DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 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,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LITHIC ANALYSIS (01-070-391) Rutgers University Spring 2010
    SYLLABUS LITHIC ANALYSIS (01-070-391) Rutgers University Spring 2010 Lecture days/hours: Thursday, 2:15-5:15 PM Lecture location: BioSci 206, Douglass Campus Instructors: Dr. J.W.K. Harris J.S. Reti, MA [email protected] [email protected] Office: BioSci, Room 203B Office: BioSci, Room 204C Office Hours: Friday 11:00 – 1:00 Office Hours: Thursday 1:00 – 3:00 COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course is an integrated course that incorporates theoretical, behavioral, and practical aspects of lithic technology. Lithic Analysis is an advanced undergraduate course in human and non-human primate stone technology. Each student is expected to already have taken an introductory course in human evolution, primatology, and/or archaeology. Lithic Analysis is a sub-discipline of archaeology. The focus is on the inferential potential of stone tools with regard to human behavior. Early human ancestors first realized the utility of sharp stone edges for butchery and other practices. Arguably, without the advent of stone tools human evolution would have taken a different path. Stone tools allowed early hominins efficient access to meat resources and provided as avenue for cognitive development and three-dimensional problem solving. This course will provide a three-fold approach to lithic analysis: 1) study of archaeological sites and behavioral change through time relative to lithic technological changes, 2) insight into the art of laboratory lithic analysis and methods employed to attain concrete, quantitative behavioral conclusions, and 3) extensive training in stone tool replication. Such training will provide students with both an appreciation for the skills of our ancestors and with personal skills that will allow for further research into replication and human behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithic Technology, Human Evolution, and the Emergence of Culture
    Evolutionary Anthropology 109 ARTICLES On Stony Ground: Lithic Technology, Human Evolution, and the Emergence of Culture ROBERT FOLEY AND MARTA MIRAZO´ N LAHR Culture is the central concept of anthropology. Its centrality comes from the fact human evolution different and what it that all branches of the discipline use it, that it is in a way a shorthand for what is that it is necessary to explain. It is at makes humans unique, and therefore defines anthropology as a separate disci- once part of our biology and the thing pline. In recent years the major contributions to an evolutionary approach to that sets the limits on biological ap- culture have come either from primatologists mapping the range of behaviors, proaches and explanations. Just to among chimpanzees in particular, that can be referred to as cultural or “proto- add further confusion to the subject, it cultural”1,2 or from evolutionary theorists who have developed models to account is also that which is universally shared for the pattern and process of human cultural diversification and its impact on by all humans and, at the same time, human adaptation.3–5 the word used to demarcate differ- ences between human societies and groups. As if this were not enough for Theoretically and empirically, pa- that paleoanthropology can play in any hard-worked concept, it is both a leoanthropology has played a less the development of the science of cul- trait itself and also a process. When prominent role, but remains central to tural evolution. In particular, we want treated as a trait, culture can be con- the problem of the evolution of cul- to consider the way in which informa- sidered to be the trait or the means by ture.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African Rainforest Julio Mercader Et Al
    R EPORTS References and Notes (VR) to M.J.W. The Greenland Home Rule Govern- support, and comments. ment generously provided permission to conduct 1. S. J. Mojzsis et al., Nature 384, 55 (1996). Supporting Online Material studies and collect samples from protected out- 2. A. P. Nutman, S. J. Mojzsis, C. R. L. Friend, Geochim. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/ crops on Akilia. We also thank S. Moorbath, V. L. Cosmochim. Acta. 61, 2475 (1997). 5572/1448/DC1 Pease, L. L. S¿rensen, G. M. Young, B. S. Kamber, M. 3. S. J. Mojzsis, T. M. Harrison, Geol. Soc. Am. Today 10, table S1 1 (2000). Rosing, J. M. Hanchar, J. M. Bailey, R. Tracy, J. F. 4. C. F. Chyba, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 57, 3351 Lewis, and G. Goodfriend for helpful discussions, 29 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002 (1993). 5. K. A. Maher, D. J. Stevenson, Nature 331, 612 (1988). 6. A. P. Nutman et al., Precambrian Res. 78, 1 (1996). 7. M. J. Whitehouse, B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Excavation of a Chimpanzee Geol. 160, 201 (1999). 8. B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Geol. 150,19 (1998). Stone Tool Site in the African 9. M. J. Whitehouse, B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Geol. 175, 201 (2001). 10. V. R. McGregor, B. Mason, Am. Mineral. 62, 887 Rainforest (1977). 1 1 2 11. W. L. Griffin, V. R. McGregor, A. Nutman, P. N. Taylor, Julio Mercader, * Melissa Panger, Christophe Boesch D. Bridgwater, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 50,59 (1980). 12. J. S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Lithic Technology} Workshops} and Chipping Stations in the Philippines
    Prehistoric Lithic Technology} Workshops} and Chipping Stations in the Philippines D. KYLE LATINIS THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS represent an important area for research of problems concerning prehistoric archaeology in Southeast Asia. These insular areas, located east of the biogeographic boundary known as Huxley's line, include a variety of tropical environments. These islands remained detached from the continental portion of Southeast Asia throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene. Archaeolog­ ical research has documented human occupation and adaptation from at least the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene within these islands. Unfortunately, relatively little intensive prehistoric archaeological research has been undertaken in the Philippines compared to some areas in mainland South­ east Asia, Oceania, and Australia. Warren Peterson's dissertation (1974) focused on a series of sites in northern Luzon and represents one of the foundation stud­ ies in the Philippines for modern archaeology. Peterson's work has often been cited and his conclusions used for the development of models concerning prehis­ tory in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Peterson's research was conducted during a period when behavioral reconstruc­ tions from site assemblage analyses were prominent in archaeological research. Specifically, Peterson attempted behavioral reconstruction from the analysis of stone tools from the Busibus/Pintu site in northern Luzon, Philippines. A reanal­ ysis of the entire Busibus/Pintu lithic assemblage has revealed problems with Peterson's initial analysis and interpretation of this site-problems that will be addressed in this paper. Lithic technology, stone tool manufacture, and selection and reduction strategies will also be explored. Finally, new interpretations of the nature of the lithic assemblage and site activities at Busibus/Pintu rock shelter will be provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 4. NEOLITHIC PERIOD in JORDAN 25 4.1
    Borsa di studio finanziata da: Ministero degli Affari Esteri di Italia Thanks all …………. I will be glad to give my theses with all my love to my father and mother, all my brothers for their helps since I came to Italy until I got this degree. I am glad because I am one of Dr. Ursula Thun Hohenstein students. I would like to thanks her to her help and support during my research. I would like to thanks Dr.. Maysoon AlNahar and the Museum of the University of Jordan stuff for their help during my work in Jordan. I would like to thank all of Prof. Perreto Carlo and Prof. Benedetto Sala, Dr. Arzarello Marta and all my professors in the University of Ferrara for their support and help during my Phd Research. During my study in Italy I met a lot of friends and specially my colleges in the University of Ferrara. I would like to thanks all for their help and support during these years. Finally I would like to thanks the Minister of Fournier of Italy, Embassy of Italy in Jordan and the University of Ferrara institute for higher studies (IUSS) to fund my PhD research. CONTENTS Ch. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Ch. 2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 3 Ch. 3. NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN NEAR EAST 5 3.1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) in Near east 5 3.2. Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in Near east 10 3.2.A. Early PPNB 10 3.2.B. Middle PPNB 13 3.2.C. Late PPNB 15 3.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites
    Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites Archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers 0 Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites: Archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers Summary Lithic scatters and sites are an important archaeological resource that can provide valuable insights into prehistory. Most commonly found as scatters of worked stone, usually suspended in modern ploughsoil deposits, which have been disturbed from their original archaeological context through ploughing. Undisturbed lithic sites can also be found through further evaluation and excavations, where lithics have been sealed by cover deposits or preserved in sub-surface features/horizons. Lithic scatters can represent a palimpsest of activity, sometimes containing several technologies from different archaeological periods. Consequently, the value of lithic scatters as a source for investigating past behaviour has often been undervalued. However, in many cases, especially for sites dating from the Palaeolithic period through to the Bronze Age, lithic scatters are likely to represent the only available archaeological evidence of past human activity and subsistence strategies. By studying and understanding their formation, spatial distribution and technological attributes, we can get closer to understanding the activities of the people who created these artefacts. Lithic scatters are often perceived as being particularly problematic from a heritage resource and development management perspective, because the standard archaeological methodologies presently employed are often not sufficiently subtle to ensure their effective identification and characterisation (Last 2009). This can either lead to an unquantified loss of important archaeological evidence, or the under-estimation of the magnitude of a site’s scale and importance, leading to missed research opportunities or, in a planning/development context, potentially avoidable expense, delay and inconvenience.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lesson in Stone: Examining Patterns of Lithic Resource Use and Craft-Learning in the Minas Basin Region of Nova Scotia By
    A Lesson in Stone: Examining Patterns of Lithic Resource Use and Craft-learning in the Minas Basin Region of Nova Scotia By © Catherine L. Jalbert A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Department of Archaeology Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2011 St. John’s Newfoundland Abstract Examining the Late Woodland (1500-450 BP) quarry/workshop site of Davidson Cove, located in the Minas Basin region of Nova Scotia, a sample of debitage and a collection of stone implements appear to provide correlates of the novice and raw material production practices. Many researchers have hypothesized that lithic materials discovered at multiple sites within the region originated from the outcrop at Davidson Cove, however little information is available on lithic sourcing of the Minas Basin cherts. Considering the lack of archaeological knowledge concerning lithic procurement and production, patterns of resource use among the prehistoric indigenous populations in this region of Nova Scotia are established through the analysis of existing collections. By analysing the lithic materials quarried and initially reduced at the quarry/workshop with other contemporaneous assemblages from the region, an interpretation of craft-learning can be situated in the overall technological organization and subsistence strategy for the study area. ii Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank all those who made this thesis achievable. First and foremost, this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support provided by my supervisor, Dr. Michael Deal. His insight throughout the entire thesis process was invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Archeological Heritage of Kansas
    THE ARCHEOLOGICAL HERITAGE OF KANSAS A Synopsis of the Kansas Preservation Plan by John D. Reynolds and William B. Lees, Ph.D. Edited By Robert J. Hoard and Virginia Wulfkuhle funded in part by a grant from the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service KSHS Archeology Popular Report No. 7 Cultural Resources Division Kansas State Historical Society Topeka, Kansas 2004 1 Preface This document is a synopsis of the archeology section of the Kansas Preservation Plan, which was financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, a division of the United States Department of the Interior, and administered by the Kansas State Historical Society. The contents and opinions, however, do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the United States Department of the Interior or the Kansas State Historical Society. The Kansas Preservation Plan is a technical document that was developed for the Historic Preservation Department of the Kansas State Historical Society that is designed to provide the background for making informed decisions in preserving the state's heritage. The size and technical nature of the plan make it inaccessible to many who have interests or responsibilities in Kansas archeology. Thus, the following synopsis of the archeology sections of the Kansas Preservation Plan is designed as a non-technical, abbreviated introduction to Kansas archeology. William B. Lees and John D. Reynolds wrote the original version of this document in 1989. These two men were employed by the Kansas State Historical Society, respectively, as Historic Archeologist and Assistant State Archeologist. Bill Lees moved on to work in Oklahoma and Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: a Guide John J
    Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: A Guide John J. Shea New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 408 pp. (hardback), $104.99. ISBN-13: 978-1-107-00698-0. Reviewed by DEBORAH I. OLSZEWSKI Department of Anthropology, Penn Museum, 3260 South Street, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; [email protected] n reading the Preface and Introduction to Shea’s book Stone Age Prehistory,” and lists the origins of genus Homo Iwhere he discusses why he wrote this volume on Near in the Lower Paleolithic period, which is incorrect both Eastern stone tools, I had to smile because his experience as temporally and geographically (Homo ergaster appearing ca a graduate student was analogous to mine. Learning about 1.8 Mya in Africa, or Homo habilis ca 2.5 Mya in Africa, if one stone tools in this world region was not easy because no accepts this hominin as sufficiently derived as to belong to single typology had been developed, at least in the sense genus Homo). And the same is true in this table for several of a widely accepted set of terminology that could be ap- other major evolutionary events for which our earliest evi- plied to the Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic there, or even the dence is African rather than Levantine. Neolithic period. In retrospect, it is somewhat surprising For Chapter 2 (Lithics Basics), the reader is immedi- that in the several decades since no one, until this book by ately immersed in how stone fractures (using terminol- Shea, undertook producing a compendium of information ogy from mechanics), is abraded, and is knapped.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 4. Tennessee Radiocarbon Dates by County Site # Common
    Table 4. Tennessee Radiocarbon Dates by County Site # Common Name(s) Lab # B.P. S.D. Reference # TNDATE Protected 1 1st Unnamed Cave AA-15810 260 50 161:57 0001 Protected 1 1st Unnamed Cave Beta-103531 380 50 162:52 0002 Protected 1 2nd Unnamed Cave AA-15811 970 60 162:52 0003 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5067 4350 60 162:52; 163:669 0004 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5064 3115 65 162:52; 163:669 0005 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-96624 3060 50 162:52; 163:669 0006 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-114172 2970 40 162:52; 163:669 0007 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-114173 2970 40 162:52; 163:669 0008 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5066 2950 65 162:52; 163:669 0009 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-96623 2950 110 162:52; 163:669 0010 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5063 2805 75 162:52; 163:669 0011 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5065 2745 75 162:52; 163:669 0012 Protected 1 5th Unnamed Cave Beta-106695 2030 50 162:52 0013 Protected 1 6th Unnamed Cave Beta-109675 1890 50 162:52 0014 Protected 1 6th Unnamed Cave Beta-106697 630 50 162:52 0015 Protected 1 7th Unnamed Cave Beta-106698 1320 40 162:52 0016 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-13937 1030 90 160:149 0017 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-13938 620 150 160:149 0018 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-126032 750 60 160:149 0019 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-126033 680 60 160:149 0020 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-131221 560 60 160:149 0021 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta 134981 780 40 160:149 0022 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-134982 890 60 160:149 0023
    [Show full text]
  • Occupation Polygons
    Polygon Date & Period Archaeological Phase Cultural - Historical Source & Comment Hist or Arch Pop & Sites Group Estimate 1 early 16th century Little Tennessee site 16th century Chiaha mid-16th century, Little Tennessee site cluster cluster and sites 7-19 and sites 7-19, Hally et al. 1990:Fig. 9.1; 16th century, Chiaha, three populations, Smith 1989:Fig. 1; mid-16th century, Little Tennessee cluster plus additional sites, Smith, 2000:Fig. 18 2 early 16th century Hiwassee site cluster mid-16th century, Hiwassee site cluster, Hally et al. 1990:Fig. 9.1; 16th century, Smith 1989:Fig. 1; mid-16th century, Hiwassee cluster, Smith, 2000:Fig. 18 3 early 16th century Chattanooga site cluster 16th century Napochies mid-16th century, Chattanooga site cluster, Hally et al. 1990:Fig. 9.1; 16th century Napochies, Smith 1989:Fig. 1; mid-16th century, Chattanooga site cluster, Smith, 2000:Fig. 18 4 early 16th century Carters site cluster; 16th century Coosa mid-16th century, Carters site cluster, Hally et al. X Barnett phase 1990:Fig. 9.1; Barnett phase, Hally and Rudolph 1986:Fig. 15; 16th century Coosa, Smith 1989:Fig. 1; mid-16th century, Carters site cluster, Smith, 2000:Fig. 18 5 early 16th century Cartersville site cluster; mid-16th century, Cartersville site cluster, Hally et Brewster phase al. 1990:Fig. 9.1; Brewster phase, Hally and Rudolph 1986:Fig. 15; 16th century, Smith 1989:Fig. 1; mid-16th century, Cartersville site cluster, Smith, 2000:Fig. 18 6 early 16th century Rome site cluster; 16th century Apica mid-16th century, Rome site cluster, Hally et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Raw Material Differences in Stone Tool Shape Variation: an Experimental Assessment
    Journal of Archaeological Science 49 (2014) 472e487 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment * Metin I. Eren a, b, , Christopher I. Roos c, Brett A. Story d, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel e, Stephen J. Lycett e a Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA b Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH 44106-1767, USA c Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA d Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA e Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo SUNY, 380 MFAC-Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261-0005, USA article info abstract Article history: Lithic raw material differences are widely assumed to be a major determining factor of differences in Received 27 March 2014 stone tool morphology seen across archaeological sites, but the security of this assumption remains Received in revised form largely untested. Two different sets of raw material properties are thought to influence artifact form. The 29 May 2014 first set is internal, and related to mechanical flaking properties. The second set is external, namely the Accepted 30 May 2014 form (size, shape, presence of cortex) of the initial nodule or blank from which flakes are struck. We Available online 12 June 2014 conducted a replication experiment designed to determine whether handaxe morphology was influ- enced by raw materials of demonstrably different internal and external properties: flint, basalt, and Keywords: “ ” Raw material obsidian.
    [Show full text]