Variation in Projectile Point Manufacture and Morphology from the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient Period in the Middle Ohio River Valley

Home , Fort Ancient, Kiva, Projectile point, Upper Mercer flint

From Formal to Efficient: Variation in Projectile Point Manufacture and Morphology from the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient Period in the Middle Ohio River Valley

Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Sarah Ann Hinkelman, B.A. Graduate Program in Anthropology

The Ohio State University 2018

Thesis Committee: Robert A. Cook, Advisor Mark Moritz Richard Yerkes

Abstract

From the late Late Woodland period (AD 700-1000) to the Early Fort Ancient period

(AD 1000 - 1300) multiple social and economic changes occurred. Small seasonally mobile groups focused on hunting and gathering and low-level domesticate plant usage transitioned to sedentary village life focused on maize agriculture. Accompanying these life style changes is a prominent shift in lithic technology, which is evident in the morphology of projectile points as well as raw material usage. Late Woodland projectile points are generally manufactured from high quality exotic raw materials and are formally shaped. In comparison Fort Ancient projectile points are expediently produced from low quality local materials. It is hypothesized that the difference in lithic technology is a result of a shift in the manufacturing process from free-hand reduction to bipolar reduction. Learning strategies, specifically guided variation and indirect bias, are thought to influence production and morphology of stone tools and may have differed between two cultural periods. This research investigates the variability in lithic assemblages between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods using two sites from the Middle

Ohio River Valley, Clark (33WA124), a late Late Woodland site, and Guard (12D29), an Early

Fort Ancient site. The analytical methods conducted are used to identify the presence of high quality raw materials, bipolar reduction, and variability in projectile point morphology. My conclusion is that there are prominent differences in projectile point manufacture and morphological variability between Clark and Guard which indicate a major shift in learning strategy and techniques from the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient periods which relate to changes in settlement structure, mobility, and subsistence.

Acknowledgements

There have been so many people that have been encouraging even in the slightest ways throughout my time at OSU. First and foremost I want to thank my advisor Robert Cook for fostering my love of lithics and teaching me all about Fort Ancient. I am very grateful to be part of his team and to continue to work in my home state. I would also like to thank my committee,

Professor Yerkes and Professor Moritz, for providing feedback on my drafts and being encouraging throughout the process. I would like to extend an extra thank you to Prof. Moritz for being extra encouraging to me as a stressed and anxious first year grad student. I also want give a special thanks to Aaron Comstock who guided me through the methods I used to complete this project, allowed me to bounce ideas off of him constantly, and especially for his friendship. I don’t know that I could have done this without his encouragement and guidance. I also cannot adequately express how thankful I am for my husband, Alec Holland, who has stuck with me when I was struggling, supported me throughout grad school, and built me up when I was tearing myself down. I love you!! I also want to thank my parents, Joan and Kevin Hinkelman, who encouraged my love for archaeology, who were understanding when I had to work over holiday breaks, and who were always proud of me no matter what I did. I also want to thank Ben Cross who has been one of the best friends that I have made in grad school and has kept me semi-sane during these past few years. There are so many other people I would like to thank including Elise

Cole for letting me vent over copious glasses of wine, Tannya Farcone for always being there,

Katy Marklein for always making me smile, and Laura Crawford, Paul Patton, Ann Cramer,

Linda Pansing, many of my fellow graduate students, and many friends from Athens and

Cleveland for your continued encouragement and friendship! Thank you so much!!!

iii

Vita

June 2011 ...………………………… High School, Padua Franciscan High School, Parma, Ohio. May 2015 ...…………………………. Bachelor of Arts, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. May 2015 to July 2016 ...………...... Archaeological Field Technician. ASC Group Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Environment and Archaeology, Florence, Kentucky. Louis Berger, Ltd., Morristown, New Jersey. Tetra Tech, Inc., Morris Plains, New Jersey. 2016 …………………………….…. Archaeology Intern, Ohio History Connection, Columbus, Ohio. January 2018 to present …………... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Fields of Study Major Field: Anthropology

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Vita ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Environmental and Cultural Context ...... 7 The End of the Late Woodland Period: Climate Change, Migration, and Subsistence ...... 8 Late Woodland and Fort Ancient Settlement Structure and Material Culture ...... 11 Site Background ...... 15 Clark ...... 15 Guard ...... 19 Chapter 3: Theoretical Background ...... 22 Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 29 Debitage ...... 29 Mass Analysis ...... 31 Individual Flake Analysis...... 33 Recognizing Bipolar Reduction ...... 38 Core Types ...... 41 Projectile Point Measurements...... 42 Chapter 5: Results ...... 45 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions ...... 67 Variation in Reduction Strategies ...... 68 Raw Material Utilization ...... 69 Cultural Transmission Strategies ...... 71 Summary and Conclusions...... 73 References Cited ...... 76 Appendix A: Key for Individual Flake Analysis ...... 87

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Criteria used to place flakes in reduction categories………………………………...38 Table 4.2: List of common biface measurements and description of how they are carried out………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44 Table 5.1: Counts and percentages of flakes with and without cortex…………………………. 45 Table 5.2: Raw counts and percentages of flakes with cortex by reduction stage………………46 Table 5.3: The number and percentage of flakes with and without cortex at Guard by stage of reduction…………………………………………………………………………………………48 Table 5.4: The number and percentage of flakes with and without cortex at Clark by stage of reduction…………………………………………………………………...…………………….48 Table 5.5: Counts and percentages of raw material types by reduction stage at the Clark site…………………………………………………………….………………………………….50 Table 5.6: Counts and percentages of flakes and cores, core fragments, and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites…………………………………………………………………………….51 Table 5.7: Reduction sequence counts and percentages between Clark and Guard………….….51 Table 5.8: Count and percentages of raw material types between Clark and Guard………….…54 Table 5.9: Counts and percentages of cores, core fragments and shatter by all raw material types...……………………………………………………………………………………………55 Table 5.10: Counts and percentages of cores, core fragments, and shatter by high-quality and low-quality raw material………………………………………………………………………....55 Table 5.11: Preforms in Clark and Guard with context, stage, and raw material……………….57 Table 5.12: Table displaying the means and standard deviations of the Fort Ancient Projectile points at the Guard site…………………………………………………………………….….…59 Table 5.13: Table displaying the means and standard deviations of the Fort Ancient Projectile points at the Guard site………………………………………………………………………….60

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Spatial relationship of moisture availability during the onset of the Medieval Climate Anomaly…………………………………………………………………………………….……10 Figure 2.2: Railey’s projectile point typologies…………………………………………….……14 Figure 2.3: Clark AMS Radiocarbon dates…...………………………………………….………16 Figure 2.4: Location of the Clark site and other Late Woodland sites…………………….…….17 Figure 2.5: Late Woodland projectile points from the Clark site………………………….…….18 Figure 2.6: AMS Radiocarbon dates from the Guard site……………………………….………20 Figure 2.7: Location of Guard in the context of the Mississippian culture area ……….……….21 Figure 4.1: Direction of force applied using freehand and bipolar reduction……….………...... 40 Figure 4.2: Common biface measurements ...………………………………………...…...…….44 Figure 5.1: Bar graphs comparing the presence of cortex on flakes between sites….….……….46 Figure 5.2: Bar graphs comparing the present cortex in early and late reductions stages………47 Figure 5.3: Bar graphs of the presence and absence of flakes with cortex in each stage of reduction at the Guard site……………………………………………………………………....49 Figure 5.4: Bar graphs of the presence and absence of flakes with cortex in each stage of reduction at the Clark site………………………………………………………………….……49 Figure 5.5: Bar graphs comparing the raw material quality but reduction stage at the Clark site……………………………………………………………………………………………….50 Figure 5.6: Bar graphs displaying the counts and percentages of flakes and cores, core fragments, and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites………………………………………………….52 Figure 5.7: Bar graph comparing the raw counts and percentages of flakes in reduction stages...... 52 Figure 5.8: Comparison of Raw Materials between Clark and Guard……………………….….54 Figure 5.9: Bar graph comparing the counts and percentages of core, core fragments and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites………………………………………………………………56 Figure 5.10: Scatterplot matrix of Type 2 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes……….…...... 61 vii

Figure 5.11: Scatterplot matrix of Type 5 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes…………………………………………………………………………………...…….62 Figure 5.12: Scatterplot matrix of Type 6 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes………………………………………………………………………………….…...….63 Figure 5.13: Scatterplot matrix of Jack’s Reef projectile point attributes………………….……65 Figure 5.14: Scatterplot matrix of Raccoon projectile point attributes…………………….…….66

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Between the late Late Woodland Period (AD 700 – 1000) and the Early Fort Ancient

Period (AD 1000 – 1300), it currently appears that the lives of the Native American populations inhabiting the Middle Ohio River Valley changed dramatically and quickly (Cook 2017). Most notably, the settlement and subsistence systems markedly changed. The late Woodland period peoples in the Middle Ohio River Valley at this time were small groups of mobile hunter- gatherers who also grew domesticates associated with the Eastern Agricultural Complex (EAC).

They occupied seasonal base camps and subsisted mainly on local animals and plants (Nassaney and Cobb 1991; Seeman and Dancey 2000). However, in AD 1000 populations that occupied the region transitioned to sedentary village life and became increasingly reliant on maize agriculture

(Comstock 2017; Cook 2008; Cook and Price 2015; Cook and Schurr 2009; Essenpreis 1978:

155-156; Greenlee 2002, 2006; Nolan and Cook 2010). Material culture is also very different between the two periods, most notably a marked change in projectile point morphology. The goal of the present research project is to determine the differences in manufacturing processes that led to the production of such distinct projectile points during this key transition.

Two sites from the Middle Ohio River Valley provide for a detailed comparison of this transition, the Clark site (33HA124) and the Guard site (12D29). These sites are located along the Great Miami River and temporally span the transition between the late Late Woodland and

Early Fort Ancient periods. Clark is a late Late Woodland site located on a former bank of the

Great Miami River. The site has been identified as a seasonal camp and was repeatedly occupied

1 from AD 640-1030, placing habitation at the transitional period between Late Woodland and

Fort Ancient. The Guard site is located down river from the Clark site on the floodplain at the confluence of the Great Miami and Ohio Rivers (Cook et al. 2015: 95). Guard is a large circular village that was mainly occupied between AD 1000 and 1300, at the beginning of the Early Fort

Ancient period (Cook 2017). Both sites have been extensively excavated and contain an abundance of lithic materials including debitage and projectile points.

There is a marked difference in the lithic assemblage between the Clark and Guard sites particularly in terms of raw material usage and projectile point morphology. The lithic assemblage at Clark includes an abundance of debitage and four different types of projectile points: Raccoon Notched, Jack’s Reef Corner Notched, Madison, and Levanna. These projectile points have often been categorized as arrow points (Seeman 1989; Pecora 1990: 95-96). Church and Cook (2016: 29) found that there was a statistically significant difference between the raw material utilized in the production of the Raccoon Notched and Jack’s Reef points compared to the Levanna and Madison points. The Raccoon and Jack’s reef points were produced from high quality exotic raw materials, particularly Upper Mercer and Wyandotte chert, while the Levanna and Madison points were manufactured from local low quality chert. Yerkes and Pecora (1990) also found a similar pattern in the Parkline Site (46PU99), in Putnam County, West Virginia.

Church and Cook (2016: 33) also found that there was an abundance of lithic debitage concentrated in the eastern portion of the site but there was a higher frequency of high quality debitage more to the west. The concentrations of debitage were compared to the distribution of projectile points and a pattern was revealed. The high quality raw materials are associated with the Raccoon Notched and Jack’s Reef points and the low-quality concentration with the Levanna

2 and Madison. The authors interpreted this to mean there was different manufacturing processes taking place at Clark particularly in relation to raw material (Church and Cook 2016: 34). The

Guard site contains no patterns in relation to lithic debitage or projectile points. The lithic assemblage at Guard consists predominantly of Fort Ancient projectile points produced from local low-quality raw materials, and the debitage is also almost exclusively made up of local low-quality raw materials.

The differential use of raw materials and projectile point morphologies point to a difference in reduction strategies, from free-hand to bipolar reduction. Local raw materials in the study region consist of chert types that occur in small cobble form such as Laurel and Delaware that are often recovered from stream beds (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998). Jeske (1992) notes that bipolar reduction is a highly efficient way to reduce small cores reserving time and energy for other tasks. Additionally, arrow points are considered to be more expendable than spear and dart points and were produced more quickly and efficiently (Yerkes and Pecora 1990). This production strategy may have better suited the lifeways of the Early Fort Ancient people who were establishing villages and planting crops subsequently restricting their range and access to high quality raw materials. The more mobile late Late Woodland peoples, however, had a wider range and access to raw materials. From the debitage and projectile points at Clark, Church and

Cook (2016) speculate that the Late Woodland peoples were bringing in exotic raw materials as blanks and preforms from other locales which they would knap into projectile points, a clear investment of time and energy. The change in production and time investment may have been prompted by a change in learning strategies as well.

The larger social and demographic changes occurring in the Middle Ohio River Valley during transitional period between the late Late Woodland and Fort Ancient periods in the

Middle Ohio River Valley may have influenced larger changes in how artifacts are designed and produced. In the Early Fort Ancient period individuals from various locales were aggregating in the Middle Ohio River Valley. These individuals were beginning to settle in large permanent villages, a vast departure from the mobile forager groups who occupied the land previously

(Cook 2017; Cook and Price 2015; Comstock 2017; Seeman and Dancey 2000). These groups relied on maize for their subsistence but supplemented this with hunting, with an overall decrease in time and energy spent producing tools used for the latter (Pecora 1990; Cook and

Price 2015). Time and energy may have instead been devoted to other tasks including maize agriculture, construction of houses, and community building. Thus, bipolar reduction was utilized more so than free-hand and local raw materials were utilized more heavily than exotic chert. As group demographics shift the way in which traits were passed on changed as well.

Variation in the way projectile points were manufactured between the two periods may be related to differential use of cultural transmission strategies stemming from larger scale settlement and demographic shifts between the late Late Woodland and Fort Ancient cultural periods.

These large scale changes in settlement and subsistence affected how stone tools were produced in terms of raw material and reduction, but these shifts also had an impact on how individuals interacted and associated with one another. Cultural transmission as it applies to material culture is the transmission of stylistic or functional traits through the observation, learning, and copying how items are made by family, peers, or mentors. It is a theoretical perspective used to understand how and why material culture changes over space and time as

4 social and economic contexts shift. Boyd and Richerson (1985) highlight two cultural transmission strategies that prompt different rates of variation in stylistic attributes based on individual choice and social relationships. These strategies are guided variation and indirect bias.

In guided variation individuals replicate characteristics of multiple models and modify them to fit their own anticipated needs through trial and error. This method of cultural transmission may have been implemented by Fort Ancient individuals at Guard as they were a more heterogenous group of individuals. Cook and Price (2015) note the presence of Mississippian and local individuals in early Fort Ancient sites such as Guard. Therefore, new people were entering into the area and bringing with them new traits and ways of doing things. Heterogeneity in the population is thought to promote multiple models and more variation (Eerkens and Lipo 2005).

Conversely, in indirect bias individuals replicate the characteristics from a single model which considered successful by all members of society. This strategy may have been implemented by the Late Woodland groups occupying the Clark site. Ethnographically, hunter-gatherers have small intimate groups of 25 – 500 individuals depending on environmental conditions, they would be a very homogeneous group (Kelly 1995: 167-174). The group of hunter-gatherers occupying the Middle Ohio River Valley would consist of small cohesive groups and would choose the model that is proven to work as evidenced by the similarity of projectile points in shape and size (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 239; Cook and Comstock 2014: 241).

The goal of this research is to better understand the variation in material culture between the late Late Woodland and Fort Ancient periods by discerning variation in cultural transmission and reduction strategies. The research questions focused on in the study are as follows:

2. Are there significant differences between the raw material types utilized between the two cultural periods, particularly a shift from high to low quality sources?

3. Is there a shift from and indirect bias cultural transmission strategy in the late Late Woodland period to guided variation in the Fort Ancient period?

Chapter 2: Environmental and Cultural Context

There is a marked change in social organization and material culture between the late

Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient lifeways in the Middle Ohio River Valley (Church and

Cook 2016; Comstock 2017; Cook 2008, 2017). Relatively few late Late Woodland sites have been excavated and extensively documented in the Middle Ohio River Valley, including the

Haag Site (Reidhead 1976), the Clark site (Jones 1978; Church and Cook 2016), the Parkline

Site (Niquette and Hughes 1990), and a component of the Turpin site (Oehler 1973; Riggs 1998;

Comstock 2017). The late Late Woodland period in the Middle Ohio River valley is characterized as a time when hunting and gathering was the focus of subsistence, and residential sites were small and seasonally occupied (Nassaney and Cobb 1991; Seeman and Dancey 2000).

The Late Woodland peoples living in the region were mobile foragers (Nassaney and Cobb 1991;

Seeman and Dancey 2000). Mobile foragers traditionally move on a seasonal basis or when resources are over-exploited in a given area (Kelly 2013; Kelly 1992; Varien 1999). There is evidence of low level cultivation of domesticates of the Eastern Agricultural Complex but the main subsistence base was wild and local flora and fauna (Braun 1988; Wymer 19993; Yerkes

2006; Greenlee 2002: 12-14; Nassaney and Cobb 1991). Late Woodland pottery is predominantly cord marked, rock or limestone tempered, and thinner than the pottery of the

Early and Middle Woodland periods (Kerr 1990). The majority of the notched arrow projectile points are finely made from high-quality and often non-local raw materials (Seeman and Dancey

2000). Toward the end of the Late Woodland period, however, in some cases local chert was

7 more exploited for triangular dart points (Yerkes and Pecora 1990). However, around AD 1000 drastic changes occurred across North America that affected the way of life for many prehistoric peoples.

The End of the Late Woodland Period: Climate Change, Migration, and Subsistence

Climate change is an issue that impacts modern and ancient populations alike. Beginning around AD 1100 and lasting until AD 1250/1300 the majority of the continental United States experienced serious drought, particularly the Southwest U.S. and the region south and west of the Ohio River (Comstock and Cook 2018). This period is known as the Medieval Warm Period or the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (Brooke 2014; Fagan 2008; Lamb 1965). The effects of this climate change had significant impacts on groups living in the American Southwest and those living in the Mississippi Valley. Populations living in these regions, specifically the

Puebloans and Mississippians, were greatly affected by the changing climate as they were heavily reliant on maize agriculture which is very sensitive to climatic shifts, especially changes in precipitation and growing season (Fagan 2008; Brooke 2014; Cook et al. 2010; Benson and

Berry 2009; Benson et al. 2009; Benson 2011; Comstock 2017; Cook and Price 2015; Nolan and

Cook 2010). By around AD 1100 drought was widespread in the American Bottom and growing maize and supporting large communities became difficult. Many farm complexes were being abandoned in the region around AD 1150, and the complex chiefdom of Cahokia was greatly diminished by AD 1200 (Benson et al 2009; Comstock and Cook 2018). However, not all regions were affected similarly during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, for instance the Middle

Ohio River Valley was largely unaffected (Figure 2.1). Conditions remained stable or even more moist in the Middle Ohio River Valley at this time (Comstock 2017; Comstock and Cook 2018;

Nolan and Cook 2010). Concomitant with the onset of this climate change, groups from

Mississippian communities, most likely Angel and central and eastern Tennessee, began migrating into the Middle Ohio River Valley (Cook 2017; Cook and Price 2015).

Ethnographically-documented mobile hunter-gatherers travel anywhere from two to 69 kilometers per move and, depending on the resources available to them and the distance between those resources, groups can move up to 60 times a year (Kelly 2013: 80-84, 106). The Micmac, a traditional hunter-gatherer tribe of Native Americans who occupied eastern Canada who hunted caribou, moose, and deer, had a range of at least 1000 km2 (621 m2) (Kelly 2013: 80; Strouthes

2011). It is not unreasonable to assume that the late Late Woodland peoples who occupied the

Middle Ohio River Valley had similar ranges, and that when Mississippian individuals began migrating into and settling in the region, their range likely declined which limited their available resources. The more optimal conditions associated with the MCA in the study region may also have affected this range, perhaps the improved local conditions led to the ability to become more sedentary (e.g., Brown 1985; Cordell et al 1994, 111; Kelly 2013: 106-107). Therefore, populations that might have once been hunter-gatherers might have begun to settle in regions suitable to support large groups (Greenlee 2002; Varien 1999: 31, 39; Kelly 1992).

Figure 2.1: Spatial relationship of moisture availability during the onset of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, (positive numbers are above average, and negative are below average). Photo adapted from Cook (2017: 108-110, Fig. 5.3), data from Cook et al. 2010, image produced by Aaron Comstock.

Mississippian integration into local groups in the Middle Ohio River Valley factored into the development of what we know as Fort Ancient. Maize agriculture became the predominant means of subsistence in the region as evidenced by the presence of maize remnants in cultural features found in sites inhabited from AD 1000 – 1300, and by isotope analysis of skeletal remains of individuals buried in sites in the region during this time. (Comstock 2017; Cook

2008; Cook and Price 2015; Cook and Schurr 2009; Essenpreis 1978, 155-156; Greenlee 2002;

Nolan and Cook 2010; McCall 2013). There is no evidence that maize was present in any significant quantity and relied upon for subsistence in the Middle Ohio River valley before this time (Cook 2017; Hart and Lovis 2012). Villages and structures became larger and more permanent and groups began living together for extended periods of time (Essenpreis 1978, 144;

Cook 2017). A new way of life was taking shape in the Middle Ohio River Valley that was unique, the cultural period that developed is known as the Fort Ancient period.

Late Woodland and Fort Ancient Settlement Structure and Material Culture

The Fort Ancient culture is a hybrid of Mississippian and Late Woodland traditions

(Cook 2017; Essenpreis 1978; Griffin 1943). The Fort Ancient culture was characterized by a reliance on maize agriculture for subsistence and villages similar to contemporary Mississippian villages (Cook 2008; Essenpreis 1978; Drooker 1997; Henderson 1992; Nass and Yerkes 1995).

In Fort Ancient and Mississippian villages, the houses circle an open plaza which often contain a center pole used for symbolic purposes (i.e. to bring the community together) or functional purposes (i.e. to mark time and keep track of harvest periods) (Cook 2008; Cook 2017). Mounds

11 are often located in these villages as well, often directly tying them to Late Woodland traditions through the reuse of mounds (Cook 2017). These characteristics are present in many Fort

Ancient (i.e. Guard, Turpin, Taylor, and Stateline).

Two of the most common forms of late Late Woodland points are Jack’s Reef and

Raccoon Notched (Justice 1987). Both of these projectile point styles are finely made and relatively similar in size and shape (Justice 1987: 217-219). In contrast to the finely made projectile points of the late Late Woodland period, Fort Ancient projectile points are manufactured mainly from non-local low quality raw materials (Cook and Comstock 2014;

Railey 1992). However, while Fort Ancient projectile points may appear similar, there are slight morphological differences that can be used to chronologically place Fort Ancient sites (Railey

1992; Cook and Comstock 2017). Railey divided the projectile points into six different types.

Type 2 projectiles are characterized by excurvate sides, an excurvate base, and are specific to the

Early Fort Ancient (AD 1000 – 1300). Type 3 serrated points, Railey claims, dominate in the

Middle Fort Ancient (AD 1300 – 1600) along with Type 5, straight sides and a straight base, at the tail end of the Middle period and into the Late Fort Ancient period. In the Late Fort Ancient

(AD 1400 - 1700), Railey places Types 4, 5, and 6, points with excurvate sides and concave bases (Figure 2.2).

Cook and Comstock (2014) evaluated Railey’s typologies by quantitatively evaluating his types to determine if there are statistically significant temporal variations between them. They concluded for the region of interest here that Types 2, 4, and 6 are temporally sensitive, whereas

Type 5 was not; data were insufficient to evaluate Types 1 and 3. Furthermore, Cook and

Comstock (2014) found that Type 6 points are significantly more variable than the other ones,

12 which date to a time in the Fort Ancient cultural period, the Madisonville Horizon (AD 1400-

1650), when there were marked changes in the region including abandonment of many sites potential migrations out of the region as well as aggregations into larger sites such as the

Madisonville and Hahn sites (Drooker 1997). This explanation may be applicable to the change in projectile point morphology between the late Late Woodland and Fort Ancient period as well, but a more drastic change than experienced during the Madisonville Horizon.

The change in raw material use and craftsmanship is also notable between the two cultural periods. While Fort Ancient triangular projectile points are formal tools, they appear to be expediently produced. Jeske (1993) attributes the occurrence of increased utilization of informal tools to a strategy implemented by Mississippian communities to minimize time and energy spent on producing stone tools; time was instead allocated to cultivation of domesticates and social activities essential to village life. Jeske’s (1992) reasoning could easily be applied to early Fort Ancient peoples as they were forging a new way of life in the Middle Ohio Valley, working to support larger communities via maize agriculture. This lifestyle and heterogeneity in peoples may have been an incentive to practice a guided variation cultural transmission strategy.

Guided variation promotes experimentation and innovation which would allow the Fort Ancient peoples to find a morphological type or projectile point that fit their needs (i.e. hunting smaller game) while saving time and energy.

Figure 2.2: Railey’s projectile point typologies. Photo from Railey (1992: Figure X1-14).

Site Background

Two sites located on the Great Miami River illustrate the differences in lithic assemblages and settlement patterns between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods: the Clark site (33HA124) and the Guard site (12D29).

Clark

Clark is a late Late Woodland site is located on a former bank of the Great Miami River in Franklin Ohio (Church and Cook 2016) (Figure 2.4). Most of the excavation of the site was conducted in the late 1970s by Joy Jones (Jones 1978), with a very limited investigation in 2009 by Robert Cook (Church and Cook 2016). Excavations revealed a series of hearths and concentrations of artifacts including pottery, charcoal, and animal bone, as well as various lithic artifacts (Jones 1978; Church and Cook 2016). Four AMS radiocarbon dates place the occupation of the area between AD 640 and AD 1030 (Figure 2.3). Two distinct lithic and pottery assemblages and the long period of occupation point to reuse of the site (Church and

Cook 2016).

The Late Woodland projectile points recovered were predominantly manufactured from non-local high-quality materials including Upper Mercer flint from eastern Ohio Wyandotte from southern Indiana (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998). The flakes present at the site are also mainly high quality non-local raw materials. The projectile points recovered were initially typed as Jack’s Reef Corner Notched by Jones (1978), but further analysis by Church and Cook

(2016) identified four projectile point types in the lithic assemblage at the site: Jack’s Reef,

Racoon Notched, Levanna, and Madison (Justice 1987) (Figure 2.5). It should be noted that the

Levanna and Madison projectile points are mainly produced from local raw materials (Church and Cook 2016: 28-30). The presence of these types temporally places the site in the transitional period from the late Late Woodland to the early Fort Ancient period (Church and Cook 2016), but there are no dates from the Early Fort Ancient period except one that extended to AD 1030.

Figure 2.3: Clark AMS Radiocarbon dates. Photo used with permission from Robert Cook.

Figure 2.4: Location of the Clark site and other Late Woodland sites in the area. Photo from Church and Cook (2016: 26, Figure 2).

Figure 2.5: Late Woodland projectile points from the Clark site. Photo from Church and Cook (2016:28 Figure 3)

Guard

The Guard site is located on a large floodplain near the confluence of the Great Miami and Ohio Rivers in Dearborn County, Indiana (Figure 2.7). Initial excavations of the site conducted in the 1980’s were focused on a small segment of the Fort Ancient village (Sedler

1990) and a nearby Middle Woodland component known as the Jenison Guard Site (12D29s)

(Kozarek 1997). A magnetometry survey initiated in 2010 revealed a large circular village plan consisting of house structures surrounding a plaza area with hundreds of potential features (Cook et al. 2015). Excavations have been conducted on the Fort Ancient component of the site in

2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 led by Robert Cook of Ohio State University, with the participation of undergraduate and graduate students during a series of field schools. Excavations in 2012 and

2014 revealed portions of four house structures and multiple thermal and pit features. Portions of numerous features mostly in the plaza were excavated in 2016 and 2017, including a variety of possible structures and thermal features, trash basins, and a large storage pit (Cook, personal communication, 2018).

A significant number of artifacts and ecofacts were recovered from each excavation. The lithic artifacts were manufactured primarily from low-quality local raw materials, most likely obtained in cobble form from the nearby rivers (Cook et al. 2015). The projectile points were typed using Railey’s (1992) typologies, the majority of which were Type 2s and Type 5s, with few Type 6s which fits well with the radiocarbon dates for the site (Cook et al. 2015) (Figure

2.6). The AMS dates and the prominence of Type 2 projectile points place the Guard site at the beginning of the Fort Ancient Period.

A significant amount of maize has been recovered from the Guard site, pointing to a reliance on agriculture in their diet (Cook et al 2015), which is consistent with carbon isotopes obtained from individuals buried in Guard (Cook and Schurr 2009; Cook and Price 2015; Cook

2017). Evidence of Mississippian influence is also present in the Guard site such as the presence of shell tempered Mississippi Plain pottery and the overall configuration of the site (Cook 2017).

Figure 2.6: AMS Radiocarbon dates from the Guard site. Photo from Cook et al. (2015: 101, Figure 8)

Figure 2.7: Location of Guard in the context of the Mississippian culture area (indicated by the dashed line). Figure adapted from Cook (2017: 104 fig.5.1)

Chapter 3: Theoretical Background

A shift in material culture is evident between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort

Ancient cultural periods, which needs to be situated in relation to shifts in climate, demography shifts (i.e. migration and aggregation), and subsistence strategies. Humans are able to adapt and actively change their natural, physical, or social environments to adapt to changing conditions via culture and innovation. Therefore, the role of prehistoric peoples must be considered in the study of material culture.

Archaeologists have long looked beyond categorizing artifact types to determine how cultural traits (both stylistic and functional) changed over time and the similarities and differences that exist in material culture between populations (Eerkens and Lipo 2007; Dunnell

1978; Eerkens and Lipo 2005; Barton 1997). Cultural transmission theory is a specific approach to this problem in the study of material culture. While related to Darwinian evolution, it is distinct in that behavior is viewed not as a result of genes but as a result of culture and social learning (Bettinger 2008; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999:238-239), primarily through the exchange of information between and within groups through social norms, relationships, and observation

(Eerkens and Lipo 2007: 240; Boyd and Richerson 1985). It is important to note that the reproduction of inherited traits is never perfect due to copying error, resulting in varying degrees of variation in material culture (Bettinger 2008; Eerkens and Lipo 2005).

Cultural transmission is a mode of transmission of functional and stylistic traits that occurs within the larger process of diffusion. Diffusion is the gradual spread of morphological and functional characteristics between and within cultural groups (Eerkens and Lipo 2007;

Lyman 2008). Diffusion can occur as a result of migration; one group moves into an area and brings their manufacturing processes and cultural motifs with them but changes them slightly over time to adapt to new conditions. This is referred to as demic diffusion and it is gradual and can be observed over vast swaths of space and time (Fort et al. 2015). Diffusion of cultural traits can also occur at a quicker rate via interactions between groups. Various forms of interaction can occur alongside or instead of migration, such as warfare, trade and acculturation (Fort et al.

2015). Diffusion does not specify the processes of how traits are incorporated into new settings.

In other words, it does not explain how and why some traits appear in material culture while others do not. Diffusion can also occur through learning and experimentation.

Stylistic and functional traits of artifacts are incorporated primarily through manufacturing techniques, specifically how the maker was taught and learned the skills necessary to produce material goods (Eerkens and Lipo 2005). This mode of transmission is based on learning strategies which vary between groups and individuals; individuals may also utilize different strategies to produce different things. The process of learning is complex and involves the observation and copying of other individuals or being taught a skill by an instructor, parent, or peer, and decision making, as well as trial and error. It is much more likely that cultural transmission via learning takes place as a result of all of these methods (Eerkens and

Lipo 2007). However, the mode and method of learning is largely dependent on an individual’s cultural, social, and biological surroundings and can change over space and time (Boyd and

Richerson 1985: 81-82; Henrich and McElreath 2003). In other words, there may be a common method or guide followed, which is gained through learning, but this method can be modified and shaped based on ever changing social and environmental conditions (Boyd and Richerson

1985: 83).

The study of cultural transmission via learning strategies is a relatively new approach to studying the variability of cultural traits in archaeological assemblages, beginning in earnest with

Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) Culture and the Evolutionary Process. In this seminal work, Boyd and Richerson elaborated on two main modes of learning, guided variation and biased transmission. Guided variation is a learning strategy that has a direct link to the environmental conditions. Henrich (2001: 995) via Boyd and Richerson, defines guided variation as a

“combination of unbiased transmission and (“individual”) environmental learning.” In guided variation an individual learns from their parents, the generation before, about a particular behavior but modifies that behavior to suit the present environment or the task at hand (Bettinger

2008; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 236). Variation in traits is introduced and the traits that are most beneficial will be preserved in the learning process and will continue to be transmitted, but new traits are added, modified, or discarded by agents through innovation and experimentation

(Boyd and Richerson 1985: 94-95; Eerkens et al. 2006; Henrich 2001; Eerkens and Lipo 2005).

Continuous attributes will be modified (i.e. thickness, linearity, height) more so than discrete attributes (i.e. shape) (Mesoudi and O’ Brien 2008). Therefore, it is assumed that the changes from one round of transmission to the next will not be overwhelming but will be slight and individuals are making tweaks in their design (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Eerkens and Lipo

2007). Guided variation has been shown to create more variation within groups compared to

24 biased transmission strategies but eventually levels off (Henrich 2001; Bettinger 2008). Guided variation is a mode of cultural transmission that may be beneficial to heterogeneous populations.

Biased transmission strategies are more social than unbiased learning strategies as individuals choose to adopt predetermined social variants that have been proven to work or are the most common (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 134). There are three different types of biased transmission: direct bias, indirect bias, frequency-dependent bias. Direct bias is based on which model is the most attractive and useful and increases that variation (Boyd and Richerson 1985:

135). An individual uses the method of frequency-dependent bias or conformist bias when he or she chooses the model that is most prolific among a set of other models (Boyd and Richerson

1985: 135). Indirect bias is a method of learning in which the individual evaluates which model is the most successful and replicates that model, this model is most utilized in studies in the cultural transmission of material culture (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 135; Bettinger and Eerkens

1999; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008; Cook and Comstock 2014). In a biased transmission learning strategy, the whole model is adopted rather than just certain attributes (Eerkens et al. 2006: 170).

While modifying based on attributes creates more variation within a population, selecting by models decreases variation within groups (Eerkens et al. 2006: 179; Eerkens and Lipo 2005:

323-324). The presence of innovation and homogeneity of a population affects the rate of social learning. In biased learning, when a population is heterogenous and innovation is split in the population, change occurs at a higher rate until it levels off when the population becomes homogenous in regard to innovation (Bettinger 2008). Biased social learning is also more cost effective in relation to time and energy, as copying a successful model is more productive than

25 time spent experimenting in a fluctuating environment (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 243; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008: 23; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Henrich and McElreath 2003: 130).

Guided variation and indirect bias learning strategies are not mutually exclusive, and the strategy chosen depends on the social and physical environment in which the individual or population inhabits. Projectile point morphology is commonly used in archaeological studies of cultural transmission via social learning due to the stylistic and functional variability over space and time (Barton 1997). Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) studied change in points in the Great

Basin region of North America positing that time sensitive morphological differences are correlated to different rates of resharpening or diverging cultural mechanisms relating to how bow and arrow technology was introduced between groups in the Great Basin. They used the correlation between basal width and weight to determine transmission strategies using the social learning strategies of guided variation and indirect bias. They determined that Eastern California used guided variation as there was less correlation between the attributes while Central Nevada utilized indirect bias as the correlation between attributes was strong among these groups

(Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 237). They concluded the one group may have acquired the skill of projectile point manufacture and modified it while other groups may have chosen to copy rather than modify through trial and error leading to greater success over all (i.e. less breakage)

(Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 238).

Mesoudi and O’Brien (2008) tested Bettinger and Eerkens’ hypothesis that variation in projectile point morphology is a result of different cultural transmission processes. They predicted that copying models will yield higher correlations, while individual modification of attributes will reduce correlation (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008: 6-7). Their analyses supported

Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1999) conclusion. Indirect bias increases correlations while limiting variability, in other words less variation was produced over time. Guided variation decreased correlations producing more variation over time. Mousoudi and O’Brien (2008: 13-14) found this was partly due to environmental variables. They also found that indirect bias learning strategies increase group fitness compared to individual strategies (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008:

18). Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) and Mesoudi and O’Brien’s (2008) study supports the presence of visibility of different social learning in the archaeological record and provide examples of how learning strategies can be discerned in archaeological assemblages.

Cook and Comstock (2014), in their reevaluation of Railey’s (1992) Fort Ancient projectile point typology, found that projectile point morphology was variable over space and time. They put forth the possibility that the change was due to differing transmission strategies.

Using Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1999) method the authors found strong correlations in Type 2,

Type 4, and Type 5 projectile points (> 15 significant correlations), and loose correlations in

Type 6 projectile points (9 significant correlations) (Cook and Comstock 2014: 241). They propose that Type 6 projectile points were a product of guided variation while the other types were created using indirect bias cultural transmission. Cook and Comstock (2014: 241) speculated that the change in learning strategies was prompted by the abandonment of the Fort

Ancient region and aggregation into larger villages in the Late Fort Ancient period, an event that would stimulate reorganization of social dynamic prompting a change in learning strategies.

Cook and Comstock (2014) did not delve further in the social and cultural contributions to changes in projectile point morphology as this study attempts to do in the context of the transition between the Late Woodland and Fort Ancient period. However, their study verifies the

27 ability of archaeologists to discern change morphology and potential shifts in learning strategies within cultural periods and concludes that this morphological and social change was occurring in the Fort Ancient period.

Chapter 4: Methodology

Methods were developed to address the research goal of better understanding the transition between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods in the Middle Ohio

River Valley focusing on the change in lithic technology. The key focus was to determine differences in manufacturing techniques using lithic debitage and to identify morphological variation within and between projectile points in order to infer differential learning techniques related to the production of stone tools. In this study, I analyzed the lithic debitage and cores from the Clark and Guard sites to determine the variability of lithic production strategies between them. I focused specifically on identifying if there was differential use of bipolar reduction and raw material, and how these factors influence projectile point morphology between and within the sites.

Debitage

In order to fully understand stone tools, one needs to examine the production of stone tools. Ahler (1989: 89) states that “flintknapping is a fundamentally reductive technology,” meaning that during the production of a stone tool one chips away at a parent material, reducing it to create a tool. This leaves behind flakes, or debitage. The size and shape of flakes can often be used to determine at what stage of production they were produced and how they were produced. There are different manufacturing techniques employed to reduce cores and produce stone tools. The techniques commonly employed in the production of stone tools are hard

29 hammer percussion (percussion with another stone such as a sandstone or quartzite hammerstone), soft hammer percussion (percussion with a softer material such as antler or wood), pressure flaking (the application of force with pressure rather than percussion using an antler billet or the like to remove flakes), and bipolar reduction (the application of force to a core on an anvil using a hard hammerstone) (Whittaker 1994; Kooyman 2000: 56). Each of these manufacturing techniques produces different flake characteristics (Ahler 1989: 89, 91). Often all four of these strategies are utilized in the production of a single stone tool, thus there is a variation of different types of flakes produced resulting in a mixed assemblage. By means of careful analysis of lithic debitage, archaeologists can determine what sort of manufacturing technique was used to produce stone tools. The type of reduction technique utilized in the production of stone tools has also been used to make inferences regarding subsistence strategies, mobility, resource acquisition, and economic and political systems specifically pertaining to craft production, specialization, and access to exotic raw materials (Railey and Gonzales 2015: 18-19;

Tomka 2001; Jeske and Lurie 1993: 132; Shott 1994: 71). Thus, analyzing lithic debitage can offer insight into archaeological sites and past behaviors that may not be visible elsewhere in the archaeological record.

While there is a great deal of information to be learned from the analysis of debitage, there is no standard method employed. However, there are two general methods that are often followed, mass or aggregate analysis and individual flake analysis. Each method provides useful information. These characteristics can include technological aspects, such as the stage of the reduction sequence they correspond to, or attributes such as raw material type, presence of cortex, size, and weight (Andrefsky 1998). These general methods can be modified by

30 combining a variety of attributes or typologies to fit the needs of the researcher or to answer specific research questions.

Mass Analysis

Lithic debitage is often quite abundant in archaeological sites and varies depending on the function, size, and the duration of occupation of a given site. The abundance of flakes can be intimidating, and if the analyst is under time constraints looking at individual flakes to gather meaningful information can be nearly impossible. Mass or aggregate analysis is method that can be used to circumvent the analysis of individual flakes.

In mass analysis the focus is on the whole assemblage rather than individual flakes (Ahler

1989: 87). The first step of mass analysis is to establish criteria that will be used to examine the debitage. The most common measurement utilized in mass analysis is size. Lithic stone tool production is a reductive process, and the debris left behind tends to get smaller as production progresses (Andrefsky 2001: 3-4; Kooyman 2000:62). Therefore, if a flint knapper begins with a large core we would expect there to be larger flakes at the beginning of reduction and progressively smaller flakes from the bifacial-thinning to the finishing and resharpening phases.

However, if a flint knapper begins with a small core, we would expect small flakes beginning at the early stages of reduction, likewise if reduction is carried out on a blank (Andrefsky 1998:

96). The size and shape of flakes often indicate different manufacturing techniques and therefore can be used to determine different stages of the reduction sequence (Andrefsky 2001: 5;

Bradbury and Carr 1995: 111; Ahler 1989; Shott 2007: 132; Shott 1994: 87). Presence or absence of cortex, the outer covering of lithic nodule cores, is also used as a measurement in

31 mass analysis. The premise for using cortex is the same for size; cortex will usually diminish as lithic reduction progresses (Kooyman 2000: 62-63).

The assemblage is separated based on the set measurement and the proportion of debitage in each group is compared to one another (Andrefsky 2001: 3; Bradbury and Carr 1995: 111).

The overall goal being to uncover similarities and differences in the assemblage such as different proportions of smaller flakes than large flakes in a given area. The most popular example of this method’s application is Ahler’s (1989) process used for size sorting. The goal of Ahler’s (1989) study was to determine if technological inferences regarding the production of stone tools could be gleaned from mass analysis. He used size as his main criteria for analysis. Ahler sifted debitage through a series of nested screens each with different mesh sizes to obtain counts and weights of different flake sizes. He then compared the groups of flake sizes obtained through mass analysis to flakes obtained from different stages of reduction by a flintknapper and found that the different sizes of lithic debitage can accurately be used to determine early and late reduction sequences (e.g. larger flakes are linked to early reduction and small flakes to late reduction) (Ahler 1989; Andrefsky 2001: 5; Bradbury and Carr 1995: 111; Shott 2007: 132;

Shott 1994: 87). Ahler did not have to examine each individual flake to determine reduction sequence. Through mass analysis he was able to quickly, efficiently, and consistently determine early and late reduction purely by flake size (Andrefsky 2001: 4; Ahler 1989: 87-88; Shott 1994:

86-87).

I conducted mass analysis using Ahler’s (1989) method. A size sorting device was used to sort the lithic debitage, which consists of a wooden box with five different compartments.

Above the compartments, is a solid surface with five different circular holes with different

32 diameters representing different size classes: 0-1 cm, 1-2 cm, 2-3 cm, 3-4 cm, and 4-5cm. Like

Ahler (1989), I used the minimum dimension to sort the flakes into these size classes. Each size class was counted and weighed, along with the occurrence of cortex and raw material types. Raw materials were typed using DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady’s (1998) guide. Initial raw material types included 7 classifications: Laurel, Wyandotte, Upper Mercer, Flint Ridge, Delaware, high quality unidentified, and low quality unidentified. The unidentifiable chert types were classed based on texture, as high quality chert are more siliceous and finer textured than low-quality chert (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998). However, while conducting the analyses, uncertainty developed regarding chert types. Chert types can overlap with one another in texture and color and often can only be distinguished using microscopic or X-ray Florence to determine the mineral composition of the chert. Therefore, the analyses subsequently limited to Wyandotte and Upper Mercer chert, which are distinct and are non-local to the study region. Moreover, they comprise a large proportion of the exotic raw materials from the Clark site, which should be sufficient to examine the research questions in the present study (see Chapter 1).

Individual Flake Analysis

Individual flake analysis is time consuming and tedious, but reveals an abundance of information about the production of stone tools at a given site. Like mass analysis, individual flake analysis provides a way in which to draw inferences regarding human behavior from debitage without the presence of stone tools (Andrefsky 2001: 6; Andrefsky 1998: 111). This method is particularly useful for describing changes in manufacturing techniques in assemblages in greater detail using flake attributes beyond size and raw material (Ahler 1989: 86). Just as in

33 mass analysis, the criteria used in individual flake analysis depend on the research questions that one intends to answer and are built upon inferences regarding stone tool manufacture.

There are two different classes of criteria that an analyst may use to classify flakes in individual flake analysis; attributes and functional typologies (Andrefsky 2001: 6; Railey and

Gonzales 2015: 11-13; Andrefsky 1998: 111). Attributes are not directly related to the production of stone tools (Shott 1994: 79-81). Examples include raw material attributes (i.e. texture, quality, and type), size, weight, thickness, and cortex (Andrefsky 2001: 9-11; Andrefsky

1998: 96-103). Functional typologies include microwear, presence of hafting, and striking platform type. The most common attribute used in lithic analysis is the striking platform due to its macroscopic visibility (Andrefksy 1998). The force of the blow used to separate a flake from a core produces a striking platform. Striking platforms vary depending on the manufacturing technique used to reduce the core, thus striking platforms are an attribute that is often considered because they have the potential to provide information about core reduction (Andrefsky 2001: 9-

10; Andrefsky 1998: 88- 96). Analysts often use termination types to classify flakes as well. The termination of the flake provides information about how a flake was separated from the core and can provide additional information regarding manufacture techniques including the force and direction of reduction (Andrefsky 1998: 85-88).

The technological typologies of flakes are directly related to the manufacturing process of stone tools. The manufacturing process, as stated previously, is reductive and, more often than not, entails multiple different reduction strategies which produce different sizes and shapes of flakes. For example, hard hammer percussion often proceeds soft-hammer reduction which is followed by pressure flaking in the manufacture of stone tools using free-hand reduction of

34 platforms (Whittaker 1994). There is debate as to whether or not this process is continuous or occurs at different junctures, however it largely depends on the function of the site and access to raw materials (Pecora 2001; Shott 2015: 2; Sullivan and Rozen 1985: 755).

Lithic analysts created these typologies by obtaining collections from modern flintknappers, collecting the flakes produced during each stage and comparing them to flakes found in the archaeological record. The most traditional typology used is the primary/secondary/ and tertiary typology (PST) (Bradbury and Carr 1995: 100-101, 104; Sullivan and Rozen 1985:

756). Analysts use attributes to determine these technological typologies including size, presence of cortex, and platform type. Primary flakes, produced early in the reduction process, are typically larger than secondary flakes and contain more cortex (50-100% cortex). Secondary flakes are larger than tertiary flakes and have less cortex than primary flakes (50-0%). Tertiary flakes are the smallest flakes and contain no cortex (Kooyman 2000; Andrefsky 1998). Lithic analysts sometimes include a fourth typology, the bifacial thinning flake produced during soft hammer percussion which may or may not contain cortex and often has a lipped platform

(Sullivan and Rozen 1985: 756). Two other typologies are also considered, flake fragments (i.e. broken or unidentifiable flakes) and shatter or blocky fragments (Railey and Gonzales 2015: 11;

Kooyman 2000: 15; Andrefksy 1998: 81; Shott 1994: 70). Andrefsky (2001: 6-7) offers other technological typologies often used including retouch flakes, which are produced during the resharpening of stone tools; bipolar flakes, and notching flakes, which are directly related to production.

Sullivan and Rozen (1985) pointed out some major issues regarding the attributes and typologies commonly used by lithic analysts in individual flake analysis. They call attention to

35 the fact that attributes and typologies are built upon inferences regarding the manufacturing of stone tools that may not always be accurate. Sullivan and Rozen (1985) also felt that there was bias towards certain attributes and variables which shifted attention away from other variables that may be just as important. They attempted to develop a typology that was free from inferences and assumptions. The typology is based on three attributes; an interior surface that exhibits percussive features (i.e. flake scarring), a point of applied force (i.e. striking platform, bulbs or rings of percussion), and margins or terminations (Sullivan and Rozen 1985: 758-759).

Four categories were developed from these attributes; complete flakes, broken flakes, flake fragments, and debris (Sullivan and Rozen 1985; Shott 1994: 78). Sullivan and Rozen (1985:

755) expected that biface manufacture (i.e. later reduction stages) results in more broken flakes than core reduction and that core reduction produced more complex flakes and shatter than biface reduction. Multiple authors tested this analysis and found that their hypotheses hold up well, but there are other factors that influence these results such as core size and mode of reduction (i.e. bipolar, hard hammer, soft hammer) (Shott 1994: 79; Kuijt et al. 1995: 117; Carr and Bradbury 1995: 112).

There are many criticisms of individual flake analysis (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). The attributes and technological typologies used are based on assumptions regarding hafting methods, the purpose projectile point morphology (i.e. arrow vs. spear), hafting methods, among other stylistic and functional features of stone tools. These assumptions can lead to errors and hinder the identification of variation (Bradbury and Carr 1995: 104-105; Shott 1994: 74-75;

Bradbury and Carr 1995: 112-113; Sullivan and Rozen 1985: 755). The typologies used to categorize flakes are also not standardized which can lead to further inconsistencies and errors in

36 studies and contribute to the inhibition of comparative studies especially when the attributes and methods used in the analysis are not explicitly stated (Sullivan and Rozen 1985: 755-756;

Andrefsky 2001: 8; Railey and Gonzales 2015: 130; Shott 1994: 77-79; Ahler 1989: 86;

Bradbury and Carr 1995: 101). In order for individual flake analysis to be useful and accurate, analysts must be open to variation from standardized typologies, be more descriptive and explicit in their methodology, and consider multiple lines of evidence to obtain a more holistic perspective from debitage analysis (Bradbury and Carr 1995: 112-113; Sullivan and Rozen 1985:

755), all of which I attempt to do in the present study.

Five percent of the flakes recovered from both Clark and Guard were subjected to individual flake analysis. In this analysis flakes were placed in different reduction types depending on the analysis of variation attributes including platform, termination type, cortex presence, cortex percentage, reduction stage, and completeness. I used four categories for platform type: (1) no platform, (2) cortical - unmodified cortical surface, (3) flat - smooth flat surfaces without cortex and with an impact point, (4) complex - surface with multiple flake scares, angular, may have step fractures (Andrefsky 1998: 92-96). I also used five termination type categories were used: (1) broken, feathered or smooth termination, (2) hinge - produced when flake moves away from an object that forms a round “L” shape, (3) step termination - when a flake snaps during removal, (4) reverse snap - opposite of hinge termination, and (5) perverse or twisted termination (Andrefsky 1998: 18, 85-86) (See Appendix A for Descriptions of

Categories). Each flake was typed by stage of reduction according to the criteria included in

(Table 4.1) based on a variation of the Primary, Secondary, Tertiary (PST) typology (Bradbury and Carr 1995: 100-101, 104; Kooyman 2000; Andrefsky 1998).

Reduction Stage Criteria Raw Nodule Untested blocks of chert Core Tested sources of flakes Decortication Flakes with 75-100% cortex Primary Flakes with 25- 50% cortex Secondary 0-25% cortex and pronounced bulb of percussion Tertiary/Finishing Flakes Oval or teardrop pressure flakes with 0-25% cortex Bifacial Thinning Curved flakes for thinning with 0-25% cortex

Table 4.1: Criteria by which flakes were placed in reduction categories.

Recognizing Bipolar Reduction

Bipolar reduction is a form of expedient tool production (Kuijt et al. 1995: 117). The process of reducing a core using bipolar reduction involves placing the core on an anvil (i.e. a stone or other hard surface) and strikes it with a hammerstone (Kooyman 2000: 16-17;

Andrefsky 1998: 27, 119-120; Kuijt et al 1995: 118; Shott 1999: 220; Shott 1989: 2-3; Jeske and

Lurie 1993: 132) (Figure 4.1). The anvil works to reflect the force of the blow reverberating back, thus there is force applied from both angles which allows for the flintknapper to exert less energy (Jeske and Lurie 1993; Jeske 1992). However, the force of the blow is not easily controlled which results in an abundance of shatter and a multitude of different flakes which makes them hard to categorize (Jeske and Lurie 1993: 132; Andrefsky 1998: 120; Kuijt et al.

1995: 117).

The characteristics most often associated with bipolar flakes are damage at opposing ends of the flake and a small or nonexistent striking platform (Andrefsky 1998: 120; Kuijt et al. 1995:

119, 122). Assemblages produced using bipolar reduction will have a higher frequency of step

38 and perverse termination types (Andrefsky 2005: 120; Crabtree 1972; Gilabert et al 2015: 6;

Kuijt et al 1995: 119,122). Their overall size is often broad and irregular, and the bulb of percussion may be diffuse or sheared (Kooyman 2000: 56; Andrefsky 1998: 120; Kuijt et al.

1995: 118-119; Jeske and Lurie 1993). Often bipolar flakes are elongated, due to the vertical nature of the manufacturing technique (Ahler 1989: 91-93). Percentage of cortex on the dorsal side of flakes was also considered as this can indicate stage of reduction and is also an indicator of the presence of bipolar reduction in that bipolar flakes will have more cortex in all reduction stages compared to free-hand reduction (Andrefsky 1998: 120; Crabtree 1972; Gilabert et al.

2015: 6; Kuijt et al. 1995: 119,122). The Sullivan and Rozen (1985) technique for debitage analysis can also be applied to bipolar reduction which Kuijt and colleagues (1995: 122) employ, concluding that bipolar reduction yields a high percentage of shatter and fragments, a low percentage of complete flakes, a higher presence of cortex on flakes, and smaller flakes than free-hand hard hammer or soft hammer reduction.

While it may seem that bipolar reduction produces flakes that are vastly different than those produced by other reduction techniques, analysts have found it often difficult to separate bipolar flakes from other types (Kuijt et al. 1995: 119; Shott 1999: 219). Jeske and Lurie (1993) conducted a study to determine if an analyst could accurately differentiate bipolar flakes from flakes produced from free-hand reduction. They performed a double-blind test using flakes obtained from a contemporary flintknapper. Jeske and Lurie (1993: 140) found that analysts could not reliably distinguish the technique by looking at single flakes using categories and typologies normally used in the archaeological literature. They concluded that in order to determine if bipolar reduction was used an analyst must consider the whole assemblage focusing

39 on identifying an increased presence of cortex on flakes among other criteria of bipolar flakes mentioned above (Jeske and Lurie 1993: 141). If an analyst is not focusing on looking for these flake characteristics, the use of bipolar reduction may potentially be overlooked by archaeologists. This oversight would be unfortunate because bipolar reduction has the potential to yield key behavioral inferences regarding mobility, subsistence strategy, and resource utilization (Shott 1999: 218; Jeske and Lurie 1993: 134; Jeske 1992; Shott 1989: 3; Goodyear

1993). The key to identifying bipolar reduction in a lithic assemblage is to include multiple criteria in the analysis and include multiple lines of evidence including the use of different methodologies.

Figure 4.1: Direction of force applied using freehand and bipolar reduction. Photo from Jeske (1992: 471, Figure 2).

Core Types

Every stone tool begins with a core. Cores are the primary source of raw material from which a stone tool is manufactured. They can vary in shape and size depending on the chert type and the method of extraction or procurement (Andrefsky 1998: 12-13, 137; DeRagnaucourt and

Georgiady 1998; Odell 2004: 1-2). The size of the core and its portability can have implications for the technology used to make tools (Jeske 1992; Andrefsky 1998: 144). Cores can be prepared before the formal removal of flakes; these are referred to as formal cores. Formal cores are often multidirectional, meaning flakes are removed from many different surfaces and angles

(Andrefsky 1998: 15, 137, 81). Bifacial cores are a type of formal core that has been thinned which makes them lighter; these cores are favored by more mobile groups (Andrefsky 1998:

150-151; Prascunias 2007).

Bipolar cores are another type of multidirectional cores (Andrefksy 1998: 145). Unlike formal cores, bipolar cores do not undergo extensive preparation and the flakes are removed from a single plane rather than multiple planes (Jeske 1992: 471) They can be identified by their single striking platform and flattening on the bottom from the force of the blow again an anvil

(Jeske 1992: Odell 2004: 49-50; Leaf 1979). Bipolar core technology tends to be utilized by groups in areas where raw material quality is poor, or where chert occurs in small nodule or cobble as this manufacturing method is considered to economize raw material and be efficient in reducing small cores (Jeske 1992; Andrefsky 1998: 151-153; Leaf 1979; Goodyear 1993).

Therefore, bipolar cores are often less uniform and smaller than other ones (Andrefsky 1998:

137, 147-149; Leaf 1979: 39).

Cores were subject to the same analyses conducted in the mass analysis phase of debitage analysis. The cores were size sorted, weighed, and categorized by raw material. I individually analyzed all of the cores from the Clark site (n = 77) and roughly 50% from the Guard site (n =

200) were individually analyzed to determine if they were reduced using bipolar or free-hand reduction and what raw material was utilized in their production

Projectile Point Measurements

A study of the production of stone tools would not be complete without analyzing the stone tools themselves. I concentrated specifically on complete and basal portions of projectile points from Guard and Clark. Since the projectile points from each site have different morphological attributes (i.e. barbs on the Raccoon and Jack’s Reef vs. triangular Levanna and

Fort Ancient points), I used different measurements as warranted. I measured the triangular

Levanna and Fort Ancient points applying the method utilized by Cook and Comstock (2014:

231) study which examined the morphological variation in projectile points in Fort Ancient sites.

I measured the maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness, width at one-half of length from proximal end, and weight for each projectile point when possible. All the projectile points from the Guard Site (n = 63) were measured using this method with the exception of four projectile point which were notched, 11 Levanna points recovered from Clark were also measured using these variables.

The second set of measurements applied to notched projectile points. The measurements utilized for the triangular projectile points did not adequately account for the variation present in the Jack’s Reef and Racoon Notched projectile point types recovered from Clark and the four

42 notched projectile points recovered in Guard. The measurements taken for these hafted projectile points were taken from Andrefksy’s (1998) most commonly analyzed biface attributes (Table 4.

2 and Figure 4.2). These attributes include maximum length, maximum width of base, maximum width of the blade, neck height, neck width, length from shoulder to corner, and maximum thickness (Andrefsky 1998: 178-179). While these attributes are not the only attributes that could be considered for hafted bifacial elements they are the most common to all of these projectile points.

Table 4.2: List of common biface measurements and description of how they are carried out. Table from Andrefksy (1998: Table 7.6)

Figure 4.2: Common biface measurements. Figure from Andrefsky (1998, Figure. 7.30)

Chapter 5: Results

1. Are there differences in the manufacturing techniques used to produce stone tools between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods, particularly a shift from free-hand to bipolar reduction? If so we would expect flakes with greater amount of cortex and more late stage reduction at Clark compared to Guard.

There is a statistically significant difference in the quantity of flakes with cortex present between the Guard site and the Clark site (x2 = 2977.5, df = 1, p < 0.05). In Guard 60% of the flake present cortex while only 10% of the flakes in Clark contain cortex (Table 5.1, Figure 5.1).

Presence of Cortex on Flakes Cortex No Cortex Total Clark 369 3440 3809 % 9.69 90.31 100 Guard 7384 4867 12251 % 60.27 39.73 100

Table 5.1: Counts and percentages of flakes with and without cortex.

Figure 5.1: Bar graphs comparing the presence of cortex on flakes between sites.

All sizes of flakes and stages of reduction have cortex at Guard, there are fewer late stage reduction flakes that have cortex in Clark. However, the difference in the presence of cortex on early and late stage flakes is not statistically significant (x2 = 2.96, df = 1, p = 0.08) (Table 5.2,

Figure 5.2).

Flakes with Cortex by Stage of Reduction Early Late Total Clark 18 15 33 % 54.55 45.45 100 Guard 114 49 163 % 69.94 30.06 100

Table 5.2: Raw counts and percentages of flakes with cortex by reduction stage

Flakes with Cortex by Reduction Stage 100% 90% 49 80% 15 70% 60% 50% 40% 114 30% 18 20% 10% 0% Clark Guard

Early Late

Figure 5.2: Bar graphs comparing the presence of cortex in early and late reductions stages.

At the Guard site, cortex is most prevalent in the early stage of reduction including primary flakes (1), secondary flakes (2), and decortication flakes (6). Late stage reduction flakes which include tertiary (3) and bifacial thinning (4) flakes still exhibit cortex but with less frequency than the early stage reduction (Table 5.3; Figure 5.3). In the Clark site there are fewer flakes with cortex in all stages of reduction (Table 5.4). The flakes with the greatest amount of cortex are the early stage reduction flakes (Figure 5.4).

Guard: Cortex/Reduction Sequence Cross Tabulation Reduction Sequence Total Decortication Primary Secondary Tertiary Bifacial Thinning Cortex Absent 0 0 34 88 12 134 % 0.00 0.00 25.4 65.6 9 100 Present 24 34 57 41 8 164 % 14.6 20.7 34.7 25 4.80 100 Total 24 34 91 129 20 357

Table 5.3: The number and percentage of flakes with and without cortex at Guard by stage of reduction.

Clark: Cortex/Reduction Sequence Cross Tabulation Reduction Sequence Total Primary Secondary Tertiary Bifacial Thinning Cortex Absent 1 36 124 25 186 % 0 19.35 66.66 13.44 100 Present 8 8 13 2 31 % 25.8 25.8 41.93 6.45 100 Total 9 44 137 27 253

Table 5.4: The number and percentage of flakes with and without cortex at Clark by stage of reduction.

Guard - Presence or Absence of Cortex on Flakes by Reduction Sequence 100% 90% 41 80% 8 70% 57 60% 50% 24 34 40% 88 30% 12 20% 34 10% 0% 0 0 Decortication Primary Secondary Tertiary Bifacial Thinning

Absent Present

Figure 5.3: Bar graphs of the presence and absence of flakes with cortex in each stage of reduction at the Guard site.

Clark - Presence of Absence of Cortex on Flakes by Reduction Sequence 100% 13 2 90% 8 80% 70% 60% 8 50% 124 25 40% 36 30% 20% 10% 1 0% Primary Secondary Tertiary Bifacial Thinning

Absent Present

Figure 5.4: Bar graphs of the presence and absence of flakes with cortex in each stage of reduction at the Clark site.

There is no statistically significant difference in raw material between early and late stage reduction in the Clark site (x2 = 0.075, df = 1, p = 0.78) (Table 5.5, Figure 5.5). There is a nearly equivalent frequency of local and high-quality raw materials in the early and late reduction in relation to the flakes that were analyzed.

Clark - Raw Material and Reduction Stages High Quality Local Total Late Reduction 107 64 171 % 62.57 37.43 100 Early Reduction 37 27 64 % 57.81 42.19 100

Table 5.5: Counts and percentages of raw material types by reduction stage at the Clark site.

Clark - Raw Material and Reduction Stages 100% 90% 80% 64 27 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 107 37 20% 10% 0% Late Reduction Early Reduction

High Quality Local

Figure 5.5: Bar graphs comparing the raw material quality but reduction stage at the Clark site.

There is a statistically significant difference between Clark and Guard when the debitage assemblages (flakes and cores) are compared using a chi-squared analysis (x2 = 76.38, df =1, p <

0.05) (Table 5.6). The flake to core ratio between the sites is very different pointing to a greater utilization of cores and bipolar reduction (Figure 5.6). The flake to core ratio at the Guard site is

18:1 and at Clark 50:1. The ratio of flakes to cores indicates that more intensive reduction at the

Clark site compared to the Guard site. We also see that are significantly more late stage reduction flakes at Clark than at Guard (x2 = 32.72, p < 0.05). Indicating an increase in late stage reduction or resharpening at Clark (Table. 5.7; Figure 5.7).

Flakes and Core, Core Fragments and Shatter Cores, Core Fragments, Flakes Total and Shatter Clark 3809 76 3885 % of Assemblage 98.04 1.96 100 Guard 12251 682 12933 % of Assemblage 94.73 5.27 100

Table 5.6: Counts and percentages of flakes and cores, core fragments, and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites.

Reduction Sequence Bifacial Total Decortication Primary Secondary Tertiary Thinning Flakes Guard 24 34 91 129 20 298 % 8 11 30 43 7 100 Clark 2 9 44 137 27 219 % 0.01 4 20 63 12 100

Table 5.7: Reduction sequence counts and percentages between Clark and Guard

Flakes and Cores, Core Fragments and Shatter 100%

99% 76

98% 682 97%

96%

95% 3809

94% 12251 93%

92% Clark Guard

Flakes Cores, Core Fragments and Shatter

Figure 5.6: Bar graphs displaying the counts and percentages of flakes and cores, core fragments, and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites

Reduction Sequence 100% 2 90% 9 80% 44 137 70% 27 60% 50% 24 40% 34 30% 91 129 20% 20 10% 0% Decortication Primary Secondary Tertiary Bifacial Thinning

Guard Clark

Figure 5.7: Bar graphs comparing the raw counts and percentages of flakes in reduction stages.

2. Are there significant differences between the raw material types utilized between the two

cultural periods, specifically usage of Wyandotte and Upper Mercer chert types? If so we

would expect to see more of these high quality chert at Clark compared to Guard.

Clark has significantly more high-quality materials than Guard, specifically Wyandotte chert (x2

= 3923.1, df = 2, p < 0.05) (Table 5.8). There are significantly more high-quality flakes present at the Clark site than the Guard site, especially Wyandotte flakes. Upper Mercer flakes are relatively rare in each site (Figure 5.8).

There is a statistically significant difference between the use of high quality raw materials between Clark and Guard (x2 = 45.9, df = 1, p < 0.05). Neither of the sites have as significant number of cores that were produced from high-quality raw materials (Upper Mercer and

Wyandotte), however, there is a difference in percentage of high-quality materials between the two sites (Table 5.9). For the Clark site, 23% of the cores were produced from high-quality materials whereas in Guard only 3% of cores were identified as high-quality. Consequently, over

90% of the cores at Guard were produced from local chert types compared to 75% at Clark

(Table 5.10; Figure 5.9).

The Clark site has more preforms and projectile points manufactured from high-quality non-local raw materials than the Guard site. There qualitatively more finely made preforms in

Clark that are at are nearly primed for reduction (Table 5.11). The preforms at Guard are crudely made and are overwhelmingly produced from local chert.

Flakes - Raw Material Local % Upper Mercer % Wyandotte % Clark 1989 14.68 189 39.79 1631 80.27 Guard 11564 85.32 286 60.21 401 19.73 Total 13553 100 475 100 2032 100

Table 5.8: Count and percentages of raw material types between Clark and Guard.

Flakes - Raw Material

100% 401 286 90%

80% 1631 70%

60% 189 50% 11564 40%

30% 1989 20%

10%

0% Clark Guard

Local Upper Mercer Wyandotte

Figure 5.8: Comparison of Raw Materials between Clark and Guard

Cores, Core Fragments and Shatter - Raw Material Flint Upper High Low Delaware Wyandotte Laurel Total Ridge Mercer Quality Quality Clark 0 9 1 17 12 24 14 77 % 0 11.69 1.30 22.08 15.58 31.17 18.18 100 Guard 0 69 1 19 71 184 203 547 % 0 12.61 0.18 3.47 12.98 33.64 37.11 100

Table 5.9: Counts and percentages of cores, core fragments and shatter by all raw material types.

Cores, Core Fragments and Shatter - Raw Material Local % High Quality % Total Clark 59 76.62 18 23.38 77 Guard 527 96.34 20 3.66 547

Table 5.10: Counts and percentages of cores, core fragments, and shatter by high-quality and low-quality raw material.

Cores, Core Fragments and Shatter - Raw Material

100% 20

90% 18 80%

70%

60%

50% 527

40% 59 30%

20%

10%

0% Clark Guard

Local High Quality

Figure 5.9: Bar graph comparing the counts and percentages of core, core fragments and shatter between the Clark and Guard sites.

Site Context Type Stage Raw Material Guard N1008 E1062 Preform Late Delaware Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Late Low Quality Guard N1047 E1058 Preform Late Laurel Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Late High Quality Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Late High Quality Guard N1058 E140 Preform Late Delaware Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Late Delaware Guard N1012 E1014 Preform Late Delaware Guard N1040 E1011 Preform Late Low Quality Guard N1126 E1046 Preform Early Low Quality Guard N1126 E1047 Preform Late High Quality Guard N988 E1022 Preform Late Low Quality Guard N988 E1023 Preform Late High Quality Guard N988 E1023 Preform Late Delaware Guard N1047 E1058 Preform Early Low Quality Guard N1038 E1048.5 Preform Early High Quality Guard N130 E1035 Preform Early High Quality Guard N008 E1052 Preform Middle Low Quality Guard N1038 E1040.5 Preform Middle Delaware Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Middle Delaware Guard N1041 E1039 Preform Middle Wyandotte Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Middle High Quality Guard N1011.5 E1043 Preform Middle Low Quality Guard N1038 E1048.5 Preform Middle High Quality Guard N1041 E1039 Preform Middle Low Quality Clark S5 E115 Preform Middle Wyandotte Clark S5 E115 Preform Early Wyandotte Clark S5 E120 Preform Middle Wyandotte Clark S5 E120 Preform Middle Wyandotte Clark S5 E130 Preform Middle Wyandotte Clark N5 E140 Preform Late Wyandotte Clark N5 E130 Preform Middle Upper Mercer Clark N5 E135 Preform Middle Upper Mercer

Table 5.11: Preforms in Clark and Guard with context, stage, and raw material

3. Is there a shift from and indirect bias cultural transmission strategy in the late Late Woodland period to guided variation in the Fort Ancient period? If so, then there will be more relationships between point attributes in the late Late Woodland period (indirect bias), and few relationships in point attributes in the Fort Ancient period (guided variation).

A small sample size limited my ability to perform formal statistical analyses on the data collected on the attributes of projectile points. Therefore, I relied upon descriptive statistics in this analysis. I first calculated the means and standard deviations for the Fort Ancient projectile points to determine the variation within projectile point types then used scatterplot matrices to determine if there were relationships between variables within the types.

Fort Ancient projectile points do not vary much over time when the means of variables are compared (Table 5.12). Type 2 and Type 6 projectile points are temporally sensitive and length and base width do not vary over time between the two, perhaps getting narrower and smaller over time (Cook and Comstock 2014). When compare the standard deviations with in groups, Type 2 projectile points has a lower standard deviation in thickness but higher standard deviations in base width and medial width. A high standard deviation is indicative of more variation within the variable being measured. Thus, Type 2 projectile points are much more variable in basal and medial widths than Type 5 and Type 6 projectile points. Late Woodland projectile points vary even less than Fort Ancient projectile points. However, small sample size may skew the data. All the measurements are within 3.5 standard deviations with each other aside from blade length among Levanna projectile points (Table 5.13). This is indicative of similarity in morphology within types.

Fort Ancient Triangular Projectile Points Type Attribute Mean Std. Deviation

Weight 2.52758621 1.76 Type 2 Length 36.55 5.58 N =29 Base Width 20.3689655 3.23 Medial With 12.9521739 3.85 Thickness 4.66206897 1.48

Type 5 Weight 3.30434783 1.58 N = 23 Length 30.14 17.90

Base Width 19.0391304 2.61 Medial With 13.5944444 2.49 Thickness 5.75652174 1.56

Type 6 Weight 3.95 2.13 N = 6 Length 33.9 7.15 Based Width 19.4833333 2.67 Medial Width 17.7666667 5.14 Thickness 5.4 1.61

Table 5.12: Table displaying the means and standard deviations of the Fort Ancient Projectile points at the Guard site.

Late Woodland Projectile Points Type Attribute Mean Std. Deviation

Weight 3.14 1.08 Blade Length 28.80 1.27 Raccoon Neck Height 7.98 0.40 n = 5 Blade Width 22.70 1.48 Neck Width 12.56 0.99 Base Width 18.93 0.06 Shoulder to Corner 8.18 1.09 Thickness 4.66 0.76

Weight 3.10 0.97 Blade Length n n Jack's Reef Neck Height 8.39 1.46 n = 8 Blade Width 24.30 3.27 Neck Width 12.93 1.98 Base Width 20.54 2.35 Shoulder to Corner 7.38 1.61 Thickness 4.01 0.45

Weight 1.94 0.50 Levanna Length 25.00 5.80 n = 5 Base Width 23.72 2.92 Thickness 4.06 0.54

Weight 2.33 0.92 Madison Length 27.37 0.40 n = 6 Base Width 19.77 1.45 Thickness 3.97 0.84

Table 5.13: Table displaying the means and standard deviations of the Fort Ancient Projectile points at the Guard site.

I then used scatter plot matrices to determine the patterns and relationships between attribute variables in the types. There were relationships between several variables in Type 2 Fort Ancient projectile points. There is are weak linear relationships between thickness and basal width, basal width and medial width, length and thickness, thickness and medial width (Figure 5.10). These relationships indicate that basal width and thickness may be functional variables as they show strong relationships to each other.

Figure 5.10: Scatterplot matrix of Type 2 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes

There are fewer relationships present within Type 5 projectile points. There may be a slight relationship between basal width and thickness, but the relationship is not strong (Figure 5.11).

The lack of relationships between attributes indicate that Type 5 projectile points are variable in their morphology.

Figure 5.11: Scatterplot matrix of Type 5 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes

There are few Type 6 projectile points in the assemblage, which may be skewing the results, but there seems to be strong relationships between all the attributes (Figure 5.12). There is are strong relationships between length and thickness, basal width and thickness, length and basal width, and thickness and length. This pattern is like what was observed among Type 2 projectile points, thus indicating that there is limited variation within this projectile point type.

Figure 5.12: Scatterplot matrix of Type 6 Fort Ancient projectile point attributes

There are few strong relationships between variables among the Late Woodland projectile points. However, the visualization of the data may be affected by low sample size. Jack’s Reef

Projectile points have a few strong relationships among the variables of basal width and neck width, base width and width between shoulder to corner, and neck height and blade width

(Figure 5.13). Base width, neck width, neck height, and shoulder to corner attributes are largely functional, they are essential to the hafting element of arrow heads. It is expected that there would be relationships between these functional variables as they are much less likely to vary than stylistic variables and neck height and base width (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 236;

Eerkens and Lipo 2005: 327). Raccoon Notched Projectile points exhibit similar relationships within the variables as Jack’s Reef. There is are relationships between blade width and shoulder to corner, neck width and shoulder to corner (Figure 5.14).

Figure 5.13: Scatterplot matrix of Jack’s Reef projectile point attributes

Figure 5.14: Scatterplot matrix of Raccoon projectile point attributes

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions

The goal of this research was to better understand variation in material culture between the late Late Woodland and Fort Ancient periods by examining differences in reduction strategies and cultural transmission. I first attempted to ascertain if there was a significant difference in projectile point manufacturing strategies, particularly a transition from free-hand reduction to bipolar reduction. I then compared the presence of high-quality chert types and cores in the Guard and Clark sites to determine if there were significant differences in raw material use between the sites. Finally, I compared the variation in projectile points recovered from the sites to determine if there were changes in cultural transmission strategies. My research was guided by the following research questions and hypotheses:

1. Are there differences in the manufacturing techniques used to produce stone tools between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods, particularly a shift from free-hand to bipolar reduction? If so we would expect flakes with greater amounts of cortex more late stage reduction at Clark compared to Guard.

2. Are there significant differences between the raw material types utilized between the two cultural periods, specifically usage of Wyandotte and Upper Mercer chert types? If so we would expect to see more of these high quality chert at Clark compared to Guard.

3. Is there a shift from and indirect bias cultural transmission strategy in the late Late Woodland period to guided variation in the Fort Ancient period? If so, then there will be

more relationships between point attributes in the late Late Woodland period (indirect bias), and few relationships in point attributes in the Fort Ancient period (guided variation).

Variation in Reduction Strategies

It was hypothesized that there was a transition from free-hand to bipolar reduction between the late Late Woodland to Fort Ancient period due to an increased presence of smaller and fragmented core fragments and irregular flakes. Jeske (1992) noted that bipolar reduction is advantageous to sedentary communities, particularly those that focus more on farming for subsistence rather than hunting and gathering. Bipolar reduction is beneficial to such communities because this strategy saves time and energy in regard to stone tool production that is expended elsewhere (e.g., planting, harvesting). If there was a transition from free-hand to bipolar reduction, greater amounts of cortex were expected at Guard than at Clark. These expectations were largely supported by the analyses conducted. Thus, we can quantitively observe a transition in reduction strategies from the late Late Woodland site of Clark to the Fort

Ancient site of Guard.

The presence of cortex on flakes is significantly different between the Clark and Guard sites. Guard had significantly more flakes with cortex than Clark, although there was not a statistically significant difference in presence of cortex on finishing flakes compared to early reduction flakes between the two sites. Sullivan and Rozen (1985: 756) note that cortex does occur on flakes at all stages, therefore it is not a reliable indicator of reduction stage. However, the amount of cortex on flakes between the two sites is significantly different, there is much

68 more cortex present on flakes at the Guard site compared to Clark which indicates that smaller cores may have been utilized heavily at Guard .Despite the lack of statistically significant results, there are far fewer flakes with cortex in the late reduction stages (tertiary and bifacial thinning) in the Clark site than in the Guard site (see tables and figures 5.4 and 5.5). The lack of cortex on the flakes at Clark may be indicative of a greater presence of resharpening projectile points and shaping tools from imported blanks or preforms (Seeman and Dancey 2000).

Raw Material Utilization

The type and prevalence of chert has an impact on the reduction strategy utilized. There are significant differences in raw materials used at the Clark and Guard sites. Results indicate that the majority of the chert used to produce stone tools at the Guard site were local, low-quality varieties whereas at the Clark site exotic, high-quality chert was abundant. As noted previously, bipolar reduction is used to conserve chert, thus the technique is heavily utilized in areas where high-quality raw material is variable and cores are small (Jeske 1992; Andrefsky 1992; Shott

1999). There are no chert outcroppings local to Guard and the chert that we consider to be local

(i.e. Delaware, Laurel, and unidentified high-quality and low-quality chert) may be part of glacial outwashes found in rivers and streams as nodules (DeRagnaucourt and Georgiady 1998).

If these chert varieties are what the Fort Ancient people who occupied Guard had to work with, it would be expected that bipolar reduction was utilized more so than free-hand reduction.

Settlement patterns and mobility also have an impact on raw material utilization. Even though Clark is located on the same river system as Guard, the individuals living in these two sites had different lifestyles. The peoples occupying Guard were likely more restricted in their

69 annual movements as they were sedentary villagers. They relied on maize agriculture for their subsistence and the villages were large and permanent, thus their ability to access exotic chert sources was likely more limited. Conversely, the late Late Woodland people who occupied the

Clark site moved seasonally, foraging and hunting to feed and clothe themselves. Due to their mobile lifestyle these late Late Woodland peoples may have had greater access to high-quality exotic raw materials, such as Upper Mercer chert, which outcrops in Southeastern Ohio, and

Wyandotte, which is local to Southern Indiana. It appears that the late Late Woodland peoples who occupied the Clark site also brought raw materials in to the site in the form of preforms and blanks (Church and Cook 2016).

Upper Mercer and Wyandotte chert types are procured by quarrying the raw material from outcrops. Individuals would travel to these locations, quarry the raw material, work it into projectile points as well as preforms or blanks, and travel or trade them to other groups. The individuals who inhabited the Clark site either acquired these materials at their outcroppings or traded for them with other groups (Church and Cook 2016). There is an abundance of high- quality flakes at Clark with very few high-quality cores, and the preforms that are found in the

Clark assemblage are high-quality and finely made compared to the preforms at Guard. The

Guard preforms are produced from local low-quality chert and are mostly late-stage compared to those at Clark which may indicate that they were preforms that were unable to be further shaped or thinned due to breakage (Jeske 1992). It appears that there was much more investment in raw material and manufacture in the Clark assemblage compared to Guard.

The peoples who inhabited the Clark site were reliant on their tools as hunting was a large part of their subsistence base, therefore it is expected that they would invest more time and

70 energy in stone tool manufacture. The Fort Ancient peoples living at the Guard site were less reliant on hunting and were more focused on agriculture, stone tool production may have taken on a lesser role and investment in raw material procurement and reduction may have been reduced (Jeske 1992). The variation in raw material and manufacturing strategies between the

Clark and Guard sites are a product of different settlement strategies, subsistence bases, and lifestyles which may have also impacted cultural transmission strategies.

Cultural Transmission Strategies

Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) use two cultural transmission strategies, guided variation and indirect bias, to understand how social learning may have influenced changes in projectile point morphology with the introduction of the bow and arrow in the Great Basin. Their study focused on two different sites. The authors found linkages in basal width and weight in one site and not the other and concluded that one site was practicing an indirect bias learning strategy while the other was utilizing guided variation (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999). In guided variation individuals replicate characteristics of multiple models and modify them to fit their own anticipated needs through trial and error. Conversely, in indirect bias individuals replicate the characteristics from a single model which is considered successful by all members of society.

Where attributes are closely linked an indirect bias cultural transmission strategy is at work and when attributes are not correlated the population is using guided variation leading to more trial and error, more breakage, and more variation (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Boyd and Richerson

1985). These transmission strategies are inherently social. The transmission of traits is reliant on

71 selection of traits based on their suitability, innovation to make new and better models, and the passing on of traits through learning.

The goal of my study was to observe the differences in the relationships between projectile point attributes in the Clark and Guard sites in order to determine if different learning strategies were utilized between the two sites. Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) and Cook and

Comstock (2014) used correlation matrices to determine if there were strong relationships between projectile point attributes. However, due to small sample sizes, I was not able to perform tests of correlation on my data, therefore I relied upon scatter plot matrices to visualize potential relationships. The scatter plot matrices reveal that there are more potential relationships between variables in the Fort Ancient projectile points at the Guard site compared to the projectile points recovered at the Clark site. From these visualizations of the data it appears that the individuals at Guard where utilizing an indirect bias transmission strategy. There are more relationships among the attributes in the Guard projectile points and qualitatively these projectile point types appear to be very similar to each other. For the Fort Ancient peoples inhabiting the

Guard site, this strategy may have been advantageous. An indirect bias strategy can save time and energy in projectile point manufacture since one reliable model was utilized. An indirect bias strategy entails less time spent on experimentation and results in less breakage and failure which would benefit the peoples at the Guard site who had limited access to raw materials and would want to work to conserve them (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Eerkens and Lipo 2005). Since there are fewer relationships between the projectile point attributes at the Clark site, it may be that guided variation was utilized more so than indirect bias. Multiple models may have been more useful to these mobile foragers who likely utilized multiple models to suite their hunting

72 needs and had much more room to experiment with their stone tool technology as they had wider access to raw material sources. This is also evident in the morphological variability of projectile point types present in the Late Woodland period as opposed to the relatively uniform triangular

Fort Ancient projectile point (compare figure 2.2 and figure 2.5).

Summary and Conclusions

The goal of this research was to better understand the variation in stone tool manufacture during the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient transition in the Middle Ohio River Valley via the

Guard and Clark sites. I was particularly interested in how reduction strategies changed and the differential use of high-quality raw materials. I was also interested to see if I could observe a change in cultural transmission strategies between these two periods. From the results of my research I am confident that there is a shift in reduction strategy, from one largely focused on free-hand reduction to one largely focused on bipolar reduction, between the late Late Woodland

Clark site and the Early Fort Ancient Guard site. At Guard, lithic reduction is predominately bipolar as evidenced from the high presence of cortex on flakes in all reduction stages, the higher frequency of bipolar cores, and local-low quality chert types. Clark, however, has a lower proportion of bipolar cores, fewer flakes with cortex, high-quality raw materials, and more later stage reduction flakes which indicates these individuals were more formally shaping and resharpening their tools than the individuals at Guard. There does also seem to be variation in learning strategies between Clark and Guard, from one focused on multiple to one focused on singular models.

Research results presented here support the conclusion that there was a clear shift in stone tool production between the Late Woodland and Fort Ancient periods in the Middle Ohio River

Valley. This shift was influenced by dramatic changes in climate, lifestyle, and subsistence strategies. The late Late Woodland peoples were mobile hunter-gatherers living in less ideal climatic conditions who subsisted mainly on wild resources. They moved seasonally through large territories that allowed them access to various resources including chert. Conversely, the

Early Fort Ancient peoples were sedentary villagers living is optimal climatic conditions for intensifying a maize agriculture dietary base to feed relatively large local populations. The investment in stone tool technology shifted from formal to efficient as a result of these transitions in lifestyle and subsistence in the Middle Ohio River Valley.

The large scale shifts in climate, settlement, subsistence, demography and social relationships influenced the way in which traits were passed on. The late Late Woodland groups, although they lived in small intimate groups, expressed more heterogeneity in the morphology of their projectile points partially due to interacting with more diverse populations. Additionally, the late Late Woodland peoples were able to access a wider range of raw material as they were a more mobile group. Due to their settlement and subsistence practices, guided variation may have been the cultural transmission strategy that worked the best for the late Late Woodland peoples.

In contrast, the Fort Ancient peoples seemed to have practiced indirect bias transmission as expressed by more limited variation in projectile point types and metrics from this cultural period. In comparison on the Late Woodland peoples, the Early Fort Ancient communities were sedentary and, therefore, more homogenous and conforming with a larger community identity.

They also did not have access to a wide range of exotic materials but instead utilized local raw

74 materials that occurred in river beds in the form of cobbles. Indirect bias is also considered to be a more efficient mode of cultural transmission as it creates a lower failure level (Mesoudi and

O’Brien 2008; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999). This would have been beneficial to the Fort Ancient peoples who were investing more the time and energy in growing maize and community building, both in terms of constructing more permanent forms of architecture as well as more complex forms of social organization. By using the indirect bias strategy of cultural transmission, the Fort Ancient peoples were able to save time by using a model that works and spend less time experimenting with stone tool technology.

Between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods, the lives of the peoples in the Middle Ohio River changed markedly. New peoples were coming into the region, maize agriculture became the dominant mode of subsistence and large villages were established. These changes likely had an impact on almost all aspects of material culture, with the present study examining only those changes in stone tool technology. Key findings are that there was a shift in manufacturing strategies between the late Late Woodland and Early Fort Ancient periods, particularly a shift from emphasizing free-hand to bipolar reduction and differential use of raw materials from exotic to local. It also appears that there was a change in cultural transmission strategies between the two periods, from guided variation to indirect bias. I argue that the change in cultural transmission was impacted by the changing demographic, settlement, social, climate, and subsistence systems

References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (1): 85-118

Andrefsky, William Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 2-14. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Barton, C. Michael 1997 “Stone Tools, Style, and Social Identity: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Archaeological Record.” In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 141- 156. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.

Bellwood, Peter 2005 First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Benson, Larry V. 2011 Factors Controlling Pre-Columbian and Early Historic Maize Productivity in the American Southwest, Part 1: The Southern Colorado Plateau and Rio Grande Regions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18:1-60.

Benson, Larry V., and Michael S. Berry 2009 Climate Change and Cultural Response in the Prehistoric American Southwest. Kiva 75(1): 87-117.

Benson, Larry V., Timothy R. Pauketat, and Edward R. Cook 2009 Cahokia’s Boom and Bust in the Context of Climate Change. American Antiquity 74(3):467-483.

Bettinger, Robert L. 2008 “Cultural Transmission and Archaeology.” In Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 1-9. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.

Bettinger, Robert L., Jelmer Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2): 231-242.

Boyd, Robert, Peter J. Richerson 1985 Cultural and the Evolutionary Process. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bradbury, Andrew P., and Philip J. Carr 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20(2):100-115.

Braun, David P. 1988 The Social and Technological Roots of “Late Woodland.” In Interpretations of Culture Change in the Eastern Woodlands during the late Woodland Period, edited by R. W. Yerkes, pp. 17-31. Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 3, Columbus.

Brooke, John 2014 Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough History. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Brown, James A. 1985 “Long-Term Trends to Sedentism and Emergence of Complexity in the American Midwest.” In Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers, edited by T. Douglas Price and James A. Brown, pp. 201-231. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Church, Wendy and Robert A. Cook 2016 Within the Jack’s Reef Horizon: An Intrasite Analysis of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from the Clark Site (33WA124) in Southwest Ohio. Archaeology of Eastern North America 44:25-36.

Clay, R. Berle and Steven D. Creasman 1999 Middle Ohio Valley Late Woodland Nucleated Settlements: “Where’s the Beef.” West Virginia Archaeologist 51:1-10.

Comstock, Aaron R. 2017 Climate Change, Migration, and the Emergence of Village Life on the Mississippian Periphery: A Middle Ohio Valley Case Study. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Cook, Edward R., Richard Seager, Richard R. Heim Jr., Russel S. Vose, Celine Herweijer, and Connie Woodhouse 2010 Megadroughts in North America: Placing IPCC Projections of Hydroclimatic Change in a Long-Term Paleoclimate Context. Journal of Quaternary Science 25(1):48-61.

Cook, Robert A. 2008 Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

2017 Continuity and Change in the Native American Village: Multicultural Origins and Descendants of the Fort Ancient Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cook, Robert A. and Aaron Comstock 2014 Toward a 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(3):222-250.

Cook, Robert A., Aaron R. Comstock, Kristie R. Martin, Jarrod Burks, Wendy Church, and Melissa French. 2015 Early Village Life in Southeastern Indiana: Recent Field Investigations at the Guard Site (12D29). Southeastern Archaeology 34(2):95-115.

Cook, Robert A. and Lane F. Fargher 2008 The Incorporation of Mississippian Traditions into Fort Ancient Societies: A Preliminary View of the Shift to Shell-Tempered Pottery Use in the Middle Ohio Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 27(2): 222-237.

Cook, Robert A. and T. Douglas Price 2015 Maize, Mounds, and Movement of People: Isotope Analysis of a Mississippian/Fort Ancient Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 61: 112-128.

Cook, Robert A., and Mark Schurr 2009 Eating Between the Lines: Mississippian Migration and Stable Carbon Isotope Variation in Fort Ancient Populations. American Anthropologist 111:344-359.

Cordell, Linda S., Davide E. Doyel, Keith W. Kintigh 1994 “Processes of Aggregation in the Prehistoric Southwest.” In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 109-133. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

DeRagnaucourt, Tony, and Jeff Georgiady 1998 Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Upper Miami Valley Archaeological Research Museum, Arcanum, Ohio.

Drooker, Penelope 1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, No. 31, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2): 192-202.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Carl P. Lipo 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 316- 334.

2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:239-274.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Robert L. Bettinger, Richard McElreath 2006 “Cultural Transmission, Phylogenetics, and the Archaeological Record.” In Mapping our Ancestor: Phylogenetic Methods in Anthropology and Prehistory, edited by Carl P. Lipo, Michael J. O’Brien, M. Collard, and Stephen J. Shennan, pp. 169-83. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Essenpreis, Patricia S. 1978 “Fort Ancient Settlement: Differential Response at a Mississippian-Late Woodland Interface.” In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 141-165. Academic Press, New York.

Fagan, Brian 2008 The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. Bloomsbury Press, New York.

Fort, Joaquim, Enrico R. Crema, Marco Madella 2015 Modeling Demic and Cultural Diffusion: An Introduction. Human Biology 87(3): 141- 149.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1993 Tool Kit Entropy and Bipolar Reduction: A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variability Among Paleo-Indian Sites in Northeastern United States. North American Archaeologist 14(1):1-23.

Greenlee, Diana M. 2002 Accounting for Subsistence Variation Among Maize Farmers in Ohio Valley Prehistory. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

2006 Dietary Variation and Prehistoric Maize Farming in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 215-233. Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Griffin, J.B. 1961 Some Correlations of Climate and Cultural Change in Eastern North American Prehistory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1961):710-717.

Hart, John P., and William A. Lovis 2012 Reevaluating What We Know About the Histories of Maize in Northeastern North America: A Review of Current Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Research 21:175- 216.

Henderson, A. Gwynn (editor) 1992 Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Henrich, Joseph 2001 Cultural Transmission and the Diffusion of Innovations: Adoption Dynamics Indicate That Bias Cultural Transmission is the Predominate Force in Behavioral Change. American Anthropologist 103(4):992-1013.

Henrich, Joseph and Richard McElreath 2003 Evolution of Cultural Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 123-135.

Herndon, R.L, and Andrew P. Bradbury 2014 A Tinsley Hill Phase Mississippian Occupation at the Conflux of the Tennessee and Ohio Rivers. Journal of Kentucky Archaeology 3(1-2):49-71.

Jeske, Robert J. 1992 Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 57(3): 467-481.

Jeske, Robert J., Rochelle Lurie 1993 The Archaeological Visibility of Bipolar Technology: An Example Form the Koster Site. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 18(2): 131-160.

Jones, Joy 1978 A Preliminary Report on a Puzzling Single Component Woodland Site in Southwestern Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 28: 17-20.

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kelly, Robert L. 2013 The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 43-66.

Kooyman, Brian P. 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of Calgary Press, | Alberta.

Kozarek, Sue Ellen 1997 “Determining Sedentism in the Archaeological Record”. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 131-152. Kent State University Press, Kent.

Kuijt, Ian, William C. Prentiss and David L. Pokotylo 1995 Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20(2): 116-127.

Lamb, H.H. 1965 The Early Medieval Warm Epoch and Its Sequel. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 1:13-37.

Leaf, Gary R. 1979 Variation in the Form of Bipolar Cores. Plains Anthropologist 24(83): 39-50.

McCall, Ashley E. 2013 The Relationship of Stable Isotopes to Late Woodland and Fort Ancient Agriculture, Mobility, and Paleopathologies at the Turpin Site. Master’s Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mesoudi, Alex, Michael J. O’Brien 2008 The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology I: An Experimental Simulation. American Antiquity 73(1):3-28.

Nass, John P. Jr., and Richard W. Yerkes, 1995 Social Differentiation in Mississippian and Fort Ancient Societies. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 58-80. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Nassaney, Michael S. and Charles R. Cobb 1991 Patterns and processes of Late Woodland development in the greater southeastern United States. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation in the Late Woodland Southeast, ed. Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 285- 322. Plenum Press, New York.

Nolan, Kevin C., Robert A. Cook 2010 An Evolutionary Model of Social Change in the Middle Ohio Valley: Was Social Complexity Impossible During the Late Woodland but Mandatory during the Late Prehistoric. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:62-79.

Odell, George H. 2004 Lithic Analysis. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York.

Oehler, Charles 1973 Turpin Indians: A Revised Report of the Finding of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History’s Archaeological Exploration of the Turpin Site, Hamilton County, Ohio 1946- 1949. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History Population Publication Series, No. 1. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pecora, A. M. 2001 “Chipped Stone Tool Production Strategies and Lithic Debris Patterns”. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by W.A. Andrefsky, pp.173-191.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1990 A Technological Lithic Materials Analysis. In: Late Woodland Archaeology at the Parkline Site (44PU99) Putnam County, West Virginia, edited by C. M. Niquette and M. A. Hughes, pp. 72-94. Contract Publication Series 90-93, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Lexington, KY.

Prasciunas, M.M. 2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72(2):334-348.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 137-170. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Railey, Jim A. and Eric J. Gonzales 2015 The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages. In Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives in Lithic Analysis, edited by Michael J. Shott, pp. 11-32. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Reidhead, Van A. 1976 Optimization and Food Procurement at the Prehistoric Leonard Haag Site, Southeastern Indiana: A Linear Programming Approach. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Indiana University.

Riggs, Rodney 1998 Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Change in the Lower Little Miami River Valley, Southwestern Ohio, c. 100 B.C. to c. A.D. 1650. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Rodgers, J. Daniel, and Bruce D. Smith (eds.) 1995 Mississippian Communities and Households. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sedler, Mike 1990 Plan for Archaeological Investigation of the Guard Site, 12D29, Dearborn County. Manuscript on file, Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Seeman, Mark F. and William S. Dancey 2000 The Late Woodland Period in Southern Ohio: Basic Issues and Prospects. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 583-601. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 Bipolar Industries: Ethnographic Evidence and Archaeological Implications. North American Archaeologist 10(1): 1-24.

1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):69-110.

1999 On Bipolar Reduction and Splinter Pieces. North American Archaeologist 20(3): 217- 238.

2007 The Role of Reduction Analysis in Lithic Studies. Lithic Technology 32(1):131-141.

2015 Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives in Lithic Analysis. In Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives in Lithic Analysis, edited by Michael J. Shott, pp.1-10. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Smith, Bruce D. 1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246(4937):1566-1571.

Strouthes, Daniel P. 2011 “Cultural Summary: Mi’Kmaq.” Human Relations Area Files: New Haven. Retrieved from http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nj05-000

Sullivan, A., & Rozen, K. 1985. Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity, 50(4), 755- 779.

Tomka, Steve A. 2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 207-224. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Varien, Mark D. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Wymer, Dee Ann 1993 Cultural Change and Subsistence: The Middle Woodland and Late Woodland Transition in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. M. Scarry, pp. 138-156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Yerkes, Richard W. 2006 Middle Woodland settlements and social organization in the central Ohio Valley: were the Hopewell really farmers? In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Charles, D.K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 50-61. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Appendix A: Key for Individual Flake Analysis

Size Class

1 = 0 – 1 cmbs 2 = 1 – 2 cmbs 3 = 2 – 3 cmbs 5 = 3 – 4 cmbs

Raw Material (DeRagnaucourt and Georgiady 1998)

UM = Upper Mercer L = Laurel Creek DEL = Delaware W = Wyandotte FR = Flint Ridge LQ = Unidentified Low Quality HQ = Unidentified High Quality

Cortex

0 = No Cortex 1 = Yes Cortex

Percentage of Cortex of Dorsal Side of Flake

1 = 0 – 25% 2 = 25 – 50% 3 = 50 – 75% 4 = 75 – 100%

Completeness (Andrefsky 199: 87-88)

1 = complete 2 = proximal 3 = medial fragments 4 = distal fragment

Termination Type (Andrefksy 1998: 18, 85-86)

0 = broken/no termination

1 = feathered termination (smooth termination) 2 = hinge (when flake turns or roles away from the objective. Looks like an “L” or rounded) 3 = step termination (when the flake snaps or breaks during termination) 4 = reverse snap termination (the opposite of hinge termination, looks like a backward “L’) 5 = perverse termination (when the flake breaks leaving a twisted termination of the flake)

Platform (Andrefsky 1998: 92-96)

0 = none 1 = cortical (unmodified cortical surface, may or may not have cortex) 2 = flat striking platform (smooth flat surfaces with an impact point) 3 = complex striking platform (platforms with rounded surface or surface composed of multiple flake scars, may be angular, may have tiny step fractures)