had not been discovered, that known sources had been exhausted, that access to better quality material was being blocked for social/political reasons or that the occupants of this site were adopting a lithic use strategy that was directed towards exploiting more widely available but lesser quality material. I cannot evaluate these alternative hypotheses at this time.
A second departure from the other assemblages described here is that the AkGw-58 site is dominated by tools and tool preforms with little direct evidence that refurbishment or retooling 228 occurred. Again, multiple hypotheses can be offered to account for this data but too little is available to test these. First, it is possible that the site's occupants were over-supplied with chert relative to their anticipated future needs and decided to lighten the load by discarding excess, poor quality material. This possibility could have come about either because they obtained better quality material from other people or because their anticipated future demands prior to revisiting raw material sources would be met with less that what was in hand. Alternatively, it is possible that this location was not directly related to a discrete domestic residence but was either a separate refuse deposit or possibly a cache that could be returned to if needed at a future point in time. Again, unfortunately, these possibilities can not be fully evaluated, at least at this time.
AkGw-59
Two artifacts were found on a flat section of the field approximately 90 metres north of the West Humber tributary. Both are end scrapers manufactured from Onondaga chert. The first is the distal portion (about 2 cm in length) of a large flake (Figure 5-2Id). The distal edge has been retouched to produce a relatively "classical" thumbnail scraper.
The second is an expanding, triangular-shaped flake that is almost 3 cm long. The distal end is unevenly retouched to produce an identifiable working edge while the lateral sides towards the proximal end (i.e., striking platform) have finer flaking indicating that this tool was hafted. The distal working edge of this end scraper is somewhat unusual compared to other scrapers described here. Specifically, the retouch is uneven and does not produce a uniform working edge. Furthermore, instead of having a rounded working edge, the distal margin is relatively straight with two sharp, angular corners. Consequently, this specimen could be 229 interpreted to be the product of a juvenile or apprentice knapper. In either eventuality, both scrapers conform to the pattern of having been manufactured from primary flakes.
Additional Isolated Finds
In addition to the assemblages discussed above, a number of relatively isolated find spots and flake scatters were recorded on this property but none were considered discrete or dense enough in artifact frequencies to register as "sites" or conduct further investigations. Recovered artifacts consisted of various flakes and flake tools as well as some larger spalls that were partially modified. All are consistent with the assemblages described above. Two projectile points were recovered, however, that merit further attention.
One small KCN projectile point was recovered in association with a flake and given a
Borden number (AkGw-62) (Figure 5-2le). This projectile point was fire damaged, including the loss of the tip, but enough remains to provide some information. The length can be estimated at slightly over 3 cm, maximum width is 2.6 cm and the maximum thickness is approximately 6 mm. This point was heavily resharpened, primarily by relatively long and intrusive but narrow and thin pressure flakes, but is clearly identifiable as a small variant of the KCN type.
Finally, another projectile, lacking the stem and tip due to impact fractures, was registered as AkGw-63 (Figure 5-2If). The blade is relatively long and narrow with the length estimated at approximately 4.5 cm and the width at 2.5 cm. The maximum thickness is 7 mm.
Again, relatively long, narrow and thin flakes were detached during resharpening most of which cross the mid-line of the point, creating a relatively thin cross-section. As with other projectile points considered to be smaller variants of the KCN point type, effort appears to have been exerted to maintain a relatively thin, flat profile without a median ridge produced by the terminations offtake scars.
Discussion of the Wellingdale Site Cluster
Unfortunately, due to the relatively low intensity of investigations undertaken at these sites, relatively little can be said about the individual assemblages. Nonetheless, there are a few observations that can be made.
First, like the Kipling cluster of sites, the Wellingdale site cluster produced only artifacts diagnostic of the early Archaic, KCN technological horizon. All the projectile points recovered were typed by the original investigators as "Nettling" or Kirk Corner-notched projectile points and I found no reason to question this assignment. In addition, based on the assemblages recovered, there is no evidence that core reduction occurred at any of these localities. Instead it appears that, in addition to the tools transported to these site locations as part of the active tool kit, only large primary flakes and unfinished bifaces were transported. The presence of smaller flakes indicates that these were further modified at some of these locations.
One interesting departure from the Kipling sites is that it is clear that these people were exploiting more than one chert source. The presence and use of Haldimand chert projectile points and debitage indicates that several chert sources from the Niagara region were known and exploited. Unfortunately, given the limited nature of the recovered assemblages, it is impossible to determine whether Haldimand chert blocks were reduced in a manner similar to that seen in the larger Onondaga chert assemblages described above. It is equally possible that Haldimand chert was used in discrete portions of the reduction sequence, perhaps due to the smaller size of 231 these chert blocks (Kuhn 1995). I cannot fully account for why there was a departure from the use of predominantly Onondaga chert. It is possible that access to Onondaga chert was blocked for some reason. Alternatively, it is also possible that shifts in the preference of certain raw material types reflect some diachronic process of change. In this latter case, it is possible that assemblages with more Haldimand chert were earlier and this preference was carried forward from Late Paleoindian (i.e., Hi-Lo) times. Alternately, it is possible that these were later dating assemblages. The Onondaga chert from AkGw-58, for example, is of a relatively low quality compared to that seen in other assemblages so it is possible that available and known sources of higher quality Onondaga chert were becoming exhausted late in the KCN horizon. If this was the case, a shift to alternative, lower quality chert sources might indicate this as well as herald the switch to a more expedient, opportunistic reduction technology. As, I discussed in Chapter 2, this is seen in the bifurcate base point horizon.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Wellingdale cluster of sites appears to represent a cluster of components much like the Kipling cluster of sites. While this kind of occupation has been observed in site clusters like Empire Greens where at least some core reduction did occur, it is also apparent that the "biface reduction" sites are also present in groups. Unfortunately because smaller amounts and pieces of chert appear to have been brought to these occupation areas and, consequently, smaller amounts of debitage were discarded, they are less likely to be as thoroughly investigated. Nonetheless, where excavations are intensive, we may be able to explore questions regarding social groupings and site spacing as well as possibly considering what kinds of activities were undertaken. In the case of the Wellingdale and Kipling site clusters, the use of lighter travelling kits might indicate activities such as co-operative group hunting. Exploration of questions such as these, however, will require independent methods of 232 investigation.
Upper Grand River Sites
While not as well documented at the time of writing this dissertation, there may be one or more clusters of KCN sites near the upper Grand River within or near the cities of Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo. Since I have little information about most of these sites and since many may not have been intensively excavated as yet, I will confine my comments to discussing the information that is available.
The Trail Site (AiHc-198)
A small KCN assemblage was recovered from a hill overlooking the Grand River within the Regional Municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo. My discussion here is abstracted from Dodd's
(1997) paper. A total of 40 one-metre squares were excavated producing an assemblage of almost 300 artifacts. Most were unmodified flakes but seven, recovered from around the periphery of the excavated area, were identified as tools.
A projectile point, a large retouched flake and a utilised primary flake were identified as being Haldimand chert. The remainder of the assemblage consists of three utilised flakes and
278 unmodified flakes of Onondaga chert and one utilised flake and seven unmodified flakes of an unidentified chert. The majority of the unmodified chert flakes are identified as fragments or biface reduction flakes and only six unmodified primary flakes are reported. Dodd notes that there is both high quality and low quality Onondaga chert in the assemblage, with the former dominating, but that there is a gradation from one to the other. Further, the lower quality material seems to be more common among the artifacts that represent the earlier stages of reduction.
It would appear, based on this description, that the active tool kit and the replacement artifacts were manufactured from two different chert types. The artifacts that appear to have been abandoned from the active tool kit, a projectile point and a large but broken retouched flake, had been manufactured from Haldimand chert. However, the bulk of the debitage and one lateral edge fragment of a biface, is Onondaga chert. This is a pattern that conforms to what was seen at the Wellingdale site cluster just discussed.
Cambridge Area
A small number of KCN projectile points, recovered during CRM investigations in the region just east of Cambridge, Ontario, was brought to my attention by Jacquie Fisher. For the most part, these artifacts were either isolated (Figure 5-23a), associated with artifact densities too low to warrant further investigations or recovered from excavations that produced diagnostics from multiple technological traditions (Figure 5-23b and c). The projectile points recovered tended to be smaller versions of the KCN type which, as noted above, tend to be more closely associated with the "biface" sites discussed in this chapter. One projectile point base is worth some attention because it was manufactured from an exotic chert that could be either Flint Ridge or Plum Run chert (Figure 5-23d). In either eventuality, it is a relatively rare example of exotic cherts in this region.
One artifact recovered warrants further discussion. This appears to have been the distal 234 end of a narrow biface (Figure 5-23e). Like the Kipling 2 example, this biface is relatively thick in relation to its width and does not appear to have been in the reduction sequence that typically resulted in a projectile point. Also like the Kipling 2 biface, this example was heavily resharpened, resulting in the same kind of bilateral edge bevelling that had twisted the blade in a clock-wise manner when examined from the tip. Also like the Kipling 2 biface, this was one of the few recovered artifacts that had been damaged by exposure to extreme heat. While the sample size remains small, it is possible that this exposure to heat was not coincidental or accidental but the result of a deliberate set of actions specific to this artifact class. It is possible that these butchering tools were deliberately cleaned or destroyed in fire but I would prefer more examples before placing much confidence in this interpretation.
Summary of the "Biface" Sites
In the previous chapter, the debris produced during the reduction of chert blocks or cores dominated the assemblages. Large flakes struck relatively early in the reduction of these cores were modified to produce a small variety of bifacial tools. The majority of core reduction debris, however, were flakes detached from cores in a unidirectional manner that spanned the face of the core being worked. These were used as blanks for the production of various tools, particularly scrapers. On the basis of the highly distinctive platform preparation flakes, it can be inferred that cores were carefully maintained and reduced so that future flake removals could be controlled.
In fact, the removal of flat, straight flakes appears to have been manipulated to reduce the core to a tablet-like shape so that the core-remnant became an ideal biface preform. Even the smaller flakes that were not used as cores, had the edges carefully trimmed or bevelled in order to "raise" the striking platform level with the face for further bifacial thinning. Late stage reduction of bifaces into projectile points was then accomplished through the removal of flat, straight flakes that crossed the midline of the biface. In this way, bifaces were relatively flat and had an even thickness throughout.
In contrast to the sites discussed in Chapter 4, the assemblages discussed here exhibit little indication of having been produced through core reduction. Instead, discarded tools, broken or exhausted by use, and debitage derived from the transformation of relatively generalised bifaces into finished, replacement tools, dominate these assemblages. The assemblages discussed in the Chapter 4 typically numbered in the thousands, when excavated intensively, whereas those discussed in this chapter typically numbered in the hundreds. The explanation for this is very simple: the object pieces transported to these site locations were smaller and required the removal of less chert to produce finished, usable tools.
The object pieces and exhausted and broken tools recovered from these assemblages, however, were produced via the same lithic reduction sequences described in the last chapter.
The more heavily reworked flakes tend to be primary flakes that were detached from cores (at another location) in a unidirectional manner and either discarded when they were too small or broken during use.
The less refined bifaces may exhibit some variation in flaking pattern. Smaller examples were randomly flaked directly into usable tools. Larger examples, however, were being refined by long, flat parallel flake detachments very much like the flake removal seen on cores. An exception to this is one notched biface that appears to have become a hafted bifacial knife.
There is a possibility that both "biface" and "core" sites occur in clusters that represent the simultaneous occupation of an area by a group of domestic units. Unfortunately, only the 236
Kipling Cluster of sites has been intensively excavated and reported on at this time so it is difficult to generate many inferences about this phenomenon. I argue that the Wellingdale site cluster represents another example of these sites occurring in clusters and it is possible that site clusters such as the Empire Greens site cluster represents the same kind of phenomenon in core reduction sites. If this pattern emerges in both "core" and "biface" reduction assemblages, then it may be possible that stages in lithic reduction at least partially crosscuts (i.e., is independent of) the settlement system. In either way, it is clear that gaining an understanding of the lithic reduction system and its relationship to questions of mobility and subsistence cannot be obtained by focussing on one site or site type. Instead, gaining an understanding of the nature of the lithic reduction system and how it related to subsistence and mobility will require the excavation and analysis of as many different site types as possible, including those that some would argue are archaeologically invisible. CHAPTER 6: SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION
In the last two chapters, a series of sites and assemblages were described and discussed.
It is my argument that these assemblages represent a lithic reduction sequence that was designed to meet the needs of a hunter-gatherer group or set of inter-related groups as they traversed the landscape. I have used these sites and site clusters in an explicit attempt to generate a normative
(or "processual" following Collins 1975:17) model of lithic technology for the KCN Projectile
Point Horizon around the western end of Lake Ontario. While I will attempt to summarise this reduction sequence as a kind of idealised pattern, I do not intend to imply that this was a formula that was rigidly adhered to. I would argue that where contingencies posed by variations in raw material, individual knapping skills and/or needs of the moment will become evident as we gain a better understanding of the archaeological record for this time. However, before we can recognise and then explain variations from the norm, we need to carefully define what the norm is.
The sites discussed all occur in an area that includes the Niagara Peninsula and extends west to the Grand River and east to Toronto. I cannot imply that these sites necessarily represent the full suite of site-types in the settlement system because of uncertainties in the sampling strategies employed. Specifically, some kinds of sites may simply be too impoverished in terms of the density of material culture locally considered necessary to meet the criteria for warranting excavation and therefore considered archaeologically invisible. There is also the possibility that some sites are currently under the waters of Lake Ontario. I would argue that all are within an area that could have been included within that of one single group of hunter-gatherers although, at this point, I would not attempt to extend my discussion into the realm of the ethnicity (i.e., boundaries) of that group. Although synchronic variation will be discussed below, my key argument is that the assemblages all represent components of one integrated lithic reduction system.
In this chapter, I will synthesise and support this argument in a number of ways. First, I will summarise and discuss the lithic reduction sequence as I argue it to be evident in the assemblages discussed. Although the debitage recovered from the Ringtail site is different from that recovered from the Kipling sites, I argue that the sites represent points on a lithic reduction continuum. Quite simply, decisions made in the reduction of raw chert cores, such as observed at Ringtail, can be seen to lead to the kinds of debris recovered from sites more distant from chert sources. I will also make it clear, however, that "distance" in this sense is not measured strictly in terms of geographic distance but refers to the length of time since chert blocks were acquired. It is my argument that this lithic reduction sequence was designed to be flexible enough to meet the demands of mobility by allowing for anticipated and unanticipated uses prior to returning to the chert source (Bamforth 1986:48-49). In other words, the reduction strategy was designed to produce specific kinds of tools that would be necessary in the near future but was also designed to allow for considerable flexibility in the face of unanticipated needs.
The unfinished nature of the transported tool preforms would itself have been part of this strategy. Unfinished preforms would have retained more chert mass that made them more able to withstand some of the wear and tear of transport. The act of final shaping would have both produced sharp flakes that could be used as tools as well as resulted in sharp edges on finished tools (Kuhn 1994:437). Finally, the act of finishing relatively randomly flaked bifaces by the removal of long, flat flakes can be seen as a continuation of the reduction sequence used on cores and thus can be characterised as a "constellation of knowledge" used in a different context (Sinclair 2000). However, I would also argue that the thinning of bifaces in this manner also served more immediate and pragmatic ends. First, this method of finishing bifaces produced a relatively flat and thin profile that would have allowed for greater penetration of game animals.
Second, while projectile points like these would have been more susceptible to breakage near the tip and between the notches, as seen in many of the assemblages examined in this dissertation, this profile would have allowed for relatively easy and reliable re-sharpening. In many ways, this is very much like the argument offered by Stanley Ahler and Phil Geib (2000).
A separate topic is the argument that this lithic reduction strategy belongs to the Early
Archaic KCN Projectile Point Horizon of the early Holocene. All the assemblages described above were associated with projectile points typed as KCN or "Nettling" points. In many cases, other researchers made this assignment and I relied on those identifications to determine what assemblages to include in this analysis.
Although diagnostic projectile points were recovered in spatial association with the lithic debris analysed in this dissertation, it is my argument that spatial association alone does not necessarily indicate that these artifacts were manufactured and used at the same time. Instead, the reduction sequence must be examined in order to find independent support for these associations. I argue that the reduction sequence, as seen from the analysis of non-diagnostic artifacts, can in fact itself be considered diagnostic. I argue that lithic reduction using unidirectional flaking is itself a common attribute of Paleoindian and Early Archaic lithic technology although it is manifested in different ways in different areas. Furthermore, because the lithic reduction strategy is in fact a system in the classic sense, as a constellation of knowledge or cognitive patterns, this pattern of unidirectional flaking is manifested in at least some of the diagnostic projectile points and can aid in identifying some lithic assemblages. A directly related topic is exploring in more detail the relationship between this reduction system and the mobility of the people. There have been a number of dichotomies offered in the literature relating lithic reduction systems to the demands of mobility. The KCN reduction system can be explored in relation to some of these dichotomies and thereby allow inferences to be generated regarding the strategy involved. Inferring the lithic reduction system provides us with a description of what they did but this should be kept separate from inferences about the lithic reduction strategy, which addresses questions of why they did it. Many of the dichotomies forwarded in the literature are not mutually exclusive but address different dimensions of variability that can provide us with different kinds of information. However, once the components of both the lithic reduction system and the lithic reduction strategy have been identified then we have begun to arrive at the full chaine operatoire if we accept that this concept is to contain the meaning many would argue for it (e.g., Bousman 1993; Dibble
1995:304; Inizan, etal 1992; Schlanger 1994; Sellet 1993).
The overall pattern of stone tool design and the choices of tools to transport seen on these sites is also common throughout early technological horizons (Parry 1989:31). Specifically, some Fluted Point horizon assemblages consist of finished tools that comprise the active toolkit, some generalised "early-stage" bifaces that can be used for some tasks but also transformed into more specialised tools as required and flake blanks. The majority of manufacturing debris from these sites resulted from either reworking tools or manufacturing tools from either early-stage bifaces or flake blanks. The remainder of the assemblages consist of tools that broke during use and were not of further utility, those that broke during manufacture or the occasional accidental loss. On these sites, evidence of direct reduction of cores is minimal. While cores may have 241 been part of the mobile toolkit, if so, they were used sparingly perhaps only to produce one or two flake blanks.
The sites discussed in Chapter 4 were classified "core" sites while those in Chapter 5 were classified as "biface" sites. Core reduction debris dominated the assemblages of the former sites and the morphology of this debris allowed for the decipherment of the patterns of core reduction. Biface sites, however, produced assemblages indicative of tool-kit refurbishment.
Still, like Paleoindian assemblages, it appears that, in addition to finished tools in the active tool kit, Early Archaic hunter-gatherers travelled with a variety of tool blanks that could be used as is or transformed into more specialised tools as required. Core reduction did not contribute significantly to the debitage recovered from biface sites. Thus, although there are obvious differences in style and reduction sequence compared to the Fluted Point horizon, as will be discussed in more detail below, there are also marked similarities in how the overall strategy was designed and implemented.
Proceeding from this point, relationships through space can be considered. It is my opinion that part of the explanation for this lithic reduction system is to be found in the nature of the available raw material. This includes both the size and shape of potential object pieces
(Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1986; Kuhn 1995:83) as well as the mechanical properties that effects the way cracks travel through the mass of the material (Amick and Mauldin 1997;
Goodman 1944). The unidirectional core and biface reduction seen in these assemblages would not be possible without relatively massive, high quality chert that is relatively homogenous so as to allow a high degree of predictability in terms of how fractures will travel through the chert mass. Although earlier technological horizons certainly also employed the same chert type (i.e.,
Onondaga chert), it is possible that the KCN horizon relied more heavily on this raw material 242 than any previous group. Therefore, they may well have had ready access to the best material available with almost no limitations imposed by the need to quarry fresh supplies. In short, the lithic technology was likely influenced more by anticipated needs between visits to the quarry than by the availability or quality of chert at the outcrops. Re-supply would likely not have been any concern beyond scheduling visits to the quarry.
Not all groups employing the KCN style of projectile point, however, had access to such high quality chert. Consequently, it would be worth considering how groups using a similar style of projectile point organised their lithic reduction in areas of lesser quality or quantity of chert (Bamforth 1986:48-49), i.e., far beyond the region explored in this study. It is also possible that in other areas where chert quality is high, other technological systems were employed. I would note that similar kinds of reduction, using unidirectional flaking patterns, can be found at other times in eastern North America. There is evidence of unidirectional core reduction in some
Ontario Fluted Point (Deller and Ellis 1992a: 17-18) and Unfluted Lanceolate (Ellis 2004b:68;
Parker 1986a) assemblages although I am not convinced that, in Hi-Lo assemblages, this pattern is as rigorously or consistently followed as seen in the assemblages discussed here. Therefore, parts of the technological system that are argued to characterise these sites may be found in other technological horizons in different areas and it is argued that the cognitive pattern itself, in some form, may be one that transcends some changes in technological systems. Through a careful consideration of earlier lithic systems, as summarised in Chapter 2, it may be possible to identify some forms of continuity between the Early Archaic KCN Horizon and earlier, Late Paleoindian hunter-gatherers. Caution is urged, however, because the available evidence is obviously very limited. In the discussion presented above, I outlined how lithic analysis in general and this study in particular can provide some of the context for interpreting the past. Across space, material culture was used by people to meet various needs as the traversed the landscape. The procurement of raw material and the manufacture of tools from that raw material can be examined in multiple ways because the decisions made at each step in the processes involved required making some predictions about what might have lied ahead. Below, I will look at specific components of this set of decisions in order to illustrate how each specific component was integrated with all the others.
The Reduction Sequence
The first step in a lithic reduction sequence is obtaining raw material. The Niagara
Peninsula, broadly defined, includes sources of chert from a number of different geological contexts. Chert from the Onondaga Formation is widely distributed and was the preferred raw material type throughout most of Ontario's prehistory. It was the most heavily exploited raw material by the KCN occupations that produced the assemblages used in this dissertation.
The next most heavily exploited chert source in this region was Haldimand chert from the
Bois Blanc Formation. This chert can be highly variable in colour and knapping quality and is not quite as massively bedded. There can be considerable variation within chert beds making this chert type less predictable in terms of knapping quality and there may be numerous inclusions of various kinds as well as faults and other flaws. While not as heavily exploited in the Early Archaic assemblages discussed in this dissertation, on some "biface" sites such as the
Trail Site (AiHc-198) (Dodd 1997) and the Wellingdale cluster of sites, discussed in Chapter 5, Haldimand chert comprises a significant proportion of the assemblage. What is interesting about these assemblages is that the bifaces and large flake blanks and tools were sometimes manufactured from different chert types. This indicates that there was some variability in the production of large flakes for use as tools and bifaces in that they were not always manufactured during the same reduction sequence. It is possible that this variability in chert preference may reflect change through time.
Other than Onondaga and Haldimand cherts, there are other chert types present in the region, such as Ancaster, Selkirk and Reynales cherts. I did not observe these, however, in more than trace frequencies in any of the assemblages examined nor were secondary sources of
Onondaga or Haldimand heavily exploited although these too are abundant. It would seem that the Early Archaic KCN Horizon knappers preferred to use relatively massively bedded cherts extracted from primary outcrops although secondary sources were employed at times.
Upon acquiring a suitable chert block for use as a core, at least some trimming of poor- quality material, particularly adhering bedrock, took place at or near the quarry since this bedrock was not noted in the assemblages. However, reduction was minimal and large blocks appear to have been transported considerable distances from the source. Sites like Ringtail,
Empire Greens 1 and Upstairs exhibit a considerable amount of core reduction and a majority of the flakes produced were not kept for use as tools. Additionally, all these assemblages include flakes with either weathered surfaces or surfaces that were fault lines running through the chert mass. At the Current site, it appears that cores were still being reduced although it was argued that the chert supply was approaching exhaustion. I would argue that travelling with a core was a means of allowing some flexibility in the products of further reduction and/or as a means of keeping flakes sharp until required (Kuhn 1994:437). Of course, cores themselves probably 245 served as tools for some tasks (Kelly 1988; Kuhn 1994:437) as evidenced by small flake scars along lateral edges.
Primary Corner Flake Blanks and Narrow Bifaces
Ellis and Deller (2000:48, 50) have illustrated the value of considering the flakes struck from the corner of primary chert cores. Because the corners of quarry blocks tend to be highly regular, often approximating 90-degree angles between the intersection of faults, flakes struck vertically down a corner can be very regular if the detaching blow was well controlled. I have noticed that there can be regularity in how corner flakes are removed and, in many cases, used and that this kind of patterning would be related to the overall lithic reduction system. For example, as cited above, Ellis has noted that "Top-Corner Flakes" struck from cores in the Fluted
Point reduction sequence tend to be manufactured into end scrapers. These flakes would be ideal for this type of tool because the relative thickness of the flake blank would be well suited for withstanding the stresses caused by downward pressure.
An analogous use of these kinds of flakes is found in an assemblage of "snub-nose" end scrapers from the Late Woodland Anderson site (Bursey 1996, 2006). Here, corner flakes appear to have been laterally trimmed in such a manner as to narrow the sides to a regular shape but without lessening the dorsal thickness. In many cases, the flake was detached with such force that the fracture line plunges somewhat producing a relatively sharp distal termination. These end scrapers appear to have been designed to fit into a haft and would have been curated, in some cases so that only the haft remained. A key attribute of these artifacts is the remnant 246 platform thickness which indicates that the blow was struck relatively far back from the lip of the platform so that the platform thickness on the detached flake is typically well over a centimetre.
Alternately, in some Late Archaic assemblages I have examined, corner removal flakes exhibit much smaller striking platforms but are struck in such a way that the corner flake expands and thickens towards the distal termination. Further working of these flakes indicates that they may have been preferentially selected for use as drills or "borers" with the striking platform transformed into the distal end of the tool.
In the Early Archaic assemblages examined here, it appears that a similar kind of decision was made in the removal of corner flakes. In this case, however, the flake was intended to produce the narrow biface type seen in the assemblages recovered from the Ringtail, Kipling 2 and Trimble assemblages. This biface type appears to be analogous to the "backed" bifaces described for Fluted Point assemblages (Deller and Ellis 1988:258). A similar artifact form has also been noted on the Laphroaig assemblage reported by Woodley (1996) and possibly much later assemblages (Spence and Fox 1986:Figure 1.4g, m). I suspect that these artifacts are, in fact, functionally equivalent but this inference would require a use-wear analysis beyond the scope of this dissertation.
Although some of the examples examined have been extensively flaked, removing virtually all traces of the original "blank", there are enough attributes remaining on others to infer that they were manufactured from corner flakes. On the Ringtail specimens (Figure 4-10), for example, sedimentary structures in the chert indicate that the blank was vertically oriented in relation to the bedding of the chert. This is particularly evident in the cross-bedded structure of the chert at the ends of the biface. Some of the specimens recovered also retain a triangular cross-section consistent with their being manufactured from corner flakes. The ventral surface was flaked in a manner very similar to the bifaces to be described below. Large expanding flake scars were detached that cross the mid-point of the biface, often terminating near the opposite edge. Similarly, on the dorsal surface, there were attempts to flatten the triangular shape but often these flake scars minimally cross the centre line and do not significantly thin the biface. Additionally, there are often flakes removed from the basal (e.g., Figure 4-1 Ob) and/or distal ends although these do not extend far down the full length of the biface. These flake removals may be superficially likened to channel flakes although their detachment does not appear to have been as carefully controlled as seen on fluted bifaces. However, I would argue that this basal thinning is directly comparable to the basal thinning seen on larger, less extensively reworked, projectile points.
The relatively crude specimen from the Trimble site (Figure 4-29e) provides a good example of some of these attributes. This example conforms to the description given above but was not as completely flaked. One side of the dorsal surface retains part of the original tabular face, supporting the inference it was manufactured from a corner flake. Attempts to remove the remnant dorsal ridge from both proximal and distal ends were evidently failures with the flakes terminating in hinge fractures. Flaking of the ventral surface at the proximal end indicates the attempt to remove the ridge from the dorsal end occurred after the blank was removed from the core and relatively late in the flaking of this biface, based on how flake scars over-lap.
Nonetheless, the termination of the flake struck from this end is relatively shallow so it is possible that the thinning was not necessarily intended to travel the full length of this biface but was only intended to be sufficient for hafting or holding. Like the Late Woodland end scrapers discussed above, the striking platform for these bifaces appears to have been set so that the fracture was initiated a centimetre back from the edge of the platform. Striking here ensured that a relatively thick flake was detached although obviously a considerable amount of force would be required in the blow. Clearly, the maximum length of these artifacts, would have been dependant on the thickness of the chert bed. Of the examples I was able to examine, all range in length from between approximately five to close to ten centimetres, when breakage is allowed for. Width is variable but between two and three centimetres. Thickness can also vary considerably, depending on the extent of thinning and flaking but appears to be most commonly between one and two centimetres. Resharpening appears to have little impact on thickness because flake removal was confined to trimming and the intent does not appear to have been to drive flakes across the mid-point. Resharpening, however, did usually remove the original flaking pattern.
Two specimens merit greater attention. Both were heavily resharpened bilaterally to such an extent that a considerable twist is evident when viewed from the distal end. Both the Kipling
2 specimen (Figure 5-7b) and the one recovered from the Cambridge area (Figure 5-23a) also appear to have been among the few fire-shattered artifacts in their respective assemblages. At
Kipling 2, fragments of this biface account for virtually all of the fire shattered chert artifacts recovered. It is possible that these tools were intentionally destroyed by exposure to fire when their use-life was exhausted. Obviously, however, supporting this inference will require a greater sample size than could be obtained for this dissertation. Generalised Bifaces
Relatively large, wide bifaces are a regular component of archaeological sites from virtually every time period and throughout North America. The multiple potential functions of generalised bifaces was explored by Robert Kelly (1988) and the possibility of multiple roles for these bifaces will be taken into account here (see also Kuhn 1994:437). Generalised bifaces are a common feature of the assemblages examined for this dissertation although most commonly these are represented by fragments broken during manufacture. A few assemblages, however, like Ringtail, Upstairs and some of the Kipling sites, produced more complete specimens and these allow us to consider the role of bifaces in the reduction sequence.
Like the narrow bifaces, the wider or broader bifaces from the Ringtail and Upstairs sites appear to have been manufactured from large flakes struck from a core. In attempting to reproduce these kinds of flakes myself, I found it is common to detach wide flakes that allow for bifaces to be manufactured at right angles or horizontally relative to the bedding of the core, if the core is sufficiently wide. However, when large corner flakes have been removed, such as those described above, the remnant scars can act as delimiters for subsequent flake detachments and result in more regular, vertically oriented large flakes. As a result, cores can produce more large flakes and require less maintenance (and thus loss of chert due to trimming the cores) in a manner much like that described for classic blade cores (e.g., Leroi-Gourhan 1989:107).
Additionally, one or both surfaces created by the removal of the corner flakes, depending upon the width of the core, can become ideal striking platforms for laterally trimming the detached flakes/bifaces. 250
In general, the wide bifaces recovered have seemingly random flake scar patterns. Often these flake scars are relatively large allowing for the possibility that the flakes removed could have served as expedient flake tools (i.e., Kelly 1988). This interpretation should be held with caution, however, for a number of reasons. First, biface reduction is conditioned by contingencies of the chert object to be transformed into a biface (Crabtree 1975; Schlanger
1994:148). While the Onondaga chert observed in the Early Archaic assemblages examined in this study is of relatively high quality, this chert type is never completely homogenous but frequently contains some material that is denser, more coarse-grained or contains some flaws, internal fractures, etc. Thus, biface production always requires dealing with some irregularities in the specific blank employed.
Secondly, although biface reduction flakes were used as expedient flake tools, these appear to have been a minority (see Chapter 5). In fact, the overwhelming majority of expedient or informal flake tools in these assemblages were manufactured from core reduction flakes.
Thus, while flakes produced from bifacial reduction could have been used as expedient flake tools, for the most part they were not. Primary flakes, however, were transported from other sites where they had been detached from cores. Thus, the use of biface reduction flakes may be more common on sites where primary reduction flakes were exhausted but such cases of chert exhaustion would be expected to produce very low overall densities of artifacts and therefore less likely to be archaeologically visible and excavated.
Finally, we do need to consider other potential functions of these bifaces in relation to the nature of their "design". As is, these bifaces would have served well as choppers or cleavers.
Use as choppers, etc., may also have served as a means of preparing their edges for further reduction by grinding and abrading the edge/striking platform but I would consider this to have 251 been more of an incidental by-product. Additionally, given that some of the better examples of this tool type were recovered from sites geographically furthest from the chert sources, these bifaces needed to withstand the rigours of transport. In fact, again based on my own experience transporting chert for further reduction elsewhere, relatively unrefined bifaces are surprisingly resilient to rough handling and accidental shock. Further, transport of chert in this form is more efficient than transporting cores because hidden flaws are more likely to have been found and the amount of waste material (and weight) that will later simply be discarded is reduced.
Generalised bifaces can also be manufactured into other functional artifact types so production and transport of bifaces in this form also allows a degree of flexibility. While probably the most common end-product of biface reduction was projectile points, here I will mention another biface form that I consider to have been a hafted knife. The assemblage from the Kipling 2 site, as described above, included a relatively large broad biface with corner notches. A comparison of this biface with one from the Thornbush site (Figure 5-9) indicated that the two were virtually identical save for the presence of the notches. Thus, this artifact is considered to be another hafted biface form. It is possible that the rarity of this type is the result of limited sampling but it is possible that bifaces like this were later turned into projectile points following considerable reworking.
Core Reduction
The assemblages from the sites discussed in Chapter 4 were dominated by flakes produced during the reduction and shaping of cores. That very deliberate care was taken with core reduction is also evidenced from the debitage recovered from the "core" sites. Many of the assemblages produced evidence of deliberate and patterned core maintenance in the form of identifiable core or platform preparation flakes. For example, two conjoining flakes (Figure 4-5) recovered from the Ringtail site can be described as "core tablets" in that the distal end of their dorsal surfaces was the striking platform of the core. An acute angle lip formed by earlier flake removals was removed by these detachments. It must be acknowledged that this was the only identification of this kind of flake from all the assemblages examined so it is possible that this kind of core rejuvenation was relatively rare or that these flakes were actually the result of changing the orientation offtake removal.
More common are flakes struck laterally along the edge of the striking platform (Figure
4-6, c.f. Figure 4-12f). These have a distinctive and pronounced dorsal ridge produced by the intersection of one unmodified surface and one surface with flake scars running at right angles to the long axis of the flake. This kind of detachment would be analogous to the "tranchet blow technique" (Inizan, et al. 1992:71, 72) although here the use of this term is intended to be purely descriptive rather than interpretive because the function of this detachment is uncertain (see below). The flake scars on one side were the product of the bulb of percussion from impacts along the edge of the unmodified surface. In other words, these flakes appear to have been carefully struck to remove a sharp angle along the lip of the striking platform. Given that these flakes were recovered from a number of sites and are relatively common, it is safe to infer that the production of these flakes was a regular component of core reduction.
Providing a functional interpretation of these flakes is more difficult. One possibility is that the highly regularised shape might indicate that these were produced to serve as some form of specialised tool. However, none of the examples I examined exhibit any macroscopically detectable evidence of use or modification. An alternate possibility is that setting the lip of the 253 striking platform back a few millimetres then requires the removal offtakes that will have significantly greater mass towards the centre of the flake. Unfortunately, I could not find any evidence of this on flake tools. In fact, utilised flakes appear to be preferentially straight and flat in longitudinal cross-section. Additionally, as discussed specifically for the bifaces from the
Upstairs site, edge bevelling appears to have been undertaken specifically in order to detach relatively straight, flat thinning flakes. A third possibility is that these flakes were removed to partially "round" the edges of cores for transport. As noted, the removal of these flakes eliminated a pronounced sharp edge at or near the distal extremities of the cores and it is possible that these edges would have abraded or cut carrying bags, etc. Removal of these flakes, then, might have reduced that kind of abrasion. Another possibility is that the removal offtakes like these "set up" the edges of a flat, tabular core remnant for transformation into a biface by way of bevelling the edge for flake detachment from the opposite side. Although again, no direct evidence for this was observed, the topic of transforming core remnants into bifaces will be returned to below. Finally, it is possible that these flakes signal a change in direction of flake detachment from the object piece. If so, then these flakes would be analogous to crests (Inizan et al. 1992:59-60). For now, I will note that the relative frequency of this flake type in a number of assemblages indicates that it was a regular feature of core reduction. Furthermore, since all flakes of this shape were recovered from sites that produced KCN projectile points, these may be diagnostic of that reduction system, whatever their functional interpretation might prove to be.
The most noticeable attribute of core reduction on these sites, however, is observable in the nature of the flakes produced. Large primary flakes were not produced through the random reduction of blocky cores. Instead, the dorsal surfaces of these flakes almost exclusively exhibit flake scars produced via the previous detachment of flakes in the same direction. In short, the 254 large primary flake blanks appear to have been produced through unidirectional flaking. Flakes were detached from cores through a series of strikes along a single striking platform, often using ridges from previous flake removals to guide or channel the plane of fracture through the mass of the core. This resulted in regularised flakes that are consistent in size and shape and thus will have predictable attributes.
The most obvious example of this pattern is seen in the Upstairs site assemblage. The majority offtakes recovered from this site have nearly parallel sides and dorsal flake scar patterns produced by ridges running parallel to the length of the detached flake. The exceptions are a small number of flakes that can be characterised as having been trimming flakes struck to remove irregularities on the core. The high degree of regularity in shape, dorsal flake scar configuration and size of these flakes initially led to them being identified as biface reduction debris. Supporting this conclusion is the observation that a majority of these flakes also have platform angles of less than 90 degrees.
A number of observations, however, counter the identification of these flakes as biface reduction flakes. First, the striking platforms on the flakes are of a relatively uniform angle and exhibit very little variation. Conversely, unfinished bifaces typically have a somewhat sinuous edge resulting in considerable variability on the platform surface. Second, the surface of the striking platform is relatively large, compared to those observed in the biface reduction assemblages and rarely appears to have been "crushed". Furthermore, the platform surface is almost invariantly flat (i.e., not faceted) and usually exhibits evidence of being weathered.
Perhaps the most informative artifact that can be used to address this problem is a reconstructed fire shattered biface recovered from the Upstairs site (Figure 4-20d). This object has flake scars on both faces that are long, flat and straight like the primary flakes recovered. 255
Around much of the periphery of the biface, the edges were trimmed like other bifacial tools.
However, in some places, it appears that the larger flakes were struck from flat, tabular core-like surfaces. Quite simply, it is possible that the morphology of this biface is due to the removal of flakes in such a way that a core became a flat biface. Once the core had reached a relatively uniform thickness so that further flake removals might have compromised its structural integrity, it was recycled into a biface preform. The key point here, however, is that flake detachment off the core appears to have been predominantly unidirectional across the core's surfaces. Flakes produced in this manner are very regular in shape and can be easily modified to produce any of the flake tools, including end scrapers, recovered from the assemblages discussed here.
In support of the inference of a high standardisation in the production of primary flakes is the data from the statistical analysis of flakes at the Kipling sites. Compared to the assemblages discussed in Chapter 4, there is relatively little evidence for core reduction at these sites but there is a relatively robust collection of primary flakes and fragments and these account for the majority of utilised flakes or informal flake tools. Also of interest is a high degree of uniformity in platform metrics that is taken to support the inference that primary flake production was not casual or random but was part of a highly structured reduction system. In short, a considerable degree of control and skill was required to produce these primary flakes with such a high degree of uniformity in the metrics of the striking platform.
An obvious and interesting question that can now be addressed is how can we best characterise this type of flake detachment? First, I would argue that this kind of core reduction is highly planned and organised. Flakes were detached from two discrete faces of the object piece.
Striking platforms along the lateral edges may have been natural surfaces perpendicular to the plane of flaking. However, more acute-angled platforms may have been produced by the removal of corner flakes or steeply bevelling the edges by flaking.
During early stages of core reduction, flakes were struck vertically in relation to the geological (i.e., bedrock) orientation of the chert. While many of these flakes are long, straight and relatively narrow, ideal for use as flake tools, others are more massive and became object pieces themselves by way of bifacial flaking. These were transformed into either the narrow or the broad bifaces described above. It should be emphasised that both of these biface types appear to have been oriented so that their long axes are vertical in relation to the geological bedding of the chert.
Because of the standardised manner in which flakes were detached, they also possess highly regular forms that allowed them to be used as standardised preforms for various tools.
Whether struck vertically down the face of a core or horizontally across the face of a biface (as discussed below), flakes were detached from continuous platform edges, were centred on arrises created by previous flake detachment and were driven as far as possible across the face being worked. Because the flakes detached are relatively long, flat and have parallel sides, I would characterise this as being somewhat like a blade technology. However, because of specific attributes peculiar to this technological system, there are some divergences from more classic blade technologies that must be taken into account.
First, there is the nature of the raw material. Inizan et al. (1992:16) note that homogeneity in the mass of the raw material is a desirable quality in producing blades.
Homogeneity in the raw material allows the detachment crack to travel uniformly through the mass with minimal fluctuation due to different densities or brittleness. While the Onondaga chert exploited in the KCN horizon is of a relatively high quality, it is rarely as homogenous as 257 seen in other areas where more classic blade technologies have been documented. Assemblages such as the Ringtail site contain some material that is coarse or contained internal cracks or flaws and impacted upon the way that fractures travelled through the chert mass. These irregularities would result in less regular and predictable flake shapes.
A second key departure from a blade technology is in the nature of the object piece. I argue that the cores, once thinned, were redirected towards becoming biface preforms. I would further argue that bifaces were manufactured relatively flat and thin so that they could be easily resharpened as the need arose. Inizan et al. (1992:61), however, argue that"...a systematic sequence of blades cannot be manufactured unless the transversal convexity (perpendicular to the ridges) is sufficient." Clearly, maintaining this "transversal convexity" is not possible if it is also intended to maintain a flat object piece. The "cost" of maintaining this flat object piece is flakes that are relatively thin relative to the width. This results in the flakes being unlike classic blade flakes. Simply, in order for the flakes to be twice as long as they are wide, they would also have to be thick enough to withstand a considerable amount of force in the detaching blow so as not to collapse during detachment. This requires either very thick and pronounced dorsal arrises or the production of very deep and concave flake scars that would leave pronounced arrises on the flaked biface. Because at least part of the strategy of flake detachment included concern for leaving the object piece with a relatively flat even surface, flakes were thinner and left less prominent arrises and therefore could not be as long or they would have collapsed and/or been far more irregular along the lateral edges. Therefore, the detached flakes are not as standardised in size and shape as seen in classic blade assemblages because of the presence of less homogenous raw material and a straight platform edge. Irregularities produced at the distal end of the face being worked could be easily addressed while flaking from the opposite edge. The use of a unidirectional flaking pattern on Early Archaic sites cannot be explained as being the by-product of limited options imposed by raw materials. Relatively massive, high quality Onondaga chert was available and selected for tool production. While Onondaga chert frequently contains flaws and patches of poor raw material, for the most part the chert recovered from the assemblages discussed here is of a higher quality than seen in many later-dating assemblages. Consequently, I would argue that the unidirectional reduction system was employed because the future utility of manufactured tool preforms was more predictable and, therefore, reliable following Bleed (1986:739-741). The employment of this reduction system required a high level of skill and experience both in the selection of the raw material and in its reduction. However, once relatively large, uniform primary flakes had been produced, these could be easily reworked and resharpened to produce usable tools and thus could then be considered "maintainable" in Bleed's (1986) dichotomy. Simply, although the production of these flakes would have required a relatively high degree of skill and experience, the associated risks would have been minimised because production occurred relatively close to the source of replacement material. However, once produced, the flake blanks would have been highly predictable in nature and relatively easily and safely transformed into a wide variety of simple tools.
Large Bifaces
Once the bifacial core had been thinned by vertical flaking, transformation into a biface began through flake detachment from the lateral edges, horizontal to the original bedrock orientation (Figure 4-20d). The same procedure would have been followed for large, vertically detached flakes that then became object pieces. One possibility is that the flakes illustrated in
Figure 4-6 are crests and resulted from the initiation of this change in orientation. As discussed in Chapter 5, however, biface reduction (with exceptions), produced flakes with a more highly standardised shape than those produced during core reduction.
Where sedimentary structures in the chert can be observed, the detachment of flakes from cores, including the larger ones used to make bifaces, was vertical. Since irregularities in the chert commonly follows sedimentary structures, vertically struck flakes were more likely to pass through chert mass that was less homogenous, therefore resulting in more irregular flakes.
However, once these bifaces were flaked from lateral edges horizontal to the geological orientation of the chert (i.e., horizontally across the face of the biface), then flake detachment could be more easily controlled and predicted. Allowances must be made, however, for some variation resulting from the contingencies of individual object pieces particularly when these were smaller and more directly reduced to become specific tools.
Projectile Points
As discussed in earlier chapters, the Kirk Corner-notched (KCN) projectile point is the usual diagnostic artifact type for this chronological/technological horizon (Ellis et al. 1991; Fox
1980). However, projectile points varied considerably due to the varying skills of the original knapper, variation in the raw material, modification due to reuse and curation, etc. (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Rondeau 1996). In this dissertation, my focus has been on the over-all reduction system and projectile points were simply just one product. Nonetheless some attention will be devoted here to attempting to understand some of the variables in manufacture that 260 resulted in differences in projectile point morphology. Two main variations of KCN projectile points may be recognised and these can be simplistically described as "large" and "small".
Dichotomising projectile points in this manner is an arbitrary dissection of the population but there are different attributes associated with either end of this continuum. I argue that these two ends of the continuum result from the reworking of individual projectile points.
The larger variants of the KCN projectile point are characterised by a distinctive flaking pattern on the faces of these bifaces. Specifically, the larger examples have large flat flake scars crossing the mid-line of the biface so that there is no discernible median ridge. Similar flake scars, originating from the base, were added during the shaping of these bifaces. Superimposed over these flake scars are smaller and shorter flake scars along the lateral edges that trimmed and evened the sides of the projectile point and formed the notches. The smallest flake scars, produced through addition of the edge serrations, were applied last.
The flaking pattern seen on these larger projectile points definitely bears a close resemblance to that observed on the biface/core described from the Upstairs site (Figure 4-20b).
Quite simply, that core could have been transformed into a projectile point preform by the removal of some of the higher ridges, detaching the basal thinning flakes, lateral trimming, application of the notches, etc. Most of the flakes recovered from the Upstairs site do not appear to have been detached for use as flake tools because they show no evidence of use nor were they transported for use elsewhere although these flakes certainly do appear to have been adequate for such purposes. Therefore, I consider it highly likely that this core (and possibly others) was not being reduced to produce flakes suitable for use as tools but was in the process of being manufactured into a projectile point. However, I would consider it highly unlikely that enough projectile points could be manufactured in this way (i.e., from core remnants) as this would have 261 required the reduction of a lot of cores. Instead, many, if not most, projectile points were manufactured through another reduction sequence.
This was first indicated to me by the "biface" assemblages. Although primary flakes and fragments were recovered from these sites, constituting the majority of utilised or informal flake tools, the majority of the flake assemblage was produced during biface reduction. Detailed statistical analyses of the flakes from the Kipling cluster revealed a high degree of uniformity in attributes of the platform as well as overall dimensions. Specifically, there is minimal variation in flake thickness but length and width exhibit normal distributions within assemblages and a high degree of uniformity between assemblages. As for attributes of the striking platform, there is considerably greater uniformity both within and between assemblages. In other words, on the basis of flake attributes, there is a high degree of uniformity in biface reduction techniques within and between assemblages evident at these sites.
Greater clarity in this reduction technique can be found in a consideration of the dorsal flake scar morphology. While a majority of the flakes have a dorsal flake scar morphology that suggests these flakes were removed from randomly flaked bifaces, a large percentage (ranging between 30 and 40%) were detached along the length of an arris. This type of flake would come from and produce a biface with parallel flake scars. The reduction sequence inferred from the flake assemblage consisted of flattening and thinning a biface through progressively more parallel and linear flake detachments. As reduction proceeded, the preform took on much of the shape and flake scar attributes of the Upstairs site biface/core described above.
Support for this inference can be found in the identified projectile point preforms from the Cherry Orchard site. Two bifaces were initially identified as projectile point preforms
(Wilson et al. 1997) (Figure 5-1). The larger of the two is a roughly ovate and randomly flaked 262 biface with pronounced arrises. The last series of flake removals was very invasive with large flake scars crossing the median line of the biface removing a relatively large amount of chert and thinning the biface considerably in the process. The second biface is thinner and smaller and has less pronounced ridges.
While both of these bifaces have randomly oriented flake scars, in both cases the flaking crossed the midline of the biface in order to thin it. When finished, neither would have been one of the larger variants of the KCN type but these do illustrate how projectile points were manufactured from larger and broader, randomly flaked bifaces. At least some of the flaking techniques used in the manufacture of larger bifaces was also used in the manufacture of smaller variants of the projectile point form. That one broken larger KCN projectile point was recovered during these excavations (Figure 5-lf) also provides tentative support for not considering the two variants to be from different chronological horizons.
The second variant of the KCN projectile point type, then, is the small version. These bifaces have smaller, randomly oriented flake scars. As a general observation, none of the flakes removed to shape these tools would have been utilisable because they are too narrow and thin.
At least some of these tools were manufactured directly from smaller, bifacially flaked primary flakes, probably on an "as-needed" basis. Examples of these smaller bifaces were noted in the
Upstairs (Figure 4-19) and Cherry Hill (Figure 5-1) assemblages. However, I also suspect that many of these smaller projectile points were the result of relatively long-term reworking of larger projectile points, necessitated by breakage.
KCN projectile points appear to have been prone to two common types of fracture that can be attributed to use as opposed to manufacturing errors. Damage to the tip caused by impact is one common form of breakage. Where damage is confined to the distal most end of the 263 projectile point, trimming from the lateral edges may repair the damage. This kind of flaking may remove some of the flaking pattern of the original preform, particularly towards the distal end, although some may remain in the general area of the notches.
Perhaps more commonly recovered are projectile points that had snapped across the base between the two notches. In some of the assemblages described in Chapter 5, snapped-off bases, presumably returned to the site in the haft prior to rearming of the projectile, comprise almost half of the assemblage of projectile points. If the bulk of the biface was recovered, either directly after use or after butchering a kill, the projectile point could be reworked. In these cases, the notches would "migrate" inwards during reflaking, and the base could also be reworked by thinning. Again, many of the original flake scars would be removed and a more randomised flake scar pattern would result. However, the thinner flatter profile of the original preform, as described above, would make this resharpening very easy.
Smaller versions of the KCN projectile point, then, would be expected to be characteristic of assemblages that represent later stages in the lithic reduction sequence. Smaller KCN projectile point were most commonly associated with the "biface" assemblages such as the
Kipling cluster sites, but were also associated with the Current site which I argued exhibited evidence of being a "chert-stressed" occupation. Thus, my suspicion is that smaller versions of the KCN projectile point simply reflect greater degrees of curation and reworking. It may still be that these projectile points exhibit variation that can be related to chronological change (i.e., style drift) but finding support for this hypothesis will require dating these sites independently of seriating morphological variation of the points themselves. Other Tools
The Nettling Site in southwestern Ontario has produced the most diverse and well-known assemblage of artifacts relating to the KCN horizon available to date (Ellis et al. 1990, 1991).
While there has been little in the way of intensive excavations undertaken at this site, long-term surface collections have produced a number of tool-types in addition to those I have discussed above and these can serve as a basis for comparison. For example, none of the assemblages considered in this dissertation produced evidence of ground stone axes or tubes. In terms of chipped lithic tools, no specialised concave side-scrapers were recovered from any of the assemblages examined here either. While it is tempting to dismiss these absences as reflecting regional differences of some sort (a topic that will be returned to), I think it is also necessary to consider differences in the sampling strategies that produced the assemblages.
The Nettling site covers a relatively large area that has been intensively and repeatedly surface collected. Surface collection, particularly if multiple visits are made, allows for the recovery of artifacts from areas that may not be intensively investigated because of low densities of artifacts per square metre. Thus, the long-term surface collecting of the Nettling site is likely producing artifacts from low-density areas that would not be sampled in other contexts and may thus reflect functional differences within the site.
In the region under study here (i.e., the Niagara Peninsula), there are areas that have produced an abundance of Early Archaic artifacts dispersed over multiple hectares. For example, the Kipling cluster of sites covered an area much larger in size than the Nettling site.
Although a series of "sites" was identified and delimited, by the very means used to define
"sites", we cannot preclude that all of the occupation areas were fully excavated or even tested 265 beyond surface collections. Simply, it is quite possible that some artifact types were deposited in low artifact-density areas and not recovered by the excavation strategy employed. If surface collections only recover between 1 and 2% of the artifacts in ploughzone, then it would take between 5 and 10 surface collections to arrive at a 10% sample of these areas. Obviously more surface collections would be required if a more robust sample were necessary for statistical confidence (e.g., Custer 1992).
A similar large cluster of sites with KCN projectile points has now been documented within a few kilometres of Binbrook, Ontario. In Chapter 4 I discussed assemblages recovered from surface collections and test excavations from the Empire Greens cluster of sites. In the area of Binbrook itself, surface collections, test and block excavations of numerous flake scatters repeatedly produced KCN projectile points and debitage indicative of the reduction sequence defined above1. While at this point I would not want to imply that these components were directly related to each other, it does appear that in some areas, KCN sites appear in loose clusters that may, in fact cover tens or hundreds of hectares, if not square kilometres. Within these large areas, more intensive excavations conducted under CRM contexts have been confined to a few hundred square metres of high-density deposits. As I have argued above, these high artifact density areas appear to be composed primarily of manufacturing debris ideal for the kind of analysis attempted here but not necessarily suited for recovering a representative sample of all artifacts deposited in these areas. Consequently, it cannot be precluded that other artifact types are present but have not been recovered and reported. Thus, the absence of certain of the artifact types reported from the Nettling site could simply be the result of different sampling strategies. 266
In the following sections, I will therefore focus on two artifact types that are more frequently recovered.
Scrapers
Scrapers, particularly end scrapers, are common in the assemblages considered in this dissertation. These appear to have been almost exclusively manufactured from primary flakes.
While many appear to have been detached from cores relatively early in core reduction, some
(e.g., Figure 5-11 :a and b; 5-13:a, b, d and e; 5-16:c and d) appear to have been struck unidirectionally. Few exhibit evidence of modification to the lateral edges so, without detailed use wear analysis, it would be difficult to argue that these were hafted. Laterally modified end scrapers, however, do appear to be more common on the "biface" sites. While I am not sure that hafting can be argued to necessarily reflect a measure of chert conservation, since more of the chert mass would be "lost" inside the haft, hafting does allow for greater efficiency in the performance of certain tasks. Therefore, although I would argue that the manufacture of thinner unidirectional flakes requires greater skill, they are also more easily included in a travelling tool kit. Additionally, flat thin flakes are more easily retouched and replaced when their utility is expended. Thus, investing the time and effort necessary to manufacture and curate a thicker scraper type shaped to fit into a specified haft, may simply have been deemed unnecessary when replacement material was readily available. In this sense, the scrapers recovered from most of
1 The excavations were primarily conducted in the summer of 2005 and, while the results of these excavations add support for the ideas presented above, in my opinion they did not add new information so no attempt was made to include this data in this dissertation. these assemblages can be considered a form of minimally modified flake tool even though a specialised production system had been employed in their manufacture.
Examined in this way, at the Nettling site, we can note that a greater percentage of the end scrapers with lateral modification were manufactured from exotic (i.e., Ohio) cherts.
However, even the local raw materials was relatively scarce and available primarily as secondarily deposited cobbles so I would not consider it surprising that greater effort was made to ensure these tools were durable and reliable. Therefore, I would argue that the relatively low percentage of extensively modified end scrapers described here is a direct result of the abundance of high quality, massive chert and the use of a reduction system that produced a highly reliable source of potentially expedient tool blanks.
Nonetheless, one example of a finely crafted unifacially flaked, teardrop end scraper was recovered from the Kipling 1 site (Figure 5-4a). This artifact is unmodified on the ventral surface but completely and finely flaked on the dorsal surface in a manner unlike that seen on any of the other artifacts examined for this dissertation. The extent and fineness of the dorsal flaking certainly surpasses functional requirements of ensuring this tool could fit into a haft.
While initially I had thought that end scrapers like this would prove to be somewhat of a
"diagnostic" for the technological horizon, this did not prove to be the case given the rarity of this type. Indeed, the very uniqueness of this end scraper makes it difficult to offer an explanation to account for its presence. 268
Drills
Drills appear to be a relatively abundant artifact category at the Nettling site with 27 reported by Ellis et al. (1991:7, 9-10). Remnant bases indicate that these were manufactured from a number of potential "preforms" including simple flakes and projectile points. In contrast, only two fragmentary drills were identified in the assemblages examined here and in none of the cases could assignment to the KCN horizon be considered secure. One example was recovered from one of the Empire Greens sites that was not intensively excavated (Figure 4-26b). Another was recovered from the Cherry Orchard site (Figure 5-le) but this site had a later Archaic component superimposed over the Early Archaic stratum. Therefore, in both cases it is not possible to preclude that the drills could have come from a different occupation of the site and the drill bases were both too small to be sure of potentially distinctive flaking patterns, etc. I would predict, however, that as our sample of KCN assemblages becomes more robust, drills will be identified in this region as well.
Summary of the Reduction Sequence
The reduction sequence presented above was constructed through an examination of the flaking debris, tools broken during manufacture and smaller numbers of tools abandoned because of exhaustion. While none of these sites produced evidence of all parts of this reduction sequence, each chosen for analysis was part and followed a common pattern of core and biface reduction. That all also produced "diagnostic" projectile points attributable to the Early Archaic, 269
KCN Horizon, strengthens the inference that these assemblages were part of a single, unified and consistent reduction sequence.
This reduction system involved obtaining relatively high quality blocks of Onondaga chert, probably from surface exposures of chert-bearing bedrock. While some trimming of these blocks occurred at the quarry, the cores were returned to base camps that could be at some distance from the chert source. At these base camps, two forms of reduction occurred. Large flakes were removed from the corners of blocks for the production of narrow bifaces. Broader flakes were removed from the faces of the cores for manufacture into wider, more ovate, randomly flaked bifaces. These could be used as chopping tools, refined and notched into hafted knives or thinned by relatively long and parallel flaking into projectile points.
After the removal of large flakes, cores were trimmed and modified for the production of large flakes that could be modified as various flake tools such as scrapers. These flakes appear to have been commonly removed in a unidirectional manner down the face of the core. The overwhelming majority of the unifacial tools recovered were manufactured from these flakes and often resharpened to such a point that they would have had limited further utility.
The cores from which they were struck appear to have been kept relatively flat and tabular rather than cylindrical. Upon reduction of the core to such an extent that the structural integrity would have been compromised by further flake removal, this tabular form would have been ideal for transformation into projectile point preforms. The flaking pattern evident on the exhausted core/biface preform recovered from the Upstairs Site (Figure 4-20b) would be identical to that seen on larger projectile points recovered throughout the region if refined.
Projectile points could then be manufactured directly from smaller flakes, randomly flaked broad bifaces or from core remnants. In the case of the former (which was probably the most common), flake removal consisted of long, flat and parallel flakes that crossed the mid point of the biface thus not just trimming the biface but literally thinning it through the central mass. The end result on larger bifaces is long, parallel-sided flake scars that cross most or all of the width of the biface resulting in a tabular preform of relatively even thickness. This form would have been easily and predictably resharpened as required. It is certainly also quite likely that this kind of cross-section would have been quite effective for penetrating game animals when employed on the tip of a projectile. Projectile points could also be manufactured from bifacial core remnants if they became too small and/or too thin for further usable flake detachment. Certainly, there is no need to posit that there were rigidly adhered to rules but it is evident that common themes of flake detachment were employed that could be both responsive to contingencies of individual object pieces and reflective of overall patterns of chert reduction.
While I have little evidence of the range of variability present among the initial chert cores, apparently, as reduction proceeded, even when flake detachment within this reduction system addressed various contingencies of individual object pieces, they resulted in a kind of equifinality in the final tool (Van Peer 1992:89). That flake scars seen on cores, narrow bifaces and larger, finished projectile points exhibit common patterns, suggests the presence of cognitive patterns or "constellations of knowledge" (Sinclair 2000). Above, however, I focused more on the description of this reduction system. I will now turn to addressing in more detail some questions about what can be inferred about precisely what this strategy might have accomplished. 271
The Reduction Strategy
Throughout this dissertation I have tried to maintain a distinction between the description of the reduction sequence and the interpretation of the reduction strategy which is the generation of inferences about why this sequence was employed of the functions it served. Since the publication of a commonly cited critique by Robin Torrence (1983), much research has been devoted to exploring issues related to the link between lithic technology and hunter-gatherer mobility (Blades 2003:141-143).
Binford's (1980, 1983) dichotomy of hunter-gatherer settlement mobility has been one of the most widely discussed and explored ethnographic models applied to the archaeological record. The model proposes differences in residential mobility where "collectors" employ a greater number of logistic forays to acquire necessary resources while "foragers" will instead relocate their residences more frequently when local resources are exhausted. Although foragers also occasionally engage in logistic forays, they do so less frequently and their "special purpose" camps will be less intensively occupied. Among the archaeological implications of these different strategies are fewer numbers of site types and fewer if any returns to the same locations for foragers (Emerson and McElrath 1983).
If we can argue that the assemblages analysed and discussed here are representative enough to conduct comparisons, I would argue that the patterns fit more closely with the forager residential pattern. As mentioned above, there is little evidence of repeated occupations of specific site locations and ambiguous evidence of return visits to more general areas such as might be seen in deep accumulations of refuse and/or palimpsests of occupation areas. Some of the site clusters discussed, such as the Empire Greens sites, may prove to be examples of this 272 kind of patterning but more evidence and research should be directed to these cases before any degree of certainty can be offered. Even so, should these cases prove to be examples of return visits to the same general locations, this does not provide strong evidence of a departure from residential patterns of foragers. Quite simply, the Ringtail and Current sites could have been occupied centuries apart from each other.
Another archaeological implication of the "collector" residential pattern is that there will be a greater number of site types definable on the basis of functionally different artifact classes
(Emerson and McElrath 1983). While admittedly we are constrained by the sampling strategies used to investigate these sites, I see no evidence of different functional types being represented in the recovered assemblages. All produced evidence of the manufacture and/or use of the same variety of bifaces and flake tools. What little variation was observed, such as the drills or the
"tear-drop" end scraper from Kipling 1, may simply reflect sampling variation since so few of these were recovered. All the sites produced debris from the manufacture and use of the same kinds of artifacts with variation representing stages of the reduction sequence. Simply, variation seen in the assemblages examined in this dissertation appears to reflect length of time since the acquisition of chert blocks from a quarry site and, in all probability, the anticipated length of time until a quarry will be returned to. Other variation reflects differences in the choices of raw material and that may reflect diachronic variation and/or differential access to chert sources.
None of the variation documented could be argued to reflect variation in the kinds of tools produced or activities engaged in.
Two possible exceptions to this pattern can be noted. First, it is possible that some of the site clusters represent a different kind of occupation, specifically a clustering of domestic units
(i.e., families) that occupied the general area simultaneously. If so, then it is possible they were engaged in co-operative hunting, perhaps of migrating herds of cervids. Some of these sites appear to exhibit a greater diversity of chert types, including exotic cherts, suggesting that there might be more social dimensions to these sites than simply co-operative hunting. If these site clusters represent something equivalent to "band aggregations", then it is very likely that marriages were arranged here, community identity was renewed and strengthened, etc.
However, as far as overall assemblage composition, there is little difference in the relative frequency of functional artifact classes compared to other kinds of assemblages examined.
Another possibility is that significantly different kinds of sites were simply not documented at the time of this study. Prior to engagement of this analysis, I had conducted a search of the site database for Ontario in an effort to identify assemblages that might be employed in this study. While not all of the components identified as belonging to this technological horizon were examined, the information present in that site database did not indicate that any "site types" were overlooked with the exception of very small sites that were deemed to be too small and sparse to warrant further investigation. These may represent logistic forays not considered here but since small logistic sites can be argued to be a component of forager settlement systems, they do not present an interpretive problem.
Alternately, some significantly different site types may have simply not been located and entered in the database as yet. Specifically, there may have been lakeside sites currently inundated by Lake Ontario waters. While this possibility cannot be ruled out until such areas are explored, in Chapter 3 I discussed this possibility and argued that the premise that such sites must exist should be questioned. Ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers exhibit a considerable degree of diversity in their choices of settlement and subsistence patterns, even when located in virtually identical environments. Even in cases where it might be predicted that hunter-gatherers should aggregate at places where fish would spawn in spring or fall, rice could be harvested, etc., they don't necessarily do so. There may be additional reason to doubt a priori that the riverbeds were stable enough to support significant anadromous fish populations or that the people could eat fish at this time, except perhaps as a starvation food. It is certainly possible that sites on lakeshores will ultimately be discovered. These may have been returned to on a relatively regular basis simply because these were somewhat terminal locations on the landscape that prevented further wandering. If it were ultimately found, however, that these locations do represent a significantly different type of site, such as might be inferred from different kinds of assemblages, site structure, etc., then this characterisation would have to be revised. Until that time, however, I see no need to accommodate this kind of missing data.
From the above, therefore, I would argue that the Early Archaic, KCN Horizon mobility pattern was most like that of foragers, at least in this part of southern Ontario. If we can account for the differences observed in the recovered assemblages as being due to different degrees of chert usage across the landscape, with the possibility of band aggregations accounting for some of the site clusters, then all appear to be more or less equivalent. There is no evidence of specialised sites (with the exception of possible logistic camps or activity areas) or base camps that were repeatedly returned to or contained a different, more diverse, assemblage composition.
Instead, despite differences in sampling strategies and differences in the degree of chert use and exhaustion, all produced the same kinds of artifacts. Of course, independent testing of this hypothesis through use-wear analysis of recovered tools and/or broader sampling strategies across sites would be desirable.
Numerous attempts have been made to correlate some of these dimensions of variability with the demands of mobility. For example, in Binford's (1980, 1983) dichotomy, collectors 275 employ a greater number of logistic forays which are relatively specialised and therefore can be expected to have required specialised tools. Collector assemblages, therefore, will have a diverse and versatile assemblage of specialised tools while forager assemblages, because they involve more frequent residential moves, will have more generalised, lightweight and flexible assemblages (Shott 1986). Kelly's (1988) multifunctional bifaces, for example, would be illustrative of a forager assemblage because this very attribute implies both "lightweight", with multiple functions embedded in one artifact, and flexibility, with a greater number of potential final products.
In part then, this dichotomy has been erected to address a dimension of variability in tools that can be characterised as "generalised" vs. "specialised" (Torrence 1983). Specialised tools are those tools that were highly designed to meet a small number of uses while generalised tools served a broader array of functions. Clearly the manufacture of specialised tools will produce a more diverse material culture assemblage, including manufacturing debris. In fact, the use of a
"specialised" tool kit will produce manufacturing debris from the production of more different kinds of tools, at least some of which will have unique reduction sequences. Additionally, because tools are more specialised it would be reasonable to presume that manufacturing errors compromising the functional integrity of the specialised tools would be more common leading to the discard of more rejects in the process. Finally, because specialised tools may be the products of multiple different reduction sequences, they may be manufactured from a more diverse variety of object pieces. Therefore, these assemblages may include a wider variety of core and blank types, as well as the use of a greater variety of raw materials, each with their own characteristics.
Kuhn (1995) has addressed this question by arguing that attributes of design and supply may bridge the relationship between technology and mobility. Specifically, planning depth can be reflected in the extent that technology is designed to meet future needs. Generalised tools allow a degree of flexibility but the availability of suitable raw materials may be of even greater value here, although at the cost of higher transportation costs (Kuhn 1995:22-23).
Applying some of these ideas to this case study, I would note that the sequence and staging of core reduction allows considerable flexibility because cores were transported and reduced on an "as-needed" basis. Presumably transporting chert cores as far as sites like the
Upstairs site kept the edges of (undetached) primary flakes sharp as well as allowed for flexibility in what kinds of tool blanks could be manufactured from these cores. Along the way, these cores could also have met a number of alternate functions, such as use as a chopper, etc.
However, an interesting observation can be made in that, at this site, these functions were either fully met or other considerations became more important. Simply, during the occupation of the Upstairs site, one or more bifacial cores were reduced, presumably to manufacture bifaces, and a large number of potentially usable primary flakes were discarded without being used.
Looking to the sites discussed in Chapter 5, it seems clear that during these occupations, while some primary flakes were being used (i.e., the end scrapers) the anticipated needs were being met without the reduction of cores. In short, between the occupation of the Upstairs site and the occupation of the "biface" sites, a decision had been made to reduce the load of chert carried.
The bifacial core was transformed into a bifacial preform and probably some flake blanks that could be used as preforms for other tools. This switch in strategy, in fact, may be argued to reflect a change in the "site type" and could be argued to indicate the possibility that the "biface" sites are more specialised than the "core sites". If specialised sites are held to be equivalent of logistic procurement sites, as Binford implied, then it is possible that the difference between settlement strategies may not be as straightforward as implied. In this case, the "core" sites 277 retained greater flexibility in the choices of what particular tools could be manufactured from the cores. On the other hand, "biface" sites had less potential flexibility in the kinds of tools that could be manufactured but had reduced transportation costs and finished tools could be manufactured more quickly and easily (Kuhn 1995:23).
A related dichotomy that has been used in explaining variation in tool kit design is that of
"expedient" vs. "curated" tools (Binford 1979). Expedient or situational tools are those that were manufactured for a specific use and discarded once that function had been discharged.
Conversely, curated tools were intended for more extensive use and therefore exhibit a more standardised design with greater investment in shaping as well as evidence of prolonged periods of use, usually in the form of extensive retouch (Ebert 1992:213; Shott 1989:24). The idea of curation is complex (Bamforth 1986:39-40; Odell 1996) and does not necessarily correlate with specific mobility patterns. Applied to the assemblages under consideration here, for example, both the bifaces and the primary flake blanks were curated for later use even though there is considerable variation in the extent to which each was subsequently modified.
The dichotomies of expedient vs. curated technologies and specialised vs. generalised technologies may be similar to Bleed's (1986) dichotomy of "maintainable" vs. "reliable" technologies. A reliable technology is one that is more likely to require a specialist in production and maintenance but produces tools that are more likely to accomplish tasks. On the other hand, a maintainable technology can be serviced by a wider number of people with varying levels of individual skill. While Bleed (1986:740) makes it clear that some systems can contain attributes of both, some researchers have suggested that correlations with mobility patterns can be observed. Foragers may be more associated with maintainable technologies while collectors are associated with reliable technologies in part because the decreased residential mobility may 278 allow for greater degrees of craft specialisation, more wasteful production, etc. (Bleed 1986:741;
Carr 1994:38-39).
Returning to the assemblages discussed here, I would argue that the lithic reduction system from "core" sites required a relatively skilled flint knapper and was highly reliable in that products were very predictable. On the other hand, the tool preforms brought to the "biface" sites, because they were relatively standardised and easy to modify into final tools, were more maintainable and could be worked by less skilled knappers. Again, there appears to be some subtle differences between the two kinds of sites that are not entirely explained with reference to the tools discarded but are instead best inferred on the basis of the artifacts brought to the sites.
One point of disagreement I would have is with the implication that more heavily curated tools, perhaps including the identification of a haft, is necessarily indicative of specialisation (Kelly
1988:721). While hafting may allow energy to be more effectively and efficiently directed towards the working edge of the tool, there is no a priori reason to preclude this can't be associated with generalised tools (e.g., the Swiss Army knife).
From the above discussion, it should be clear that a great deal of variability may be present in how lithic reduction strategies may be correlated with hunter-gatherer mobility patterns. Optimising the insights that can be gained in this way will require paying close attention to all aspects of the lithic reduction sequence and considering how each and every stage in the reduction sequence played a role in meeting these demands (Bousman 1993). Certainly, we must be careful about asserting direct relationships between any one axis of variability and the strategy of hunter-gatherer mobility without paying close attention to the specifics of each case (Andrefsky 1994:30). Synchronic or Interregional Variation
As discussed in Chapter 2, KCN projectile points have been recovered and reported from across most of eastern North America from northern Florida to southern Ontario. Clearly this widely distributed style of projectile point encompasses regions that had vastly different resources including game animals and available raw materials. Given the absence of faunal remains from any of the components analysed for this study and given the variable nature of the data across the region, I will refrain from speculating on seasonal rounds or settlement patterns.
Quite simply, even highly similar and ethnically related groups living in similar environmental contexts can exhibit considerable diversity in their use of the landscape and its resources.
However, I will return to this topic below because there may be some inferences that can be generated from the available data.
Raw material, however, provides a more useful variable for interregional comparisons.
The recognition of different lithic raw materials, either as finished tools or as debitage, can be used to argue for interaction between regions although distinguishing between direct procurement and some form of trade or exchange may be difficult. Within the assemblages examined in this dissertation, "exotic" raw materials are rare. In fact, the exotic materials included only a few flakes and projectile points. Almost all are Kettle Point chert with one exception being a Flint Ridge projectile point base from the Cambridge area (Figure 5-23d).
Given the distances involved and the presence of contemporaneous groups in that region, I would conclude that there was social interaction between the regions and these materials were not directly acquired from quarries or outcrops. 280
In many regions, patterns of raw material distribution have been argued to reflect group territories (see discussion in Chapter 2). While this use of material culture to infer ethnic boundaries remains intriguing, caution is necessary (Ingbar 1994). For example, the Nettling site itself may be argued to represent a northern base camp, sensu Curran (1999), for a group centred in the Ohio area. Given the extent of published information, it could be posited that the Kettle
Point and Flint Ridge artifacts might indicate direct interaction with this group. However, other groups may be present in the intervening areas. For example, Steve Timmermans (personal communication 2004, 2006) has indicated that there are "Nettling" site clusters in the vicinity of
Long Point, Ontario. According to his descriptions, these sites may be distinguished by the use of locally available, weathered and glacially transported Onondaga chert cobbles. Thus, it is possible that the Kettle Point chert passed through several sets of hands before being finally deposited on the sites discussed here.
The impact of different forms of raw material in lithic technology is a topic that has been explored in the literature (e.g., Bamforth 1991:229; Gould and Saggers 1985:134; Kuhn 1995;
Simek 1994) and extreme caution is necessary in interpreting this kind of data (Ingbar 1994).
For example, raw materials with different attributes of size, shape and texture may have been employed to produce different tools (Andrefsky 1994:29; Kuhn 1995:83). On some of the
"biface" assemblages discussed above, locally available raw materials had been used to produce some tools. While the normative method of lithic reduction described in the first part of this chapter can be described as being a unified reduction system for the production of all classes of artifacts, I would argue that this is not always the case. In some assemblages, Onondaga and
Haldimand cherts were used to produce different tool types. When and where raw materials with different qualities were used, variations in the reduction sequence should be expected. 281
From these arguments it should be clear that the technological system outlined in this study would have been highly dependant upon the nature of the raw material available. Chert cores were selected and transported back to base camps with relatively little modification or reduction. Obviously, there would have been some risk due to flaws, etc., hidden within the chert block. We can surmise that those who chose to transport chert blocks in a relatively unmodified condition exhibited considerable confidence that hidden flaws were not present and/or that they could mitigate problems encountered should internal flaws emerge during core reduction. This could have involved either allowing for some flexibility in the reduction sequence and/or replacing the chert block through a return trip to the quarry. Thus, I would expect the technological system to vary across the landscape according to the nature and availability of local cherts. For the same reason, we might expect changes once the supply of suitable chert exposed on the surface was exhausted: either lower quality material would be used or more intensive quarrying adopted. In the case of the latter, longer stays at the outcrop would have been required perhaps leading to more core reduction at the quarry prior to moving on.
This kind of change in residential scheduling might have led to additional changes in lifestyle beyond the lithic technology.
From this perspective, we can now reconsider the phenomenon of a widespread stylistic continuum, defined in terms of a projectile point style, distributed in regions with vastly different topography, available game and raw material characteristics. A high degree of chronological uniformity across this region has been supported by radiocarbon determinations derived from good stratigraphic contexts as well as supporting dates from earlier and later stylistic horizons
(see Chapter 2). Clearly there are commonalties across this large area that are independent of differences in subsistence or raw material usage. While it is beyond my ability to explain the 282 meaning of this stylistic pattern in this dissertation, I may be able to add a new dimension to both the similarities and differences across this broad region by considering another artifact class.
As a starting point, I refer to the relatively large notched biface recovered from the
Kipling 2 site (AkGv-113) (Figure 5-7a). I argued that this tool represents the use of a shaped and transported biface for a purpose other than use as a projectile point. Specifically, this biface appears to have been diverted from the serial biface reduction sequence that led to projectile point manufacture, in order to serve an alternate, specialised function as a hafted knife, cutting or chopping tool.
Relative to the blade width, this tool has a narrow inter-notch width, suggesting a comparatively narrow handle. A somewhat analogous hafted biface form, called the Thebes point or knife, has been identified on Early Archaic assemblages from the American Midwest
(but see Abel 1990 for southwestern Ontario). On the basis of the assemblage from the stratified
Twin Ditch site on the Illinois River floodplain in southern Illinois, Toby Morrow (1996:349-
351) has argued that Thebes knives and St. Charles projectile points are alternate tool forms produced from the same series of biface preforms. The divergence in the overall reduction strategy to produce Thebes knives could be argued to represent a decision analogous to that made by the producers of the Kipling 2 biface. Note however, the differences in inter-notch and basal width and shape. These differences could be argued to reflect slightly different functional requirements or simply an alternate stylistic preference.
Darrin Lowery (2002) has discussed two notched tool forms that appear in Late
Paleoindian and/or Early Archaic assemblages from Florida to the Delmarva Peninsula. The
Edgefield Scraper appears, on the basis of plan-view morphology, to be analogous to Thebes knives. Of note are the relatively wide and square base and the widely spaced notches. Where 283 association can be established, the Edgefield scraper appears to be associated with KCN projectile points or with a late version of the Late Paleoindian Dalton biface form (Lowery
2002:38-39). In contrast, the Waller knife appears to be a more narrowly notched and edge- retouched tool form (Lowery 2002:39-40). The narrower inter-notch width suggests this tool type may be stylistically analogous to the Kipling 2 biface.
What is significant about these two tool forms, however, and distinctive from the Kipling
2 and Thebes bifaces, is that, with the exception of a minority number of Edgefield scrapers
(Lowery 2002:44-45), both of these tool forms were predominantly unifacial tools manufactured from relatively large flakes (Lowery 2002:38-40). My argument is that all these hafted biface forms may have served similar functional requirements but the four "types" reflect variation in style (i.e., narrow vs. wide inter-notch and basal width) and reduction strategy (i.e., primary flake vs. serial biface reduction). Whether or not these large flakes were produced through a reduction sequence separate from that of biface production can only be determined from a more detailed examination of assemblages from those areas. While the possibility of chronological variation must be considered, it is possible that some regions may have employed separate reduction sequences to produce bifaces and large flakes. However, which reduction sequence was used to produce which tools may vary independently. Certainly, this kind of variation has been noted for the Paleoindian horizon (Bryan and Tuohy 1999:256).
Returning to southern Ontario, we can re-examine variation in various other artifact classes. For example, the end scrapers from the Nettling site are thicker and appear to have been more extensively flaked and curated than the majority of end scrapers from this region (Ellis, et al. 1991; McMillan 2003). I suspect that at least part of the explanation for this difference may have been in the more difficult access to supplies of suitable replacement material in 284 southwestern Ontario, at that time. Consequently, efforts were made to ensure that the tools and preforms would be more reliable and durable. On the other hand, in the Niagara region, flakes were being produced in abundance and these could serve as replacement preforms for scrapers.
In some ways, thinner flakes might be considered more energy efficient because a greater proportion of the overall chert mass would have been at the working edge of the tool. The "cost" of this decision, however, would have been that individual end scrapers might have been more prone to breakage during use. This could have been partially mitigated, however, by having a greater amount of the haft covering and supporting at least the dorsal surface of the scraper.
Thus differences in the attributes of the end scraper assemblages between the Nettling site in southwestern Ontario and the assemblages discussed in this dissertation probably relate directly to differences in the nature and availability of the raw material.
A similar interpretation can be offered for the lack of the specialised concave side scrapers in the Niagara region. At the Nettling site, these were predominantly, but not exclusively, manufactured from cherts "exotic" to southern Ontario. These scrapers are relatively thick, heavily curated and probably hafted, suggesting considerable care was invested in their manufacture and maintenance. It is quite possible that functionally identical tools were used and are represented in the assemblages examined here. If so, this tool class could be among the small number of side scrapers or the generalised informal flake tools. Resolution of this question might be gained by a comparative use-wear analysis. Alternatively, as discussed above, it is possible the lack of this tool class is the result of differential sampling practises. However, it cannot be discounted that the Early Archaic occupants of the Niagara Peninsula simply did not perform the same tasks the Nettling site occupants did, for reasons as yet unknown. 285
What should be clear from this discussion is that style, function and reduction systems appear at times to be partially independent dimensions that can be used to explain stone tool variability. However, it should also be clear that these dimensions are not always entirely independent of each other. Obviously the nature of the available raw material will influence the style of the final product just as intended function will. Taking the distribution of the KCN type into account, we can note that style appears to be constant over a very broad region.
Furthermore, we would expect that function might also be relatively constant, depending on what resources were available and how these were to be exploited. However, the nature and distribution of raw materials varies considerably, providing the key axis of variability. While this level of comparison would be clearly beyond the scope of this dissertation, greater insight might be gained by looking at change through time in this region.
Diachronic or Intraregional Variation
What little evidence we have of the temporal duration of the KCN horizon suggests this style was employed for centuries if not a millennium or more. Over this period of time, we might expect that a variety of changes occurred including the environmental effects of the retreat of the glaciers, increases in the resident population and changes in the availability of chert due to exhaustion of exposed raw material. This latter, in turn, may have led to changes in the extractive (i.e., quarrying) technology including changes in the use of quarrying techniques such as protracted mining vs. simple collection. Accompanying these would have been variation in the duration and scheduling of stays at the quarry from simple logistic forays, with or without extensive modification of the raw material, to embedding procurement in other activities (i.e., 286 subsistence activities) to more prolonged residential or logistic stays at the outcrops. The discovery of new chert outcrops and secondary sources due to more intensive exploration of the landscape or changes in the water levels of the lakes and/or the incising of rivers and streams will also have played a role.
There are, however, several kinds of variation that can be considered that may possibly be related to temporal variation. The first might be chert type. Late Paleoindians, specifically those producing Hi-Lo lanceolate projectile points, exhibited a preference for Haldimand chert although Onondaga chert may be more common in some assemblages. It may be of significance that some of the potentially later dating Hi-Lo styles, exhibiting modifications of the hafting area, were manufactured from other chert types. For example, Andrew Murray (personal communication 2006) has recovered a number of Hi-Lo projectile points from north of Toronto with specialised stemmed or incipient notched hafting elements manufactured from Onondaga chert. If Ellis' (2004b) proposed chronology for Hi-Lo is supported, we may find that Onondaga chert was increasingly preferred later in that horizon.
If in situ adoption of the KCN technology occurred without any form of population replacement then it might be that the continued presence of Haldimand chert in some KCN assemblages represents a continuation of this pattern of raw material use. Along this line, the observation that Haldimand chert was associated with biface/projectile point production in the
Wellingdale Cluster of sites while Onondaga chert was associated with the production of primary flakes is of interest. While Hi-Lo assemblages do include some production of blade-like flakes
(Parker 1986a), increased reliance on this type of reduction technology may have stimulated increased usage of Onondaga chert, which is more massive, of higher quality and seems to have fewer internal cracks. Haldimand chert continued to have been used for the production of 287 bifaces, however, perhaps because smaller, more tabular pieces of Haldimand chert lent themselves to the direct manufacture of bifaces. Surface recoveries of early-stage bifaces from the Murray 2 site (Bursey 1998), a Hi-Lo component near the lower Grand River, may be offered to support this possibility.
Following this line of reasoning, the Trail Site near Cambridge is of interest. A projectile point and a large retouched flake manufactured from Haldimand chert were recovered during the excavations (Dodd 1997:68-69). In contrast, the vast majority of the debitage recovered was produced during the reduction of bifaces manufactured from Onondaga chert (Dodd 1997:70).
This association of finished but abandoned tools with Haldimand chert while other bifaces were manufactured from Onondaga chert seems in contrast to what would be implied above. Simply, from this assemblage, it could be argued that Haldimand and Onondaga cherts were equally viable alternatives for tool manufacture.
A possible explanation for this apparent paradox of chert selection is that some of these sites may be from opposite ends of the chronological continuum. If the norm of the KCN technology was based on readily available, high-quality Onondaga chert in the form of exposed blocks found on the surface, allowing for their collection and return to base-camps through logistic forays to the outcrops, this availability would have changed through time. Eventually, the supply of chert on the surface would have been exhausted. At that point, two options would have been available. First, more intensive quarrying could have been adopted. This option, however, would have required greater time being spent at the outcrops that in turn would eventually have required some changes in residential mobility patterns. Trips to the quarry site might eventually have required the entire domestic unit to relocate their residence to these locations for the duration of the quarrying activity. 288
Alternatively, chert acquisition might have shifted to the selection of poorer quality material, possibly from a greater number of chert sources. If this was the case, the nature of the raw material selected would likely have required splitting of the reduction system so that, for example, the production sequence of bifaces and flake blanks took place using different kinds of object pieces (Bamforth 1986; Kuhn 1995). Assemblages like the Trail site and/or the
Wellingdale cluster could reflect this change in strategy. Obviously, however, extreme caution must be employed here until we can test these ideas and determine which end of the proposed seriation is early and which is late.
We should expect that teasing apart these possible trends and patterns will be difficult and will, at times, produce seemingly contradictory results. For example, if biface production was initially independent of flake production, then we might see complimentary trends in projectile point morphology through time. One might expect, for example, that earlier projectile points would have been thicker if preferentially manufactured from randomly flaked bifaces and include evidence of continuation from earlier lanceolate bifaces. Hi-Lo projectile points I have seen in the Niagara Peninsula, for example, are relatively thick bifaces that were flaked differently than KCN points. Some of the flake scars present on earlier-stage Hi-Lo points and bifaces are big enough for the flakes to have been used as expedient flake tools although most of the flake tools from these assemblages were manufactured from separate object pieces. Hi-Lo projectile points were not thinned by relatively large unidirectional flakes driven across the face of the biface. If flake tool production was kept separate from biface production, we might expect that bifaces may have been kept thicker for greater strength and endurance.
However, this ignores the possibility that for some game animals, greater penetrability of the projectile point may have been more advantageous. In this case, thinness may have been preferred while flakes removed to thm the biface would have served as suitable blanks for flake tools. This could have led to the building into the design of the biface the capacity to produce flake tools as the biface was thinned. The bifacial core may have still also served as a chopper but reduction was directed more towards the production of a projectile point preform (Kelly
1988). Loss of thickness and durability is compensated for by greater penetrability, greater ease of reworking and more efficient use of chert because of the embedded production of flake tools.
Clearly, exploring and testing these ideas will be a challenging task.
In fact, we may already have some clues to assist us in clarifying some of these issues.
Chris Ellis (2004b:62-64) has suggested that Late Paleoindian Hi-Lo projectile points may be subdivided into three phases on the basis of the morphology of the hafting area. On the basis of stylistic sedation, earliest Hi-Lo forms exhibit similarities to the Holcombe type of unfluted lanceolate projectile point while the latest styles appear to have incipient side notches. If this seriation is found to be accurate, then a trend towards the use of bifaces as a source offtakes to be used as tool blanks may have been present throughout Hi-Lo times. Specifically, the Caradoc site, described by Brian Deller and Chris Ellis (Deller and Ellis 2001; Ellis and Deller 2002) has produced evidence of large bifaces that were used as cores for the production of flake tools in association with an earlier variant of the Hi-Lo projectile point form. Consequently, some of the trends towards chert usage seen in the KCN horizon as described here may have been initiated long before the KCN projectile point style was adopted in this region. What will have to be determined through further research is whether this tendency is present throughout the Hi-Lo sequence and the relationship between some of these trends and the raw materials selected.
While I do not think I can offer any final reconstructions of the culture-history of the region, I will attempt to address some questions of change and continuity between the Late 290
Paleoindian and Early Archaic horizons as we currently understand them. I stress, however, that these can only be offered as hypotheses for testing at this time. As described in Chapter 2, the
Fluted Point Horizon is identified on the basis of the most widely distributed projectile point style found in North America. In contrast, the Late Paleoindian Unfluted Lanceolate horizon appears to exhibit a greater degree of regional diversity with a relatively distinctive style, identified as the Hi-Lo projectile point, found around the lower Great Lakes region. Immediately to the north, Late Paleoindian projectile point styles exhibit a high degree of similarity from the
St. Lawrence River region, across the upper Great Lakes and into the northern prairies. While there have been suggestions of some more locally restricted Late Paleoindian styles, if supported, these could be argued to have resulted from either change through time (i.e., style drift) or a blending of traits through contact and interaction between southern Ontario populations and those further north. Caution is necessary, however, because of the potentially late dates for the
Late Paleoindians along the north shore of Lake Superior, particularly if migrations from the west are the source of some of these stylistic attributes.
In contrast to the Late Paleoindian, The Early Archaic KCN Horizon is a very widespread style that includes southern Ontario at the north end of its distribution. While I think there is little doubt that this style diffused into southern Ontario from the south (Wright 1995), caution must be exercised to not simply assume that this necessarily represents an intrusion, or migration, of people. The Nettling site does appear to be a component of a group of people whose territory would include areas south of what is now Lake Erie, based on the raw material sources exploited. I do not, however, see that this argument could be extended to the populations in the Niagara region discussed in this dissertation. First, there is far too little evidence of contact outside the region in the form of exotic raw materials. While there are trace amounts of 291 chert from southwestern Ontario in some of the assemblages discussed here, these are more easily explained in terms of interaction with this region than as evidence of a migration of people from this region. Certainly, however, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed at present but will require more extensive analysis.
A second problem with interpreting the KCN horizon as being the result of a population intrusion is providing an account for what happened to the Late Paleoindian populations.
Evidence is beginning to mount that the northern Late Paleoindian technology and styles persisted later than they did in the southern Great Lakes, possibly later than the KCN style and contemporaneous with, or even later than the Bifurcate Base horizon2. Since it appears that the northern Late Paleoindian styles appear to have a western, not southern, origin, there is no evidence to suggest that Hi-Lo or Fluted point users followed the retreating ice fields and resulting environmental changes north. Instead, it appears quite possible that these people stayed in place and simply adopted new technological systems.
In discussing the Fluted Point Horizon, I made the observation that at least some Fluted
Point sites (e.g., Woodley 2004) appear to consist of an active tool kit and generalised bifaces and flake blanks that could be used as is for some tasks or transformed into finished tools as needed (see also Kelly 1988). When these sites are more intensively excavated, larger numbers of smaller flakes, produced by resharpening or retouching existing tools or transforming the blanks, dominate the assemblage but only if finer mesh screens such as 1/8" mesh are employed
(Jackson 1998a; Woodley 2004). This characterisation applies to the assemblages discussed in
Chapter 5. While the lithic reduction sequence clearly differs between these two horizons, in
2 Compare, for example, the date from the date from the Blue Dart site (Lennox 1993) with the dates reported by
Hamilton (2004) and Phillips and Ross 1995). relation to mobility, there are definite similarities in some aspects of the lithic reduction strategy.
These could be expanded to include the choices in raw material, etc.
Similar kinds of considerations would have to be offered to explore the possibility of continuity with later populations. In Chapter 2,1 noted that there is both evidence of continuity and evidence of change between the KCN horizon and the Bifurcate Base horizon. At least some
Bifurcate Base assemblages appear to have been produced through a more opportunistic exploitation of a wider variety of chert sources and poorer quality raw material. However, at least some bifurcate base sites (e.g., Lennox 1993) appear to have been the product of transporting only finished tools and some specialised preforms (unfinished bifaces and/or large primary flake blanks) as potential replacements. Thus, although there are very distinct differences in the lithic reduction sequences, there are also similarities in the lithic reduction strategy. More detailed investigation of Bifurcate Base lithic technology is necessary before we distinguish which attributes might be argued to be analogous vs. homologous.
The above discussions on continuity and change through time are offered in order to provide an indication of some of the difficulties present in attempting to use archaeological data to identify discrete, prehistoric populations. Archaeological reconstructions of the past are possible in part because there was change through time and this change can be documented.
Change, however, can come about for many reasons but ultimately can be related to autochthonous or in situ processes or the diffusion of ideas with or without an attendant population movement. Distinguishing between these alternatives can, however, be an extraordinary complex problem. I have argued elsewhere (Bursey 1995) that it may be possible to argue for a population replacement when there is evidence of abrupt technological change in several independent technological systems simultaneously. In that specific case, I argued that 293 multiple components of the cultural pattern exhibit pronounced change in a very short period of time. Furthermore, this change appears to be more pronounced and rapid than what occurred in the 17th century attendant to and following the arrival of Europeans in the region. I cannot offer arguments for the same kind of change in the Early Archaic because at this time we can only examine a single, highly integrated technological system. Of course, this should not be taken to imply that we should abandon or avoid attempts to generate alternative hypotheses to be tested as new data and lines of thought are developed. What we must do, however, is hold these ideas as hypotheses waiting independent lines of testing. At this time, I would argue that the available evidence provides tenuous support for the hypothesis of population continuity. CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS
In many ways, the initial idea for this study came about from reading a paper by Jeffrey
Kalin (1981) describing differences in debitage produced during the manufacture of differently sized and shaped projectile points. The premise of that study is one that I suspect is very widely held and accepted in archaeology although not well explored. Specifically, the premise is that some variables such as the size observable in certain stone tools will be reflected in the debitage produced during the manufacture of those tools. By further incorporating some of the ideas of
Lemmonier (e.g., 1986; 1992), including practical applications such as those presented in Stark
(1998), two broader ideas emerge. The first is that all of the steps in a technological system can
(and should) be examined as part of an integrated "whole". When examined in this way, seemingly disparate elements can be found to belong to a unified pattern. Second, we may find that technological systems that may appear similar, or even identical, in their end products, may in fact have been the products of entirely different production paths (Cameron 1998). Thus, while projectile points from KCN assemblages may appear to be superficially similar or even identical to some Late Archaic "Small Points", the reduction sequences producing them would have been different. Debitage, then, may be more diagnostic than the "diagnostic" projectile points. Analysis of debitage may therefore allow for a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of the entire tool kit and its manufacture. This dissertation is simply an application of this idea.
The careful analysis of the artifacts recovered from a series of assemblages has shown that cores were reduced in a regularised pattern in order to produce a patterned and predictable set of final products. These in turn were modified to serve a number of different functions. For 295 example, the production of primary flakes in a unidirectional manner resulted in large, flat flake blanks that could be, and were, modified into a number of different expedient flake tools with predictable characteristics. At the same time, the cores were being transformed into a flat, tabular shape that was ideal for use as a projectile point preform. Bifacial cores manufactured in this way had a regularised, even thickness in cross-section that would have been easily and safely trimmed, shaped and reshaped as required.
In Chapters 4 and 5, the reduction sequence for a series of assemblages recovered from sites around the west end of Lake Ontario was described in detail. I argued that the lithic reduction system can be seen as being fully integrated so that there was a depth of planning spanning the acquisition of chert blocks to the production of final tools. The planning of this system allowed for meeting a range of choices from a maximisation of the utility of the chert acquired to a maximisation of the flexibility in meeting anticipated and unanticipated needs as the Early Archaic people traversed the landscape.
While I have not tried to emphasise the methodology I have employed in this analysis, there are a couple of premises I employed that would be worth drawing some attention to here.
First, since a main thrust of my analysis was directed towards understanding how this lithic reduction system could be used to explicate the lithic reduction strategy, attention was given to considering precisely what questions the assemblages could address. Therefore, because of the sampling strategy used during the excavation of these sites, I focused on the topic of technology, broadly defined. These assemblages were all obtained from the block excavation of areas of dense concentrations of artifacts. I argue that these represent refuse dumps or midden accumulations because the vast majority of the artifacts recovered were debris, including waste flakes and tools broken during manufacture. Recovered tools appear to have been discarded because of limited further utility. None of these refuse dumps were spatially extensive or vertically accreted. While there is considerable difference in the number of artifacts recovered, I would argue that this reflects variation in the amount of debris produced at different stages in the reduction sequence. Assemblages produced during the reduction of cores, as described in
Chapter 4, have more debris than those produced during the reduction of bifaces, as described in
Chapter 5. The difference is in the mass of the object pieces reduced and the amount of material that had to be detached in order to achieve the desired final product.
Another methodological premise employed in this dissertation is the use of multiple assemblages to explicitly highlight variation across the landscape. Attempts to propose strategies for traversing the landscape often appear to be "deductively" derived from either a small number of assemblages that were intensively and repeatedly occupied or a larger number of surface collected assemblages. Additionally, frequently the hypotheses are generated on the basis of a small number of artifact types with little discussion of precisely how these can inform questions about the relationship between lithics and mobility.
In contrast, in this dissertation I relied on a number of excavated assemblages that directly reflect the consequences of mobility. Almost all of these assemblages appear to be single component occupations with diagnostic projectile points in association. One exception to this generalisation appears to have been a multicomponent site but my purpose for using this assemblage was to argue that the technological horizon under investigation here can be identified even when the traditional diagnostic artifacts are either absent or in tenuous association. My main goal, therefore, has been to identify and define how a specific lithic reduction system does exhibit variation as the length of time since chert procurement increases. In other words, I did not simply propose how a lithic reduction system might have met the demands of mobility but instead examined how this system actually met the demands of mobility.
In Chapter 6, therefore, the lithic reduction sequence inferred from the assemblages described in Chapters 4 and 5 was summarised. The sites described in Chapter 4 were heuristically referred to as "core" sites because the assemblages were derived primarily by the reduction of unmodified chert blocks or cores. The pattern of reduction included the production of smaller object pieces that became bifaces and primary flake blanks that became various other tools. On the basis of the debitage examined and, in particular, the presence of some very distinctive core trimming flakes, a definite pattern of core reduction was identified. Specifically, core reduction was accomplished using a pattern of unidirectional flaking so that both the flakes detached and the object pieces were given a highly predictable shape. The flaking pattern on the object pieces was argued to be that often seen on larger Early Archaic projectile points.
Additionally, the system of chert reduction was argued to be highly conservative because, at one site (Current), I argued that the system was designed to allow it to be followed even when the chert supply appears to have been near exhaustion. A degree of scavenging of refuse deposits probably assisted in extending the utility of the chert supply.
In contrast the assemblages described in Chapter 5 were composed of lost or discarded tools and the reduction of bifaces, again in a highly patterned manner. The discarded tools are identical in function and manufacturing or technological style to those described in Chapter 4, differing primarily in being smaller as a result of more extensive reworking. Debitage is composed primarily of the by-products of reducing generalised bifaces into knives or, most commonly, projectile points. A small proportion of the debitage consists of primary flakes that were used as a variety of flake tools. The small number of core reduction flakes recovered at these sites suggests that core reduction may not have occurred at these sites but that large flake blanks were detached from cores elsewhere and transported as tool blanks. A detailed analysis of the debitage recovered from the Kipling sites supported the inference of a highly patterned sequence of unidirectional biface reduction. Where relatively large assemblages of debitage are available, bifaces were finished by parallel, unidirectional flaking that crossed the midline of the biface resulting in thin bifaces lacking a median ridge.
After summarising the reduction sequence in Chapter 6,1 turned to the question of beginning to infer the reduction strategy. First, using the "forager" vs. "collector" dichotomy offered by Binford, I argued that since there is no evidence of differences in tool kit composition observed between assemblages, the argument can be made that these assemblages reflect residential mobility and therefore they conform to the forager pattern. The assemblages do not indicate functional specialisation but instead reflect stages in a unified reduction continuum.
Extending the discussion into questions relating to "specialisation", however, the differences between the assemblages discussed in Chapter 4 and those in Chapter 5 provide some useful insights. As noted, the "core" sites were produced by the reduction of chert blocks or cores. At these occupations, generalised bifaces or flake blanks were produced that served as preforms for a variety of tools. It can be said, therefore, that a considerable degree of flexibility was still present in the products of the reduction undertaken at these places. In contrast, transforming these generalised preforms into specific tool types produced the "biface" site assemblages. Instead of being generalised tool preforms, the products of reduction at these sites were more specialised. Therefore, while there does not appear to be distinctions between these two kinds of sites on the basis of the functional composition of the assemblages, there are differences in the varying degrees of flexibility in the objects transported to these locations. Here we can also return to Bleed's (1986) dichotomy of maintainable vs. reliable technologies. I argued that it required a specialist to produce one of these core/bifaces because of the amount of skill and control necessary to remove flakes with the necessary regularity and precision. However, once produced, virtually any knapper could, with minimal effort and skill, resharpen and reshape one of these as desired. This, I would argue could characterise many reduction systems including fluted points (Ahler and Geib 2000). This also provides another dimension of variability between the "core" sites and the "biface" sites.
While I would argue that establishing the precise chronological placement for this reduction sequence is not necessarily required for meeting the goals of this study, this question can be addressed with some degree of confidence. All the assemblages used in this analysis were found in association with projectile points that are diagnostic of the early Holocene, Early
Archaic temporal horizon. While this alone could be dismissed as coincidental, I argue that the reduction sequence described in this dissertation is linked to and resulted in this type of diagnostic projectile point.
One topic not discussed prior to this point in this dissertation is the question of potential impacts of this study on the culture-historical taxonomy as presented in Table 1-1. Recently there has been a revived interest in questioning existing taxonomic systems with the goal of either restructuring the existing taxonomic system or, in at least some cases, eliminating the taxonomy altogether. While some potentially interesting "thought experiments" are possible in these debates (e.g., Williamson and Watts 1999), I am not sure that the benefits of revising or eliminating the established taxonomic systems outweigh the confusion that would result. Quite simply, the existing taxonomy in the northeast (e.g., Ellis and Ferris 1990; Ritchie 1965, 1980) is widely recognised and allows researchers to instantly assign diagnostic artifacts or assemblages 300 to an approximate chronological horizon and spatial distribution. I would certainly acknowledge that problems can emerge in assigning assemblages to one taxon vs. another as new knowledge is accumulated but I would argue that these inevitable uncertainties would be better used as opportunities for research. To paraphrase the "Whorf-Sapir" hypothesis, I do not see that the language of the current taxonomy as necessarily structuring our thought about these horizons.
To illustrate, I will discuss how this study could impact our existing taxonomy.
In Chapter 2,1 reviewed the history of knowledge of the Early Archaic in the lower Great
Lakes region. As should be expected, our knowledge of the Paleoindian and Archaic horizons have changed considerably since these concepts were introduced to the northeast and relatively few researchers are content with providing simplistic trait lists (e.g., Martin et al. 1947) as a means of understanding the past. Throughout much of the 20l century there was considerable doubt about whether there was even a recognisable Early Archaic presence in the lower Great
Lakes region. In hindsight, I would argue that this perception was entirely due to Early Archaic sites being low-density lithic scatters that remain difficult to identify except through reference to diagnostic "index fossil" artifacts. In the course of conducting this analysis, however, sites and site clusters were being discovered by the CRM firm I was working for faster than I could hope to incorporate them in this study and continue to be identified. Many of these have been recognised on the basis of the presence of the distinctive kinds of manufacturing debris discussed above and continued excavation or surface collections have almost inevitably produced diagnostic KCN projectile points in association with these relatively low-density scatters. The recognition of new sites from this technological horizon can be directly correlated to the choice of field techniques used and the analysis of the products of the distinctive pattern of lithic reduction. I have no doubt the same kinds of insights will be gained for other chronological horizons if similar appropriate efforts are made.
My point here is that our knowledge of the prehistoric past has been changing and being added to at a constant rate. Archaeological paradigms have come and gone since the discovery of fluted points in southern Ontario (Jackson et al. 1987) but our understanding of this horizon can be better described as cumulative (see Lamberg-Karlovsky 1993 for a comparable discussion). Indeed, our understanding of all chronological/technological horizons has changed considerably since these constructs were first put into place and we should expect that this process will continue regardless of what taxonomic system is used. I am not convinced, therefore, that imposing alternative taxonomic systems is necessarily either warranted or productive. Ultimately culture-historical taxonomic systems are typologies like any other used in archaeology and it should be expected that no one such typology can serve all purposes
(Adams and Adams 1991). Some may well be willing to argue that culture-historical typologies should be replaced with something more akin to attribute analyses and, for at least some questions that can be asked of the archaeological record, I would agree. However, in a manner analogous to the argument made by William Engelbrecht (1980:27), the existing culture- historical typologies serve to promote the rapid dissemination of ideas between researchers. I see no reason why these typologies need be considered any better or worse than any other.
With these considerations in mind, I will turn my attention to one suggested revision to the existing taxonomy referred to in Chapter 2. William Gardener (1974, 1977:258-261) argued that, with the exception of stylistic change in projectile points, which might be related to change in the method of hafting, there is abundant evidence of continuity between the Fluted Point 302
Horizon and the KCN Horizon in the Flint Run Complex. Given the results of this study,
Gardener's ideas are well worth returning to.
In this dissertation I argued that there are a number of distinctive attributes of the KCN
Projectile Point Horizon and I will now argue that they do include strong similarities to the
Fluted Point Horizon. First, while I have found no evidence as yet that KCN populations exploited Collingwood chert, the lithic reduction system described here was very dependant upon the availability of relatively massively deposited, high-quality, homogenous chert.
Furthermore, the lithic reduction system employed during the KCN Horizon was directed towards the production of a variety of tool forms through the planned reduction of chert blocks.
Certainly I argue that there are differences in precisely how the reduction of these chert blocks was organised and how the products of this reduction system were organised but of relevance here is that there are similarities as well. One strategic commonality between the Fluted Point and KCN horizons is the tactic of travelling with unfinished bifaces and flake tool blanks in addition to the finished tools in hand. Some sites from both Fluted Point and KCN horizons have produced assemblages that do not appear to have come from core reduction.
Secondly, one point of this dissertation was the argument that the KCN lithic reduction system featured a strong unidirectional or parallel, system of flake detachment. This pattern is observable in core reduction debris and the production of flake blanks, the flaking patterns seen on larger biface preforms and, I would argue, even on smaller biface preforms where the detached flakes would not have been usable as expedient flake tools because they are too small.
I would argue that this pattern of flake detachment could also be likened to fluted point horizon lithic reduction systems. As noted above, at least some Fluted Point Horizon assemblages did produce blade cores, the parallel flaking of bifaces and the production of long, flakes detached by unidirectional flaking. In fact, I would argue that the detachment of the channel flake itself, which produces the most diagnostic artifact of the horizon, can be likened in some ways to both classic blade production and to the Levallois method of core reduction. I would argue that these patterns of unidirectional flake detachment may be related (i.e., not necessarily the product of independent invention) but obviously represent very different applications of a common tactic.
Where these differ is in the significance (i.e., planned future use) of the object piece.
Nonetheless, there are also differences between Fluted Point Horizon sites and KCN sites. Aside from obvious differences in the style of the diagnostic artifacts (i.e., projectile points), which may be argued to reflect changes in the hafting style or types of weapon, there may also be differences in the residential mobility pattern. Site clusters like Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a), Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000) and Fisher (Storck 1997) may have been returned to repeatedly and been more like base camps from which logistic forays were launched.
However, at this point, we cannot rule out the possibility that these differences are also the product of differential sampling strategies. Fluted Point components may be more likely to be excavated, excavated more intensively and excavated using finer mesh screens. A viable direction for future research is reviewing past and present excavation methodologies and how they are applied in different contexts in order to assess how these are impacting our knowledge of the past.
In this dissertation, I have argued that much can be learned through a critical examination of low-density lithic scatters. Specifically, I examined a series of assemblages recovered during standard CRM investigations around the west end of Lake Ontario. Through a consideration of the ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological literature of hunter-gatherers and taking into account the field techniques employed, I argued that these assemblages most likely represent refuse 304 deposits of manufacturing debris. Consequently, the bulk of this dissertation was directed towards a technological analysis of this refuse in order to identify the chaine operatoire of the chipped lithic industry.
The vast majority of lithic analyses, particularly of the pre-ceramic technological horizons in southern Ontario, have been directed toward establishing and refining the culture history of the first 10,000 years of occupation. Certainly exceptions can be referred to including much of the more recent work on Paleoindian assemblages and an examination of Late Archaic lithic reduction (Ellis and Spence 1997) but these have been exceptions. To some degree, this dissertation was directed toward adding to this literature. However, my goal here was to direct attention away from the traditional "index fossils" (i.e., projectile points) and argue that the entire lithic reduction system may serve as a better and more reliable diagnostic marker of groups in space and time. The downside of this approach is that ultimately it requires attention also be focused on the lithic reduction systems of other groups in space and time.
Therefore, while in this dissertation I have presented a description of what I believe is the lithic reduction system of the KCN technological horizon in the Niagara Peninsula and around the west end of Lake Ontario, ultimately similar kinds of reconstructions will have to be done for other technological horizons in this area and beyond. While I would suspect it is unlikely that
"look-a-like" systems will be found at other times or in other places, this possibility will remain.
Of course, there are many other positive contributions to this type of study beyond providing another criteria for establishing the age of some archaeological assemblages. Through this technological analysis, I would argue that a great deal more has been learned about hunter- gatherers in the early Holocene in this part of the world. I believe I have demonstrated that these people followed a mobility pattern analogous to what has been identified for some early 20* century foragers. I believe that inferences have been generated regarding how they understood the demands they would face as they traversed this landscape and how their lithic reduction system was designed to meet these anticipated demands. The lithic reduction strategy of the
KCN technological horizon in this region was far from a haphazard, opportunistic system but was carefully designed for the provisioning of chipped stone tools far in advance of when they would be needed. This allowed for relatively long-distance movements of residential/domestic groups across the landscape in the absence of other groups from whom they might have been able to obtain significant amounts of replacement raw materials if needed. The lithic reduction system out-lined here was predictable enough to allow long-distance movement to where food resources might be found while at the same time flexible enough to meet the needs of most unanticipated contingencies.
Finally, while only briefly touched upon, there is the possibility that both "agency" and diachronic change can be addressed in further analyses of this technological horizon. Certainly account can be made for how variation in procured raw material could have been met and how some individuals may have addressed differences in individual skill or even individual stylistic preferences. The lithic reduction system out-lined here would not have been so rigid as to prevent individuals from adding or adopting new techniques or variations as they desired.
Similarly, I would expect that, as our database for this horizon expands, we will be able to examine variation due to such processes as the exhaustion of known outcrops of relatively high- quality raw material. For all of these questions, more assemblages and independent lines of critique and testing will only add to our understanding. I hope, therefore, that this study will be seen as merely an opening of doorways to understanding the past. 306
REFERENCES
Abel, T. J. 1990 Thebes Points. Kewa 90(8): 16.
Adams, W. Y., and E. W. Adams 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ahler, S. A., and P. R. Geib 2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(9):799-820.
(A. M. A.) A. M. Archaeological Associates 1999a The Excavation of the Upstairs Site (AiGw-303), Lot 4, Con. 1, City of Burlington, R. M. Halton. Unpublished licence report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto, Ont. 1999b The Excavation of the Downstairs Site (AiGw-302), Lot 4, Con. 1, City of Burlington, R. M. Halton. Unpublished licence report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto, Ont.
Amick, D. S., and R. P. Mauldin 1997 Effects of Raw Material on Flake Breakage Patterns. Lithic Technology 22(l):18-32.
Anderson, D. G. 1995 Paleoindian Interaction Networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by M. S. Nassaney and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 3-26. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 2001 Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:143-186.
Anderson, D. G., and J. C. Gillam 2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65(l):43-66. 2001 Paleoindian Interaction and Mating Networks: Reply to Moore and Moseley. American Antiquity 66(3):530-535.
Anderson, D. G., and G. T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286. 307
Anderson, D. G., S. T. Lee and A. R. Parler, Jr. 1981 Cal Smoak: Archaeological Investigations Along the Edisto River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Inc. Occasional Papers Number 1. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
Anderson, D., and K. E. Sassaman 1996b Modeling Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Historical Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 16-28. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, D. G., and K. E. Sassaman (editors) 1996a The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southest. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, D. G., and J. Schuldenrein 1983 Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope: A View from the Rucker's Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist 4(3): 177-210.
Anderson, J. B., R. S. Regis and J. R. Paquette 2004 Geoarchaeological Context for Late Palaeo-Indian Archaeology in the North- Central Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, pp. 251-274. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165, Ottawa.
Andrefsky, W., Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Lithic Technology. American Antiquity 59(1 ):21-34. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
(ASI) Archaeological Services Incorporated 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Wellingdale Subdivision 21T- 88055 Part of Lots 11,12 and 13, Concession 4, E.H.S. City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. Unpublished licence report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ont. 1994 Stage 3 Assessment of Sites AkGw-57 (Wellingdale), AkGw-58, and AkGw- 60 Subdivision 21T-88055 Part of Lots 11,12 and 13, Concession 4, E.H.S. City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. Unpublished licence report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ont.
Bamforth, D. B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(l):38-50. 308
1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56(2):216-234.
Barnard, A. 1992 Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa: A Comparative Ethnography of the Khoisan Peoples. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Binford, L. R. 1968 Methodological Considerations of the Archaeological Use of Ethnographic Data. In Man the Hunter, edited by R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 268-273. Aldine Publishing Company, New York. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp 24-36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12. Humanities press Inc., New Jersey. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255-273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(l):4-20. 1983 Long Term Land Use Patterns: Some Implications for Archaeology, in Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby. R. C. Dunnell and D. K. Grayson, eds. pp. 27-53. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 72.
Binford, L. R., and G. I. Quimby 1972 Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake Michigan Area. In An Archaeological Perspective, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 346-372. Seminar Press, New York.
Blades, B. S. 2003 End Scraper Reduction and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68(1):141-156.
Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737-747.
Boisvert, R. A., and G. N. Bennett 2004 Debitage Analysis of 27-HB-l, A Late Paleoindian/Archaic Stratified Site in Southern New Hampshire. Archaeology of Eastern North America 32:89-100.
Bonnichsen, R., and K. Turnmire 1999 An Introduction to the Peopling of the Americas. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americans, 309
edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-26. Oregon State University Press for the Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis.
Borstel, C. L. 1982 Archaeological Investigations at the Young Site, Alton, Maine. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, Number 2. The Maine Historical Preservation Commission, Augusta.
Bousman, C. B. 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18(l&2):59-86.
Brantingham, P. J. 2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American Antiquity 68(3):487-509.
Brennan, L. A. (editor) 1979 Symposium on the Early Archaic. The Bulletin No. 75.
Broyles, B. J. 1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of Archeological Investigations, Number 3. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown.
Brumbach, H. J., and R. Jarvenpa 1997 Ethnoarchaeology of Subsistence Space and Gender: A Subarctic Dene Case. American Antiquity 62(3):414-436.
Bryan, A. L., and D. R. Tuohy 1999 Prehistory of the Great Basin/Snake River Plain to about 8,500 Years Ago. In Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 249-263. Oregon State University Press for the Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Bullen, R. P. 1968 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Bursey, J. A. 1993 Archaeological Assessment and Excavation of the Kipling 1 (AkGv-112) and Kipling 2 (AkGv-113) Sites, Town of Vaughan. Unpublished licence report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ontario. 1995 The Transition from the Middle to Late Woodland Periods: A Re-Evaluation. In Origins of the People of the Longhouse, edited by A. Bekerman and G. 310
Warrick, pp. 43-54. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium, Ontario Archaeological Society. 1996 The Anderson Site (AfGx-54) and the Early and Middle Ontario Iroquoian Occupations of the Lower Grand River. Kewa 96-7:2-20. 1997 Stone Artifacts from the McQueen-McConnell Site, A Protohistoric Petun Village. Ontario Archaeology 63:85-100. 1998 Surface Collected Artifacts from the Murray 2 Site (AfGx-72), A Hi-Lo Component Near Cayuga, Ontario. Kewa 98-6:2-10. 2004 Women and Cabin Sites: Understanding the Iroquoian Economic System. North American Archaeologist 25(2): 161-187. 2006 Insights from End Scrapers: A Case Study from the Anderson Site on the Lower Grand River of Southern Ontario. Unpublished paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Byers, D. S. 1959 The Eastern Archaic: Some Problems and Hypotheses. American Antiquity 24(3):233-256.
Cable, J. S. 1996 Haw River Revisited: Implications for Modeling Terminal Late Glacial and Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems in the Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 107-148. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Callahan, E. 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flint-Knappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1-180. 1984 I Hate to Bicker But...: A Study of Microblade Cores With Obtuse Platform Angles. Lithic Technology 13(3):84-97.
Cameron, C. 1998 Coursed Adobe Architecture, Style, and Social Boundaries in the American Southwest. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 183-207. Smithsomian Institution Press, Washington.
Carr, K. W. 1974 The Fifty Site: A Stratified Early Archaic Processing Station. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-1973 Seasons. Occasional Publication Number 1, Archeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1992 A Distributional Analysis of Artifacts from the Fifty Site: A Flint Run Paleoindian Processing Station. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington. 1998a The Early Archaic Period in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 68(2):42-69. 311
1998b Archaeological Site Distributions and Patterns of Lithic Utilization During the Middle Archaic in Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period, edited by P. A. Raber, P. E. Miller and S. M. Neusius, pp. 77-90. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology Number 1, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Carr, P. J. 1994 Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp 35-44. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, Ann Arbor.
Chang, C. 1991 Refuse Disposal at an Inupiat Fish Camp: Ethnoarchaeological Implications of Site Formation Processes. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and L. D. Sutro, pp. 53-62. Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University.
Chapman, J. 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 14. 1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley -1975: Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 18. 1979 The Howard and Calloway Island Sites. The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 17. 1980 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods: A Perspective from Eastern Tennessee. In Proceedings of the Conference on Northeastern Archaeology, edited by J. A. Moore. University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Dept of Anthropology Research Report 19:123-132. 1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens Jr. and H. T. Ward, pp. 137-153. The University of Alabama Press, University. 1994 Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History, Revised Edition. Report of Investigations No. 43. Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Chapman, L. J., and D. F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.
Clark, J. E. 1991a Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and 312
L. D. Sutro, pp. 63-78. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. 1991b Modern Lacandon Lithic Technology and Blade Workshops. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer, pp. 251-265. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison.
Clarke, D. L. 1978 Analytical Archaeology. 2nd Edition. Columbia University Press: New York.
Cleland, C. E., and G. R. Peske 1968 The Spider Cave Site. In The Prehistory of the Burnt Bluff Area, edited by J. E. Fitting, pp. 20-60. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 34. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Coakley, J. P., and P. F. Karrow 1994 Reconstruction of Post-Iroquois Shoreline Evolution in Western Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 31:1618-1629.
Coe, J. L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 54, Part 5.The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Cole, J. R., L. R. Godfrey, R. E. Funk, J. T. Kirkland, and W. A. Starna 1977 On "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America". Current Anthropology 18(3):541-546.
Collins, M. B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 15-34. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
Cowan, F. 1999 Making Sense of Flake Scatters: Lithic technological Strategies and Mobility. American Antiquity 64(4):593-607.
Crabtree, D. E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum 28. 1975 Comments on Lithic Technology and Experimental Archaeology. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl Swanson, pp. 105- 114. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. 313
Crawford, G. W., and D. G. Smith 2003 Paleoethnobotany in the Northeast. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America, edited by P. E. Minnis, pp. 172-257. Smithsonian Books, Washington.
Cross, J. R. 1999 "By Any Other Name..." A Reconsideration of Middle Archaic Lithic Technology and Typology in the Northeast. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman and M. S. Nassaney, pp. 57-73. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.
Curran, M. L. 1999 Exploration, Colonization, and Settling In: The Bull Brook Phase, Antecedents, and Descendants. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman and M. S. Nassaney, pp. 3-24. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Conn.
Custer, J. F. 1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, editedy by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Special Publication No. 22 of the Archeological Society of Virginia, Archeological Society of Virginia. 1992 A Simulation Study of Plow Zone Excavation Sample Designs: How Much is Enough. North American Archaeologist 13(3):263-279. 1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series Number 7, Harrisburg.
Custer, J. F., and E. B. Wallace 1982 Patterns of Resource Distribution and Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the Piedmont Uplands of the Middle Atlantic Region. North American Archaeologist 3(2): 139-172.
Daniel, J. R. Jr. 1996 Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 84-91. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(2):237-265. 2002 Stratified Early-Middle Holocene Remains in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. In The Archaeology of Native North Carolina: Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, edited by J. M. Eastman, C. B. Rodning, and E. A. Boudreaux III, pp. 6- 11. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special Publication 7, Biloxi, Mississippi. 314
David, N., and C. Kramer 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Deal, M., and B. Hayden 1987 The Persistence of Pre-Columbian Lithic Technology in the Form of Glassworking. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 235-331. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Delcourt, H. R., and P. A. Delcourt 1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. G. Holloway, pp. 1-37. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas.
Deller, D. B. 1976 Paleo-Indian Locations on Late Pleistocene Shorelines, Middlesex County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 26:3-19. 1979 Paleo-Indian Reconnaissance in the Counties of Lambton and Middlesex, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 32:3-20. 1988 The Paleo-Indian Occupation of Southwestern Ontario: Distribution, Technology, and Social Organization. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal. 1989 Interpretation of Chert Type Variation in Paleoindian Industries, Southwestern Ontario. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. J. Ellis and J. C. Lothrop, pp. 191-220. Westview Press, Boulder.
Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis 1988 Early Palaeo-Indian Complexes in Southwestern Ontario. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by R. S. Laub, N. G. Miller and D. W. Steadman, pp. 251- 263. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Volume 33, Buffalo. 1992a Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 24. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1992b The Early Paleo-Indian Parkhill Phase in Southwestern Ontario. Man in the Northeast 44:15-54. 2001 Evidence for Late Paleoindian Ritual from the Caradoc Site (AfHj-104), Southwestern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 66(2):267-284.
Dibb, G. C. 2004 The Madina Phase: Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Occupation Along the Margins of the Simcoe Lowlands in South-Central Ontario. In The Late Palaeo- Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. 315
Hinshelwood, pp. 117-161. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Dibble, H. L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(4):299- 368.
Dillon (M. M. Ltd.) 1996 Kipling Interchange Sites Stage 4: Mitigation Report. Unpublished report submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ontario.
Dodd, C. F. 1997 The Trail Site: A Nettling Camp on the Grand River. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. J. Woodley and P. G. Ramsden, pp. 65-75. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton.
Dongoske, K. E., M. Yeatts, R. Anyon and T. J. Ferguson 1997 Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation: Hopi and Zuni Perspectives in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 62(4):600-608.
Drennan, R. D. 1996 Statistics for Archaeologists: A Commonsense Approach. Plenum Press, New York.
Dumont, E. M., and L. A. Dumont 1979 Of Paradigms and Projectile Points: Two Perspectives on the Early Archaic in the Northeast. The Bulletin 75:38-52.
Ebert, J. I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Eley, B. E., and P. H. von Bitter 1989 Cherts of Southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
Ellis, C. J. 1984 Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization in the Lower Great Lakes: A First Approximation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Frazer University, Burnaby, B.C. 2004a The Hi-Lo Component at the Welke-Tonkonoh Site, Area C. Kewa 04-5:1-19. 2004b Hi-Lo: An Early Lithic Complex in the Great Lakes Region. In The Late Palaeo- Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 57-83. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec. 316
Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller 1982 Hi-Lo Materials from Southwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 38:3-22. 1986 Post-Glacial Lake Nipissing Waterworn Assemblages from the Southeastern Huron Basin Area. Ontario Archaeology 45:39-60. 1988 Some Distinctive Paleo-Indian Tool Types from the Lower Great Lakes Region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13(2): 111-158. 1990 Paleoindians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-63. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, O.A.S. Number 5. 1991 A Small (but Informative) Early Archaic Component at the Culloden Acres Site, AreaB. Kewa 91(8):2-17. 2000 An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parkhill, Ontario. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 159. 2002 Excavations at the Caradoc Site (AfHj-104): A Late Paleo-Indian Ritual Artifact Deposit. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS No. 8, London.
Ellis, C. J., and N. Ferris (editors) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, O.A.S. Number 5.
Ellis, C. J., A. C. Goodyear, D. F. Morse and K. B. Tankersley 1998 Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Eastern North America. Quaternary International 49/50:151-166.
Ellis, C. J., I. T. Kenyon and M. W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society 5. London, Ontario.
Ellis, C. J., and M. W. Spence 1997 Raw Material Variation and the Organization of Small Point Archaic Lithic Technologies In Soulthwestern Ontario. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. J. Woodley and P. G. Ramsden, pp. 119-140. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton.
Ellis, C. J., S. Wortner and W. A. Fox 1991 Nettling: An Overview of an Early Archaic "Kirk Corner-Notched Cluster" Site in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:1-34.
Emerson, T. E., and D. L. McElrath 1983 A Settlement-Subsistence Model of the Terminal Late Archaic Archaic Adaptation in the American Bottom, Illinois. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 219-242. Academic Press, New York. 317
Engelbrecht, W. E. 1980 Methods and Aims of Ceramic Description, in Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference. C. F. Hayes III ed. pg. 27-29. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records No. 13.
Ferguson, J. P. 1995 The Haviland Site: The Early Archaic in Schoharie County. The Bulletin 110:1- 15.
Ferring, C. R. 1988 Technological Change in the Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. L. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 333-348. University Museum Symposium Series Volume 1, University Museum Monograph 54. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ferris, N. 1998 The Stage 4 Questionaire Results: Overview and Section A (Stage 3 Site-Specific Investigations). Out-Of-The-Field Notes 1:2-11.
Fiedel, S. J. 1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64(1):95-115. 2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(1): 1-37.
Figgins, J. D. 1927 The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27:229-239.
Fitting, J. E. 1963a The Hi-Lo Site: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in Michigan. Wisconsin Archaeologist 44(2):87-96. 1963b An Early Post Fluted Point Tradition in Michigan: A Distributional Analysis. Michigan Archaeologist 9:21-25. 1968 Environmental Potential and the Postglacial Readaptation in Eastern North America. American Antiquity 33(4):441-445. 1970 The Archaeology of Michigan: A Guide to the Prehistory of the Great Lakes Region. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.
Flenniken, J. J., and A. W. Raymond 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.
Fogelman, G. L. 1988 Projectile Point Typology for Pennsylvania and the Northeast. Fogelman Publishing Company, Turbotville, PA. 318
Ford, J. A., and G. R. Willey 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43(3):325-363.
Fowler, M. L. 1959 Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic Site in Southern Illinois. American Antiquity 24(3):257-270.
Fox, W. A. 1975 The Palaeo-Indian Lakehead Complex. In Canadian Archaeological Association - Collected Papers, March 1975, pp. 29-53. Historical Sites Branch, Research Report 6, Toronto. 1979a The Lakehead Complex - New Insights. In Collected Archaeological Papers, edited by D. S. Melvin, pp. 127-151. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Archaeological Research Report 13. Toronto. 1979b Southern Ontario Chert Sources. Unpublished Paper presented at the 11th Annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Quebec City, Quebec. 1980 Nettling Points. Kewa 80-2:7.
Funk, R. E. 1977 Early to Middle Archaic Occupations in Upstate New York. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R. E. Funk and C. F. Hayes III, pp. 21-29. Researches and Transactions of New York State Archaeological Association, Vol. XVII, Number 1. New York State Archeological Association, Rochester. 1979 The Early And Middle Archaic in New York as Seen From the Upper Susquehanna Valley. The Bulletin 75:23-38. 1998 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State, Volume II. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, N.Y.
Futato, E. M. 1983 Patterns of Lithic Resource Utilization in the Cedar Creek Reservoir Area. Southeastern Archaeology 2(2): 118-131.
Gamble, C. S., and W. A. Boismier (editors) 1991 Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. Ann Arbor.
Gardner, W. M. 1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons, edited by W. M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Occasional Publication Number 1, Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 319
1977 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and its Implications for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W. S. Newman and B. Salwen, pp. 257- 263. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288. 1983 Stop Me if You've Heard This One Before: The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex Revisited. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11:49-64. 1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 3:49-80. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Garrad, C. 1967 The Borden Site Designation Scheme Applied to Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 10:64-71. 1971 Ontario Fluted Point Survey. Ontario Archaeology 16:3-18.
Gifford, D. P. 1981 Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 365-438. Academic Press, New York.
Goodman, M. E. 1944 The Physical Properties of Stone Tool Materials. American Antiquity 9(4):415- 433.
Goodyear, A. C. 1993 Tool Kit Entropy and Bipolar Reduction: A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variability Among Paleo-Indian Sites in the Northeastern United States. North American Archaeologist 14(1): 1-23.
Gould, R. A., D. A. Koster and A. H. L. Sontz 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36(2): 149-169.
Gould, R. A., and S. Saggers 1985 Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look at Binford's Idea of Embeddedness in Archaeology. American Antiquity 50(1): 117-136.
Graham, M. 1994 Mobile Farmers: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Settlement Organization Among the Raramuri of Northwestern Mexico. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series 3, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 320
Gramly, R. M. 1980 Raw Materials Source Areas and "Curated" Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 45(4):823-833. 1984 Kill Sites, Killing Ground and Fluted Points at the Vail Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:110-121.
Gramly, R. ML, and R. E. Funk 1990 What is Known and Not Known About the Human Occupation of the Northeastern United States Until 10,000 B.P. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18:5-31.
Gramly, R. M., and C. Yahnig 1991 The Adams Site (15Ch90) and the Little River, Christian County, Kentucky, Clovis Workshop Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 10(2): 134-145.
Granger, J. E. Jr. 1978 Meadowood Phase Settlement Pattern in the Niagara Frontier Region of Western New York State. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 65.
Greenman, E. F. 1943 An Early Industry on a Raised Beach Near Killarney, Ontario. American Antiquity VIII(3):260-265. 1955 Wave Action at George Lake 1, Ontario. American Antiquity XX(4):376-377.
Griffin, P. B. 1979 [Review of] Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past, by J. E. Yellen. American Antiquity 44(1): 184-187.
Hamilton, S. 2004 Early Holocene Human Burials at Wapekeka (FUj-1), Northern Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 337-368. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Harpending, H., and H. Davis 1977 Some Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Ecology Derived from the Spatial Distribution of Resources. World Archaeology 8(3):275-286.
Harrison, C, E. Redepenning, C. L. Hill, G. Rapp, S. E. Aschenbrenner, J. K. Huber and S. C. Mulholland 1995 The Paleo-Indian of Southern St. Louis County, Minnesota: The Reservoir Lakes Complex. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 321
Hayden, B. 1987a Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatamala Using Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 8-119. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hayden, B. (editor) 1987b Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Healan, D. M. 1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci With Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach. American Antiquity 60(4):689-699.
Henriksen, G. 1973 Hunters in the Barrens: The Naskapi of the Edge of the White Man's World. Newfoundland Social and Economic Restudies No. 12. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns.
Hill, J. N., and R. K. Evans 1972 A Model for Classification and Typology, in Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 231-273. Methuen & Co., London.
Hinshelwood, A. 2004 Archaic Reoccupation of Late Paleo-Indian Sites in Northwestern Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 225-249. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Hitchcock, R. K., and L. E. Bartram 1998 Social Boundaries, Technical Systems, and the Use of Space and Technology in the Kalahari. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 12-49. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Holloway, R. G., and V. M. Bryant, Jr. 1985 Late-quaternary Pollen Records and Vegetational History of the Great Lakes Region: United States and Canada. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. G. Holloway, pp. 205-245. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas.
Howard, E. B. 1934 Grooved Spearpoints. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3 (6): 11 -15.
Hughes, S. S. 322
1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(4):345-408.
Hull, K. L. 1987 Identification of Cultural Site Formation Processes Through Microdebitage Analysis. American Antiquity 52(4):772-783.
Ingbar, E. E. 1994 Lithic Material Selection and Technological Organization. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp 45-56. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, Ann Arbor.
Inizan, M.-L., H. Roche and J. Tixier 1992 Technology of Knapped Stone. CREP, Meudon.
Jackson, L. J. 1998a The Sandy Ridge and Halstead Paleo-Indian Sites: Unifacial Tool Use and Gainey Phase Definition in South-Central Ontario. Memoirs Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 32. Ann Arbor. 1998b The Plainville Point: Description of a Late Paleo-Indian Type. Current Research in the Pleistocene 15:23-25. 2004 Changing Our Views of Late Palaeo-Indian in Southern Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 25-56. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Jackson, L. J., and H. McKillop 1991 Approaches to Palaeo-Indian Economy: An Ontario and Great Lakes Perspective. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 16(l):34-68.
Jackson, L. J., H. McKillop and S. Wurtzburg 1987 The Forgotten Beginning of Canadian Palaeo-Indian Studies, 1933 - 1935. Ontario Archaeology 47:5-18
Jackson, L. J., and D. Morrison 1997 The Early Archaic of Ancaster: Meadowbrook Knoll, a Haldimand Chert Preform Reduction Site. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. J. Woodley and P. Ramsden, pp. 29-46. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton.
Jamieson, S. M. 1977 The Analytic Importance of Chipping Debris. Arch-Notes 77(6):7-9. Janusas, S. E., S. M. Blasco, S. McClellan and J. Lusted 2004 Prehistoric Drainage and Archaeological Implications Across the Submerged Niagara Escarpment North of Tobermory, Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 303-314. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Jarvenpa, R. 1980 The Trappers of Patuanak: Toward A Spatial Ecology of Modern Hunters. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service, Paper No. 67, Ottawa.
Jarvis, H. W. 1990 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Onondaga Chert in the Niagra Frontier. Ontario Archaeology 51:3-15.
Jelinek, A. J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 19-33. Academic press, New York.
Johnson, J. K. 1979 Archaic Biface Manufacture: Production Failures, A Chronicle of the Misbegotten. Lithic Technology 8(2):25-35. 2000 Beads, Microdrills, Bifaces, and Blades from Watson Brake. Southeastern Archaeology 19(2):95-104.
Johnson, R. B., and K. Cassavoy 1978 The Fishweirs at Atherley Narrows, Ontario. American Antiquity 43(4):697- 709.
Jones, G. T., C. Beck and D. K. Grayson 1989 Measures of Diversity and Expedient Lithic Technologies. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones, pp. 69-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jones, G. T., D. K. Grayson and C. Beck 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages, in Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby. R. C. Dunnell and D. K. Grayson eds. pg. 55-73. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 72.
Jones, S. 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London. 324
Julig, P. J. 1984 Cummins Paleo-Indian Site and its Paleoenvironment, Thunder Bay, Canada. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:192-209. 1994 The Cummins Site Complex and Paleoindian Occupations in the Northwestern Lake Superior Region. Ontario Archaeological Reports 2, Ontario Heritage Foundation, Toronto. 2002a Archaeological Conclusions from the Sheguiandah Site Research. In The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at a Paleoindian Site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, edited by P. J. Julig, pp. 297- 314. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 161. Ottawa.
Julig, P. J. (editor) 2002b The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at a Paleoindian Site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 161. Ottawa.
Julig, P. J., and W. C. Mahaney 2002 Geoarchaeological Studies of the Sheguiandah Site and Analysis of Museum Collections. In The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at a Paleoindian Site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, edited by P. J. Julig, pp. 101-137. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 161. Ottawa.
Justice, N. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University press, Bloomington.
Kalin, J. 1981 Stem Point Manufacture and Debitage Recovery. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9:134-175.
Kamp, K. A. 1991 Waste Disposal in a Syrian Village. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and L. D. Sutro, pp. 23-31. Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University.
Karrow, P. F., and B. G. Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, eds. pg. 5 - 35. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, O. A. S. Number 5. 325
Kelly, R. L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277-306. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734.
Kent, S., and H. Vierich 1989 The Myth of Ecological Determinism - Anticipated Mobility and Site Spatial Organization. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, pp 96-130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kenyon, I. T. 1978 The 1977 Salvage Excavations at the George Davidson Site (AhHk-54). Conservation Archaeology Report, Southwestern Region, Report Number 3. London. 1979 The 1978 Salvage Excavations at the George Davidson Site (AhHk-54). Conservation Archaeology Report, Southwestern Region, Report Number 3. London. 1980a The George Davidson Site: An Archaic "Broadpoint" Component in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8:11-28. 1980b The Satchell Complex in Ontario: A Perspective from the Ausable Valley. Ontario Archaeology 34:17-43. 1989 Terminal Archaic Projectile Points in Southwestern Ontario: An Exploratory Study. Kewa 89(l):2-20.
Kenyon, I. T., and P. A. Lennox 1996 Missing the Point: A Consideration of Survey Strategies in Small Sites Archaeology. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Kingston, Ontario.
Kimball, L. R. 1993 Rose Island Revisited: The Detection of Early Archaic Site Structure Using Grid- Count Data. Southeastern Archaeology 12(2):93-116. 1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 149-186. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Kinsey, W. F. Ill 1972 Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Anthropological Series Number 2, The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Kroll, E. M., and T. D. Price (editors) 1991 The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York. Kuhn, S. L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3):426-442. 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1993 The Biography of an Object: The Intercultural Style Vessels of the Third Millennium B.C. In History From Things: Essays On Material Culture, edited by S. Lubar and W. D. Kingery, pp. 270-292. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Lee, R. B., and I. DeVore (editors) 1976 Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbours. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, T. E. 1953 A Preliminary Report on the Sheguiandah Site, Manitoulin Island. National Museum of Canada Bulletin No. 128:58-67. 1954 The First Sheguiandah Expedition, Manitoulin Island, Ontario. American Antiquity 20(2): 101-111. 1955 The Second Sheguiandah Expedition, Manitoulin Island, Ontario. American Antiquity 21(1):63-71. 1957 The Antiquity of the Sheguiandah Site. The Canadian Field Naturalist 71(3):117-137.
Lemonnier, P. 1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186. 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology, Vol. 88. University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lennox, P. A. 1990 The Canada Century Site: A Lamoka Component located on the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 5:31-52. 1993 The Kassel and Blue Dart Sites: Two Components of the Early Archaic, Bifurcate Base Projectile Point Tradition, Waterloo County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 56:1-31. 2000 The Rentner and McKean Sites: 10,000 Years of Settlement on the Shores of Lake Huron, Simcoe County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 70:16-65.
Lepper, B. T. 1999 Pleistocene Peoples of Midcontinental North America. In Ice Age People in North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnischen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 362-394. Oregon State University Press for the Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon. 327
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1989 The Hunters of Prehistory. Athenium, New York.
Lewis, T. M. N., and M. Kneberg Lewis 1961 Eva: An Archaic Site. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Lowery, D. L. 2002 The Edgefield Scraper and the Waller Knife on the Delmarva Penninsula: A Comparative Study. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 18:37-55.
Lowery, D., and J. F. Custer 1990 Crane Point: An Early Archaic Site in Maryland. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 6:75-120.
Lynch, T. F. 1983 The Paleo-Indians. In Ancient South Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 87-137. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.
McAndrews, J. H. 1994 Pollen Diagrams for Southern Ontario Applied to Archaeology. In Great Lakes Archaeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives for the Nineties, edited by R. I. MacDonald, pp. 179-195. The Quaternary Sciences Institute, Waterloo, Ontario.
MacDonald, J. D. A. 1997 The Deercrest Site: A Late Archaic Collingwood Chert Assemblage. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. J. Woodley and P. Ramsden, pp. 89- 96. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown, Ontario.
McMillan, K. E. 2003 Hafted Diagnostic End Scrapers from the Nettling Site: Assessing Technological Change in the Palaeoindian - Early Archaic Transition. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Western Ontario, London.
MacNeish, R. S. 1952 A Possible Early Site in the Thunder Bay District, Ontario. In Annual Report of the National Museum of Canada for the Fiscal Year 1950-51, pp. 23-47. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 126. Department of Resources and Development, Ottawa, Canada.
Malainey, M. E., R. Przybylski and B. L. Sherriff 2001 One Person's Food: How and Why Fish Avoidance May Affect the Settlement and Subsistence Patterns of Hunter-Gatherers. American Antiquity 66(1): 141- 161. 328
Martin, P. S., G. I. Quimby and D. Collier 1947 Indians Before Columbus: 20,000 Years of North American History Revealed by Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Mason. R. J. 1962 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 3(3):227-274.
Mayer, Poulton and Associates Inc. 1989 The Archaeological Facility Master Plan Study for the Town of Vaughan. Unpublished report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
Mayer-Oakes, W. J. 1984 Fluted Projectile Points - A North American Shibboleth Viewed in South American Perspective. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:231-247.
Meltzer, D. J. 1989 Was Stone Exchanged Among Eastern North American Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. J. Ellis and J. C. Lothrop, pp. 11- 39. Westview Press, Boulder.
Meltzer, D. J., and B. D. Smith 1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by S. W. Neusius, pp. 3-31. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 6. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Moore, J. H., and M. E. Moseley 2001 How Many Frogs Does It Take to Leap Around the Americas? Comments on Anderson and Gillam. American Antiquity 66(3):526-529.
Morrow, J. E. 1997 End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22(l):70-85)
Morrow, J. E., and T. A. Morrow 1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective. American Antiquity 64(2):215-230.
Morrow, T. M. 1996 Lithic Refitting and Archaeological Site Formation Processes: A Case Study from the Twin Ditch Site, Greene County, Illinois. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 345-373. Plenum Press, New York. 329
Mounier, R. A., J. Cresson and J. W. Martin 1993 New Evidence of Paleoindian Biface Fluting from the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jersey at 28-OC-100. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:1-23.
Muller, J. 1989 A "Smallpoint" Archaic Component at the Welke-Tonkonoh Site, Ontario. Kewa 98(3):3-22.
Murray, A. 1991 An Archaeological Assessment and Mitigation of the Highway 407 and Kipling Avenue Interchange. Unpublished licence report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ont. 1997 The Ageing Maple Site: The Importance of Being Small. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. J. Woodley and P. Ramsden, pp. 59-63. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Dundas, Ontario.
Murray, P. 1980 Discard Location: The Ethnographic Data. American Antiquity 45(3):490-502.
Nance, J. D. 1986 The Morrisroe Site: Projectile Point Types and Radiocarbon Dates from the Lower Tennessee River Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ll(l):ll-50. 1987 The Archaic Sequence in the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland-Ohio Region. Southeastern Archaeology 6(2): 129-140.
(N.D.A.) New Directions Archaeology Ltd. 1999a The Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Empire Greens Golf and Country Club Ltd., Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (Z- HA-15/98). Unpublished licence report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ont. 1999b Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Empire Greens Golf and Country Club Ltd., regional Municipality of Haldimand Norfolk (Z-HA-15/98). Unpublished licence report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ont. 2002 Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Garth Trails Development Property, City of Hamilton (25T-200104). Unpublished licence report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ont.
Nelson, M. C. 1987 Site Content and Structure: Metate Quarries and Workshops in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 120-147. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 330
Nelson, R. K. 1973 Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival Among the Alaskan Kutchin. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
O'Brien, M. J., and R. L. Lyman 1999 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Odell, G. H. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90(2):335-356. 1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-Gatherer to Agricultural Villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 10, Ann Arbor.
Pagoulatos, P. 2003 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns of New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North America 31:15-43.
Parker, L. R. 1986a Haldimand Chert and its Utilization During the Early Holocene Period in Southwestern Ontario. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University. 1986b Haldimand Chert: A Preferred Raw Material in Southwestern Ontario During the Early Holocene Period. Kewa 86(4):4-21.
Parkins, W. G. 1977 Onondaga Chert: Geological and Palynological Studies as Applied to Archaeology. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Geology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario.
Parry, W. J. 1989 The Relationship Between Lithic Technology and Changing Mobility Strategies in the Middle Atlantic Region. In New Approaches to Other Pasts, edited by W. F. Kinsey, III and R. W. Moeller, pp. 29-34. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, Conn.
Pearce, R. J. 2001 Consulting Activities Undertaken in 2000 by the London Museum of Archaeology. Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario. 12:14-18. 2002 Consulting Activities Undertaken in 2001 by the London Museum of Archaeology. Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario. 13:6-9. 331
Perles, C. 1992 In Search of Lithic Strategies: A Cognitive Approach to Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages. In Representations in Archaeology, edited by J.-C. Gardin and C. S. Peebles, pp. 223-247. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Peterson, N. (editor) 1976 Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Australia Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Social Anthropology Series No. 10. Humanities Press Inc. Canbarra.
Phillips, B. A. M., and C. L. Hill 2004 Deglaciation History and Geomorphological Character of the Region Between the Agassiz and Superior Basins, Associated with the 'Interlakes Composite' of Minnesota and Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, pp. 275-301. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165, Ottawa.
Phillips, B. A. M., and B. Ross 1995 The Glacial Period and Early Peoples. In Thunder Bay: from Rivalry to Unity, edited by T. J. Tronrud and A. E. Epp, pp. 2-15. The Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society.
Pilon, J.-L., and L. Dalla Bona 2004 Insights into the Early Peopling of Northwestern Ontario as Documented at the Allen Site (EcJs-1), Sioux Lookout District, Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 315-335. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Gatineau, Quebec.
Pi-Sunyer, O. 1965 The Flint Industry. In The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics, edited by O. H. Prufer, pp. 60-89. Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, New Series, Volume 4, Number 1.
Pollock, J. W. 1975 Algonquian Culture Development and Archaeological Sequences in Northeastern Ontario. Canadian Archaeological Association, Bulletin No. 7, pp. 1-53.
Quimby, G. I. 1960 Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes: 11,000 to A.D. 1800. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 332
Raber, P. A., P. E. Miller and S. M. Neusius (editors) 1998 The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology Number 1, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Raemsch, B. E., and W. W. Vernon 1977 Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America. Current Anthropology 18(l):97-99.
Rainey, M. L. 2005 Middle Archaic Period Settlement and Lithic Use in Upper Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 33:127-140.
Reinhart, T. R, and M. E. N. Hodges (editors) 1990 Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Council of Virginia Archaeologists, Special Publication No. 22 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Ridington, R. 1982 Technology, World View, and Adaptive Strategy in a Northern Hunting Society. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 19(4):469-481. 1983 From Artifice to Artifact: Stages in the Industrialization of a Northern Hunting People. Journal of Canadian Studies 18(3):55-66.
Ritchie, W. A. 1932 The Lamoka Lake Site. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association, Vol. 7, No. 4. Rochester. 1938 A Perspective of Northeastern Archaeology. American Antiquity 4(2):94-l 12. 1965 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 1971a The Archaic in New York. Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological Association 52:2-12. 1971b A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum Bulletin Number 384. 1980 The Archaeology of New York State, Revised Edition. Harbor Hill Books: Harrison.
Ritchie, W. A., and R. E. Funk 1971 Evidence for Early Archaic Occupations on Staten Island. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41(3):45-59. 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 20, Albany.
Roberts, A. C. B. 333
1985 Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 132.
Rondeau, M. F. 1996 When is an Elko? In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 229-243. Plenum Press, New York.
Roosa, W. B., and C. J. Ellis 2000 Fluted Bifaces and Other Bifacial Tools. In An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parkhill, Ontario, by C. J. Ellis and D. B. Deller, pp. 67-96. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 159. Ottawa.
Sassaman, K. E. 1993a Early Woodland Settlement in the Aiken Plateau: Archaeological Investigations at 38AK157, Savannah River Site, Aiken County, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 3. University of South Carolina. 1993b Early Pottery in the Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1994 Changing Strategies of Biface Production in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 99-117. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, Ann Arbor. 1999 [Review of] Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast, by I. R. Daniel Jr. American Antiquity 64(4):702-704.
Sassaman, K. E., G. T. Hanson and T. Charles 1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79-94.
Schiffer, M. B. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Schlanger, N. 1994 Mindful Technology: Unleashing the Chaine Operatoire for an Archaeology of Mind. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. Zubrow, pp. 143-151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sellet, F. 1993 Chaine Operatoire: The Concept and its Application. Lithic Technology 18(1&2):106-112. 334
Service, E. R. 1966 The Hunters. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Shafer, H. J., and T. R. Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48(3):519-543.
Shane, O. C. Ill 1967 The Mixter Site: A Multicomponent Locality in Erie County, Ohio. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O. H. Prufer and D. H. McKenzie, pp. 121-186. The Press of Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
Shen, C. 1999 Were "Utilized Flakes" Utilized? An Issue of Lithic Classification in Ontario Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology 68:63-73. 2000 Tool Use-Patterning at the Grand Banks Site of the Princess Point Complex, Southwestern Ontario. Northeast Anthropology 60:63-87.
Sherwood, S. C, and J. Chapman 2005 The Identification and Potential Significance of Early Holocene Prepared Clay Surfaces: Examples from Dust Cave and Icehouse Bottom. Southeastern Archaeology 24(l):70-82.
Sherwood, S. C, B. N. Driskell, A. R. Randall and S. C. Meeks 2004 Chronology and Stratigraphy at Dust Cave, Alabama. American Antiquity 69(3):533-554.
Shott, M. J. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42(1):15-51. 1989 Bipolar Industries: Ethnographic Evidence and Archaeological Implications. North American Archaeologist 10(1): 1-24. 1991 Archaeological Implications of Revisionism in Ethnography. In Foragers in Context: Long-Term, Regional, and Historical Perspectives in Hunter- Gatherer Studies, edited by Preston T. Miracle, Lynn E. Fisher and Jody Brown, pp 31-40. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology Volume 10. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1992 On Recent Trends in the Anthropology of Foragers: Kalahari Revisionism and its Archaeological Implications. Man (N.S.) 27:843-871. 1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Memoir No. 25. Ann Arbor. 2003 Chaine Operatoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28(2):95-105.
Simek, J. F. 335
1994 The Organization of Lithic Technology and Evolution: Notes from the Continent. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 118-122. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, Ann Arbor.
Sinclair, A. 2000 Constellations of Knowledge: Human Agency and Material Affordance in Lithic Technology. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 196-212. Routledge, London.
Smith, E. E. Jr. 1995 The Swan's Landing Site (12HR304): An Early Archaic (Kirk Horizon) Site in Harrison County, South-Central Indiana. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 20(2): 192-238.
Smith, J. G. E. 1981 Chipewyan. In Subarctic, edited by June Helm, pp. 271-284. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6. W. C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian institution, Washington.
Smith, K. P., N. O'Donnell and J. D. Holland 1998 The Early and Middle Archaic in the Niagara Frontier: Documenting the "Missing Years" in Lower Great Lakes Prehistory. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 36:1-79.
Snow, D. R. 1994 The Iroquois. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Cambridge.
Spence, M. W., and W. A. Fox 1986 The Early Woodland Occupations of Southern Ontario, in Early Woodland Archaeology. K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, eds. pg. 4 - 46. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology, No. 2.
Spiess, A., and M. Heddon 2000 Avon: A Small Paleoindian Site in the Western Maine Foothills. Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:63-79.
Spiess, A. E., D. Wilson and J. W. Bradley 1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes Region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:201-264.
Stanford, D. 1999 Paleoindian Archaeology and Late Pleistocene Environments in the Plains and Southwestern United States. In Ice Age People in North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnischen and K. L. 336
Turnmire, pp. 281-339. Oregon State University Press for the Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Stark, M. T. (editor) 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Staski, E., and L. D. Sutro (editors) 1991 The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No. 42.
Storck, P. L. 1979 A Report on the Banting and Hussey Sites: Two Palaeo-Indian Campsites in Simcoe County, Southern Ontario. National Museum of Canada, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper No. 93. 1982 Palaeo-Indian Settlement Patterns Associated with the Strandline of Glacial Lake Algonquin in Southcentral Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6:1-31. 1997 The Fisher Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Southern Ontario, Canada. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 30, Ann Arbor. 2002 Projectile Points from the Sheguiandah Site. In The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at a Paleoindian Site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, edited by P. J. Julig, pp. 139-154. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 161. Ottawa. 2004 Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering an Ancient World. ROM and UBC Press, Toronto.
Storck, P. L., P. J Barnett, L. D. Delorme, S. G. Moncton, J. Tomenchuk and P. H. von Bitter 1998 Possible Ecological Factors Affecting Early Paleo-Indian Procurement Strategies of Fossil Hill Chert in Southern Ontario. In Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario, edited by D. Doroszenko, pp. 123-127. Vol. 8 (New Series), Ontario Heritage Foundation, Toronto.
Storck, P. L., and A. E. Spiess 1994 The Significance of New Faunal Identifications Attributed to an Early Paleoindian (Gainey Complex) Occupation at the Udora Site, Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 59(1): 121-142.
Storck, P. L., and P. H. von Bitter 1981 The Search Changes Direction: Ice Age Man in Ontario. Rotunda 14(3):28-36. 1989 The Geological Age and Occurrence of Fossil Hill Formation Chert: Implication for Early Paleoindian Settlement Patterns. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. J. Ellis and J. C. Lothrop, pp. 165-189. Westview Press, Boulder. 337
Stothers, D. M. 1996 Resource Procurement and Band Territories: A Model for Lower Great Lakes Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement Systems. Archaeology of Eastern North America 24:173-216.
Straus, L. G. 2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality. American Antiquity 65(2):219-226.
Sullivan, A. P. Ill, and K. C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4):755-779.
Surovell, T. A. 2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American Antiquity 65(3):493-508.
Sutro, L. D. 1991 When the River Comes: Refuse Disposal in Diaz Ordaz, Oaxaca. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and L. D. Sutro, pp. 13-22. Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University.
Tankersley, K. B. 1998 Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene Eastern North America. American Antiquity 63(l):7-20.
Timmins, P. A. 1994 Alder Creek: A Paleo-Indian Crowfield Phase Manifestation in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 19(2): 170-197. 1995 Stelco 1: A Late Paleo-Indian Hi-Lo Site in the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario. Kewa 95-5:2-22. 1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 156, Ottawa.
Torrence, R. 1979 Macrocore Production at the Melos Obsidian Quarries. Lithic Technology VIII(3):51-60. 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.
Trachman, R. M. 1999 An Additional Technological Perspective on Obsidian Polyhedral Core Platform Rejuvenation. Lithic Technology 24(2): 119-125. 338
Trigger, B. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tuck, J. A. 1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2(l):72-80.
Van Peer, P. 1992 The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 13. Prehistory Press, Madison.
VanStone, J. W. 1965 The Changing Culture of the Snowdrift Chipewyan. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 209. von Bitter, P. H., and B. Eley 1984 Balsam Lake Chert from the Upper Member of the Middle Ordovician Bobcaygeon Formation of Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 8(2): 135-148. 1997 Fossil Hill Formation Chert at the Fisher Site: Geological Source and Significance. In The Fisher Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Southern Ontario, Canada, by P. L. Storck, pp. 223-235. Memoirs, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 30. Ann Arbor.
Wall, R. D. 1992 Lithic Resource Utilization in Western Maryland Prehistory. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 8:1-9.
Warrick, G. 1994 An Archaeological Assessment of Highway 407 (Steeles Ave. - Humber River) (W.P. 371-87-00; 370-87-00; 88-78-01). Unpublished licence report on file at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Ont.
Wesler, K. W. 1983 Typology and Sequence in the Maryland Archaic. Southeastern Archaeology 2(l):21-29.
Whallon, R. Jr. 1973 Spatial Analysis of Palaeolithic Occupation Areas. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 115-130. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
White, A. A. 2006 A Model of Paleoindian Hafted Biface Chronology in Northeastern Indiana. Archaeology of Eastern North America 34:29-59. 339
Whittaker, J. C. 1987 Making Arrowpoints in a Prehistoric Pueblo. Lithic Technology 16(1): 1-12. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253-276.
Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff 1974 A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
Williamson, R. F. 1999 Toward a Grounded Archaeology. In Taming the Taxonomy: Towards a New Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology, edited by R. F. Williamson and C. M. Watts, pp. 3-8. Eastendbooks, Toronto.
Williamson, R. F., and C. M. Watts (editors) 1999 Taming the Taxonomy: Towards a New Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology. Eastendbooks, Toronto.
Wilson, J., B. Wimmer and A. Figura 1997 Cherry Hill: A Kirk Corner-Notched Site at Fonthill, Ontario. Kewa 97-7:2-12.
Wittkofski, J. M., and T. R. Reinhart (editors) 1989 Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Council of Virginia Archaeologists, Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Wobst, H. M. 1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):303-309.
Woodley, P. J. 1996 The Early Archaic Occupation of the Laphroaig Site, Brant County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 62:39-62. 1997 The Witz and Koeppe II Sites, Ancaster, and the Hi-Lo Occupation of Southern Ontario. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by P. I. Woodley and P. Ramsden, pp. 149-171. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Dundas, Ontario. 2004 Fowler Site: A Holcombe Camp Near Lake Simcoe, Ontario. In The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 163-199.Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165. Ottawa. 340
Wright, J. V. 1972 Ontario Prehistory: An Eleven-Thousand-Year Archaeological Outline. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1978 The Implications of Probable Early and Middle Archaic Projectile Points from Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2:59-78. 1979 Quebec Prehistory. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1995 A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume 1 (10,000 - 1,000 B.C.) Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 152.
Wyckoff, D. G. 1985 The Packard Complex: Early Archaic, Pre-Dalton Occupations on the Prairie- Woodlands Border. Southeastern Archaeology 4(1): 1-26.
Wylie, A. 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 63-111. Academic Press, Orlando.
Yellen, J. E. 1977a Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press: New York. 1977b Long Term Hunter-Gatherer Adaptation to Desert Environments: A Biogeographical Perspective. World Archaeology 8(3):262-274.
Yerkes, R. W. 1994 A Consideration of the Function of Ohio Hopewell Bladelets. Lithic Technology 19(2):109-127. 341
Figure 1-1: Location of Kirk Corner-notched Sites around the East End of Lake Ontario 342
Figure 4-1: The Garth Trails Sites 343
Ringtail site
%
\ SX rj] Flake count by one-metre square -V CSP artifact location • Original Findspot \ 0 5 10m taw | | | \ )T "',"",.',' '")
Figure 4-2: The Ringtail Site (AhGx-442) Flake Distribution 344
0 1 2 3 4 niiiiiiimiiiinliiimiiiiiiriiiiii
Figure 4-3: Ringtail Site Cores 345
Ringtail site
w P
A\S
tfWr
-V-
• Points 395+ H Cores a • Utilized Flakes \ 0 Un if aces 390 + • Bifaces • Original Testpit 0 5 10m
Figure 4-4: Distribution of Cores and Tools Across the Ringtail Site 0 1 2 3 4c liiiiiinilimimiliiniiiiiliiiiiiiiil
Figure 4-5: Ringtail Site Core Tablet Flakes 347
0 12 3 4ciri 0 12 3 4cnd 0 12 3 4cm lniDiiiimimniliimnulmiiiitiJ uiiiii!Jiiiiiiiuiiiumij.uJijiu^ uiii.iiiiiltiiiiiiiil.umini[i.iiiiiml
0 12 3 4 uiini.iiili.i)uniiljiiiH,n,ilumm.i.
Figure 4-6: Ringtail Site Platform Trimming Flakes 348
0 12 3 4cm 0 12 3 4cm iHiniiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiniliiiniuil liiniiiiiliitiHinlriiiiiiidiiiiJiLiil
0 1 2 3 4c
Figure 4-7: Ringtail Site Finished Formal Tools 349
Figure 4-8: Ringtail Site Broad Bifaces 350
0 12 3 4 5cm
Figure 4-9: Ringtail Site Narrow Bifaces 351
Current Site
(3 Flake count by one-metre square CSP artifact location * Original Findspot 0 J 10m 1:400
Figure 4-10: The Current Site (AhGx-445) Flake Distribution 352
0 12 3 4c: 0 1 2 3 4cni kmiiiiiWiiiiiW^ milll'i'liiiiinitliniiiiiilmiiiiiil ' 0 1 liiUliiiliiUiiiU.iiliiliiiiliill.UMlJ
0123 4cm 0 123 4cm q i 2 3 4pm
|l|llHlltlmillllllllllllllll)..UlLlllll I III ili III! i Mill ililLLllUiiilllimiiJj ILLUlimiLUlliiiiUiliUiiiiliiJlinJ
Figure 4-11: Current Site Cores 353
Current Site
• Points El Cores • Utilized Flakes 0 Unifaces • Bifaces • CSP artifact location ' Original Findspot
Figure 4-12: Distribution of Cores and Formal Tools Across the Current Site 354
0 1 2 3 4cm 0 l 2 3 4cm 0 1 2 3 4cd Ummn 11HJUH-vh-|limiiLiiJLLLULtJ- . Infiriiiiluimiiiliiiuiiifliniiiiiil liiliiiilitlllJl
0 1 2 3 4ei^ llllUllt[JuUJJLLil,lil.lllllitlil.l.LIIlLl 0 1 2 3 4cm
Figure 4-13: Current Site Utilised Flakes 355
0 1 2 3 4cm 0 1 2 3 4cm 0 12 3 4cm biijiiitiiiuii^^ ujiiiiHijiiijiiiitJjjjjjjiiiliijjijjjjj miiiiinmmiiiiliiiimiilimniiil
a b c
2 3 4emi IlllllltlllllUI Hlliiilil 0 1 2 3 4cm] iliUiJl HIIIIHI
Figure 4-14: Current Site Formal Tools 356
0 1 2 3 4cm 0 12 3 4cm iiiimiiliiiiiimiiiiiiiHiliiiiiiii llilJlllllljJiJIIliiliJiIUiJUIllJtl.liil
b
Figure 4-15: "Number 18" Site Artifacts 357
•O D D
Upstairs Site
FT O H D 2BF tr e • D • • • D 290 295 300 • • • ,D n ^. FT • BF BF 2BF FT BF
BB Blface blank BB 3BF BF BF Biface fragment 2FT BB BU Burin BF 2BF FT i SC Scraper 585 585 n FT D FT Flake tool FT BB 2BF FT 0 1 2 3m FT FT n Projectile Points BF 2BF BF | BF FT BF • SC 2 FT BF
BU • •1 580 295 300
Figure 4-16: Distribution of Tools Across the Upstairs Site 358
Figure 4-17: Upstairs Site Unidirectional Flakes 359
4cm
Figure 4-18: Upstairs Site Small Bifaces 360
Figure 4-19: Upstairs Site Large Bifaces and Formal Tools 361
wwri—---'-'-y •,; •'» ••^•»-^-n——J. .- -jf fir / 1 i 1 &>*v
,*~ L * • •• ft •" • H ! *: • * I till; /••* 7' fl* % -^ i J' f «i
X' * o* • -^ _^—...., Av\' • . „ * ofc'----•"*s- -B-^;-ys. • X
i*' «V •• • •• •-. " * *- • IVY '
I, ,» . *-l*-«.Q"6'^ * Figure 4-20: The Empire Greens Sites 362 Figure 4-21: Utilised Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site 363 Figure 4-22: "Retouched" Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site (Dorsal view) 364 MM Figure 4-23: "Retouched" Flakes from the Empire Greens 1 Site (Ventral view) 365 Figure 4-24: Empire Greens Site Cluster Diagnostic Artifacts 366 Figure 4-25: Empire Greens Additional Artifacts 367 r>()H1 ROAD W, rp^x^^' 7 ABLRDLL'.' AV; fwt STRATHEARNE PLAGt BARN RUINS LX'SIi,N9 P1 PI F o • 2 > < m o i • • 1 ', ARTlF ACTS EXiSTiNC- BU'LDIN: £ t-15 ARTIFACTS WHITF CHURCH ROAD ^B .-:( ARTlF AC1S Figure 4-26: The Kirk (AgGx-295) and Trimble (AgGx-299) Sites 368 V O^J ? 3__4cm Figure 4-27: Kirk Site Flakes 369 >!»&' Figure 4-28: Trimble (AgGx-299) Site Surface Artifacts 370 •Nf' 0 1 2 3 4cm wv Figure 5-1: Cherry Hill (AgGt-91) Site Artifacts 371 Figure 5-2: The Kipling Interchange Sites 372 0 0 0 N20 2 4 4 2 2 0 3 3 0 13 0 5 6 3 4 4 26 15 5 6 2 16 3 N15 0 0 6 40 44 13 3 7 3 1 0 3 6 6 12 15 6 2 2 0 0 9 9 6 1 1 0 1 s 0 N10 0 0 W50 W45 W40 W35 Figure 5-3: The Kipling 1 (AkGv-112) Site, East Locus, Flake Distribution 373 Figure 5-4: Kipling 1 Site Scrapers and Miscellaneous Bifaces 374 Figure 5-5: Kipling 1 Site Projectile Points 375 N015 4 3 1 N010 0 2 1 4 6 15 5 0 6 3 5 5 1 0 4 9 7 6 11 15 6 17 12 15 5 10 5 4 9 7 18 19 1(5 6 4 11 15 9 6 2 4 6 23 23 12 18 6 5 20 9 0 8 5 4 4 10 10 9 32 24 15 9 8 3 6 6 8 3 4 N005 '1 5 5 6 21 11 13 1(5 5 12 4 3 4 4 0 0 2 2 5 5 3 4 4 5 3 0 0 W180 W175 W170 W165 W160 Figure 5-6: Kipling 2 (AkGv-113) Flake Distribution 376 Figure 5-7: Kipling 2 Bifaces and End Scraper 377 Figure 5-8: Kipling 2 Projectile Points 378 Figure 5-9: Kipling 2 and Thombush Bifaces 379 Thornbush Site: AkGv-90 NS:E10 S5:E10 Legend o 1-10 10-30 30-60 3m 60-100 Figure 5-10: Thornbush Site (AkGv-90) Flake Distribution 380 & « *• ^ IMHi |x r Figure 5-11: Thornbush Tools 381 N505 1 0 a N500 2 2 4 4 0 2 4 2 1 8 6 2 2 5 2 3 11 10 S 5 10 5 1 4 3 4 10 12 5 6 1 0 • N495 4 3 4 4 6 5 2 4 9 5 2 1 m H N490 E245 E250 E255 E255 Figure 5-12: Wild Turkey Surprise Flake Distribution 382 Figure 5-13: Wild Turkey Surprise Utilised and Retouched Flake Tools 383 Figure 5-14: Wild Turkey Surprise Site Projectile Points and Bifaces 384 • • m R R R • N470 H 3 13 5 3 • S H Q N465 H N460 E210 E220 Figure 5-15: R. Johnson (AkGv-27) Flake Distribution 385 Figure 5-16: Robert Johnson Artifacts 386 Figure 5-17: Additional Kipling Interchange Artifacts 387 Figure 5-18: Secondary Flake Lengths 30%_ Figure 4a: Wild Tuikey Surprise 30%J Figure 4b: Kipling 2 20%- 20% -4 10%- 10%4 _^j JiL. A lii^ 10mm 20mm 10mm 20mm 30%. 30%-J Figure 4c: Kipling 1 East Locus Figure 4d: Kipling 1 West Locus 20%-4 20°/ 10%H 10% H _l_ i —' r 1 10 mm 20mm 30mm 10mm 20mm 30mm Figure 4e: Thornbush Figure 4f: R. Johnson 30%. 30%. 20% -4 20%-4 10% H 10% H -LI LU-JJ-L. 10mm 20mm IOmm 20mm 388 Figure 5-19: Secondary Flake Widths 30% Figure 5a: Wild Turkey Surprise 30%. Figure 5b: Kipling 2 20%. 20% 10% H 10%- ill l I ll III T 10mm 20mm 10mm 20mm 30% _J 30%. Figure 5c: Kipling 1 East Locus Figure 5d: Kipling 1 West Locus 20%. 20%- 10%-J 10% - III,., |- -* 1 10 mm 20mm 30mm 10mm 20mm 30mm Figure 5e: Thornbush Figure 5f: R. Johnson 30% _ 30%-J 20%- 20% -4 10%- 10% H ll ll.,. , u 10mm 20mm 10mm 20mm 389 Figure 5-20: Wellingdale Site Cluster (from ASI 1992: Figure 4) 390 4cm Figure 5-21: Wellingdale Cluster Artifacts 391 0 1 2 3 4cm Figure 5-22: AkGw-58 Large Primary Flake Tools 392 Figure 5-23: Cambridge Area Artifacts Table 1-1: Early Technological Horizons in Southern Ontario Period Horizon Diagnostic Projectile Point(s) Age B.P, Paleoindian Fluted Point Gainey ca. 10,900 Barnes ca. 10,700 Crowfield ca. 10,500 Unfluted Lanceolate Holcombe ca. 10,300 Hi-Lo ca. 10,100 Archaic (Early) Corner-notched Kirk or Nettling ca. 9,800 - 8,900 Bifurcate Base Lake Erie Bifurcate ca. 8,900 - 8,000 Note: This table is formatted to follow Ellis et al. (1998). Therefore, dates assigned to the technological horizons are derived from Ellis and Deller (1990:40), Ellis et al. (1990:72) and Woodley (1996) for the Bifurcate Base Horizon. 394 Table 2-1: Count of Artifact Categories for Three Selected Paleoindian Sites. Artifact Category Fisher Parkhill Thedford Misc. Flakes 28,000 2500 400 Channel Flakes 1,000 200 40 Other Tool Production 900 3250 500 Flakes Tools 1450 330 160 395 Table 4-1: Artifacts from the Ringtail Site Frequency Percent Cores and "Chunks" 2 0.08 Debitage 2510 97.48 Utilised Flakes 42 1.63 Unifaces 1 0.04 Bifaces 20 0.78 Totals 2575 Table 4-2: Distribution of Flakes by Flake Type and Raw Material Ancaster Onondaga Totals Percent Primary Decortication 2 33 35 1.39 (13.0) (64.0) (77.0) (4.27) Secondary 51 51 2.03 Decortication (64.5) (64.5) (3.58) Core Trimming 2 860 862 34.34 (1.4) (738.5) (739.9) (41.07) Primary Flakes 34 34 1.35 (156.1) (156.1) (8.67) Shatter 3 12 15 0.60 (10.5) (64.5) (75.0) (4.16) Primary Reduction 7 990 997 39.72 Subtotals (24.9) (1112.5) (1137.4) (63.14) Bifacial - Full 182 182 7.25 (52.7) (52.7) (2.93) Bifacial - Platform 61 61 2.43 (19.6) (19.6) (1.09) Basal 1 1 0.04 (3.8) (3.8) (0.21) Bifacial - Totals 244 244 9.72 (75.1) (75.1) (4.17) Potlids 2 2 0.08 (0.2 (0.2) (0.11) Fragments 4 1263 1267 50.48 (3.2) (609.5) (612.7) (34.01) Totals 11 2499 2510 (28.1) (1773.4) (1801.5) Percent 0.44 99.56 (0.56) (99.44) Table 4-3: Artifacts from the Current Site Frequency Percent (weight in g's) Cores and "Chunks" 12 0.70 (244.1) (15.22) Debitage 1590 93.20 (967.4) (59.93) Utilised Flakes 97 5.69 (195.3) (12.10) Unifaces 1 0.06 (5.7) (0.35) Bifaces 3 0.18 (10.4) (0.64) Projectile Points and Fragments 3 0.18 (13.5) (0.84) Totals 1706 (1614.1) Table 4-4: Distribution of Flakes by Flake Type and Raw Material for the Ringtail Site Ancaster Haldimand Onondaga Reynales Totals Percent Primary 37 46 83 5.22 Decortication (129.7) (51.7) (181.4) (18.75) Secondary 4 49 53 3.33 Decortication (9.6) (87.7) (97.3) (10.06) Core Trimming 19 439 1 459 28.87 (25.5) (267.2) (0.3) (292.0) (30.18) Primary Flakes 1 1 12 14 0.88 (2.5) (2.3) (40.0) (44.8) (4.63) Bipolar 1 1 0.06 (1.8) (1.8) (0.19) Shatter 2 9 11 0.69 (4.7) (28.5) (33.2) (3.43) Primary 63 1 556 1 621 39.06 Reduction (172.0) (2.3) (476.9) (0.3) (651.5) (67.35) Subtotals Bifacial - 1 81 82 5.16 Full (0.3) (24.7) (25.0) (2.58) Bifacial - 1 89 90 5.66 Platform (0.3 (19.7) (20.0) (2.07) Bifacial - 2 2 0.12 Midsection (0.3) (0.3) (0.03) Bifacial - 18 18 1.13 Distal (4.3) (4.2) (0.43) Bifacial - 3 3 0.18 Retouch (0.3) (0.3) (0.03) Bifacial - 2 193 195 12.34 Totals (0.6) (52.4) (53.0) (5.48) Fragments 43 2 729 774 48.68 (21.0) (1.8) (243.2) (266.0) (27.50) Totals 108 3 1478 1 1590 (193.6) (4.1) (772.5) (0.3) (967.4) Percent 6.79 0.24 92.96 0.06 (20.01) (0.43) (79.85) (0.03) 399 Table 4-5: Distribution of Utilised Flakes by Flake Type and Raw Material for the Current Site Ancaster Haldimand Onondaga Selkirk Totals Percent Primary 1 1 Decortication (1.0) (1.0) Secondary 6 6 Decortication (31.0) (31.0) Core Trimming 1 1 41 43 (1.3) (0.9) (51.2) (53.4) Primary Flakes 1 8 1 10 (1.6) (42.4) (13.8) (57.8) Shatter 2 2 (11.6) (11.6) Primary 4 1 56 1 62 Reduction (15.5) (0.9) (125.6) (13.8) (155.8) Subtotals Bifacial - 1 6 7 Full (0.4) (2.7) (3.1) Bifacial - 2 2 Platform (1.0) (1.0) Bifacial - 1 1 Distal (0.2) (0.2) Bifacial - 1 9 10 Totals (0.4) (3.9) (4.3) Fragments 25 25 (17.6) (17.6) Totals 5 1 90 1 97 (15.9) (0.9) (147.1) (13.8) (177.7) Percent 400 Table 4-6: Artifacts from the Upstairs Site Frequency Percent (weight in g's) Debitage 4486 98.51 Utilised Flakes 34 0.75 Bifaces 32 0.70 Projectile Points and Fragments 2 0.04 Totals 4554 Table 4-7: Distribution of Flakes by Mesh Size and Flake Type for the Upstairs Site W Mesh 1/8" Mesh Heavy Fraction Totals Percent Primary Decortication 2 2 0.04 11.3 (11.3) (0.45) Unidirectional 27 27 0.60 (137.5) (137.5) (5.50) Core Trimming 715 2 5 722 15.97 (651.9) (0.2) (0.9) (653.0) (26.14) Primary Flakes 19 19 0.42 (55.6) (55.6) (2.23) Shatter 3 3 0.07 (5.9) (5.9) (0.24) Primary Reduction Subtotals 766 2 5 773 17.10 (862.2) (0.2) (0.9) (863.3) (34.56) Bifacial - Full 450 1 2 453 10.02 (266.4) (0.1) (0.2) (266.7) (10.68) Bifacial - Platform 317 13 7 337 7.46 (128.4) (0.9) (2.5) (131.8) (5.28) Bifacial - Retouch 30 8 13 51 1.13 (2.5) (0.5) (0.4) (3.4) (0.14) Bifacial - Totals 797 22 22 841 18.61 (397.3) (1.5) (3.1) (401.9) (16.09) Fragments 2666 82 158 2906 64.29 (1211.7) (6.0) (6.1) (1223.8) (48.99) Totals 4229 106 185 4520 (2470.4) (7.7) (10.1) (2498.2) Percent 93.56 2.35 4.09 (99.27) (0.31) (0.40) Table 4-8: Upstairs Site Unidirectional Flake Metrics East North Length Width Ratio Thick Weight (g) Use? (mm) (mm) (mm) 292 597 45.5 21.3 2.1 3.4 3 304 581 61.7 24.2 2.5 5.4 7.7 303 583 38.3 24.7 1.6 5.1 4.8 297 585 55.5 27 2.1 11.2 14.5 304 585 41.3 19.2 2.2 6.3 4.6 305 583 60.5 21.1 2.9 5.8 7.1 303 599 50.1 19.4 2.6 5.5 3.9 305 590 56.6 37.4 1.5 6.4 18.4 305 584 37.5 13.9 2.7 3.6 2.5 305 583 44.2 25 1.8 4.6 4 305 583 38.3 15.4 2.5 4.4 2 305 583 27.6 14.6 1.9 4.3 1.7 306 584 42.1 20 2.1 3.8 2.6 306 584 55.9 29.2 1.9 7.6 13.7 289 580 35.6 24.2 1.5 3 305 583 35.1 27.8 1.3 3 2.2 305 583 42.2 19.3 2.2 4.6 3 305 583 31.7 18.7 1.7 4.1 1.9 305 583 38.7 19.2 2 4.6 3.2 305 583 31.6 21.5 1.5 3.6 1.6 305 583 33.1 18.7 1.8 2.8 2.2 305 583 38.7 14 2.8 3 1.9 403 Table 4-9: Total Artifacts from the Empire Greens 1 Site Frequency Percent (weight in g's) Debitage 94 74.60 (50.6) (36.2) Utilised Flakes 31 24.60 (84.7) (60.6) Projectile Points and Fragments 1 0.79 (4.5) (3.2) Totals 126 (139.8) Table 4-10: Distribution of Modified and Unmodified Flakes by Flake Type for the Empire Greens 1 Site Unmodified Modified Totals Percent Core Trimming 24 3 27 21.60 (12.2) (2.2) (14.4) (10.64) Primary Flakes 5 17 22 17.60 (7.8) (63.1) (70.9) (52.40) lary Reduction Subtotals 29 20 49 39.20 (20.0) (65.3) (85.3) (63.05) ifacial - Full 2 2 1.60 (1.7) (1.7) (1.26) ifacial - Distal 1 1 0.80 (0.6) (0.6) (0.44) ifacial - Platform 6 6 4.80 (1.4) (1.4) (1.03) Bifacial - Totals 9 9 7.20 (3.7) (3.7) (2.73) Fragments 56 11 67 53.60 (26.9) 19.4 (46.3) (34.22) Totals 94 31 125 (50.6) (84.7) (135.3) Percent 75.20 24.80 (37.40) (62.60) 405 Table 5-1: Total Artifacts from the Kipling 1 Site East Locus Frequency Percent Cores and "Chunks" 6 1.6 Debitage 322 84.1 Utilised Flakes 39 10.2 Unifaces 5 1.3 Bifaces 11 2.9 Totals 383 406 Table 5-2: Kipling Cluster Flakes According to Major Flake Categories Flake Kipling 1 Kipling 1 West Kipling 2 Thornbush R.Johnson Wild Turkey Categories East Locus Locus Surprise Primary 43 2 43 44 8 17 (11.9%) (5.7%) (5.9%) (8.1%) (20%) (8.7%) Secondary 306 32 607 485 29 171 (84.8%) (91.4%) (83.2%) (89.6%) (72.5%) (87.7%) Fragments 12 1 80 12 3 7 (3.3%) (2.9%) (11%) (2.2%) (7.5%) (3.6%) Totals 361 35 730 541 40 195 407 Table 5-3: Total Artifacts From the Kipling 2 Site Frequency Percent Debitage 678 91.5 Utilised Flakes 52 7.0 Unifaces 1 0.1 Bifaces 10 1.3 Totals 741 408 Table 5-4: Total Artifacts from the Thornbush Site Frequency Percent Cores 5 0.9 Debitage 523 94.1 Utilised Flakes 18 3.2 Unifaces 1 0.2 Bifaces 9 1.6 Totals 556 409 Table 5-5: Total Artifacts from the Wild Turkey Surprise Site Frequency Percent Cores 1 0.5 Debitage 182 90.5 Utilised Flakes 13 6.5 Bifaces 5 2.5 Totals 201 410 Table 5-6: Total Artifacts from the Robert Johnson Site Frequency Percent Debitage 32 76.2 Utilised Flakes 8 19.0 Bifaces 2 4.8 Totals 42 411 Table 5-7: Completeness of Primary Flakes Completeness Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush W. Turkey R. Johnson East Locus West Locus Surprise Distal 1 6 (2.3%) (13.6%) Midsection 2 2 3 1 (4.7%) (4.5%) (17.6%) (14.3%) Distal and 2 1 4 3 1 Midsection (4.7%) (50%) (9.3%) (6.9%) (14.3%) Midsection and 3 7 6 1 1 Platform (7.0%) (16.3%) (13.6%) (5.9%) (14.3%) Platform 7 5 2 5 (16.3%) (11.6%) (4.5%) (29.4%) Complete 28 1 27 25 8 4 (65.1%) (50%) (62.8%) (56.8%) (47.1%) (57.1%) Totals 43 2 43 44 17 412 Table 5-8: Completeness of Secondary Flakes Completeness Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush W. Turkey R. Johnson East Locus West Locus Surprise Distal 34 5 41 61 19 1 (11.1%) (15.6%) (6.8%) (12.6%) (11.1%) (3.4%) Midsection 15 1 64 57 11 1 (4.9%) (3.1%) (10.5%) (11.8%) (6.4%) (3.4%) Distal and 34 10 89 69 13 1 Midsection (11.1%) (31.3%) (14.7%) (14.2%) (7.6%) (3.4%) Midsection and 30 2 98 50 25 1 Platform (9.8%) (6.3%) (16.1%) (10.3%) (14.6%) (3.4%) Platform 15 5 23 27 17 (4.9%) (15.6%) (3.8%) (5.6%) (9.9%) Complete 178 9 292 221 86 25 (58.2%) (28.1%) (48.1%) (45.6%) (50.3%) (86.2%) Totals 306 32 607 485 171 29 413 Table 5-9: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Lengths Wild Turkey Fives of Kipling 2 Kipling 1 East Fives of Kipling 1 West Surprise mm. Locus mm. Locus 50-54 1.4, 50-54 5.7, 45-49 45-49 0.3,0.5, 40-44 4.4, 4.1, 40-44 7.1, 35-39 5.6, 5.2,6.8,7.0,7.0, 35-39 6.4, 7.2,8.9,9.4, 30-34 3.4, 0.5,2.0,0.2, 30-34 7.1, 25-29 8.1, 5.5,9.0,9.6, 25-29 20-24 0.6,1.6, 0.2,0.6,1.6,2.2, 20-24 6.1,6.8, 15-19 5.0,5.5,5.6,7.6,7.7, 2.6,2.8,4.6, 7.8,8.2, 6.0,8.5,8.7,9.2, 15-19 10-14 0.6,0.9,1.0,1.0,1.1, 1.7,2.8,4.3,4.7, 3.5,4.1, 10-14 9.5, 5-9 8.1,9.8, 5-9 Thornbush Fives of R.Johnson mm. 0.4, 50-54 45-49 0.1,3.5,4.7, 40-44 8.2, 35-39 1.9,3.9, 30-34 9.1, 25-29 9.1, 1.0,1.5,2.2,2.5,3.0, 20-24 1.2, 5.3,6.5,7.0,7.1, 15-19 5.6, 7.5,8.9,8.9, 0.7,0.8,1.7,4.1,4.9, 10-14 1.7, 8.6,9.4, 5-9 414 Table 5-10: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Widths Wild Turkey Fives of Kipling 2 Kipling 1 East Fives of Kipling 1 West Surprise mm. Locus mm. Locus 50-54 50-54 45-49 45-49 40-44 40-44 6.5, 35-39 5.4, 35-39 0.2,0.8,2.7, 30-34 4.9, 30-34 25-29 5.7,5.8,6.4,6.6,7.2, 5.1,5.6,5.6,6.5, 25-29 7.8 8.3, 6.9,8.1,8.7,9.7, 20-24 0.3,1.0,1.1,2.7,4.2, 0.2,0.3,0.3,0.7,1.0, 20-24 1.2 1.2,2.9,2.9,3.4, 5.0,7.4,9.2, 15-19 5.1,5.2,5.2,5.4,5.6, 5.7,7.8,9.9, 5.9,6.7,6.8,6.9,7.8, 15-19 8.0,9.5,9.8,9.9, 1.2,4.3, 10-14 0.6,0.7,0.9,1.3,2.0, 3.4,3.9,4.1, 1.0,2.2,3.7,4.4, 10-14 8.9, 5-9 5.7,6.0,8.0,8.7 8.3, 5-9 Thornbush Fives of R. Johnson mm. 50-54 9.9, 45-49 40-44 5.4, 35-39 6.5, 30-34 5.8,8.7, 25-29 1.3,1.8,2.0,3.1, 20-24 3.4,3.9,3.9,5.0, 5.0,5.5,6.2,6.9, 15-19 6.5,6.6, 7.2,9.6, 0.5,1.7,1.7,2.0,2.1, 10-14 0.6,3.2, 2.3,2.6,4.1,4.3, 9.2,9.6, 5-9 4.0, 0-4 415 Table 5-11: Stem and Leaf Plots of Kipling Cluster Primary Flake Thickness Wild Turkey Mm. Kipling 2 Kipling 1 East Mm. Kipling 1 West Surprise Locus Locus 10 .6, 10 9 .8, •2,.5, 9 •7, 8 8 •4, 7 .1,6, .0,-2,6, 7 .0,3, 6 •0, .4,.5,.6,.7, 6 .9, .1,2, 5 .1,3,4, .3,.4,.4, 5 .2,6, 4 .0,1,1,4,5,6,6,7, .1,2,.3,.4,.4,.5,.6 4 .8,8,9, ,.6,.6,.8,.8,.8,.9, .0,3,3,6,9, 3 .0,1,2,2,3,4,4,5, .0,.2,.6,.6,.7,.7,.8 3 .6, .6,6,6,7,7,8,9, ,.8,.9,.9, .1,4, 2 .3,4,6, .6,9, 2 1 .7, 1 Thornbush Mm. R. Johnson 2.7, 11+ •2, 10 .0, •2, 9 8 •0, 7 .0,5,5,6, 6 .0,1,1,8,8, 5 .1,6,8,9, 4 .1,4, .1,2,2,2,3,3,5 3 •7, ,5,5,6,6, .2,4,6,7,8,9, 2 • L 1 416 Table 5-12: Primary Flake Metric Data Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert East Locus West Locus Surprise Johnson n Length 27 1 25 27 8 4 Max. L. 44.1 36.4 51.4 50.4 45.7 29.1 Min. L. 13.5 36.4 8.1 8.6 9.5 11.7 Mean L. 27.3 19.1 23.1 29.1 Standard 8.6 10.9 11.6 12.8 Deviation n Width 33 2 31 30 10 5 MaxW. 35.4 27.8 28.3 49.9 36.5 36.5 MinW. 8.3 21.2 5.7 4.0 8.9 10.6 Mean W. 21.2 16.9 18.6 21.6 Standard 6.2 6.5 8.9 9.5 Deviation n Thickness 38 2 37 34 15 5 Max Th. 10.6 6.9 9.8 12.7 8.7 2.1 Min. Th. 2.6 3.6 1.7 2.2 2.1 10.0 Mean Th. 5.1 4.2 4.8 4.6 Standard 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.8 Deviation 417 Table 5-13: Secondary Flake Metric Data Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Robert East Locus West Locus Turkey Johnson Surprise n Length 177 9 296 221 84 24 Max. L. 36.3 38.1 23.4 23.7 17.1 27.1 Min. L. 6.2 7.6 4.1 4.7 4.1 7.3 Mean L. 11.3 18.8 11.7 11.1 11.1 13.0 Standard 3.9 8.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.8 Deviation n Width 225 22 385 305 126 28 MaxW. 26.0 32.9 30.1 16.9 17.0 23.9 MinW. 4.9 8.9 5.1 4.5 3.2 7.4 Mean W. 9.4 16.7 9.6 9.2 8.9 11.3 Standard 2.6 6.8 2.6 1.9 2.2 3.8 Deviation n Thickness 262 26 513 408 166 28 Max Th. 4.2 4.8 5.7 4.5 7.0 4.8 Min. Th. 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.8 Mean Th. 1.6 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.4 Standard .6 0.9 .6 .6 .7 0.9 Deviation 418 Table 5-14: Primary Flake Striking Platforms Kipling 1 East Kipling 1 West Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert Locus Locus Surprise Johnson Simple 6 1 5 2 5 2 (16.2%) (12.8%) (6.1%) (35.7%) (40%) Faceted 21 31 28 6 3 (56.8%) (79.5%)- (84.8%) (42.9%) (60%) Crushed 10 3 3 3 (27%) (7.7%) (9.1%) (21.4%) Totals 37 39 33 14 Table 5-15: Secondary Flake Striking Platforms Kipling 1 East Kipling 1 West Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert Locus Locus Surprise Johnson Simple 21 112 69 16 10 (9.5%) (27.1%) (23.2%) (12.6%) (38.5%) Faceted 170 12 241 183 83 9 (76.6%) (70.6%) (58.4%) (61.6%) (65.4%) (34.6%) Crushed 31 5 60 45 28 7 (14%) (29.4%) (14.5%) (15.2%) (22.0%) (26.9%) Totals 222 17 413 297 127 26 419 Table 5-16: Striking Platform Metrics for Primary Flakes Kipl ing 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey R. Johnson East Locus West Locus Surprise n Width 35 1 35 31 11 5 Min 2.9 11.1 2.9 2.0 2.7 21.1 Max 21.2 11.1 21.2 23.2 13.8 5.1 Mean 8.3 8.0 8.9 6.5 Standard 3.5 4.3 5.0 2.7 Deviation n Thick 35 0 31 30 9 4 Min 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.7 1.3 Max 4.6 13.8 7.9 5.5 8.7 Mean 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 Standard 0.9 2.3 1.6 1.1 Deviation Table 5-17: Striking Platform Metrics for Secondary Flakes Kipling 1 Kipl ing 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey R.Johnson East Locus West Locus Surprise n Width 214 16 490 287 110 23 Min 1.8 3.2 1.4 1.0 1.8 2.3 Max 9.7 9.3 30.1 15.9 11.3 8.9 Mean 4.5 5.3 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 Standard 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.5 Deviation n Thick 185 12 349 248 99 19 Min 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 Max 3.8 2.6 6.0 5.7 4.4 3.1 Mean 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 Standard 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Deviation 421 Table 5-18: Primary Flake Terminations Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert East Locus West Locus Surprise Johnson Feather 27 1 23 19 1 4 Hinge 2 1 7 12 4 Step 1 1 Totals 30 31 31 Table 5-19: Secondary Flake Terminations Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert East Locus West Locus Surprise Johnson Feather 224 18 383 314 99 23 (90%) (75%) (89.9%) (88.2%) (80.5%) (82.1%) Hinge 15 6 25 19 15 4 (6%) (25%) (5.9%) (5.3%) (12.2%) (14.3%) Step 7 12 12 8 1 (2.8%) (2.8%) (3.4%) (6.5%) (3.6%) Outre Passe 2 3 1 (0.5%) (0.8%) (0.8%) Hinge Stack 3 4 8 Terminations (1.2%) (0.9%) (2.2%) Totals 249 24 426 356 123 28 422 Table 5-20: Secondary Flake Stages Kipling 1 East Kipling 1 West Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert Locus Locus Surprise Johnson Stage 1 187 27 510 360 116 26 (61.1%) (84.4%) (84%) (74.2%) (67.8%) (89.7%) Stage 2 110 4 79 114 52 3 (35.9%) (12.5%) (13%) (23.5%) (30.4%) (10.3%) Stage 3 3 0 16 10 2 0 (1%) (2.6%) (2.1%) (1.7%) Unknown 6 12 110 (2%) (3.1%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.6%) Totals 306 32 607 485 171 29 423 Table 5-21: Secondary Flake Types Kipling 1 Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert East Locus West Locus Surprise Johnson Basal 2 8 9 4 Trimming (0.7%) (1.3%) (1.9%) (2.3%) Biface 43 10 133 110 39 2 Reduction (14.1%) (31.3%) (21.9%) (22.8%) (22.8%) (6.9%) Biface 241 12 398 309 103 23 Trimming (78.8%) (37.5%) (65.7%) (64%) (60.2%) (79.3%) Biface 19 10 63 53 23 4 Thinning (6.2%) (31.3%) (10.4%) (11%) (13.5%) (13.8%) Notch 1 1 1 1 (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.6%) Biface 2 1 Retouch (0.3%) (0.6%) Scraper 1 1 Retouch (0.2%) (0.2%) Totals 306 32 606 483 171 29 424 Table 5-22: Patterns of Dorsal Flake Scars for Secondary Flakes Kipling 1 Kipling 2 Kipling 2 Thornbush Wild Turkey Robert East Locus West Locus Surprise Johnson Ridge 141 13 418 320 110 16 (46.1%) (40.6%) (69.1%) (66.1%) (64.3%) (55.2%) tiY" 96 5 70 70 14 7 (31.4%) (15.6%) (11.6%) (14.5%) (8.2%) (24.1%) Flat 44 9 60 75 17 3 (14.4%) (28.1%) (9.9%) (15.5%) (9.9%) (10.3%) Complex 7 2 39 5 25 (2.3%) (6.3%) (6.4%) (1.0%) (14.6%) Unknown 18 3 19 14 5 3 (5.9%) (9.4%) (3.1%) (2.9%) (2.9%) (10.3%) Totals 306 32 605 484 171 29