THE ROLE OF TOOL FUNCTION IN THE DECLINE OF NORTH AMERICA’S OLD

COPPER CULTURE (6000-3000 BP): AN EVOLUTIONARY AND EXPERIMENTAL

APPROACH

A dissertation submitted

to Kent State University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by

Michelle Rae Bebber

August, 2019

© Copyright

All rights reserved

Except for previously published materials

Dissertation written by

Michelle Rae Bebber

B.A., The University of Akron, USA, 2014

M.A., Kent State University, USA, 2016

Ph.D., Kent State University, USA, 2019

Approved by

Metin I. Eren , Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Richard S. Meindl , Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Mary Ann Raghanti , Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Michael Fisch ,

Accepted by

Ernest Freeman , Chair, Department of Biomedical Sciences

James L. Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

PREFACE ...... xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ...... 1

1.2 Contextualizing the Old Copper Culture ...... 1

1.2.1 Temporal, Environmental, and Demographic Setting ...... 1

1.2.2 North America’s Copper Industry ...... 3

1.2.3 Copper as Tool ...... 4

1.2.4 Copper Spear Points ...... 5

1.2.5 Copper Knives ...... 6

1.2.6 Copper Awls ...... 8

1.2.7 Copper Culture Stone Tools ...... 9

1.3 Early Investigations of North American Copper ...... 9

1.4 Problems with previous interpretations and the technological “devolution” ...... 11

1.5 Cultural evolutionary theory and selection ...... 13

1.5.1 Competition: selection of advantageous functional traits ...... 16

1.6 Research Design and Predictions ...... 17

1.6.1 Experimental Archaeology ...... 17

1.6.2 Hypotheses, Predictions, and Implications ...... 18

iii 1.6.3 Discussion of Experimental Validity ...... 20

1.7 Chapter 1 References ...... 21

CHAPTER 2 TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE NORTH

AMERICAN OLD COPPER CULTURE “TECHNOMIC DEVOLUTION” ...... 37

2.1 Introduction ...... 39

2.1.1 The Old Copper Culture ...... 40

2.1.2 The Decline of Utilitarian Copper Tools ...... 41

2.2 Materials and Methods ...... 43

2.2.1 Replica Copper Production ...... 43

2.2.1.1 Previous Research on Copper Tool Production ...... 43

2.2.1.2 Replica Copper Projectile Point Production in the Current Study ...... 45

2.2.2 Replica Stone Projectile Point Production and Hafting Procedure ...... 51

2.2.3 Copper and Stone Point Experimental Form and Morphometrics ...... 52

2.2.4 Experiments ...... 54

2.2.4.1 Experimental Setting ...... 54

2.2.4.2 Measuring and Controlling Velocity ...... 56

2.2.4.3 Firing Procedure and Measuring Penetration Depth ...... 58

2.3 Results ...... 58

2.4 Discussion ...... 62

2.5 Acknowledgements ...... 66

2.6 Footnotes ...... 67

2.7 References ...... 68

iv CHAPTER 3 THE EXCEPTIONAL ABANDONMENT OF METAL TOOLS BY NORTH

AMERICAN HUNTER GATHERERS, 3000 B.P...... 80

3.1 Introduction ...... 82

3.2 Materials and Methods ...... 84

3.3 Results ...... 85

3.4 Discussion ...... 88

3.5 References ...... 90

3.6 Supplementary Information ...... 95

3.6.1 Supplementary Background regarding Copper Knives ...... 96

3.6.2 Extended Description of Materials and Methods ...... 97

3.6.2.1 Tool Sharpness ...... 97

3.6.2.2 Tool Edge Angle ...... 97

3.6.2.3 Cutting Efficiency ...... 98

3.6.2.4 Investigating Prehistoric Copper Cutting Efficiency ...... 98

3.6.2.5 Replica Copper Knife Blade Production...... 99

3.6.2.6 Edge Angle Analysis ...... 101

3.6.2.7 Knife Blunting Procedure ...... 103

3.6.3 Experiments ...... 103

3.6.3.1 Experimental Data Collection ...... 106

3.6.4 Additional Analysis ...... 109

3.6.4.1 Amount of blunting ...... 109

3.6.5 SI References ...... 111

v CHAPTER 4 CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS SUPPORT THE ROLE OF FUNCTION IN

THE EVOLUTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN COPPER TOOL REPERTOIRE ...... 115

4.1 Introduction ...... 117

4.2 Materials and Methods ...... 119

4.2.1 Copper Awl Manufacture ...... 119

4.2.2 Bone Awl Manufacture ...... 120

4.2.3 Experimental Procedure ...... 120

4.3 Results ...... 125

4.4 Conclusions ...... 126

4.5 Acknowledgements ...... 126

4.6 References ...... 128

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY ...... 134

5.1 Review of Results and Implications ...... 134

5.2 Behavioral Ecology ...... 141

5.3 Energy Efficiency during Stress ...... 144

5.4 Other Factors that could Affect Change in Copper Tools ...... 146

5.4.1 Considering Gender Based Task Differentiation ...... 146

5.4.2 Population size, tool form variation, and social transmission ...... 147

5.5 Conclusion ...... 148

5.6 Chapter 5 References ...... 151

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the Old Copper Culture area showing concentration in southeastern

...... 3

Figure 2. Old Copper Culture socketed tang projectile points photographed by M.R.B. at the

Milwaukee Public Museum ...... 6

Figure 3. Old Copper Culture knives photographed by M.R.B. at the Milwaukee Public Museum

...... 7

Figure 4. Old Copper Culture awls photographed by M.R.B. at the Milwaukee Public Museum ..8

Figure 5. Approximate archaeological area of the North American Old Copper Culture ...... 40

Figure 6. Production sequence showing five stages a) raw native copper nugget, b) early stage working, c) elongate copper ingot, d) early stage tapered point, e) trimmed point approaching final form ...... 46

Figure 7. Copper workstation a) M.R.B. beginning manufacturing sequence, b) forge heated with torch for consistent temperature control, c) initial hot hammering the of the raw copper nugget ..

...... 47

vii Figure 8. Initial heating of the raw copper a) blue/green flame showing the burning off of the patination (surface copper oxides), b) “red heat” phase signaling that copper has reached temperature well over 225° C ...... 48

Figure 9. Working the copper from a) raw nugget beginning initial heating in forge, b) raw nugget in “red heat” phase, c) initial phases of hot hammering, d) trimmed point undergoing last cycle of annealing ...... 49

Figure 10. Copper and stone points were hafted in an identical manner ...... 52

Figure 11. Ballistic testing set up including calibrated compound bow, chronometer, and target

...... 55

Figure 12. Frequency of copper (left, red) and stone (right, blue) projectile point penetration depths ...... 60

Figure 13. Scatter plot of copper (red) and stone (blue) projectile point masses versus penetration depths ...... 62

Figure 14. The force (N) and work (J) necessary for copper (brown) and stone (dark blue) blades to cut through a substrate. Stone blades are significantly sharper than copper ones initially, and after blunting there is no difference. Copper is more durable given it loses less sharpness ...... 87

viii Figure 15. Copper blade production showing stages (a) elongate copper ingots, (b) tapered blades cut into segments, and (c) final blade sharpening on whetstone...... 101

Figure 16. Testing apparatus showing copper blade, mounted in wood block, held by Instron screw action grips being lowered towards the PVC cutting substrate ...... 105

Figure 17. Instron Universal Materials Tester (Model 5967) was used to perform compressive tests and to collect all data ...... 106

Figure 18. Load displacement curves depicting a typical test for (a) copper blades and (b) stone blades. Data for each blade has been plotted for conditions one (1) though six (6) ...... 108

Figure 19. Awls mounted for testing leather punching efficiency. A) copper awl on its sixth test run, about to contact leather substrate b) bone awl, on its sixth test run showing damage and breakage of the awl tip after punching the leather substrate ...... 121

Figure 20. Images captured from a Dino-Lite Edge 5 MP Series AM7515 digital microscope at

50x magnification showing copper awls (#1-5 in rows). Original tip prior to use (Column 1), intermediate tip wear (Column 2), and final tip wear after all iterations (Column 3) ...... 122

Figure 21. Dinolite images (50x magnification) showing bone awls (#1-5 in rows). Original tip prior to use (Column 1), intermediate tip wear (Column 2), and final tip wear after all iterations

(Column 3) ...... 123

ix

Figure 22. Graph showing the amount of force in Newtons (N) needed by bone awls (blue dots) and copper awls (orange dots) for each of the 6 test runs ...... 124

x LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of copper versus stone point mass, morphometrics, and velocity. For mass, length, width, basal width, and thickness alpha-level with Bonferroni correction is 0.01 (0.05 / 5

= 0.01). For velocity, alpha-level is 0.05 ...... 53

Table 2. Point mass and morphometric data ...... 59

Table 3. Velocity and penetration depth data ...... 61

Table 4. Blade edge angle in degrees ° ...... 102

Table 5. Results of the force (N) required by copper awls and bone awls for each test run ...... 125

xi PREFACE

Author Contributions Statement Chapter 2

MRB conceived of the experiment and wrote manuscript text.

MRB produced the copper experimental samples.

MIE produced the stone experimental samples.

MRB and MIE

MRB and MIE analyzed data.

MRB and MIE prepared figures and tables.

Author Contributions Statement Chapter 3

MRB conceived of the experiment and wrote manuscript text.

MRB, MF, and AJMK produced experimental specimens.

MF advised data collection.

MRB and AJMK collected all data.

RSM, MRB, and MIE analyzed data.

MRB and MIE prepared figures and tables.

All authors edited the manuscript text.

Author Contributions Statement Chapter 4

MRB conceived of the experiment and wrote manuscript text.

MRB produced the copper experimental samples.

MRB and KF produced the bone experimental samples.

xii MF mounted experimental samples and advised data collection.

MRB and JN collected data.

RSM, MRB and MIE analyzed data.

MRB and MIE prepared all figures.

All authors edited the final manuscript.

xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this research to my three True Loves— Cleo, Asa, and Mona—for showing me every day what joy truly is; for making my life delightfully messy; and for inspiring me to work harder, hold tighter, love stronger, be wilder, give more, and how be a better human in general.

You are my most exquisite creations—I love you more than you can ever fully know.

To my advisor, Dr. Metin I. Eren, thank you for tireless support and enthusiasm for archaeological research. Your commitment to students and to the discipline is evident in everything you do. It is said that we ultimately become like our mentors – and I hope this is true so I can inspire others as you have inspired me.

This dissertation research could not have been accomplished without the help of so many wonderful, generous people including: Dr. Mary Ann Raghanti, Dr. Michael Fisch, and Dr.

Richard S. Meindl. I am eternally grateful to you all for your guidance and support over the years. Thank you so much!

xiv

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Statement of problem

From a cultural evolutionary perspective, the trajectory of North America’s “Old Copper

Culture” presents a conundrum, as it is generally accepted that superior raw materials, i.e., metals, will replace inferior ones, i.e., stone. Likewise, it has been assumed that copper tools such as those made in the North American Archaic (10,000 BP – 3000 BP) would have been superior to their stone counterparts due to their implicit durability and related performance benefits (Binford 1962). This sounds plausible, however, the performance of native copper implements has never been tested experimentally. This dissertation presents the results of three experiments that use replication and modern testing procedures to assess the comparative performance of tools made from native copper, stone, and bone.

1.2 Contextualizing the Old Copper Culture

1.2.1 Temporal, Environmental, and Demographic Setting

North America’s Old Copper Culture (6000 – 3000 BP) is a unique event in archaeologists’ global understanding of prehistoric metallurgic evolution. For millennia, Middle and Late Archaic hunter-gatherers, centered around the Western region, regularly made utilitarian implements out of the abundant native copper in the region. It is thought that

1 copper development and decline is related to the changes in population size and social structure that occurred during the Middle and Late Archaic Periods (6000 BP – 3000 BP).

In the Early Archaic (10,000 – 6000 BP), after the Pleistocene deglaciation, the Eastern

United States became a Woodland environment (Emerson et al. 2012). Ancient groups began using a “Forest Efficiency” subsistence strategy in a diverse, rich ecosystem. During this climatic period the forests were teeming with mast trees which provided nuts, the rivers were crowded with fish and shellfish, and a wide variety of game and fowl lived in the woodlands interspersed with meadows. Additionally, there were many seed bearing plants that groups began to exploit by the Middle Archaic. This is evinced by the development of tools for processing grains. This scenario of wild plant exploitation eventually leads to domestication and the practice of small- scale horticulture by the end of Archaic (Miller 2018).

Due to the rich environment, there was substantial population growth during the Archaic

Period, at a rate of about 2.5% (Meindl et al. 2001). Demographic data comes from large cemeteries that occur in the Late Archaic period. Along with population growth we also see evidence of increasing intergroup violence (Mensforth 2001). Overall, settlement patterns suggest a cyclical “fission/fusion” model with seasonal mobility and aggregation. Likewise, there is evidence of trade increasing in Late Archaic involving things like copper, exotic cherts, marine shell, and obsidian (Griffin 1967; Pleger 1998, 2000).

The Archaic period was a time of cultural growth and innovation as evidenced by the variety of new tools from this period. There is archaeological evidence for the invention of grinding stones and ulus for processing wild plants, along with soapstone bowls, birch bark containers, and the first use of pottery at end of Archaic. But, the innovation most relevant to the

2 research presented here is the increased production of utilitarian copper tools and trade around

Great Lakes.

1.2.2 North America’s Copper Industry

The Old Copper Culture was centered around the Western Great Lakes, with most material found in Southern Wisconsin -- but implements have been found as far east as Ottawa and as far west as Manitoba. Members of the Old Copper Culture made copper tools such as the knives, spear points, axes, awls, and fishing gear (Martin 1999; Ritzenthaler 1957; Steinbring

1968; Wittry 1951; Wittry and Ritzenthaler 1956). These tools are among the earliest examples of metal used in the entire world beginning as early as 6800 BP (Martin 1999), but reaching the height of production between 6000-3000 BP (Pleger 2000; Pleger and Stoltman 2008).

Figure 1. Map of the Old Copper Culture area showing concentration in southeastern Wisconsin.

3 The Old Copper Culture (6000 – 3000 BP) of North America has long been of interest to archaeologists and laypeople alike (Martin 1999). Native copper—which exists in the Lake

Superior region of the United States as the world’s largest natural occurring pure copper deposit

(LaBerge 1994; Patterson 1971; White 1968)—was exploited by indigenous groups as early as

9,000 years ago (Steinbring 1966; Martin 1999), with a florescence of copper tools occurring during the Middle-Late Archaic Periods (Wittry 1951; Wittry and Ritzenthaler 1956;

Ritzenthaler 1957). Although the earliest copper tools were functional analogs of their stone counterparts, there is a trend towards ritualized copper usage away from these utilitarian items at the end of the Archaic (Pleger 1998; 2000; 2002), while tools made from stone continued to fill these roles. The shift from a primarily utilitarian copper toolkit to an almost purely ceremonial use of copper stands in contrast to the pattern seen in other ancient settings around the world, and thus generates questions regarding the kinds of mechanisms that could have promoted, or inhibited, the proliferation of metal tool production in the ancient Great Lakes region.

1.2.3 Copper as tool

Globally, copper is the first metal manipulated by humans (Killick and Fenn 2012; La

Niece et al. 2007; Martin 1999; Pigott 1999; Roberts and Thornton 2014; Tylecote 1992). In Old

World contexts the copper age begins in a manner similar to that seen in the New World— naturally occurring raw copper nuggets were cold hammered into small implements such as awls or beads (Pigott 2004; Rehren et al. 2013; Stech 1999). In contrast to the massive copper deposits found in region of North America, pure copper deposits are less abundant elsewhere, although small amounts of pure copper ore were available in all areas where metallurgy developed (Patterson 1971).

4 Copper in its pure form is a relatively soft metal that is highly conductive. It has a cubic crystal structure (face centered cubic), which gives it a high level of ductility and makes it easy to work via hot or cold hammering (Capudean 2003; Davis 2001; Notis 2014). Extensive cold working will make the copper difficult to shape, ultimately causing the metal to become overly brittle (LaRonge 2001; Vernon 1990). However, copper can be annealed at low temperatures

(400° C) to eliminate brittleness. Research shows that members of the Old Copper Culture used combined production methods of hot hammering, cold hammering, and annealing to manufacture their copper implements (LaRonge 2001; Leader 1988; Vernon 1990). Due to the purity of the native copper deposits, the metal could be used in its raw form with no need of smelting or casting (Martin 1999). As such, forging was the primary smithing technique used by native

North American metallurgists (LaRonge 2001), and would have been the earliest technique used in other areas of the world.

1.2.4 Copper Spear Points

Copper projectile points (FIG 2) are the most common type of Old Copper Culture tool found (Martin 1999). Old Copper Culture spear points range widely in overall size. Data was collected from 378 archaeological copper point specimens housed at the Milwaukee Public

Museum, the Canadian Museum of History, the Field Museum Chicago, and the University of

Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology. The data show a mean mass of 38.4 g with a standard deviation of 27.4 g, ranging from 1 g (minimum) to 148 g (maximum). Like knives, the Old Copper Culture spear points have a variety of blade shapes and haft types with socketed tangs and rat tailed tangs being the most common. Some specimens have rounded tangs, stemmed tangs, serrated tangs, and on occasion, hooked tangs. The socketed tang points

5 represent the type with the greatest mass, as the tang portion itself is quite large, which increases the overall point mass compared to rat tailed or flat tang varieties.

Figure 2. Old Copper Culture socketed tang projectile points photographed by M.R.B. at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

1.2.5 Copper Knives

Old Copper Culture knives (FIG 3) represent one of the most common copper tool types in North America (Wittry 1951). These finely crafted knives represent the earliest instance of humans manipulating metal to create an elongate, curved blade edge designed specifically for cutting tasks. Knives are technically defined as flat blades, asymmetrical in planview, with one side being slightly to moderately curved (Martin 1999). The curved side is commonly beveled to function as the “working edge”. In some instances, both sides of the knife are sharpened akin to a

6 modern dagger or sickle depending on blade shape. Old Copper Culture knives have various types of hafts with the most common being rat tailed tangs and socketed tangs.

Figure 3. Old Copper Culture knives photographed by M.R.B. at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

7 1.2.6 Copper Awls

The copper awls found with Old Copper Culture materials (FIG 4) are similar to awls found all over the world. Awls are a tool type that is rather limited in form due to their primary function as a piercing implement. Overall, they tend to be elongate forms that are significantly longer than they are wide, with either one or both ends tapering to pointed tip (Leader 1988).

Size and length varies substantially (Penman 1982). Analysis of tip wear damage suggests that they were variably used for tasks such as drilling, prying, punching, or chipping into another material (Brose 1970; Martin 1999; Pleger 1992). They are long, narrow and taper to a point and occur in a wide variety of sizes. Some awls are small around 5 cm and these are often referred to as “needles” while others are quite large >20 cm in length, and are often referred to as “pikes”.

Some awls are round in cross section but many are square in cross section, likely as a result of manufacturing strategy. Awls would have been hafted into wood, bone, or antler handles (Martin

1999).

Figure 4. Old Copper Culture awls photographed by M.R.B. at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

8 1.2.7 Copper Culture Stone Tools

At Old Copper Culture sites, copper tools are found contemporaneously with flaked stone tools, which were used for similar tasks (i.e. projectile hunting, animal butchery, plant processing, and other cutting tasks). The stone tools were made from various locally occurring cherts. The stone tools found along with copper tools are typical side-notched Archaic style points belonging to two main side-notched clusters Raddatz/Osceola, and Reigh/Oconto (Pleger and Stoltman 2009). The Raddatz cluster have broad deep side notches oriented substantially above the base at the widest part of the point, this placement creates a rectangular basal region.

The Raddatz cluster overlaps with other point types found throughout the Eastern Woodlands

(Pleger and Stoltman 2009). The other side-notched cluster, Reigh/Oconto, was delineated based on stone points found at two Old Copper Culture cemeteries of the same names (Baerreis et al.

1954; Ritzenthaler and Wittry 1952). The Reigh and Oconto cemeteries both contained a similar side-notched variety. The distinctive features of these points are a proportionately greater width- to-length when compared to the Raddatz cluster. Based on contextual evidence, Ritzenthaler

(1957:249) asserted that the larger of these stone tools from the Reigh site were used as knives

(Pleger and Stoltman 2009).

1.3 Early investigations of North American copper

As early as the second half of the nineteenth century, scholars interested in the origins of ancient copper working had successfully replicated many copper artifacts using only methods that would have been available to prehistoric groups. The most well-known and well documented of these replicative methods are those of Frank Hamilton Cushing (1894). The earliest documentation of copper working in the North American Midwest was by Squire and Davis

9 (1848) who described artifacts found during their surveys of the Scioto Mound cultures of

Southern Ohio, which took place primarily in the 1840’s. Around the same time, another team of scientists, John W. Foster and Josiah D. Whitney (1850), published a brief paper on their discoveries of ancient copper mining activities along the coast of Lake Superior. Slightly later in in 1863, Charles Whittlesey published a more detailed synthesis of geology, mining, and archaeological data in his classic manuscript “Ancient Mining on the Shores of Lake Superior”

(Martin 1999).

Despite the evidence of prehistoric copper mining and production activities, debate was ongoing as to the source of the finely crafted copper artifacts. Some researchers argued that because the copper artifacts were so finely made, they must’ve been manufactured by Europeans or imported from some foreign land possessing industrial roller mills or stamping machines

(Martin 1999). Cushing (1894) wanted to show via replication, that it was possible to make elaborate copper artifacts from native copper using only “primitive” tools. He described the process of working with unsmelted metal, which he learned by working with Zuni silversmiths.

Cushing became an expert at making replica copper artifacts, and he even declared that “I have never seen…a single copper object …which I cannot reproduce from native copper…with only primitive appliances…” (Cushing 1894). This early experimental copper working inspired many others to research and document ancient copper production techniques (Child 1994; Clark and

Purdy 1982; Franklin 1982; Leader 1988; Schroeder and Ruhl 1968; Tylecote 1992; Willoughby

1903).

This dissertation research is based on the work of prior experimental research, and seeks to enliven the tradition of replication that began over a century ago. Here, copper tools are

10 experimentally produced, with the goal of establishing the functional efficiency of native copper tools for the first time.

1.4 Problems with previous interpretations and the technological “devolution”

As has been observed by several researchers, the Archaic Period’s Old Copper Culture produced copper tools recognizably and demonstrably utilitarian in nature (e.g. Ehrhardt 2009;

LaRonge 2001; Pleger 2000; Pleger and Stoltman 2009). By the Early Woodland period, however, the frequency of these items wanes and the frequency of nonutilitarian, ornamental copper objects increases. The decline in the manufacture and use of utilitarian copper tools is considered to have been a result of population growth and increased social complexity.

In one of the most celebrated studies in the history of anthropology and archaeology,

Binford (1962:220) reviewed the technological “devolution” of “technomic” copper implements during the Archaic to Woodland transition in the North American Great Lakes and surrounding regions. However, in order to explain this unique trajectory, Binford asserted that the Old Copper

Culture copper tools were in fact not “technomic” in nature and were instead all “sociotechnic”.

He carefully sets up a very testable hypothesis based on assumptions of copper durability and net energy expenditure of tool types. Binford even goes so far as to state that “As far as what differentials existed between copper and stone, as regards cutting and piercing functions, only experiments can determine” (Binford 1962:221). However, he then goes on discredit his own idea by asserting that durability was not the compensatory factor (without any attempt to quantify this assertion) and instead, he determines that all of the copper artifacts were in fact prestige goods, which functioned only in the social realm of Old Copper Culture society.

Granted, Binford was writing at a time when most of the data from the Old Copper Culture was

11 from two excavated cemeteries, which may have skewed his interpretation that all copper objects were in fact grave offerings solely.

A more recent analysis (Pleger 2002) of cemetery data has shown that by the end of the

Archaic, women and young children are most often found with copper artifacts as grave offerings after the decline of the Old Copper Culture. Although this pattern is different than expected for prestige based aggrandizement (Hayden 1995), it is suggested that this pattern represents a shift towards a new social system involving bride-wealth, or the development of corporate groups and elite lineages (Pleger 2002; Pleger and Stoltman 2009).

While I agree with some of the evidence put forth for a social explanation as a causal factor in the decline of utilitarian copper tools after 3500-3000 BP, the problem with such explanations is that they lack a mechanism causing the decline—and I argue that this mechanism is cultural selection. According to Mesoudi (2011:79) cultural selection can be thought of as

“differential adoption and transmission of cultural traits”. Cultural selection occurs when one trait is reproduced more often than another trait. This selection can be driven by multiple interrelated factors including social, ecological, and technological pressures. The research here seeks to determine what functional differentials existed between copper and stone tools in order to assess whether or not tool function is also a contributing factor to the decline of specific copper tool forms.

Following the principles of cultural evolutionary theory and the assumptions put forth by

Binford (1962:221), “For one tool to be adaptively more efficient than another there must be either a lowering of energy expenditure per unit of energy conservation in task performance, or an increase in energy conservation per unit of performance over a constant energy expenditure in

12 tool production”, this dissertation tests whether differentials in tool performance contributed to the decline of Old Copper Culture implements.

1.5 Cultural evolutionary theory and selection

Early archaeological investigations of the Old Copper Culture used an approach that is primarily culture historical (Miles 1951; Ritzenthaler and Scholz 1946; Ritzenthaler and Wittry

1952; Ritzenthaler and Quimby 1962; Steinbring 1966; Wittry and Ritzenthaler 1956; Wittry

1951). Although thorough in their descriptions, little attention has been paid to understanding the how and the why of copper tool development in the Great Lakes region during the Archaic

Period.

In contrast to previous investigations regarding the North American copper phenomenon, the research presented here uses cultural evolutionary theory and human selection of functional traits (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Dunnell 1971, 1978, 1980, 1989; Dunnell and Feathers 1991;

Feathers 1989; Feathers and Scott 1989; Hoard et al. 1995; Jones et al. 1995; Larson et al 1996;

Leonard and Jones 1987; O’Brien and Holland 1990, 1992, 1995; O’Brien 1996; O’Brien and

Lyman 2003; O’Brien et al 1994; Rindos et al. 1985; Teltser 1995) to better understand the articulation of early copper tools with changing human lifeways. Interpreting the variation in artifact assemblages over time and space is one of the central goals of archaeology—by understanding change in the material culture, we can better understand past human behavior.

Evolutionary theory can provide the structure for analyzing and testing variables that affected change in past culture. In recent decades, cultural evolutionary theory has been demonstrated time and again to be an effective framework for interpreting and understanding past human behavior (Buchanan and Hamilton 2009; Buchanan et al. 2016; Collard et al. 2013; Eren et al.

13 2015, 2018; Eren and Lycett 2016; Eren et al. 2018; Hamilton and Buchanan 2009; Lycett 2015,

2019; Mesoudi et al. 2004, 2006; Mesoudi 2011; Mesoudi and Whiten 2008; O’Brien et al. 2012;

Richerson and Christiansen 2013; Schillinger et al. 2014, 2015; von Cramon-Taubadel and

Lycett 2018; Whiten et al. 2012).

One of the main goals of archaeology is to explain past human behavior through the study of material culture. Culture can be defined in many ways, but in order to be used to understand past human behavior, it is best thought of as “information that is acquired from other individuals via social transmission mechanism such as imitation, teaching, or language”

(Mesoudi 2011, modified from Richerson and Boyd’s 2005 definition). Behavior is defined as the “product of any choice or action implemented by human actors” (Schillinger et al. 2017:642).

In an evolutionary framework, cultural information is analogous to genetic information.

Modern evolutionary synthesis has shown that genetic information is stored in our genes and passed on via sexual reproduction—cultural information is stored the brains of individuals and passed on via extrasomatic codes such as language, gestures, text, and other means of symbolic communication (Laland et al. 2010; Laland 2018; Mesoudi et al; 2004, Mesoudi 2011). Culture is a dynamic process that involves interaction and social learning.

Archaeology has struggled as a discipline to create its own explanatory framework with appropriate methods for approaching the complexity of the material record (see Trigger 2006).

Modern cultural evolutionary frameworks, based on Darwinian theory, can be directly applied to culture in a manner that allows for hypothesis testing and predictions, just as in the biological sciences. Over the past two decades, it has been shown through numerous studies that culture does in fact evolve in Darwinian fashion (Mesoudi et al. 2004, 2006; Mesoudi 2011). The key principles of evolution—variation, inheritance, and competition—put forth in Darwin’s 1859 The

14 Origin of Species, have withstood the test of time and are readily used to explain biological life on Earth. These mechanisms can be used to study change in culture as well.

In order for evolution to happen, three key factors, variation, inheritance, and competition must be present. These factors are what make evolution a falsifiable and scientifically rigorous theory for explaining why things are the way they are in the natural world and it is these factors that allow for prediction and hypotheses testing. Darwin’s theory is based on empirical data in all three steps of the evolutionary process. First variation in traits or characters must exist, secondly, there must be competition resulting in the differential fitness of certain traits, and lastly these characters must be able to be transmitted in order to change the traits of subsequent generations.

In archaeology, the unit of transmission is the artifacts themselves and the technological information contained within.

In the general model of cultural evolutionary theory, change defined as the differential persistence of alternative variants via social transmission processes. Differential persistence is a part of the three step process—generation of variation, inheritance of that variation, and the contribution of forces that increase certain traits. These forces affecting trait accumulation can be random processes such as drift, or selective processes involving the preference of certain variants over other based on a multitude of selective biases (Mesoudi 2011).

Human material culture tends to be highly varied, and because of this variation, it is possible to track responses to selective pressures. In order for Darwinian evolution to take place, artifacts will only “compete” with one another if they have similar functional roles. For example, pottery and