The Lithic Technology of a Late Woodland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE LITHIC TECHNOLOGY OF A LATE WOODLAND OCCUPATION ON THE DELAWARE BAY: KIMBLE’S BEACH SITE (28CM36A), CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY by JAMES P. KOTCHO A thesis submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in Anthropology Written under the direction of Craig S. Feibel and approved by ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January, 2009 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS The Lithic Technology of a Late Woodland Occupation on the Delaware Bay: Kimble’s Beach Site (28CM36A), Cape May County, New Jersey by JAMES P KOTCHO Thesis Director: Craig S. Feibel This study aims to identify technological practices of Native American people who lived at the Kimble’s Beach site (28CM36A) during the Late Woodland period (ca. 800/900-1650 AD) of Eastern prehistory. This site is located in the northern portion of the Cape May Peninsula along the margin of the Delaware Bay in New Jersey. It was jointly excavated by Rutgers University and Stockton State College in the period 1995- 1998. The study is limited to the excavations at the Beach Face locus, which is the modern beach face. The site was in an upland location 400-500 m from the bay during the Late Woodland period. Data collected from chipped stone debitage recovered from the beach face are compared with data collected from the debitage derived from experimentally replicated small triangular projectile points and several types of scrapers found in the assemblage to identify tool making behavior represented at the site. Sullivan and Rozen’s flake types derived from the debitage of the tool making experiments and experimental bipolar and freehand reduction of alluvial chert pebbles were evaluated with discriminant analysis to ii determine if these reduction strategies may be distinguished by this data. Additional experimental work involved collecting and grading of chert and jasper gravels from the current beach face, heat treating a subset of split gravels, and conducting a reconnaissance for other lithic sources within a 10 km catchment area surrounding the site. Selected attributes of the experimental debitage were assessed for their value to differentiate between reduction strategies, determine the proportion of biface and scraper manufacture, distinguish between starting forms for tool manufacture, identify biface reduction stages, determine the length of the biface trajectory, and to distinguish between hard hammer and pressure flakes. An experimental production rate for biface/uniface manufacture and general bipolar reduction of alluvial gravels was developed. A biface reduction sequence for production of triangular projectile points from alluvial chert and jasper gravels is proposed. Conclusions concerning the site function, mobility strategies employed, and any intrasite differences are discussed. A behavioral flow model that accounts for the choices that the Native American inhabitants of the Beach Face locus made in their use of lithic technology is presented. Recommendations for future research are given. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many individuals whose help, advice, and encouragement aided immeasurably in the completion of this thesis. I wish to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. J.W. Harris, Professor and past chair of the Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, Dr. Michael Gregg, New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (retired), and the committee chair, Dr. Craig Feibel, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University, for their assistance and guidance. It was a lithics class taught by Jack Harris that sparked my initial interest in lithic analysis and the possibilities for research in this field. Michael Gregg assisted me in an early review of the lithic artifacts from Kimble’s Beach, provided invaluable help in navigating the NJSHPO library, and made helpful technical and editorial comments on early drafts of this paper. I especially wish to thank Craig Feibel for his steadfast support, encouragement, and advice, although, at times, it may have seemed as if this study might never be completed. The late Herbert Kraft of Seton Hall University, an original member of this committee, who strongly encouraged me to focus on New Jersey archaeology in my study, was an inspiration to me. A special thanks to the team that oversaw the excavations at the Kimble’s Beach site, Carolyn Hartwick and Dr. John Cavallo, Rutgers University, and Dr. Sandra Bierbrauer and Dr. Raymond Mueller, Stockton State College. John Cavallo gave me the opportunity to work on the Kimble’s Beach excavations and encouraged me to study the site. Sandra Bierbrauer and Raymond Mueller graciously answered my many questions about the ecology and geology of the Kimble’s Beach site, as well as sharing the results iv of their research. I have a special debt of gratitude to my friend and colleague Carolyn Hartwick, who generously shared with me her knowledge of the Kimble’s Beach excavations and her own research into the salt marsh development, bay transgression, and the impact on the site formation. Her assistance and advice in the early portions of this study were invaluable. Thanks to the undergraduates of Rutgers University and Stockton State College (1995-1998) who patiently and conscientiously excavated the Kimble’s Beach site in the heat of the day while fighting off the attacks of the infamous green flies. This study would have not been possible without the assistance of Jack Cresson, who agreed to conduct the knapping experiments that formed the foundation of this work. He unstintingly gave of his time, not only to conduct the knapping experiments, but assisted me in raw material and lithic artifact identification. Jack eagerly shared his knowledge of southern New Jersey archaeology with me and answered a multitude of questions concerning my analysis and results. A special thanks is extended to Ken Mohney, who generously shared his data on experimental bipolar and freehand reduction of alluvial cherts. This data was an important element of this study. I owe a debt of gratitude to Alan Mounier, past President of the Archeological Society of New Jersey, who shared with me his knowledge of southern New Jersey prehistory and especially his knowledge of Late Woodland ceramics. Dr. Eileen Grossman-Bailey graciously shared her dissertation research on Native American settlement and resource use on the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Greg Lattanzi, New Jersey State Museum, provided valuable direction and assistance in my review of the archaeological site files of Cape May county and adjacent areas. Many thanks are v due to the Ceramic Engineering Department of Rutgers University for their assistance in the conduct of the lithic heat treatment experiment and the New Jersey Bureau of Tidelands Management for providing access to historic aerial photographs of Kimble’s Beach and the facilities to study them. I wish to extend my gratitude to the staff of the Cape May County Mosquito Commission for answering my questions about the Kimble’s Beach area and the Cape May County Library and Cape May County Historical Society for providing assistance in finding materials about the history of Kimble’s Beach and the surrounding area. Thanks to Alison Ward, whose comments and suggestions on style and wording, helped make this a more readable work. A special thanks to my life partner, my wife, Nancy Gross, for her love, patience, and encouragement . Without her support, this study would not have been undertaken or completed. “On the trail together forever.” vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... xviii 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 Behavior in Technological Organization...................................................…… 5 2. GEOLOGY AND REGIONAL PREHISTORY................................................. 14 Location of New Jersey.................................................................................... 14 Physiographic Provinces of New Jersey……………………………… 14 Coastal Plain...................................................................... ………….. 17 Cape May Peninsula............................................................................. 21 Lithic Raw Material Sources................................................................ 27 Regional Prehistory.......................................................................................... 30 Paleo-Indian Period.............................................................................. 31 Archaic Period..................................................................................... 35 Woodland Period.................................................................................. 43 Contact Period...................................................................................... 54 Late Woodland Sites on the OCP and the Delaware Bay...................... 56 3. SITE BACKGROUND..........................................................................................