Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ISSN: 0146-1109 (Print) 2327-4271 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymca20 A Multi-Method Approach to Inferring Early Agriculturalists’ Stone Tool Use at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site Katherine M. Sterner & Robert J. Jeske To cite this article: Katherine M. Sterner & Robert J. Jeske (2017): A Multi-Method Approach to Inferring Early Agriculturalists’ Stone Tool Use at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/01461109.2016.1270717 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01461109.2016.1270717 Published online: 04 Jan 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 44 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymca20 Download by: [216.125.48.227] Date: 12 January 2017, At: 10:54 midcontinental journal of archaeology, 2017, 1–27 A Multi-Method Approach to Inferring Early Agriculturalists’ Stone Tool Use at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site Katherine M. Sterner , Robert J. Jeske University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, USA While there has been much research on the function of stone tools via use- wear analysis, it is clear that a multipronged approach, including an evaluation of material acquisition, production, and tool use, is necessary if tool function is going to prove truly useful for understanding past cultures. Moreover, the role of chipped lithic tools in the economies of agriculture-based populations has seen little research compared to preagricultural systems. A sample of lithic artifacts from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site, a twelfth- to fourteenth- century Oneota village at Lake Koshkonong in southeastern Wisconsin, are subjected to a multiple-method analysis to determine individual tool use. An assemblage-based analysis provides an overall understanding of the lithic economy. A combination of microscopic identification of edge damage and surface polishes and an analysis of protein residue provides independent lines of evidence that yield strong inferences about tool use in the lithic econ- omies of sedentary agricultural groups in the midcontinent. keywords Oneota, lithics, microwear analysis, blood residue analysis Introduction Archaeologists use lithic material to investigate aspects of prehistoric groups’ tech- nological, social, and ideological structures, at least in part due to the disproportion- ate number of stone tools and debris that compose much of the archaeological record. Inferences derived from stone tools are used with other information (e.g., ethnographic analogy, spatial data) to make higher-order inferences about technol- ogy and its relationship to archaeologically invisible cultural processes, such as mobility, settlement, trade, and interpersonal or intergroup violence (see Kuznar and Jeske 2006). This reliance on stone tools and debris as the foundation for many models of prehistoric behavior has been examined extensively and critically. The consensus seems to be that strong inferences derived from lithic technology © Midwest Archaeological Conference 2017 DOI 10.1080/01461109.2016.1270717 2 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE can be used to model other aspects of culture, even if archaeologists do not always agree on the usefulness of particular approaches (cf. Binford and Binford 1966; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970; Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Keeley 1980; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Sackett 1982; Shott 1989, 2003; Yerkes 1983). One underappreciated aspect of these investigations is that most have used foraging- based groups as their case studies. It is clear that a great deal of information about a culture’s economy and related social structures can be derived from studies of tool form, raw material usage, and spatial patterning of tools and debris. However, the pivot on which most lithic models turn is function. Hypotheses about the way lithic tools were used have been put forth for decades (Cox 1936; Holmes 1891; Rau 1869; Spurrell 1892). How tool function could be used to explain larger cultural characteristics was most famously highlighted in the Binford and Bordes debates (Binford and Binford 1966; Binford and Binford 1969; Bordes 1953). The vigorous back-and-forth centered on whether variation in Mousterian stone tool form was an indication of the existence of distinct ethnic groups or cultures (Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970; Mellars 1970) or if it was an indication of functionally associated tool kits (Binford and Binford 1966). Binford and Binford (1966, 1969) used the correlation of tool forms to infer linked tool functions (i.e., tool kits)–and by extension–site function. Bordes (1953, 1961) and Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes (1970) argued that the relationships of tool proportions among occupations resulted from cultural traditions, or ethnicity. Problematically, both the Binford camp and the Bordes camp assumed Bordes’s formal tool types had actu- ally been used as he had determined they were based on their shapes. Multiple examples of the problematic relationship between morphology and function directly undermine such an approach (e.g., Barton 1990; Borel et al. 2016; Hardy et al. 2008; Vierra 1975; Walker 1978). Nevertheless, Binford’s attempt to relate stone- tool use to other aspects of cultural systems defined many of the questions asked by a new generation of lithic analysts, who began to focus on topics such as subsis- tence, economy, settlement, mobility, and efficiency. Technological organization, tool function, and subsistence strategies Archaeologists had long been interested in the relationship of stone tools to subsis- tence, but the Binford/Bordes debate emphasized the complex relationship between lithic technology and subsistence strategies. Archaeologists became more attuned to the idea that variation in tool form and tool kit composition was a function of obtaining energy in different cultural and physical environmental contexts. Most of these models about lithic form and function were oriented toward hunting-based subsistence strategies. Bleed’s (1986) foundational article contended that the charac- teristics of maintainability and reliability were alternatives designed into prehistoric weapons in order to optimize specific resources. His generalized framework for understanding the connection between technology and subsistence strategies enabled other researchers to explain more specific differences in weapon mor- phology through time, especially in mobile, foraging, or horticultural societies (e.g., Buchanan et al. 2011; Cook and Comstock 2014; Kelly 1988; Shott 2003). EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 3 In North America, the discrepancy between the number of lithic studies of hunter- gatherer groups and that of agriculturalists is stark. A decline in formal lithic tool complexity and diversity through time has long been noted in the Midwest and is often related to an increased reliance on agricultural or horticultural economies (Bet- tarel and Smith 1973; Fitting 1975; Griffin 1983; Jeske 1992; Kelly et al. 1984; McGimsey and Conner 1985; Mason 1981; Park 2010; Parry and Kelly 1987). This decline resulted in large quantities of informal or expedient tools at many late prehistoric sites, particularly those where access to good quality lithic raw materials was often restricted (Hollinger 1993; Jeske 2003; Sterner 2012; Yerkes 1987). This shift in lithic technological organization coincident with the shift to plant production makes the debate about tool function particularly contentious and important. However, lithic functional analyses among early agriculturalists are too few in number to address these shifts adequately. The majority of such studies in North America have focused on craft specialization (e.g., Pope 1986; Pre- ntice 1985; Yerkes 1983) and ceremonialism (Sievert 1994; Vermilion et al. 2003)in Middle Mississippian societies. Functional analysis at Upper Mississippian sites is practically nonexistent in the literature, although there are a few exceptions (e.g., Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999; Hohol 1985; Jeske 2002; Nass 1987). Technological organization, tool function, and mobility A second major outgrowth of the tool kit/cultural tradition debate was Binford’s subsequent ethnographic investigations, from which he proposed a heuristic dichot- omy between logistical and residential mobility systems in hunter-gatherer societies (Binford 1980; Carlson 1979). Since then, a large number of studies have examined stone tools and debris in relation to mobility systems among prehistoric foragers (e.g., Amick 1994; Bamforth 1986; Blades 2003; Carr 1994; Cowan 1999; Good- year 1989; Jeske 1987; Kuhn 1994; Lurie 1982, 1989; Morrow and Jefferies 1989; Odell 1994; Shott 1986). Some of these studies follow Binford’s lead expli- citly: For instance, Lurie (1982, 1989) examined mobility and tool assemblages from the Middle Archaic in the lower Illinois River valley. Others (e.g., Amick 1994; Bamforth 1986; Carr 1994; Jeske 1989; Odell 1994) used mobility as an important parameter when modeling technological organization in other regions. However, Torrence (1994) rightly pointed to the danger in overemphasizing mobi- lity, as it likely obscures the complex mix of strategies utilized by cultural groups. Other factors that influence lithic technological organization include site or area function (e.g., secular vs. ritual), the nature of resources exploited, the accessibility of raw material sources,