A Multi-Method Approach to Inferring Early Agriculturalists' Stone Tool

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 economies 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’ technological, 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 technology 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 actually 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 subsistence, economy, settlement, mobility, and efficiency.

Technological organization, tool function, and subsistence strategies Archaeologists had long been interested in the relationship of stone tools to subsistence, 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 characteristics 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 morphology 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 mobility, 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, seasonal or other time constraints, territorial boundaries, violence, and energy expenditure and efficiency (e.g., Bamforth 1986; Ensor 2009; Jeske 1987, 1992; Odell 1980).

Integrating functional analyses Foundational to all of these approaches is the notion of diversity in tool function, even though functional diversity is rarely demonstrated directly. Fortunately, archaeologists can get beyond the form and function tautology. Microwear and residue analyses supply well-tested empirical evidence of tool function that provides 4 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE checks for the assumptions underlying many higher-order inferences about mobility, adaptation, and subsistence activities. Residue analysis in particular can provide a specific link between tool use and information about subsistence, sometimes to the species level (Pilar Babot et al. 2013). This tight connection between tool and resource utilization not only identifies tool function but also is an independent line of evidence that complements traditional faunal and floral data sets. Functional analysis must also consider characteristics of production and discard —as well as tool use itself—in order to address broad questions about the role of lithic tools in the society under study. Function is not merely the physical use of a tool; it is contextual and complex, impacted by numerous factors, including climate, subsistence and settlement strategy, inter- and intragroup communication and competition, demography, and ideology. This more realistic approach to understanding lithic function can be an extremely enriching line of evidence for recognizing the multiple adaptive changes undertaken as people move from a foraging to an agricultural subsistence regime. A number of studies of lithic technology have utilized the concepts of economy and efficiency, but they have rarely integrated direct evidence of tool function in their conceptualizations of lithic economy (e.g., Bamforth 1986; Henry 1989; Ingbar 1994; Jeske 1987, 1989; Kelly 1988; Lurie 1989), with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Odell 1994; Yerkes 1987). Similarly, use-wear analysts have produced a body of literature on the function of stone tools but have rarely integrated that data about function into the larger context of human behavior (e.g., Keeley 1980; Loebel 2013; Miller 2013, 2014; Odell 1977, 1980; Yerkes 2009). When they are undertaken, stone-tool use-wear studies are often included as a separate section of archaeological reports and conclusions about tool function arising from use wear are rarely considered in conjunction with functional conceptions arising from tool morphology, assemblage composition, or spatial distribution (e.g., Gaertner 1994; Jeske 2002; Jeske et al. 1987; Yerkes 1987; Yerkes and Gaertner 1997). The approach taken by this study differs from most previous analyses of lithic function at early agricultural sites (e.g., Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999; Padilla and Ritter- bush 2005) as it incorporates multiple systematically linked methods. This multipronged approach allows for a richer interpretation of the role that stone tools played in the lives of the people who lived and died at Lake Koshkonong during the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries.

The Oneota example The Oneota context examined here provides an ideal case study for recognizing the role of lithics in early agricultural populations. Oneota ceramic assemblages are dominated by shell-tempered olla-shaped jars. Archaeobotanical and archaeozoolo- gical data indicate that Oneota groups used a complex and multifaceted subsistence strategy. Oneota village sites typically yield a combination of domesticated Eastern Agricultural Complex plants and maize, supplemented with significant levels of wild seeds, fruits, and nuts (Arzigian 2000; Arzigian and Boszhardt 1989; Egan-Bruhy 2014; Olsen 2003; Overstreet 1997, 2000). These diverse plant remains are found EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 5 with faunal material that suggests intensive utilization of multiple ecological zones (Hunter 2002; Overstreet 1997, 2000; Styles and White 1995; Theler 1989; Van de Pas and McTavish 2015). The Crescent Bay Hunt Club (CBHC) site is one of a string of contemporary Oneota sites along the northwest shore of Lake Koshkonong in southeastern Wis- consin, approximately 90 km west of Lake Michigan (Figure 1). It sits on top of a

figure 1. Location of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (47JE904). 6 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE limestone ridge that runs parallel to the shore of the lake (Jeske 2010). The site is approximately 300 m from the lake and is 8 m above it in elevation. Environ- mental catchment analysis demonstrates that the site is located within a multi- ecotonal landscape that is highly productive for maize agriculture, as well as rich in wetland, prairie, forest, and savanna plant and animal resources for exploitation (Edwards 2010). The first published mention of the site portrays heaps of shell and charcoal along with large numbers of pits, similar to nineteenth-century Winnebago (Ho-Chunk) wild-rice threshing pits, which were then being leveled by tilling (Stout and Skavlem 1908). The site was first systematically tested in 1968 by the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but no map of the site’s exact location was saved (Gibbon 1968). Archaeological survey tentatively relocated a portion of the site in 1995 (Hanson 1996). Since 1998, the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee archaeological field school has returned biennially to CBHC and other Oneota sites in the locality, under the direction of Jeske. A total of nine excavation seasons at CBHC have been undertaken by UWM to date, which have excavated approximately 8 percent of the total site area (Sterner-Miller 2014). Artifacts were recovered using a combination of dry screening through 6.33 mm mesh and flotation. A suite of 22 radiocarbon dates documents an occupation at the site beginning circa A.D. 1050–1100 and ending circa A.D. 1400 (Figure 2). The occupants of the site left behind an Oneota ceramic assemblage that includes types such as Grand River Plain, Grand River Trailed, Carcajou Plain, Busseyville, Crescent Bay Punctate, and Fisher (Schneider 2008) (Figure 3). Formal stone tools are almost entirely triangular pieces—sometimes bifacial, sometimes simply edge-retouched pieces—and steeply edged unifaces, along with wedge-shaped or columnar multifacial pieces usually called bipolar cores, wedges, or pièces esquillées (Jeske and Sterner-Miller 2015). Informal edge-retouched pieces make up the bulk of the remainder of the assemblages. Other tools recovered include ground stone celts, grooved sandstone abraders, grinding stones, galena cubes, hematite, bone tools such as piercers and elk scapula hoes, and a variety of copper tools including awls, celts, and fishhooks. Spatial, faunal, and floral data indicate that the site was occupied in all seasons of the year. Two types of features have been interpreted as structures at the site: a semi- rectangular posthole-wall style structure and a rectangular longhouse form with wall-trench construction (Gibbon 1968; Moss 2010). A small semisubterranean structure of unknown function was identified in 2014 (Sterner-Miller 2014). The inhabitants grew corn and several species of chenopodium and harvested wild rice, sunflowers, and a wide variety of fruits, seeds, and nuts (Egan-Bruhy 2001; Olsen 2003). A very wide array of animal species is represented in the faunal assemblage, including deer, elk, bison, raccoon, small mammals, turtle, waterfowl, large- and small-bodied fish, and several varieties of mussels (Fortier 1972; Hunter 2002; Van de Pas and McTavish 2015). A complex dog sacrifice and burial feature, along with a number of pits containing animals such as otter and bald eagle, provides some insight into nonutilitarian use of animals. There appears to be no organized cemetery area. Human remains are found scattered across the site in multiple forms and types, including flexed, supine, and bundle burials and isolated bones (Foley EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 7

figure 2. Radiocarbon dates from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (47JE904).

Winkler 2011; Jeske and Sterner-Miller 2014). Several recently discovered burials and isolated bones provide direct evidence for interpersonal violence (Jeske and Sterner-Miller 2014). In sum, it appears that people occupied this site for 300 years, exploiting a rich and diverse environment using a foraging, fishing, and farming economy. Several contemporaneous village sites are located at regular intervals along the northwestern edge of the lake. These sites include Crabapple Point, Schmeling, Carcajou Point, and Koshkonong Creek Village. They are similar to CBHC in size, material culture, and architecture. We do not know, however, whether these sites were continuously occupied or if they were serially occupied for relatively short 8 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

figure 3. Ceramics from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (47JE904). periods throughout the three centuries. Currently, we also do not have a firm grasp on the total group size at any one time during the occupation of these sites. We do know that these sites, although broadly similar to each other, do vary. Mortuary patterns, lithic and ceramic technology, and the mix of hunting/fishing/corn agriculture all fit within the Oneota pattern, but they present unique profiles at each individual location (Edwards 2010; Foley Winkler 2004, 2011; Hunter 2002; Jeske et al. 2016; Schneider 2015; Sterner 2012; Wilson 2016). Taken as a whole, the cluster of sites indicates a robust and thriving community of interrelated farmsteads. It appears that total group size was low relative to Middle Mississippian villages in the American Bottom and that the Lake Koshkonong locality seems to represent a relatively autonomous, but economically and politically connected, population on the periphery of the larger Oneota and Mississippian world (Schneider 2015). Nonetheless, the inhabitants confronted a violent social landscape. Finally, it must be noted that this locality is uniquely isolated from other Oneota localities. Wisconsin Oneota localities average approximately 30 km between them (Overstreet 1997). Lake Koshkonong, however, is at least 70 km distant from its nearest Oneota neighbor (Jeske et al. 2016; Schneider 2015). It is within this environmental and social context that we examine the chipped-stone assemblage from the site. EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 9

Methods Assemblage analysis To date, 536 lithic tools and 3,453 pieces of debitage from seven seasons of excavations conducted by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee between 1998 and 2010 have been analyzed. Only artifacts larger than 6.3 mm in diameter were included in this analysis. The assemblage is dominated by small triangular bifaces, steep-edged unifaces, and tools minimally retouched on the edge only. The products of bipolar reduction are a significant proportion of debris and tools (Jeske and Sterner-Miller 2015). Locally available raw materials account for approximately 90 percent of the CBHC lithic tool assemblage. The assemblage is also overwhelmingly made up of fair quality raw materials (82 percent), and the remaining categories of poor and good quality raw materials are fairly evenly split at 8 and 10 percent, respectively. Roughly 40 percent of tools are heat treated, which is compar- able to the 35 percent of heat-treated debitage. More than half (64 percent) of the tool assemblage are edge-modified only tools, with no additional modification to the body of the piece. Approximately 22 percent of tools are bifacially modified, while only 10 percent of tools are unifacial. Just 4 percent of the total tool assemblage is composed of multifacial cores. The high proportion of edge-modified only tools is indicative of a lithic economy that emphasized the production and use of expedient tool technology, rather than the curation and extended use of more refined tools. The small percentage (< 30 percent) of debitage under 12.5 mm in diameter, and the fact that only 50

percent of the debitage does not display cortex, indicates that tool retouch was not a significant component of the lithic economy at CBHC. This assemblage makeup is not surprising given the low quantities of formal tools at the site. Additionally, the small percentage of multifacial cores and the very low debitage-to-tool ratio of 6:1 suggest that, while lithic tool production occurred at CBHC, site residents econ- omized raw materials to a much greater extent than inhabitants did at other Oneota sites, which typically yield higher debitage-to-tool ratios: for example, at Carcajou Point 56:1 (Rosebrough and Broihahn 2005), Tremaine 33:1 (O’Gorman 1995), and Pammel Creek 10:1 (Rodell 1989). The diversity of results from a preliminary functional analysis of the lithic tools from CBHC also suggests that site residents were concentrating on the efficient production of expedient tools (Sterner 2012). Both low power and high power microscopic use-wear recognition techniques support the idea that site occupants used their stone tools for numerous tasks with little regard for their varied formal attri- butes. However, protein residue analysis provides another line of evidence for determining how the occupants of the site used their tools and how these tools fit into the larger economy of Oneota life.

Protein residue analysis A sample of 41 tools from the 2010, 2004, and 2014 field seasons was selected for protein residue analysis. Of these, 32 tools were triangular in shape and were modified either bifacially, unifacially, or only on their edges. Most of these tools fit the morphofunctional definition of Madison points (Justice 1987). Another eight 10 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE tools were steep-edged unifaces, often referred to as scrapers in most morphofunctional studies of Oneota lithics (e.g., Hall 1962; Overstreet 1976). One tool was modified flake. By looking at tools that more closely fit the traditional morphofunctional categories of scrapers and projectile points, as opposed to examining uniden- tified flake tools, we are better able to evaluate the accuracy of these morphofunctional designations. The protein residue analysis portion of this research was conducted at Archaeo- logical Investigations Northwest, Inc. (AINW). Possible protein residues were identified using crossover immunoelectrophoresis (CIEP). CIEP was pioneered in the forensic sciences by Culliford (1964, 1971). The CIEP method exploits the immune (antibody-antigen) reaction in which antibodies are produced to recognize and bind to foreign antigens as part of the body’s defense mechanism. The residue adhering to artifacts after use is considered the antigen in an archaeological context. Antisera containing the antibodies of various known plant and animal species may then be tested against an extract of the residue to determine if the antibodies of the antisera react with the antigen of the residue. The use of CIEP in archaeological contexts was pioneered by Newman (1990), and the process has been explored extensively (Allen et al. 1995; Fagan 2013; Högberg et al. 2009; Seeman et al. 2008; Yohe et al. 1991). While residue analysis methods have been thoroughly vetted, some concerns have been raised (Cattáneo et al. 1993; Hyland et al. 1990; Kooyman et al. 1992; Newman and Julig 1989). Questions about con- tamination of residue samples tested using immunological methods can usually be addressed by comparing soil samples from the associated contexts to rule out bac- terial and other organic contaminants that may produce false positives (Fagan 2013; Gurfinkel and Franklin 1988; Newman and Julig 1989). Soil samples from the contexts associated with the 2014 field season tools were submitted for testing along with the artifacts to control for false positives. The artifacts in this analysis were tested against antisera from deer, dog, bovine, goat, human, and rabbit.

Microwear analysis Additional information about the function of these tools was derived from microwear analysis. Both high-power (Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985; Yerkes 2009) and low-power (Kamminga 1982; Odell 1981) use-wear analyses were conducted in order to extrapolate the greatest amount of functional information from the tools. Two microscopes were utilized for the microwear analysis in this project: the Amscope SE305-AZ-P binocular stereomicroscope was used for low-power analysis, and the Olympus BH-2 upright microscope with reflected light fluorescence attachment was used for high-power analysis. This equipment has been used in previous archaeological analyses (Ahlrichs and Sterner-Miller 2015; Jeske and Sterner- Miller 2015) and in the experimental programs and blind tests (Sterner-Miller et al. 2015) that were conducted prior to the archaeological analysis.

Experimental program and blind tests Blind tests can assess an analyst’s ability to make precise and accurate designations of tool function based on use wear (Bamforth 1988; Brink 1978; Kamminga 1982; EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 11

Keeley 1980; Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Newcomer and Keeley 1979; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Vaughan 1985). To this end, a suite of experiments was conducted to determine Sterner’s ability to accurately identify the way stone tools were used and the materials on which they were used. One hundred flake tools were used in a series of experiments carried out by students and faculty in the UWM Experimental Archaeology Working Group. Tools were used for a wide variety of tasks under controlled conditions and time limits. Following the exercise, tools were washed in an ultrasonic cleaner using warm water and dish soap for approximately 30 minutes and then washed again in clean water. Chemical cleaning, advocated by early practitioners in the field (Keeley 1980; Semenov 1964; Vaughan 1985), was not utilized in this analysis for a variety of reasons. First, cleaning with soap and water has been determined to be fully adequate (Ahlrichs and Sterner- Miller 2015; Juel Jensen 1994; Moss 1983; Pope 2005). Second, we wish to preserve protein and starch residues on archaeological tools for residue analysis; chemical cleaning could remove such residues. Finally, the detrimental effects chemical cleaning may have on specimens are not particularly well documented (Coffey 1994; Moss 1986; Plisson and Mauger 1988). After tools were cleaned, they were bagged individually to control for bag wear (Gero 1978). Sterner examined the tools and arrived at designations of contact material and primary motion of use. Her accuracy rate was 97 percent correct identification in area of tool utilized, 82 percent for motion of use, 95 percent for general materials processed, and 81 percent for specific materials processed. These results indicate that the inferences made from the microwear study are likely to be accurate and precise. The same methods that were applied to the experimental assemblage were then applied to the archaeological assemblage under study for this project. All 41 tools tested using CIEP were examined for microwear, regardless of whether they reacted to the selected antisera.

Results Eight of the 41 CBHC artifacts (19.5 percent) yielded positive residue reactions (Figure 4; Table 1). The nearly 20 percent rate of positive results is a relatively high proportion (John Fagan, personal communication 2013), but it is not unex- pected given the morphological tool types that were chosen for analysis. Tools tested positive to canid, bovine, deer, goat, and human antiserum.

Microwear results of tools with positive antiserum reactions Tool number 390 is made from Galena chert and was used in a transverse motion— that is, a scraping motion. This tool reacted positively to goat antiserum. Goat antiserum reacts to bovid subfamilies and to cervids. Since 390 tested negative against bovine antiserum, it most likely represents deer (John Fagan, personal communication 2013). Our interpretation of this tool is that it was used to scrape fresh deer hide. Tool 390 is a steep-edged uniface and would be categorized in most morphofunctional typologies as a probable scraper. In this case, three separate lines of evidence come together to indicate tool function. 12 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

figure 4. Eight tools with positive CIEP reactions. From upper left to lower right, tool numbers: 14-01, 106, 107, 114, 241, 390, 408, and 429.

TABLE 1 TOOLS WITH POSITIVE CIEP REACTIONS

Tool no. Basic form Reactant Micropolish Motion of use

107 Uniface Bovine Meat Projectile 429 Biface Bovine Fresh hide Transverse 408 Biface Canid Bone Longitudinal 390 Uniface Goat [deer] Fresh hide Transverse 114 Biface Deer None Indeterminate 14-01 Biface Deer Fresh hide Longitudinal 241 Biface Human Meat Projectile 106 Uniface Human Wood Indeterminate EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 13

Tool 429 is made from an unknown pebble chert and fits the morphofunctional description of a Madison triangular projectile point. However, the presence of wet-hide polish on the proximal end and the transverse motion indicated by microwear (Figure 5(c)) suggests that the tool was probably also used as a scraper. Tool 429’s positive reaction with bovine antiserum, coupled with the microwear evidence, indicates it was used as a scraper on fresh bison hide. Tool 408 is made from Galena chert and displays bone polish (Figure 5(a)) from use in a longitudinal motion. It most closely matched an experimental tool that had been used to disarticulate limb bones. Tool 408 reacted positively to canid antiserum. Tool 107 is made from Oneota formation Prairie du Chien chert and also fits the morphofunctional designation of Madison point. Use wear from the piece provides support for its designation as a projectile. Microflaking on the distal end and dry-hide polish on the proximal end indicate that the tool was probably hafted and served as an arrow point. The presence of bovine protein residue, and meat polish on the body of the piece, indicates it was used successfully to shoot a bison. Since meat polish takes a significant amount of use to be detectable under a microscope, the tool was probably lodged in bison muscle for a significant period of time. Tool 106 is made from Silurian chert and is a triangular biface that appears to have been heavily reworked. One small patch of wood polish or weakly developed plant polish (Figure 5(b)) was evident on the dorsal hump of the tool, but no other

figure 5. Use wear on tools from Crescent Bay Hunt Club: (a) bone polish on Tool 408 at 200× magnification; (b) wood polish on Tool 106 at 200× magnification; (c) wet-hide polish on Tool 429 at 200× magnification; (d) meat polish on Tool 14-01 at 200× magnification; (e) edge rounding on proximal end of Tool 429 at 10× magnification; and (f) edge rounding on proximal end of Tool 429 at 30× magnification. 14 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE polish was present. Human blood residue was detected on this tool. The polish on the hump probably represents hafting, and it is likely that this tool served as a knife or projectile. However, the conflicting use signatures along with the heavily retouched edges of the tool indicate multiple uses and possible recycling of the tool. The tool did not come from a context associated with human remains. Tool 241 is made from an unknown pebble chert and also exhibited human protein residue. This piece is a small triangular bifacial tool. Heavy microflaking near the distal end of the tool is consistent with its use as a projectile point (Odell 1981:206). There is also meat polish on both the dorsal and ventral sides of the distal end of the tool, indicating that the projectile was lodged in the flesh of its victim for some time before removal. However, it should be noted that it is not necessarily certain that the meat polish and the human protein residue are from the same use event. Although positive for human blood, Tool 241 is not directly associated with human remains. Tool 114 is a triangular bifacial piece made from Galena chert and displays faint dry-hide polish on the proximal end and much more developed dry-hide polish on the distal end. The ventral side of the proximal end is heavily rounded. There are also faint traces of meat polish on the tool’s dorsal midsection, but no polish is present on its lateral margins. Deer protein residue was identified on the tool. The many wear patterns on this tool suggest multiple uses, both as a point or knife and as a scraper. Tool 14-01 also reacted positively for deer residue. The tool is a relatively large side-notched biface. Edge rounding was present on both the dorsal and the ventral sides of the distal end of the tool. Wet-hide polish and meat polish (Figure 5(d)) are both present on this tool, suggesting that it was most likely used as a knife for butchering deer.

Microwear results of tools with negative antiserum reactions Thirty-three tools did not react positively with the antisera selected for these tests. However, the lack of a positive reaction does not mean that these tools were not used, nor does it preclude the possibility that they might test positively with other antisera (e.g., for raccoon, fish, birds). These tools were examined for microwear using the same protocols as those for tools that did react positively to the antisera. Of these artifacts, 18 (44 percent) displayed no traces of use at all (Figure 6), while 14 (34 percent) displayed traces of use on meat or fresh hide, 2 (5 percent) were used on soft plant matter, and 5 (12 percent) were used on hard substances such as wood, bone, or antler. One (2 percent) uniface exhibited dry-hide polish and one (2 percent) biface displayed both meat and plant polish (Figure 7; Table 2).

Tool function discussion Although our sample size is small, we can show not only that individual tools were used but also how they were used and the materials that they were used on. Even with only four antisera tests per tool, a relatively large proportion of tools yielded EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 15 positive results. A more wide-ranging set of tests would most likely enhance our data for animal and plant species on which each tool was used. On a much more general level, we can once again note that a morphofunctional typology alone may catch the broad strokes of tool use but will provide relatively little useful information about what people actually did with their tools in any given context. A comparison of Madison points or thumbnail scrapers between two sites thus yields information on the relative proportions of particular forms but little that can be used to infer variation in behaviors of the people who occupied those sites. This problem is particularly keen at Oneota sites since microwear data indicate that a large proportion of artifacts showing evidence of use are not intentionally shaped pieces in the first place (Sterner 2012). Fortunately, this problem can be alleviated by using some combination of functional analyses.

Other implications of this study Although the focus of this article has been on the microscopic and blood residue data, we connect these lines of information to assemblage-based and contextual evidence to provide a much clearer picture of the subsistence, economic, and ritual activities of the inhabitants at CBHC. First, CBHC stone tools follow expectations for sites occupied by people using a relatively sedentary settlement system in a mixed agricultural/foraging subsistence economy (Jeske 1987:137–138). CBHC occupants

figure 6. Seventeen tools with no visible use wear. From upper left to lower right, tool numbers: 04, 13, 123, 147, 148, 183, 281, 326, 386, 389, 392, 397, 416, 426, 430, 447, and 546. 16 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

figure 7. Sixteen tools with use wear but with negative CIEP reactions. From upper left to lower right, tool numbers: 544, 219, 545, 60, 208, 385, 409, 02, 35, 83, 93, 387, 388, 407, 427, and 428.

produced only a few easily reworked, recyclable, and curated formal tool forms (Sterner 2012). Our results show that these economically and efficiently produced artifacts are not specialized but are generic tools capable of being used for multiple

TABLE 2 MICROWEAR RESULTS FOR NONREACTIVE TOOLS

Polish type n %

Used Dry hide 1 3 Plant/meat 1 3 Plant 2 6 Smooth pitted 3 9 Meat 9 27 Total used 16 48 Unused Generic weak 1 3 Grit 2 6 None 14 43 Total unused 17 52 EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 17 tasks. In addition, a large number of expediently produced flake tools were also used, and these too are generic, rather than specialized, tools. Second, the use of small tool forms is consistent not with tool function per se (e.g., use as arrow points) but with constrained access to high-quality raw materials for making larger tools (Sterner 2012). The raw materials chosen by CBHC occupants to make their tools are overwhelmingly local materials of mediocre quality. Jeske (1987, 1992) has argued that the pattern of small tool size and mediocre raw material use seen in northern and western Illinois sites is tied together with adaptation to complex social situations (e.g., external relations with neighbors, trade, war). CBHC follows a pattern previously noted for contemporaneous Langford sites (Jeske 1990, 2000, 2002; Wilson 2016). Third, the results show a surprisingly high proportion of tools used on bison (three of eight). While sample size is a clear issue here, the presence of bison proteins on these locally made and deposited tools is surprising enough. Based on archaeo- zoological data, we suspected bison were hunted locally earlier and farther east than is commonly thought (Jeske 2003). The bison protein residue indicates that it is likely that bison were being hunted locally in southeastern Wisconsin. Bison remains have been recovered at CBHC, including economically valuable and not easily transported bones (Jeske 2003; Sterner-Miller 2014). Both the protein residue and microwear evidence from this sample indicate that the animals were probably processed at or near the site. It is important to note that all three of the tools used to process bison are indistinguishable from other tools in the assemblage in terms of raw materials used, method of manufacture, or depositional context. It is the blood protein residues that provide the indicator that the tools were used on bison. Fourth, we are just beginning to understand the functions of different spatial areas at CBHC. Tool 408 (canine protein, bone-slicing wear patterns) was found in a feature located less than 10 m from a set of features that represent more than simple trash dumps. Feature 10-14 is a deep pit containing an approximately 25 kg plano-convex boulder on which a two-year-old female dog was laid on her side with her head pointing up. Cut marks on the distal portions of the dog’s leg bones and skull indicate that it was defleshed before burial. Feature 10-11 contained another complete dog skull, a set of articulated deer leg bones, and portions of a bear’s face. We have not yet tried to match the cut marks on the bones with the edge of Tool 408 and have no other evidence that this tool was used on the buried dog specifically. However, we can say that this tool was most likely used to deflesh and/or disarticulate dogs. Moreover, the dog skeletal evidence and archaeological contexts indicate that these dogs were not butchered for food. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that Tool 408 was used to process dogs for ritual purposes, despite the fact that in most ways it does not stand out from the general pattern of tools at the site. The material is local, and there is nothing in the manner of production, tool morphology, or depositional context of the tool to indicate a special status as a tool used for ritual purposes. Fifth, human protein residues on projectile points provide additional support for recent inferences about Oneota violence (Jeske 2014; Karsten 2015). Foley Winkler (2011) found relatively little skeletal evidence for violence among Oneota groups in 18 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

Wisconsin. In the years since Foley Winkler’s dissertation, excavations at CBHC and the nearby Koshkonong Creek Village sites have yielded several burials and isolated bones demonstrating perimortem trauma (Jeske and Edwards 2014; Jeske and Sterner-Miller 2014). The skeletal data, when combined with tool morphological, wear pattern, and chemical evidence, indicate a greater amount of interpersonal violence than previously suspected. Our sample of two projectile points with human blood on them is not conclusive evidence of interpersonal violence. Coupled with the osteological and other archaeological evidence, however, our sample does suggest that violence was a significant part of Oneota life in eastern Wisconsin. Sixth, using a combination of residue and microwear evidence not only affords the most complete picture of tool function but it also offers an opportunity to cross- check the information about use provided by each method. In some cases, such as with Tool 114, residue analysis provides information about tool use, whereas microwear analysis offers none. In other cases, microwear and residue analyses present conflicting use signatures, indicating multiple functions or incidental contact with blood. Without the complement of microwear analyses, the protein residues on artifacts are largely devoid of direct contextual information about use and may be interpreted in a variety of ways. For example, Tool 429 would be typed by most morphofunctional typologies as a projectile point. However, we have two independent lines of evidence to indicate that it was used as a scraper. We have no evidence (other than morphology) to suggest that it was used as a knife or an arrow point at some time in its use life. The significance of the variation in Oneota triangular stone tools has a long history, but we can now definitively state that they cannot be assumed to have been used solely as arrow points, scrapers, or knives (Jeske 1992; Munson and Munson 1972). Most importantly, this study shows the utility of this combination of approaches to tool function as it relates to overall site economy and subsistence strategies. The microwear results indicate that approximately 80 percent of the tools were used in subsistence-related activities. On the other hand, roughly 20 percent of artifacts determined to have been used were involved in the production of wood, antler, or bone tools. However, the bias in this study is toward bifacially and unifacially modified tools rather than edge-modified only expedient pieces. A more comprehensive analysis of all tool classes is necessary in order to evaluate the relationship between lithic economy and a group’s overall economy, including subsistence, political, social, and other activities.

Future research Comprehensive assemblage and functional analyses of Oneota lithics will provide significant new information about the larger economy. Descriptive lithic analyses have been undertaken at Oneota sites throughout Wisconsin (Anderson et al. 1995; Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999; Gibbon 1969; Hall 1962; Lambert 2001; O’Gorman 1995; Overstreet 1976; Padilla and Ritterbush 2005; Rodell 1989; Salkin 1989). Although large quantities of informal or expedient tools have been identified at Oneota sites, no specific function has been attributed to these tools EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 19

(Lambert 2001; O’Gorman 1995; Rodell 1989). Examination of a larger sample of tools would address the breadth of Oneota subsistence strategies (Hart 1990; Tubbs and O’Gorman 2005). The diversity of subsistence strategies in use at Oneota sites should be reflected in the diversity of uses to which stone tools were put (Binford and Binford 1966; Bleed 1986; Cahen et al. 1979). Previous Oneota lithic analyses have noted the appearance of specialized tool forms, such as beveled knives (Padilla and Ritterbush 2005), or increased numbers of unifacial scrapers (Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999) that are inferred to indicate an increased reliance on bison. However, Padilla and Ritterbush (2005) consider only morphofunctional tool designations in their interpretations of subsistence-related tasks, and Boszhardt and McCarthy (1999) examine only one morphofunctional tool class. More complete functional analyses of Oneota lithics that consider both functional variables and technological and typological aspects of all components of the chipped-stone assemblage are necessary to understand the dynamic relationship between stone tools and subsistence strategies (Moss 1983; Pilar Babot et al. 2013; Vaughan 1981). Comprehensive Oneota lithic analyses will also elucidate the relationships between the people who occupied sites within close proximity to one another. Spatially distinct settlement localities in Wisconsin have generally been interpreted as representing semiautonomous groups, but the level of community interaction is unclear (cf. Edwards 2010; Gibbon 1972; Hall 1962; O’Gorman 1995; Overstreet 2000; Rodell 2000; Schneider 2015). Lithic analysis has much to contribute to this discussion. Preliminary correspondence analysis (CA) of lithic materials from two Wisconsin Oneota localities indicates significant differences in the diversity of resources used, which has implications for intersite contact, cooperation, and communication (Sterner-Miller 2015). Similarly, a broad functional and technological stone-tool analysis will yield independent data concerning the extent of competition and violence within and among Oneota localities (Foley Winkler 2011; Jeske 2014; Karsten 2015; Overstreet 2000). It is clear that the integration of approaches using archaeological context; assemblage-based analysis of raw materials, manufacturing techniques, tools, and debitage; low- and high-power microscopy; and chemical analysis gives us much more insight into Oneota lithic economy and the role it played in the larger context of everyday life.

Acknowledgments We thank Jean Hudson and the UWM Experimental Archaeology Working Group for providing opportunities for and encouragement of experimental use-wear studies. We thank John Fagan and Cam Walker (Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc.) for their work on the blood residue analysis. Thanks also go to the Wisconsin Archaeological Society, whose research award provided funding for a portion of the blood residue testing. Rick Edwards kindly provided the map and radiocarbon graphic in this article, and Seth Schneider provided the ceramic graphic. Rob Ahlrichs assisted with the lithic graphics and manuscript revisions. 20 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

Notes on the contributors Katherine M. Sterner is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Anthropology at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and the Collections Manager for the Archaeo- logical Research Laboratory at UWM. She received her B.A. in anthropology from Penn State University and her M.S. in anthropology from University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Her research is focused on the lithic economy of late prehistoric societies in the Great Lakes and Midwest. Her areas of specialization include use-wear analysis, residue analysis, spatial analysis, and ground- and chipped-stone tool technologies. Correspondence to: Katherine M. Sterner, Department of Anthropology, Univer- sity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, 3413 N. Downer Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA. Email: [email protected] Robert J. Jeske is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and the Director of the Archaeological Research Laboratory at UWM. He received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. His research is focused on the Great Lakes, Lithic Analysis, Late Prehistory, Mortuary Studies, and a Core-Periphery Approach to social and economic interactions and culture contact. Correspondence to: Robert J. Jeske, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, 3413 N. Downer Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA. Email: [email protected]

ORCID Katherine M. Sterner http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8675-1491

References

Ahlrichs, Robert E., and Katherine M. Sterner-Miller (2015) The Susceptibility of Wyandotte Chert to High Power Use-Wear Analysis. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Allen, Jane, Margaret E. Newman, Mary Riford, and Gavin H. Archer (1995) Blood and Plant Residues on Hawaiian Stone Tools from Two Archaeological Sites on Upland Kane’ohe, Ko’olau Poko District O’ahu Island. Asian Perspectives 34:283–302. Amick, Daniel S. (1994) Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis: An Examination of Folsom Hunting Behavior in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 9–34. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Anderson, Adrian, Allan Westover, Terrance J. Martin, Matthew L. Murray, Susan M. T. Myster, Barbara O’Connell, and L. Anthony Zalucha (1995) The State Road Coulee Site: 47LC176. The Wisconsin Archeologist 76:48–230. Arzigian, Constance A. (2000) Middle Woodland and Oneota Contexts for Wild Rice Exploitation in Southwestern Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25:245–268. Arzigian, Constance A., and Robert F. Boszhardt (1989) Introduction, Environmental Setting and History of Investigations at the Pammel Creek Site. The Wisconsin Archeologist 70:1–40. Bamforth, Douglas B. (1986) Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38–50. EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 21

Bamforth, Douglas B. (1988) Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11–23. Barton, C. Michael (1990) Beyond Style and Function: A View from the Middle Paleolithic. American Anthropologist 92:57–72. Bettarel, Robert L., and Hale G. Smith (1973) The Moccasin Bluff Site and the Woodland Cultures of Southwestern Michigan. Anthropological Papers 49. Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, MI. Binford, Lewis R. (1980) Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–28. Binford, Lewis R., and Sally R. Binford (1966) A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–295. Binford, Lewis R., and Sally R. Binford (1969) Stone Tools and Human Behavior. Scientific American 220:70– 84. Blades, Brooke S. (2003) End Scraper Reduction and Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–156. Bleed, Peter (1986) The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737–747. Bordes, Francois (1953) Essai de Classification des industries moustériennes. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France 50:457–466. Bordes, Francois (1961) Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134:803–810. Bordes, Francois, and Denise de Sonneville-Bordes (1970) The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73. Borel, Antony, R. Cornette, and M. Baylac (2016) Stone Tool Forms and Functions: A Morphometric Analysis of Modern Humans’ Stone Tools from Song Terus Cave (Java, Indonesia). Archaeometry. doi:10.1111/ arcm.12264 Boszhardt, Robert F., and Joelle McCarthy (1999) Oneota End Scrapers and Experiments in Hide Dressing: An Analysis from the LaCrosse Locality. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:177–199.

Brink, John W. (1978) Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. National Museums of Canada, Archaeological Survey of Canada 83, Ottawa. Buchanan, Briggs, Mark Collard, Marcus J. Hamilton, and Michael J. O’Brien (2011) Points and Prey: A Quantitative Test of the Hypothesis That Prey Size Influences Early Paleoindian Projectile Point Form. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:852–864. Cahen, Daniel, Lawrence H. Keeley, and Francis L. Van Noten (1979) Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory. Current Anthropology 20:661–683. Carlson, David (1979) Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies: An Example from the Koster Site in West-Central Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Carr, Philip J. (1994) Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 35–44. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cattáneo, C., K. Gelsthorpe, P. Phillips, and R. J. Sokol (1993) Blood Residues on Stone Tools: Indoor and Outdoor Experiments. World Archaeology 25:29–43. Coffey, B. P. (1994) The Chemical Alteration of Microwear Polishes: An Evaluation of the Plisson and Mauger Findings through Replicative Experimentation. Lithic Technology 19:88–92. Cook, Robert A., and Aaron Comstock (2014) Toward More Continuous and Practical Artifact Analyses: Defining and Learning from Key Dimensions of Fort Ancient Triangular Projectile Points in the Miami Valleys. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39:222–250. Cowan, Frank L. (1999) Making Sense of Flake Scatters: Lithic Technological Strategies and Mobility. American Antiquity 64:593–607. Cox, Irwin W. (1936) The Indian Spoon. American Antiquity 1:317–320. Culliford, Bryan J. (1964) Precipitin Reactions in Forensic Problems. Nature 201:1092–1093. Culliford, Bryan J. (1971) The Examination and Typing of Bloodstains in the Crime Laboratory. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 22 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and Christopher R. Hoffman (1994) Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:211–258. Edwards, Richard Wynn (2010) Oneota Settlement Patterns around Lake Koshkonong in Southeast Wisconsin: An Environmental Catchment Analysis Using GIS Modeling. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Egan-Bruhy, Kathryn C. (2001) Floral Analysis. In Program in Midwest Archaeology: 2000–2001, edited by R. J. Jeske, pp. 57–60. Report of Investigation, No. 148. Archaeology Research Laboratory, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Egan-Bruhy, Kathryn C. (2014) Ethnicity as Evidence in Subsistence Patterns of Late Prehistoric Upper Great Lakes Populations. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Occasional Papers: Reassessing the Timing, Rate, and Adoption Trajectories of Domesticate Use in the Midwest and Great Lakes 1:53–72. Ensor, Bradley E. (2009) Chipped Stone Debitage, Material Selection, and Expedient Tool Production in Southeast Michigan. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34:199–222. Fagan, John (2013) Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Residue Analysis Laboratory Methods and Procedures. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc., Portland, OR. Fitting, James E. (1975) The Archaeology of Michigan. Cranbrook Institute, Bloomfield Hills, MI. Foley Winkler, Kathleen M. (2004) Oneota Mortuary Practices in Southeast Wisconsin. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Foley Winkler, Kathleen M. (2011) Oneota and Langford Mortuary Practices from Eastern Wisconsin and Northeast Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Fortier, Andrew C. (1972) Fish Bone and Scale Analysis from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site (Je244), Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin– Madison. Gaertner, Linda M. (1994) Determining the Function of Dalton Adzes from Northeast Arkansas. Lithic –

Technology 19:97 109. Gero, Joan (1978) Summary of Experiments to Duplicate Post-Excavational Damage to Tool Edges. Lithic Technology 7:34. doi:10.1080/01977261.1978.11754439 Gibbon, Guy E. (1968) Je 244: The Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site, Unpublished manuscript housed at the Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Gibbon, Guy E. (1969) The Walker-Hooper and Bornick Sites—Two Grand River Phase Oneota Sites in Central Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Gibbon, Guy E. (1972) Cultural Dynamics and the Development of the Oneota Life-Way in Wisconsin. American Antiquity 37:166–185. Goodyear, Albert C. (1989) A Hypothesis of the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleo-Indian Groups in North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. J. Ellis and J. C. Lothrop, pp. 1–10. Westview, Boulder, CO. Griffin, James B. (1983) The Midlands. In Ancient North Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 243–302. Freeman, New York. Gurfinkel, D. M., and U. M. Franklin (1988) A Study of the Feasibility of Detecting Blood Residue on Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:83–97. Hall, Robert L. (1962) The Archaeology of Carcajou Point. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Hanson, Paul (1996) Jefferson County: Survey of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Property. In The Southeastern Wisconsin Archaeology Program: 1995–1996, edited by L. Goldstein, pp. 42–52. Reports of Investigations 128. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory. Hardy, Bruce L., M. Bolus, and N. J. Conard (2008) Hammer or Crescent Wrench? Stone Tool Form and Function in the Aurignacian of Southwest Germany. Journal of Human Evolution 54:648–662. Hart, John P. (1990) Modeling Oneota Agricultural Production: A Cross-Cultural Evaluation. Current Anthropology 31:569–577. EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 23

Henry, Donald O. (1989) Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. In Archaeological Papers, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, pp. 139–155. Vol. 1. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Högberg, Anders, Kathryn Puseman, and Chad Yost (2009) Integration of Use-Wear with Protein Residue Analysis—A Study of Tool Use and Function in the South Scandinavian Early Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1725–1737. Hohol, April (1985) A Microwear Analysis of Humpback Bifaces. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, East Lansing, MI. Hollinger, R. Eric (1993) Lithic Analysis. In The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the La Crosse Locality Wisconsin: 1. The Ot Site (47 Lc-262), edited by Jodie O’Gorman, pp. 73–90. Archaeology Research Series, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Holmes, W. H. (1891) Manufacture of Stone Arrow-Points. American Anthropologist 4:49–58. Hunter, Chrisie L. (2002) A Comparative Study of Oneota. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Hyland, D. C., J. M. Tersak, J. M. Adovasio, and M. I. Siegel (1990) Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. American Antiquity 55:104–112. Ingbar, Eric E. (1994) Lithic Material Selection and Technological Organization. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, Vol. 7, pp. 45–56. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Jeske, Robert J. (1987) Efficiency, Economy and Prehistoric Lithic Assemblages in the American Midwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Jeske, Robert J. (1989) Economies in Raw Material Use by Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 34–45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jeske, Robert J. (1990) Langford Tradition Subsistence, Settlement, and Technology. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 15:221–249.

Jeske, Robert J. (1992) Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 57:467–481. Jeske, Robert J. (2000) The Washington Irving Site: Langford Tradition Adaptation in Northern Illinois. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by M. L. Fowler and S. R. Ahler, Vol. 27, pp. 265– 293. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Springfield, IL. Jeske, Robert J. (2002) The Langford Occupation at the LaSalle County Home Site in the Upper Illinois River Valley. The Wisconsin Archeologist 83:78–122. Jeske, Robert J. (2003) Lake Koshkonong 2002/2003: Archaeological Investigations at Three Sites in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. Jeske, Robert J. (2010) Structures and Function at an Oneota Village. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Bloomington, IN. Jeske, Robert J. (2014) Violence in the Wisconsin Oneota World: New Evidence from Lake Koshkonong. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, IL. Jeske, Robert J., and Richard W. Edwards IV (2014) Report on the Discovery of Human Remains at the Koshkonong Creek Village Site (47Je379), Jefferson County, Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory Reports of Investigations 220. Jeske, Robert J., Rochelle Lurie, and April S. Hohol (1987) Lithic Analysis of Putney Landing Middle Woodland Features. In Putney Landing Archaeological Investigations at a Havana-Hopewell Settlement on the Mississippi River, edited by C. W. Markman, pp. 198–269. West-Central Illinois Archaeological Research Series 2, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb. Jeske, Robert J., Seth A. Schneider, Richard W. Edwards, Katherine M. Sterner, and Rachel C. McTavish (2016) Strangers in a Strange Land: The Lake Koshkonong Oneota Locality in Context. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Iowa City, IA. Jeske, Robert J., and Katherine M. Sterner-Miller (2014) Report on the Discovery of Human Remains at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site (47Je904), Jefferson County, Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory Reports of Investigations 248. 24 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

Jeske, Robert J., and Katherine M. Sterner-Miller (2015) Microwear Analysis of Bipolar Tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site (47Je904). Lithic Technology 40:366–376. Juel Jensen, Helle (1994) Flint Tools and Plant Working. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark. Justice, Noel D. (1987) Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kamminga, Johan (1982) Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools. Occassional Papers in Anthropology 12. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, Australia. Karsten, Jordan (2015) Troubled Times in Late Prehistoric Central Wisconsin: Violent Skeletal Trauma among the Winnebago Phase Oneota. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Keeley, Lawrence H. (1980) Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Illinois. Keeley, Lawrence H., and Mark H. Newcomer (1977) Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:29–62. Kelly, Robert L. (1988) Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–734. Kelly, John E., Steven J. Ozuk, Douglas K. Jackson, Dale L. McElrath, Fred A. Finney, and Duane Esarey (1984) Emergent Mississippian Period. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 128–157. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Kooyman, Brian, Margaret Newman, and Howard Ceri (1992) Verifying the Reliability of Blood Residue Analysis on Archaeological Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:265–269. Kuhn, Steven L. (1994) A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442. Kuznar, Lawrence A., and Robert J. Jeske (2006) Analogic Reasoning, Ethnoarchaeology, and the Impact of Canines on the Archaeological Record. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16:37–46.

Lambert, Louise (2001) Analysis of Stone Tools from the 1998 Crescent Bay Hunt Club Excavations. In Program in Midwestern Archaeology (Southeastern Wisconsin Archaeological Program), edited by R. J. Jeske, pp. 84–104. Archaeological Research Laboratory Report of Investigations No. 148, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. Loebel, Thomas J. (2013) Endscrapers, Use-Wear, and Early Paleoindians in Eastern North America. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, pp. 315–330. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lurie, Rochelle (1982) Economic Models of Stone Tool Manufacture and Use: The Koster Site Middle Archaic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Lurie, Rochelle (1989) Lithic Technology and Mobility Strategies: The Koster Site Middle Archaic. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 46–56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mason, Ronald J. (1981) Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. McGimsey, Charles R., and Michael D. Conner (1985) Deer Track: A Late Woodland Site in West-Central Illinois. Kampsville Archeological Center Technical Report 1. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL. Mellars, Paul (1970) Some Comments on the Notion of “Functional Variability” in Stone Tool Assemblages. World Archaeology 2:74–89. Miller, G. Logan (2013) Paleoindian Plant Processing at Paleo Crossing: Pattern or Bias? Paper presented at the 57th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Columbus, OH. Miller, G. Logan (2014) Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 49:292–301. Morrow, Carol A., and Richard W. Jefferies (1989) Trade or Embedded Procurement?: A Test Case from Southern Illinois. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 27–33. Cambridge University Press, New York. EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 25

Moss, Emily H. (1983) The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements: Pincevent and Pont d’ Ambon: Two Case Studies From the French Final Paleolithic. BAR International Series 177. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Moss, Emily H. (1986) What Microwear Analysts Look At. In Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools, edited by L. R. Owen and G. Unrath, pp. 91–96. Early Man News 9/10/11, Tübingen, Germany. Moss, James (2010) Intrasite Feature Analysis of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club (47Je904). Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Munson, Patrick J., and Cheryl Ann Munson (1972) Unfinished Triangular Projectile Points for “Hump-Backed” Knives? Pennsylvania Archaeologist 42(3):31–36. Nass, John P. (1987) Use-Wear Analysis and Household Archaeology: A Study of the Activity Structure of the Incinerator Site, an Anderson Phase Fort Ancient Community in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Newcomer, Mark H., and Lawrence H. Keeley (1979) Testing a Method of Microwear Analysis with Experimental Flint Tools. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 195–205. Academic Press, New York. Newman, Margaret E. (1990) The Hidden Evidence from Hidden Cave, Nevada: An Application of Immunological Techniques to the Analysis of Archaeological Materials. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Ontario. Newman, Margaret, and Patrick Julig (1989) The Identification of Protein Residues on Lithic Artifacts from a Stratified Boreal Forest Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:119–132. Odell, George H. (1977) The Application of Micro-Wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstruction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Odell, George H. (1980) Towards a More Behavioral Approach to Archaeological Lithic Concentrations. American Antiquity 45:404–431.

Odell, George H. (1981) The Mechanics of Use-Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:197–209. Odell, George H. (1994) Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:51–73. Odell, George H., and Frieda Odell-Vereecken (1980) Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by “Blind Tests”: The Low-Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87–120. O’Gorman, Jodie (1995) The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the LaCrosse Locality, Wisconsin: 3. The Tremaine Site. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Olsen, M. Lee (2003) Oneota Subsistence in Southern Wisconsin: Agriculture and Plant Domestication at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Overstreet, David F. (1976) The Grand River, Lake Koshkonong, Green Bay, and Lake Winnebago Phases: Eight Hundred Years of Oneota Prehistory in Eastern Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Overstreet, David F. (1997) Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archeologist 78:250–296. Overstreet, David F. (2000) Cultural Dynamics of the Late Prehistoric Period in Southern Wisconsin. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by M. L. Fowler and S. R. Ahler, pp. 405–438. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. XXVIII, Springfield. Padilla, Matthew J., and Lauren W. Ritterbush (2005) White Rock Oneota Chipped Stone Tools. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30:259–297. Park, Sung Woo (2010) Subsistence Change and Lithic Technological Response by Late Prehistoric and Historic Occupants of the Zimmerman Site (11ls13) in the Upper Illinois River Valley of Northern Illinois. The Wisconsin Archeologist 91:81–102. Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly (1987) Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview, Boulder, CO. 26 KATHERINE M. STERNER AND ROBERT J. JESKE

Pilar Babot, María del, Salomón Hocsman and Gabriela Roxana Cattáneo (2013) Assessing the Life History of Projectile Points/Knives from the Middle Holocene of Agentina’s Soutern Puna. Quaternary International 287–319. Plisson, Hugues, and Manuelle Mauger (1988) Chemical and Mechanical Alteration of Microwear Polishes: An Experimental Approach. Helinium 28:3–16. Pope, Melody K. (1986) Microdrills from the Moundville Region: Technology, Function and Context. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, TN. Pope, Melody K. (2005) Chipped Stone, Tools, and Towns: An Archaeological Study of Uruk Period Lithic Production and Use at Abu Salabikh, Iraq. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Binghamton, Binghamton, New York. Prentice, Guy (1985) Economic Differentiation among Mississippian Farmsteads. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10:77–122. Rau, Charles (1869) A Deposit of Agricultural Flint Implements in Southern Illinois. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 401–407. Rodell, Roland L. (1989) The Pammel Creek Site Lithic Artifacts. In Human Adaptation in the Upper Mississippi Valley: A Study of the Pammel Creek Oneota Site (47 LC-61) La Crosse, Wisconsin. Special Issue, The Wisconsin Archeologist 70:95–110. Rodell, Roland L. (2000) Patterns of Oneota Settlement within the Middle Portion of the Upper Mississippi Valley. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Essays in Honor of Melvin C. Fowler, edited by M. L. Fowler and S. R. Ahler, pp. 375–404. Reports of Investigations, Vol. 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Rosebrough, Amy L., and John H. Broihahn (2005) A Conundrum at Carcajou Point. Office of the State Archaeologist, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison. Sackett, James R. (1982) Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59–112. Salkin, Philip H. (1989) Archaeological Mitigation Excavations at Fox Lake, Dodge County, Wisconsin, Report

500. Archaeological Consulting Services, Madison, Wisconsin. Schneider, Seth A. (2008) Oneota Ceramic Relationships at Lake Koshkonong. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Schneider, Seth A. (2015) Oneota Ceramic Production and Exchange: Social, Economic, and Political Interactions in Eastern Wisconsin between A.D. 1050–1400. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Seeman, Mark F., Nils E. Nilsson, Garry L. Summers, Larry L. Morris, Paul J. Barans, Elaine Dowd, and Margaret E. Newman (2008) Evaluating Protein Residues on Gainey Phase Paleoindian Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2742–2750. Semenov, Sergei A. (1964) Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Translated by M. W. Thompson. Adams & Dart, Bath, UK. Shott, Michael J. (1986) Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15–51. Shott, Michael J. (1989) On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30. Shott, Michael J. (2003) Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opèratoire. Lithic Technology 28:95–105. Sievert, April (1994) The Detection of Ritual Tool Use through Microwear Analysis: Comparative Examples from Spiro and Angel Mounds. Lithic Technology 19:146–156. Spurrell, Flaxman (1892) Notes on Early Sickles. Archaeological Journal 49:53–59. Sterner, Katherine M. (2012) Oneota Lithics: A Use-Wear Analysis of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Assemblage from the 2004 Excavations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Sterner-Miller, Katherine M. (2014) Another Piece of the Puzzle: Ongoing Excavations at the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Oneota Site (47Je904). Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, IL. EARLY AGRICULTURALISTS’ STONE TOOL USE 27

Sterner-Miller, Katherine M. (2015) Intraregional Variation in the Oneota Lithic Economy: A Comparison of the La Crosse and Koshkonong Localities. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, Illinois. Sterner-Miller, Katherine M, Robert J. Jeske, and Robert E. Ahlrichs (2015) Understanding Oneota Stone Tool Functions: A Case Study of Precision and Accuracy in Use-Wear Analysis. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Stout, A. B., and H. T. Skavlem (1908) The Archaeology of the Lake Koshkonong Region. The Wisconsin Archeologist 7:1–102. Styles, Bonnie W., and Karli White (1995) Analysis of Faunal Remains. In The Tremaine Site (47Lc-95), edited by J. O’Gorman, pp. 197–224. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Theler, James L. (1989) The Pammel Creek Site Faunal Remains. The Wisconsin Archeologist 70:157–242. Torrence, Robin (1994) Strategies for Moving on in Lithic Studies. In The Organization of Prehistoric North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 123–131. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Tubbs, Ryan M., and Jodie O’Gorman (2005) Assessing Oneota Diet and Health: A Community and Lifeway Perspective. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30:119–163. Van de Pas, Lucienne, and Rachel C. McTavish (2015) The Role of Animals in Oneota Subsistence and Agricultural Technology: A Case Study from the Lake Koshkonong Locality. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Vaughan, Patrick C. (1981) Lithic Microwear Experimentation and the Functional Analysis of a Lower Magdalenian Stone Tool Assemblage. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Vaughan, Patrick C. (1985) Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Vermilion, Mary R., Mark P. S. Krekeler, and Lawrence H. Keeley (2003) Pigment Identification on Two Moorehead Phase Ramey Knives from the Loyd Site, a Prehistoric Mississippian Homestead. Journal of –

Archaeological Science 30:1459 1467. Vierra, R. K. (1975) Structure versus Function in the Archaeological Record. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Walker, Philip L. (1978) Butchering and Stone Tool Function. American Antiquity 43:710–715. Wilson, Stephen W. (2016) A Comparison of Oneota and Langford Lithic Assemblages in Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Yerkes, Richard W. (1983) Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48:499–518. Yerkes, Richard W. (1987) Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain: Stone Tool Use, Settlement Organization, and Subsistence Practice at the Labras Lake Site, Illinois. University of Chicago Press, Illinois. Yerkes, Richard W. (2009) Microwear Analysis of a Sample of 100 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the 1971–1977 Ohio Historical Society Excavations at the Seip Earthworks. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34:93– 108. Yerkes, Richard W., and Linda M. Gaertner (1997) Microwear Analysis of Dalton Artifacts. In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas, edited by D. F. Morse, pp. 58–71. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Yohe, Robert M., Margaret E. Newman, and Joan S. Schneider (1991) Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment. American Antiquity 56:659–666.