Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU
Master's Theses Graduate College
12-1978
The Lithic Assemblage of the Hacklander Site, Allegan County, Michigan
Jerrel H. Sorensen
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation Sorensen, Jerrel H., "The Lithic Assemblage of the Hacklander Site, Allegan County, Michigan" (1978). Master's Theses. 3898. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3898
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE OF THE HACKLANDER SITE, ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN
by
Jerrel H. Sorensen
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December, 1978 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis is an end in a stage of my education. The credit for accomplishing this must be given to three people. First of all I thank Dr. Richard E. Flanders,
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Grand Valley State
Colleges for introducing me to anthropology and archaeological field work as an undergraduate. As a graduate student I was taught the potentials and limitations of lithic analysis by
Dr. Irwin Rovner, Department of Anthropology, North Carolina
State University. Most of the credit and most of my thanks goes to Dr. Elizabeth Garland, Department of Anthropology,
Western Michigan University. As a faculty member she gave me the valuable research opportunities which lead to this thesis.
As my advisor she gave me the suggestions, encouragement, and patience needed to complete this project. Although the credit goes to those persons mentioned above the responsibility for the conclusions and speculations presented in this thesis is entirely mine.
Jerrel H. Sorensen
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION . 1
Orientation 1
Site Description and History of Excavations .... 3
Description of Field Techniques 5
Summary of Previous Work 9
II METHODOLOGY 12
Some Characteristics of Lithic Technology . 12
Classification 14 \ Procedures 16 III DESCRIPTION 20
Chert Types 20
Cores 23
Debitage 25
Bifacial Artifacts 31
Unifacial Artifacts 42
Utilized Flakes 51
Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts 53
IV INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 60
Relationships Between Technology and Raw Material; Functional Interpretation of the Lithic Assemblage 60
Components 76
iii iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Site Structure .... 86
Summary and Inter-site Comparisons 100
LITERATURE CITED •••••••• 113
APPENDIX
A Attributes of Bifacial Artifacts 119
B Attributes of Unifacial Artifacts 127 PLATE PAGE
I Hacklander Cores. a. Pebble b. Block. 139
II Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points 139
III Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points 140
IV Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points 140
V Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points 141
VI Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points 141
VII Stemmed Projectile Points 142
VIII Corner Notched Projectile Points 142
IX Corner Notched Projectile Points 143
X Corner Notched Projectile Points 143
XI Corner Notched Projectile Points 144
XII Side Notched Projectile Points 144
XIII Side Notched Projectile Points 145
XIV Triangular Projectile Points 145
XV Triangular Projectile Points 146
XVI Triangular Projectile Points 146
XVII Knives 147
XVIII Knives 147
XIX Elongated Drills 148
XX Expanding Based Drills 148
XXI Expanding Based Drills. a, c, d, f, h. Flake drills. b, e, g, i, j...... 149
XXII Reworked Projectile Point Drills 149
XXIII Preforms 150
XXIV Preforms 150
XXV Other Bifaces. a. Scraper b-d. Wedges. 151
V vi
PLATE PAGE
XXVI Bipolar Wedges 151
XXVII Bipolar Wedges 152
XXVIII Bipolar Wedges 152
XXIX End Modified Unifaces 153
XXX Side Modified Unifaces 153
XXXI Combination Unifaces . 154
XXXII Other Unifaces. a. Flake blank. b. Graver. c. Point. d. Side serrated. e. Notch. f. Denticulate. g. End point. 154
XXXIII Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. Ax. b. Adze. c. Celt. d. Fragment ...... 155
XXXIV Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a,d,e. Sandstone abraders. b. Quartzite palette. c. Sandstone palette. 155
XXXV Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. and b. Gorgets. c. Slate disk...... 156
XXXVI Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. Pitted anvil. b. Grinder. c.-e. Hammerstone. 156
XXXVII Middle Woodland Artifacts 157 LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Distribution and Area Totals of Excavation Units . . . 8
2 Ceramic Chronology and Components of the Hacklander site . . . . . 11
3 Lithic Tool and Debris Classes 19
4 Summary of Identified Chert Types in Debitage Classes . . . . 24
5 Distribution of Core Classes 26
6 Distribution of Debitage Classes 28
7 Distribution of Bifacial Artifact Classes 33
8 Summary of Metrical Attributes of Bifacial Artifacts ...... 35
9 Summary of Metrical Attributes on Reworked Projectile Point Drills ... 39
10 Distribution of Bipolar Artifacts 41
11 Metrical Attributes of Whole Bipolar Artifacts 42
12 Distribution of Unifacial Artifact Classes . 44
13 Summary of Metrical Attributes of the Major Uniface Tool Classes ...... 46
14 Correlation Between Edge Angles and Major Unifacial Tool Classes ...... so
15 Distribution of Classes of Utilized Flakes 52
16 Lithic Tools Recovered Within Aboriginal Features 82
17 Stratigraphic Distribution of Selected Tool Classes in the Area I Block Excavation ...... 93
vii LIST OF MAPS
Number Page
1 Location of Excavation Units ..... 6
2 Distribution of Debitage; All Classes 61
3 Distribution of Bifacial Artifacts All Classes/All Fragments 64
4 Distribution of Bipolar Wedges Whole/Fragments ...... 67
5 Distribution of Unifacial Artifacts and Utilized Flakes All Classes of Unifaces/All Classes of Utilized Flakes ...... 71
6 Correlation Between Late Allegan Ceramics and Triangular Projectile Points 85
7 Distribution of Aboriginal Features 88
8 Excavation Units and Special Zones . 91
viii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Orientation
In� History� American Archaeology Willey and Sabloff (1974) outline the development of archaeological method and theory in the
Western Hemisphere. The authors defined 5 periods through which they traced advances in archaeology from the time Europe first discovered the New World. Each of these periods is characterized by certain attitudes and orientations toward archaeological data.
Old ideas changed as new information, new tools of discovery, and new ways of interpretation and explanation transformed archaeology into what it is today.
Archaeologists are now in the Explanatory Period (Willey and
Sabloff 1974:178). This period's theoretical orientation can be characterized by an anthropological archaeology and began when archaeologists realized that "Archaeology must accept a greater responsibility in the furtherance of the aims of anthropology"
(Binford 1962:225). Archaeology now has the same goals that socio cultural anthropology has, the illumination and discovery of the processes that influence and shape social change and cultural evolu tion. This attitude toward the potential of archaeological data has fostered a "new archaeology" that has been seen as an intellectual revolution (Martin 1971).
1 2
The new archaeology can be differentiated from past work in several ways. The controversy that once surrounded the concept of cultural evolution has all but disappeared, and it is now regarded as the basic trend in human history. Another important concept has been provided by general systems theory. This approach provides a holistic, dynamic, intricate, and integrated model of how a society, cultures, and the environment interact.
"If we view culture as man's extrasomatic means of adaptation, we must isolate and define the ecological setting of any given socio-cultural system, not only with respects to the association with the physical and biological environment, but also with points of articulation with the socio-culture environment (Binford 1964: 440)."
This systemic approach developed out of the British structural-func tional view of society and cultural ecology studies and it is now recognized that systems are so basic in nature that they can be seen operating at many levels in virtually every field (Flannery 1967:122).
The development of the Explanatory Period has been given momentum by the use of new field and data processing techniques. Data processing on a massive scale has been made possible by the computer. There are new methods for sampling sites and for recovering fragile economic information like minute animal bones and carbonized seeds. The de- tailed study of artifacts is producing more information about the
social systems that produced them than ever before.
In Michigan the 1960's were ushered in by a burst of archaeolog
ical activity initiated by the Museum of Anthropology at the University
of Michigan. This activity was spread throughout the state, and
Michigan became a vast laboratory for some of the first "new archaeo
logists". It was in Michigan that they experimented with expanding 3 the frontiers of their science (Fitting 1975:1).
The 17 years that have passed since the beginning of the Explan atory Period have witnessed profound changes in the archaeological profession. The excavations at the Hacklander site represents one of the most intensive studies in Michigan archaeology to date. Vir tually every aspect of sampling, excavation, and interpretation of this site has been directly influenced by ideas and techniques devel oped within the last decade and a half. The analysis of the lithic assemblage from this site is a product of this intellectual environ ment.
Site Description and History of Excavations
The Hacklander site is located on the south bank of the Kalamazoo
River only 4½ miles upstream from Lake Michigan. This site is in the north-central portion of Section 23 of Saugatuck Township, Allegan
County, Michigan. The occupation zone and activity areas of the Hack lander site covers an area of at least 2 acres on two contiguous lots owned by Mr. Fritz Boedecker and the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The site is bounded on the north by the DNR parking lot and the Kalamazoo River. To the east the site is bounded by an un named sandy-bottomed creek, and to the south and southwest of the site a high, flat area appears to have been the site limit because cultural material rapidly drops off here. The extension of 63rd Street south to the DNR Public Access parking lot is a convenient, although arti ficial, western boundary. Surface collections and two test excavations, numbers 15 and 16, indicates that a small part of the site extends to 4 the west of this road. While the construction of this road undoubtly destroyed a portion of the site, the building of the parking lot seems to have been placed in an area off of the prehistoric occupation.
Despite the construction of the access road, a parking lot, and the planting of some pine trees in the 1930's, the Hacklander site appears to have been very fortunate in avoiding disturbance and des truction by modem agricultural and construction activities. Much of the site retains the natural contours that greeted its prehistoric occupants. The site is at an advantageous position to exploit the economic resources of riverine, marsh, and deciduous forest environ- ments (Garland 1976:4). This site is also conveniently located for the utilization of two aquatic transportation systems, Lake Michigan, and the Kalamazoo River.
The Hacklander site was discovered by a local collector who noticed artifacts eroding out of the ground surface. He brought his collection to the attention of Dr. Elizabeth B. Garland in the spring of 1971. In August and September of 1971 and again in May of 1972, the Kalamazoo Valley Chapter of the Michigan Archaeological Society dug a total of 11 test pits under the direction of Dr. Garland. Based upon data collected from these excavations the site was placed on the
National Register of Historic Places in 1973 (ibid:2).
Further test excavations were carried out by archaeology students from Western Michigan University in the Fall of 1974, also under the direction of Dr. Garland. Three more test pits, bringing the total to 14, helped to enlarge the known area of the site. It was discovered that the site extended south along the creek. 5
During that same Fall Dr. Garland noticed considerable distur bance on the surface of the site owned by the DNR. This disturbance was caused by the increased use of the public access, and thus the site, for recreation. The activities of fishermen and picnickers, such as camping, digging garbage pits, and driving over the site, were destroying important archaeological information.
In 1975 Dr. Garland received a matching funds grant from the
Michigan History Division to carry out an extensive sampling of the site occupying the DNR land to salvage data from the disturbed area.
This work was carried out during June of 1975. The excavations even- 2 tually covered a total of 2265 ft , an estimated 7.4% of that portion of the site (Martin 1976:81).
The information gathered from the test pits and the 1975 excava- tions raised more questions about the nature of the site, and it was decided that more work should be done. Accordingly, in 1976 the
Western Michigan University Archaeological Field School carried out extensive excavation, under Dr. Garland's direction, on that part of the site on Mr. Boedecker's property. During the spring and early summer of 1976 a crew of student archaeologists excavated an additional
2 1700 ft of the Hacklander site.
Description of Field Techniques
The Hacklander site is divided into 3 sampling universes, the boundaries of which were determined by topography, property lines, and the site limits determined from the original test excavations
(Map 1). The artificial straightness of these boundaries facilitated PLEASE NOTE:
I .. Dissertation contains small �• I z�d indistinct print. Fi l�ed as received. U�IVERSITY MICROFILMS. 6 Location of Excavation Units.
Map 1 • DATUM�----!::El HACKLANOER
El 8 O'�
� � -o.., E3 �", 13 8 ·� l3 s 7[ff3 13 '>.., ¾ '""-c,,, 0 0 @ (a 0 0 13 8 0 @
\80-�"' ,r.:, .... a,_ m ,, I lfil II 0 , l:il .. ...�•.J I
,.,.a.. I� g
I 8 18 � � 11\- I N
O"" \e,.. I I .�o ...,.. •"-�'" 0� SM
0 I,. :.oft .�-- ....� 7
the generation of a continuous sampling grid of 5 x 5 ft. squares,
our basic excavation unit. Area I is the largest of the three uni
verses and was the first one to be sampled in 1975. It covers the
northern section of the site owned by the DNR. Area II includes land
to the east of Area I and extends out to a marsh and the creek that
forms a natural boundary. Area III extends south and southeast of
Areas I and II along a flat strip of land that parallels the creek
and is bounded by a steep bluff on the west side. Areas II and III
are on property owned by Mr. Boedecker.
Each sampling universe was subjected to a simple 5% random sample.
This allowed an unbiased, extensive sample from the entire site.
This kind of sampling has the advantage of testing all areas of a site
and of being inherently suited for statistical analysis. In addition
to the 5% random sample, other excavation units were started where we
wanted to maximize artifactual, economic, or contextual information
discovered by our random sampling. The materials recovered from
these "judgment samples" were labeled and processed separately to
preserve the integrity of the random sample (Table 1).
The total percent of the site that has been excavated, not count
ing the test pits, is estimated to be 7.4% of Area I, 7.9% of Area
II, and 9. 7% of Area III. Despite our extensive sampling of the site
the major portion of it remains unexcavated.
Test pits indicated that, as in the case of most Michigan sites,
there were no visible cultural strata to guide our excavations. Each
excavation unit was dug by using arbitrary 3 inch levels. All exca
vated deposits were passed through a 1/4 inch mesh screen to separate Table 1
Distribution and Totals of Excavated Units
I Random Sample Judgment Sample Totals
2 Number of Units Ft Number of Units Ft2 Number of Units Ft2
Area I 1975 68 1700.0 16* 612 . 75 84 2 312. 75
1976 0 0 9* 237.5 9 237. 5
Area II 1976 23 575.0 13 325.0 36 900.0
Area III 1976 18 450.0 14 350.0 32 800.0
Test Pits 1971-6 0 0 16 400.0 16 400.0
TOTALS 109 2 725. 0 68,"t 192 5.2 5 177 4650.25
*units of unequal size
ex:, 9 the cultural material from its soil matrix, and the material was then bagged and labeled by level. Feature deposits were treated separately and subject to 1/8 inch mesh screening and/or flotation sorting.
Although flotation was by no means ignored during the 1975 excavations, the 1976 season was characterized by a more systematic and intensive program of flotation sampling by Terrence Martin and Randall Howard.
Their work vastly increased the amount of economic and environmental data from the site. In addition, soil samples were taken from all over the site to determine variations in soil acidity, information which made it possible to determine how much of a factor this was in the preservation of organic remains on the site (Spero 1976).
Summary of Previous Work
At this time there are 4 written reports describing aspects of the excavations and data from the Hacklander site. Dr. Garland (1976) submitted a general report to the Michigan History Division on the
1975 excavation. The report was based on a preliminary artifact analysis, field impressions, and a faunal analysis. Many of the conclusions of this report have held up after further detailed studied.
In 1978 Dr. Garland gave a paper at the 54th meeting of the Central
States Anthropological Society. In this talk she discussed the re lationship of the Hacklander site within the occupational context of the Lower Kalamazoo Valley.
Terrence Martin (1976) has studied the faunal remains collected from 5 southwestern Michigan archaeological sites, including the
Hacklander site. From the often very fragmentary remains of mammals, 10 fish, and molluscs, Martin was able to construct an interpretation of the dynamics of the subsistence activities for Woodland cultures in southwestern Michigan. By utilizing seasonally available resources prehistoric cultures were well adapted to survive in a diverse and potentially rich environment.
The ceramic materials were analyzed by Robert Kingsley (1977).
The excavations at the Hacklander site produced 513 rimsherds that were sorted into a minimum count of 305 vessels. Kingsley generated a ceramic typology by comparing the results of two computer programs and a statistical analysis. From this analysis of ceramic attributes and the spatial distribution of ceramic types, Kingsley posited the following culture historical sequence of the Hacklander site (Table
2).
Three major points came out of Kingsley's work:
1. A new ceramic ware, Hacklander Ware, was described (Kingsley
1977:21-22).
2. The late Woodland culture history of southwest Michigan is
much more complex than ever suspected (ibid).
3. A greater degree of ceramic homogeneity can be demonstrated
within the Kalamazoo River Valley when compared to sites
outside of the Valley during the Late Woodland Period (ibid:
135).
The faunal analysis by Martin and the ceramic analysis by Kingsley make it possible to produce a detailed interpretation of the lithic assemblage of the Hacklander site. With a historical framework and aspects of the subsistence base already determined, analysis of stone 11 tools and debitage can define locations of economic behavior and perhaps relate these to specific components. The construction of this classification system for the lithic materials is oriented toward the problems of how and where tools were made, where they were used and discarded, what they were used for, and when they were used within the occupational history of the site.
Table 2
Ceramic Chronology and Components of the Hacklander Site
(Kingsley 1977: Table 16, p. 124)
Dates Component Associated Ceramics
A.D. 1620-1760 Late Historic None
post A.D. 1300 Unnamed Component Moccasin Bluff Scalloped Lip; Allegan Smooth(?); Unnamed Castellated and Collared Pottery.
c. a. A. D. 1100- Late Allegan Spring Creek Collared; 1300 Allegan Cordmarked; Allegan Decorated Lip; Allegan Incised.
A.D. 1000-1100 Hacklander All Hacklander Ware.
A.D. 600-900? Early Allegan Allegan Undecorated Cord marked; Flat, Round, Beveled Lip, etc. CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Some Characteristics of Lithic Technology
Stone tools, and the debris left from the manufacture of stone tools, are the oldest and most continuous evidence of human cultural evolution on earth. An unbroken series of an ever growing competence for controlling the variables in stone tool manufacture connects the earliest "crude" choppers associated with Australopithecines of East
Africa with the sophisticated blade tool industries that flourished in many parts of the world prior to the mass distribution of metal tools. Since stone is nearly indestructible and stone tools were an essential part of human adaptive mechanisms through 99.9% of the last three million years, it is no wonder that archaeologists have tradi tionally expended much labor on lithic analysis.
The last 15 years have seen an intensification in the study of
stone tools and debris in this country. In 1964 an English transla tion of Prehistoric Technology, written by the Russian archaeologist
Sergei Semenov, opened a new world of functional analysis and inter
pretation for many Western archaeologists. Another factor in this higher level of interest in lithic analysis comes from the experi mental work of modern flint knappers like Francois Bordes and Don
E. Crabtree. Their work constitutes a vast reservoir of practical
knowledge and creativity which other archaeologists have been able
12 13 to apply toward the solution of problems. The use of replicative experimentation is now a common feature in many lithic analyses, giving interpretations the added strength provided by analogies gen erated from scientifically controlled experiments.
The lithic industry of a prehistoric group can be defined as,
"the techniques used in the systematic production of distinctive stone tool classes" (Rovner 1975: 1). This industry can be studied as a behavioral subsystem that helps a society integrate with its natural environment. The analysis of this subsystem is based on 2 assumptions (Sheets 1975:371-372). The first is that the manufac turing behavior is recorded on the tools and waste debris of the lithic industry. Second, that archaeologists can recognize the pro cedures and techniques that in the past were used to create the observed variations in the collections.
Lithic technology has been characterized as a "subtractive tech nology" (Deetz 1967) or as a "reductive technology" (Rovner 1975).
Because of the inherent nature of stone, each action in the manufac turing of a stone tool subtracts from, or reduces the size, shape, and weight of the rock. The production of stone tools, especially chipped stone tools, requires that certain, unavoidable steps be performed before a tool is finished. The more complex the industry, the greater the number of steps which must be performed, and the greater the amount of reduction. None of the basic steps can be left out nor can the order of the manufacturing process be changed.
In the model being developed here, the steps of production have a linear relationship. All but the first step in the manufacturing 14 process is dependent upon the successful completion of the immediately previous step (Collins 1975:17). This manufacturing process consists of a series of discrete acts. Each of these actions of behavior in production yields two characteristic results preserved in stone.
These results are: (1) waste chippage or debitage and (2) an object that can be worked further with subsequent actions or used as is.
The population of waste chippage produced from the manufacture of a tool will preserve the behavior that created the finished tool. This linear, deterministic nature of stone tool manufacture has made it possible for archaeologists to claim that:
Virtually all chipped stone artifacts in any assemblage can be identified according to the activity set which produced them; in this way, all of the activities represented by an assemblage can be inferred (Collins 1975:15).
Classification
The interpretation of lithic technologies as linear and systemic in nature aids the analyst in classifying and describing archaeological collections. The series of discrete acts that the flint knapper has to perform to create a tool out of a chunk of raw material is divided by behavioral discontinuities that produce artifacts and debris. Each of these behavioral divisions is characterized by morphological and technological attributes that are empirical and easily identifiable.
The manufacturing process of chipped stone tools can be seen as a line of related production stages or steps (Bradley 1975, Collins 1975:17).
When lithic tools and debris are studied as categories of quali tative technological and behavioral changes, then it becomes apparent 15 that this material has a natural or inherent classification built into it (Sheets 1975:372). Rovner (1975:29-30) notes that:
Any biface point, for instance, is prima facie evidence for the existence of decortication flakes, secondary trimming flakes, bifacial trinnning flakes, etc. This is not an arbitrary, subjective or convenient device established by the analyst, but a fully predictive phenomenon intrinsic to the medium of lithic production.
This argument has been given more explicit credence by being formally tested (Newcomber 1971). The results showed that the waste from the manufacture of a biface implement fell into the predicted debris classes. The purpose of classification is to divide up a population of data into smaller units so that they can be intelligently described,
interpreted, and compared. The goal here is to define repetitive design patterns produced by the manufacturers as they applied their
industrial techniques to stone. Discrete morphological and techno
logical attributes used in this classification system are developed
and adapted from the work of Bradley (1975), Collins (1975), Rovner
(1975), and Schiffer (1976).
Description in archaeological analysis is only a step toward the
goal of behavioral interpretation, but an important step. The best
interpretation, the most enlightening comparative studies, and the
most convincing explanations are based upon clear, concise descrip
tions. Observable and measurable technological and morphological
attributes are the only constants in the data. Only after these
attributes are defined can we then start dealing with variables of
interpretation like function, context, and history . "Thus, analysis
is best served if description and interpretation are treated as
separate, sequent analytical functions" (Rovner 1975:24). 16
The basic categories of the classification system that will be used in this thesis are summarized in Table 3. These classes were for the most part derived from the Hacklander site materials and will not necessarily be useful everywhere. Detailed descriptions of each class will be given in the next chapter.
Procedures
The task of describing and interpreting 2 seasons of excavated lithic debris and tools seems like an awesome job to a novice lithic
"expert". The immediate problem was to establish a baseline classi fication that would be useful toward a final interpretation, but flexible enough so that when the inevitable new forms started to appear, new classes could be added without straining the usefulness of the whole system.
For the Hacklander site assemblage the preliminary classes were set up after the inspection of a single excavation unit (Area I,
Square B). This unit has one of the most dense concentrations of lithic debris and artifacts on the site. It was thought that by sorting and resorting this limited collection, a basic impression about the lithic assemblage from the rest of the site could be inferred.
This worked quite well with the classes of debitage. The origi nal system was later simplified by combining classes of information that were discovered not to be significant or useful. Working with the simplified system preserved all the important information, and also saved some time during the sorting of the rest of the site.
Every artifact and flake that was collected in the field was inspected 17 individually. As each provenience unit was processed, all recognized tools and tool fragments were separated for more detailed study. A
x lO hand lens was used at this stage to help identify edge dammage that defined the utilized flake classes.
At the Hacklander site the lithic debris left from the manufac turing and maintenance of stone tools was very abundant. This debris was not only inspected for technological characteristics, but also for heat alteration and raw material source areas. Each class of debris was counted and weighed to allow comparisons of general debris density and the comparative densities of special debris classes through out the site.
Each category of stone tools was treated differently according to the morphological nature of the class. The classes of bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes, and wedges received most of the analytical attention because 1) the literature offers fairly standarized means of analysis, 2) these classes have large populations and must have been important in everyday existence, and 3) there may have been mis interpretations of some of these tools in the past.
The bifaces are described with the attribute list developed by
Binford (1963) and simplified by Ozker (1976a). The unifaces were treated much the same way as Wilmsen (1968) and Schiffer (1976). The pioneering work by Tringhan et. al. (1974) was the basic source used for the analysis of the utilized flake class. It is hoped that finally the problem of the bipolar "core" first defined by Binford and Quimby (1963) will be correctly resolved. This is by no means an exhaustive discussion on the methods, attributes, and assumptions used 18 for the analysis of the assemblage. Within the formal descriptions of the material classes in the next chapter these factors will be presented in detail. 19
Table 3
Lithic Tool and Debris Classes
Debitage
Decortication flakes Cores primary pebble secondary block Trimming flakes fragments Bifacial Thinning and Sharpening flakes Unidentifiable flakes Shatter
Tools
Bifacial Unifacial Utilized flakes Projectile Points end convex end convex expanding stemmed end straight end straight stemmed end concave end concave comer notched end other end other side notched side convex side convex triangular side straight side straight side concave side concave Drills side other side other elongated combinations combinations expanding based fragments flake reworked points
Knives plain notched Ground and pecked Bipolar artifacts Preforms stone artifacts whole Other hammers tones fragments Fragments anvils grinders celts axes others CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION
Chert Types
The chert recovered from the Hacklander site covers a wide range
of colors, textures, and chipping quality. Rather than dividing these
variations into arbitrary categories based upon visual traits (c.f.
Bettarel and Smith 1973), it is reasoned here that it would be much
more useful to attempt to distinguish groups of chert by determining
their source areas.
Southwestern Michigan is geologically different from other parts
of the Lower Peninsula. In the eastern and northern part of Lower
Michigan there are local outcrops of bedrock that supplied abundant
chert for the prehistoric population. In the southwest part of the state there are no known exposures of chert bearing rock (Ellis 1960).
Supplies of this raw material had to be collected out of scattered
sources like glacial deposits, stream beds, or cobble beaches along
Lake Michigan. In addition to these local sources it is apparent that
throughout prehistoric times a portion of the chert used in southwest
Michigan came from distant areas. These "exotic" cherts are often
distinctive in color and texture, traits which permit, with varying
degrees of confidence, identification of their source areas.
By using collections of lithic raw material from source areas in
Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois an attempt was made to classify
20 21 the cherts from the Hacklander site into groups that reflected their original source. The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology kindly provided us with samples of chert from a number of regional sources for which Western Michigan University has inadequate material.
This method of visual matching has some problems, the greatest of which is determining the range of variability from each source area
(see Luedtke 1976) and how this is reflected within a site sample.
There have been recent attempts to resolve this problem using trace elements found in the cherts to "fingerprint" them. Dr. Barbara
Luedtke (1976) has used neutron activation and Dr. Stephen Fergusen of the Physics Department at Western Michigan University has used particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE) for this purpose (pers. comm.,
E. Garland).
Based on the simple technique of visually comparing the archaeo logical samples with the source samples available to us, several chert sources have been tentatively identified from the Hacklander collection.
These are:
1. Norwood Chert. This chert can be obtained directly from outcrops of limestone in Charlevoix County, northwestern Lower Michigan. This is a light gray or tan chert that is characteristically banded and it occurs in a tabular form. The chipping quality of this chert can be rated subject ively as good. The Norwood outcrops and the Hacklander site are accessible to each other by way of a Lake Michigan water route and the Traverse Corridor, hence cultural interaction between the two areas may be indicated.
2. Bayport Chert. This is another important Michigan chert. It is available from many outcrops of limestone in the eastern part of the Lower Peninsula, primarily the Saginaw Bay area. This chert can be found in either tabular or nodular form. The cortex of the nodule is porous, soft, and almost chalky. The interior of the nodule is usually light to dark gray forming concentric bands around the 22
center that often has crystal inclusions. For its flint knapping potential Bayport can be described as fair to good. The grain of this chert is coarse and leaves a brittle edge.
3. Upper Mercer Chert. From outcrops in central and southern Ohio comes this very distinctive and beautiful chert. This chert is of high quality with a very fine grain. Its color range is black to blue, with a mottled variant of blues and whites. This chert sometimes has st-reaks of red in it. The morphological characteristics of this chert make it rela tively easy to identify.
4. Flint Ridge Chert. This is another high quality chert from central Ohio. Although this chert is geologically closely associated with Upper Mercer there are dramatic differences in their macroscopic attributes. Flint Ridge Chert is often translucent, tinted with yellows, oranges, and reds. There are also tan, creamy and honey colored varieties. The problem that this chert illustrates about macroscopic source identification is that the analyst is tempted to identify all high quality, colorful, translucent cherts as coming from Ohio.
5. Hornstone. This chert is found in nodular form in river and creek beds in southern Indiana and Illinois. It is an excellent quality chert that is either dark gray or dark brown in color. This chert is also banded in con centric rings around the center of the nodule. It is also characterized by a distinctive waxy luster.
6. Illinois Chert. This is a more general category of cherts. Some of the range of Burlington chert (Meyers 1970) may be included, along with Avon material. These cherts are generally very light in color, usually shades of white and gray. They are often fine grained but probably the most important trait is the amount or kinds of fossils included in the material.
By far the most important source for lithic raw material utilized at the Hacklander site were pebbles and cobbles of chert available in local glacial deposits. This kind of chert accounts for 95%, by weight, of all the chert collected from the site (see Table 4). One known source utilized by the inhabitants of the site is Deer Lick
Creek. Deer Lick Creek flows into Lake Michigan about a mile south 23 of South Haven. This water flow washes away sand to expose a cobble beach composed of a full range of sedimentary, igneous, and metamor phic rocks. Some of the cherts found here are identical to material recovered from the Hacklander site. Wave action and the onshore current seem to replenish the beach with chert after heavy collecting.
This glacially derived chert exhibits tremendous variability in quality, texture, and color. The colors range from light to dark grays, often mottled with several shades of white, gray, or brown.
The cobbles are water worked and have rolled and smoothed cortexes.
This chert often has internal factures and flaws making controlled flaking almost impossible.
It is no table that other Western Michigan sites like Moccasin
Bluff, (Bettarel and Smith 1973), and Spring Creek (Fitting 1968) also exhibit great variability in their chert collections. This heterogeneity of the lithic material is the direct result of the use of glacial material as the prime source of utilized chert. This contrasts with the homogeneous collections of chert found on sites close to chert being outcrops. In the eastern part of the state
Bayport chert often makes up 99% of the chert from a site. (Ozker
1976b:356).
Cores
A core has been defined as a "piece of isotropic material bearing negative flake scars,- or scar" (Crabtree 1972:54). In this collec tion the basic- function of the core was as a source of thin, sharp flakes that could be used "as is", right off the core, or modified 24
into a unifacial or bifacial tool. The cores from the Hacklander
site have been separated into three classes: pebble cores, block cores, and core fragments (Plate I).
Table 4
Summary of Identified Chert Types in Debitage Classes
Chert Types n weight % of Total % of total weight
Glacial 51,234 32,344. 4g 93.1 95.0 Flint Ridge 1,586 803.1 2.9 2.4 Upper Mercer 1,644 513.2 3.0 1.5 Illinois 72 Hom stone 40 Norwood 3 380.9 1.0 1.1 Bayport 0 Unidentified 425 TOTALS 55,004 34,051.6g 100 100
Pebble cores
These cores are pieces of chert and quartzite that retain some of
the smooth and rounded cortex produced by water rolling. Such erosion
probably took place during Pleistocene deposition and/or post-Pleisto
cene redeposition. This material is demonstrably locally derived.
(c.f. Brose 1970:102).
Block cores
The cores that make up this class have been described by Binford
and Papworth (1963:83). They differ from the pebble cores only in 25 that there is no natural cortex remaining on the surface of the core.
The block core is characterized by irregular shapes caused by multi directional detachment of flakes. Most of these cores are simply pebble cores that have been reduced. None of these cores originated outside the immediate area of the site.
Core fragments
These pieces were produced from the reduction of larger cores into nuclei too small to provide additional usable flakes. Further more, during the process of flaking there was a tendency for cores of local chert to shatter along joints of weakness. These fragments are quite small and cluster around 20 grams in weight.
Debitage
Crabtree (1972, 1975) has repeatedly stressed the importance of studying the waste of tool manufacturing. This is the debris that has to be understood before statements about possible behavior, methods, or techniques can be formulated. The classification of the Hacklander debitage was based upon the assumption that:
Both flakes and flake scars retain features which give clues to the aboriginal manufacturing process. The flake retains more diagnostic features than the flake scar because the platform usually adheres to the flake, and bears other characteristics and traits which can indicate the mode of detachment and stage of manufacture (Crabtree 1975:107).
The debitage from the Hacklander site has been sorted into classes of debris that are believed to reflect certain technological and behav ioral steps. Table 5
Distribution of Core Classes
Area I Area II Area III Test Pits TOTALS Random Judgment Random Judgment Random Judgment n wt* n wt n wt n wt n wt n wt n wt n wt
Core Class Block 23 1895.0 28 1283.8 6 618.0 5 481.3 2 250.0 9 391.8 5 302.2 78 5227.1
Pebble 7 291. 0 8 506.6 3 233.9 0 0 5 155.9 1 30.8 0 0 24 1217.8
Fragments 33 445.1 28 355.8 6 72.2 4 61.0 8 177. 4 9 167.3 3 39.9 90 1652.5
TOTALS 63 2631. 2 64 2146.2 15 924.1 9 542.3 15 582.8 19 629.2 8 347.1 92 8097.4 I11
*in grams
N Cl\ 27
Decortication
These are flakes that were detached from the raw material in order to remove its cortex. The cortex of a silicious material is often undesirable to a flint knapper because it has been mineralized, or contains many small fractures or impurities. These factors make the outside layer of chert nodules brittle and undependable. The removal of these flakes is the first step in core preparation. These flake platforms are rarely prepared by grinding or faceting. Decor tication flakes are usually large, thick, and irregular in shape
(Binford and Quimby 1963:286-87).
Primary decortication flakes (White 1963:4) are flakes with their entire dorsal surface covered by the natural cortex. The first flakes taken off any pebble or nodule will be the primary decortica tion flakes. Secondary decortication flakes are flakes with anything less than their entire dorsal surface covered by cortex. These flakes are produced during later core preparation.
The presence of quantities of decortication flakes on a site indicates that the first rough steps of stone processing were taking
place on that spot. Unlike finished artifacts, which are potentially
saved and carried from site to site, debitage is almost always left
in its primary depositional context.
Trimming flakes
This class of debitage is defined by platforms with flake angles
° approaching 90 , no cortex, and an absence of platform preparation. Table 6
Distribution of Debitage Classes
Area I Area II Random Judgment Random Judgment n wt* n wt n wt n wt
Decortication Primary 292 569.4 441 971.1 89 192. 0 38 105.6 Secondary 1223 1625.8 2227 2783.6 393 483.4 23.5 345.4
Trimming Flakes 1826 1691.8 3822 3105.6 517 482.9 381 323. 5
Bifacial Flakes 3250 1243.3 3353 1414.8 466 160.9 326 108.5
Shatter 316 451.1 794 852.7 42 48.4 42 74.3
Unidentified 6011 2032.9 10426 3446.8 1178 346.3 792 297.4
TOTALS 12508 7612. 3 21063 12574.7 2685 1713.9 1814 1259.2
*weight in grams
N 00 Table 6 (continued)
Distribution of Debitage Classes
Area III Test Pits TOTALS Random Judgment n wt n wt n wt n wt
Decortication Primary 194 411.9 263 601. 7 45 111.4 1362 2963.1 Secondary 821 1133. 0 972 1266.4 269 361. 7 6140 7999.3
Trimming Flakes 1444 1258.6 1840 1423.6 501 457.6 10331 8743.6
Bifacial Flakes 849 280.3 929 313.2 236 87.1 9409 3608.1
Shatter 163 175.0 220 243.8 62 77.1 1639 1922.4
Unidentified 3037 1057.9 3622 1217.3 1057 416.5 26123 8815.1
TOTALS 6508 4316. 7 7846 5066.0 2170 1511.4 55004 34051.6
N '-0 30
As a class these flakes are generally smaller in size and more uniform in shape than the decortication flakes. Trimming flakes often have dorsal ridges that are remnants of previous flake removals.
These ridges often give the flakes a triangular cross section.
Flakes of bifacial thinning, sharpening, and -resharpening
These activities are all related as one segment of the artifac tual assemblage. The production and maintenance of bifaces, artifacts bearing flake scars on both faces (Crabtree 1972:38), create a class of flakes easily distinguishable from other classes. The flake angle will be markedly acute. The platforms of the flakes will often show preparation before removal by either faceting or, more often, grinding.
On the ventral edge of the platform there will be a lip-like protru sion, resulting from the removal of a small part of the biface edge along with the flake. This edge remnant will retain flake scars on both of its faces. These flakes are usually thin, broad, and flat.
Their dorsal surfaces will exhibit prior flake scars.
At the Hacklander site the activities of bifacial thinning, sharpening, and resharpening are indistinguishable from one another because of the small size of all of these flakes. The bifaces produced on the Hacklander site are characteristically small and the by-products of their manufacture and later maintenance overlap each other in their morphological attributes.
Shatter
This debris is not a product of the controlled flaking of a 31 homogeneous material. Shatter is made up of angular and irregular pieces of chert that have no evidence of platforms or bulbs of force on them. This debris is the result of a core fracturing along weakened planes, or internal fractures. Instead of a thin flake blank detaching from the core a useless, irregular chunk breaks off.
Unidentifiable flakes
The largest number of flakes fall within this class. These flakes have no cortex and are broken so that the platform is missing.
Without the platform very little can be said about the position of a flake in the manufacturing process. However, many of these flakes are thin, flat, and have many flake scars on their dorsal side. These are characteristics of bifacial thinning flakes. Most of these flakes are very small and it is not unreasonable to assume that most of them were produced and broken during biface manufacture or maintenance.
Bifacial Artifacts
The lithic artifacts that traditionally receive the most analy tic attention are the bifaces. One reason for this is that they are superficially easy to identify on the basis of function. A more important reason is that they often display enough stylistic varia tion to facilitate diachronic and synchronic comparisons.
In this analysis the initial sorting of all bifacial artifacts began by separating them into classes that shared morphological attributes that suggested similar functions, i.e. projectile point, drill, etc. The collection of bifaces from the Hacklander site is 32 both numerous and varied. Appendix A presents a series of measure ments of the bifaces from this site. These measurements represent the minimum number of attributes that should be used in a comparative study. The attributes in the order that they appear in the appendix are: width of base, width of tang, width of shoulder, length of axis, length of tang, depth of notching, and thickness. The absolute length of any artifact can be determined by adding the axis length to the tang length. Other information supplied in the appendix are indica tions whether an artifact has been resharpened or reworked and the type of chert from which it was manufactured. Most of the unidenti fied chert types are probably locally derived materials.
Projectile points
From the Hacklander site 127 bifaces and biface fragments have been identified as projectile points. The classes to which these projectile points are assigned have been determined by the morphology of their hafting elements. Whenever there are differences in the morphology of artifacts there is always the problem of dividing up a continuum of variation into discrete classes. In this collection the problem was a difficult one when distinguishing between expanding stemmed and some corner notched points.
Expanding stem (n-41, Plates II-VI). This point class is the largest from the site. There are a total of 19 whole and 22 broken artifacts in the class. Fitting (1968, 1970) used artifact size to divide expanding stem projectile points further, but it was felt that this feature was not a distinguishable attribute in the Hacklander 33 collection. The hafting element of these points was manufactured by removal of enough of the basal area of a preform to create a base that is narrower than the width of the shoulder. The careful removal of the preform corners was accomplished with a pressure flaking technique.
Table 7
Distribution of Bifacial Artifact Classes
Tool Class Area I Area II Area III Test R. S. Judg. R.S. Judg. R.S. Judg. Pits Totals
Proj. Point exp. stem 3 18 5 5 3 3 4 41 stemmed 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 8 cor. notch 8 11 2 4 0 8 0 33 side notch 4 6 2 1 2 0 1 16 triangular 5 9 2 0 3 9 1 29 Tot. Proj. Pts. 23 46 11 10 9 22 6 127
Knives 9 2 3 0 1 9 2 26
Drills 9 14 1 0 6 5 0 35
Preforms 19 16 0 1 6 5 1 48
Tips ( unident.) 27 35 1 3 8 13 6 93
Other Frag. 70 97 9 6 22 39 19 262
Other Bifaces 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 5
Total Bifaces [l59 211 25 20 55 94 34 598
The blade of these points tends to be triangular but there are some ovate examples. The bases of these points are either straight,
(18 examples) or convex (23 examples). The lateral and longitudinal 34 cross sections range from biconvex to plano-convex. Most of these points are asymmetrical. This is partly due to some resharpening of the limitation on size and form inherent in small flake blanks.
Stemmed (n= 8, Plate VII). This point class is the least well represented. There are only 3 whole and 5 broken specimens assigned to this class, which is characterized by a straight or slightly con tracting stem or tang. As a class they are also distinctly larger than the other points from the site (see Table 8). These points also tend to be irregular. The blades are elongated ovates and their cross sections are biconvex. The bases of these points are straight on 7 examples and convex on one.
Corner notched (n=33, Plates VIII-XI). The second largest class of projectile points from the site is the corner notched. These 20 whole and 13 broken points have notches that angle upward from the corners of the base. This notching leaves the base nearly as wide as the shoulder of the point. These points are usually small with a triangular blade outline. Because these points tend to be small, many retain the plano-convex cross section of the flake blanks from which they were manufactured. There is a greater tendency for these
points to have straight (18) rather than convex bases (14).
An interesting observation to note is the proportion of whole to
broken specimens from one class of projectile points to another. The
corner notched points appear to be much more durable than the side
notched points. No explanation can be given for this phenomenon.
Side notched (n=l6, Plates XII and XIII). This kind of haft
element is characterized by notching oriented perpendicular to the Table 8
Summary of Metrical Attributes of Bifacial Artifacts
Base- Tang- Shoulder- Axis- Tang- Notch- Thickness- n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd I I Proj. Points exp. stem 35 1. 7 .44 39 1.3 .36 28 2.1 .46 23 2.3 .71 32 LO .26 30 . 3 .17 41 . 6 .18 stemmed 7 1.3 .2 7 1.4 .27 7 2.0 .2 6 3.1 .75 7 1.0 .2 6 . 3 . 05 8 .7 .15 corner note. 25 1.8 .46 28 1. 3 . 34 27 2.1 .43 18 2.1 .49 t 7 . 8 . 23 28 .4 .13 33 .6 .16 I I side notched 13 1. 7 . 35 16 1.1 . 23 12 1.7 . 35 10 2.0 .32 t4 .9 .25 14 .4 .17 16 . 5 .14 triangular 28 1.9 .43 20 2.5 .6 29 . 5 .12
Knives 24 2.4 .69 3 2. 0 .72 12 2.6 .86 18 5.1 1.24 3 1.4 .51 3 .1 .06 26 . 9 .31
Drills 33 1.7 .46 10 1.3 .26 14 1.5 .43 30 2.6 1.93 10 .8 .18 10 .5 . 32 35 .5 .14
Preforms 36 2.4 . 78 18 2.7 .69 45 3.9 .97 48 1.0 .44
w VI 36
point axis. This notching does not significantly reduce the base so the base and shoulder are usually the same width. These points are small, thin, and well made. The triangular blades are symmetric, with a thin biconvex cross section. Seven of these points were recovered whole and 9 fragments were also recognized. Only 3 of these points have convex bases, the others are all straight.
Triangular (n= 29, Plates XIV-XVI). The points in this class vary greatly in size and workmanship. The larger examples in this class are well made but many of the smaller points are poorly made.
These are usually only slightly modified flake blanks. The original flake surface is still visible over most of the surface. Most of these points have the outline of an isosceles triangle, i.e. they are longer than they are wide. There are a few that are in the form of an equilateral triangle. The bases are usually straight, but there are 7 examples with concave bases.
As a class these are the smallest points from the site. Their size and relative thickness are probably the factors that explain their durability; over two-thirds of the points in this class were recovered whole (20), while only 9 broken examples were found.
Knives (n=26)
This class of bifacial tool is distinguished from projectile points by the large size and thickness of the specimens. The blades of these artifacts are triangular or subtriangular. Notching to facilitate hafting is rare (3 examples), but the absence of notching does not necessarily mean the tool was set into some kind of handle. 37 The bases of these knives are usually convex, but straight bases also
occur.
Knives can be distinguished from preforms by their "finished" look. The blades are usually symmetrical in plane view and biconvex in cross section. The tool edge is straight, not sinuous, and often shows evidence of resharpening. These tools show a fine control over the forces that produced the artifact. The larger knives are easily the best examples of skilled flint knapping from the site. (Plates
XVII-XVIII).
Drills (n=36)
From the Hacklander site 28 whole and 8 broken drills were re covered. Drills are defined in this study by their morphology and wear patterns. The basic morphological attributes are: (1) a long narrow shaft; (2) a lenticular or more often trapezoidal cross sec tion; (3) finely shaped by pressure flaking. If the tip of the tool is preserved it must exhibit ground surfaces and circular wear patterns.
This damage is usually observable without the aid of magnifying devices, but a 10 power hand lens can be used to make sure of slight wear damage.
Within the Hacklander collection there are four classes of drills.
These classes are elongated, expanding based, reworked projectile points, and flake drills. These drills are presumed to have func tioned to create holes in resistant materials like stone, wood, bone, and ceramics.
Elongated drills (n= 7 ), (Plate XIX) are long, straight, and 38
extensively worked on all sides. In this collection only one end
seems to have been used as a drill, but the form has the potential
for being used on both ends. The largest example of this class was
obviously manufactured out of the center part of a nodule of Hom
stone. This drill broke right at the crystal encrusted heart of
that rock.
Expanding based drills (n=l4), (Plates XX and XXI) were produced
out of small triangular preforms with either straight or convex bases.
The ends of these preforms were modified into a narrow tip sometimes gradually expanding into the base or sometimes an abrupt modification forming an inverted "T" with the base. Whether or not these bases were used to facilitate hafting or just a hand grip could not be determined.
Ten drills were manufactured out of corner notched or expanding stemmed projectile point bases (Plate XXII). When the metrical attri butes of these drills are compared with their parent projectile point classes it is obvious that they easily fit within them (see Table 9).
The question whether or not the tangs on these artifacts were used after their modification into drills has not been answered. It can be inferred that the presence of a hafting aid was a major factor for their selection for reworking and reuse.
The last class of drills (n= S) is the least worked group in the whole biface category (Plate XXIII). These simple tools consist of a small triangular falke that has had one comer pressure flaked into a drill tip. These drills were probably hand held and appear to have been quickly manufactured for a relatively light drilling function. 39
Table 9
Summary of Metrical Attributes on Reworked Projectile Point Drills
Base- T�ng Shoulder- Axis- T·ang Notch- Thickness- n m ,Sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd n m sd
10 1. 8 .31 10 1.3 .26 10 1. 6 .4 9 1.8 .6 10 .8 .18 10 • 5 . 32 10 • 5 .11
Preforms (n= 48)
This class of artifacts has been defined as an unfinished, unused form of a proposed artifact (Crabtree 1972:82). In the Hacklander collection these artifacts are thick, irregularly shaped, and usually broken at the tip, edge, or comer. In most cases they represent discarded attempts to reduce poor quality raw material into the desired shape and thickness. A general outline for these preforms, regard less of size, would be triangular or subtriangular with convex bases and a plano-convex cross section (Plates XXIV and XXV). These arti facts represent an intermediate stage of biface production between the unworked flake blank and a finished tool.
Biface tips (n= 93)
In this analysis it was impossible to systematically distinguish the tops of tools broken during use, tops of tools broken during the last stage of manufacture, or the tips of preforms accidently broken during stages in biface production. The morphology of the break is
• 40 no help. The breakage caused by the pressure and torsion from a
projectile impact with muscle and bone appears to produce the same kind of concave-convex lipped fracture as end shock; a fracture caused by the application of too much force to an artifact during its manu facture. These biface tips will be grouped with the other biface fragments as an indicator of evidence for biface manufacturing behavior.
Other biface fragments (n= 262)
This very large class consists of all of the rest of the miscel laneous edges, corners, and body midsections that were broken off bi faces primarily during the manufacturing process. Although some of these fragments may be the result of some tool use and some are prob ably the result of heat damage, most are the result of the inevitable waste of biface production.
Other bifaces
Under this heading are grouped two different kinds of artifacts.
The more important of these artifacts are 4 large, coarsely worked bifaces that have battering on one blunted end. The opposite ends
are pointed or have a wedge shaped edge. These are probably tools made directly out of chert cobbles and can be described as core tools.
Artifacts like these are interpreted by Ranere as being woodworking
wedges (1975:186-90). The pointed relatively thin ends were driven
into the wood by pounding on their blunt ends.
The last biface to be described here is the single bifacial
scraper from the site (Plate XXVI). This tool looks like an unusually 41
finely worked convex end of a preform that was broken and then reworked into a scraper edge. Although the reworking of projectile point bases into scrapers is a common phenomenon in prehistory, it is very rare
at the Hacklander site.
Bipolar Artifacts
The Hacklander collection contains representatives of all 6 classes of bipolar "cores" defined by Binford and Quimby (1962).
McPherron (1967) simplified their list into just two classes; cylindrical and flat. My analysis agrees with Fairchild (1977); i.e. there are really no significant differences between these two forms, and all of these artifacts should be analyzed together (see Table 10).
Table 10
Distribution of Bipolar Artifacts
Area I Area II Area III Test Pits Totals R.S. Judg. R.S. Judg. R.S. Judg.
Whole 39 39 8 3 18 31 7 145 Frag. 32 27 5 5 9 19 6 103
TOTALS 71 66 13 8 27 so 13 248
The bipolar artifacts from the Hacklander site (Plates XXVII and
XXVIII) share attributes with forms described elsewhere (Binford and
Quimby 1962, McPherron 1967, MacDonald 1968). These artifacts are
usually quite small (Table 11). They always show battering and 42 crushing on both ends, usually with multiple step fractures. They often have parallel or sub-parallel flake scars running from end to end. 'J1hese flake scars characteristically ha ve very pronounced ripple marks caused by the application of considerable force. Of the 145 whole examples, 19 showed evidence of battering on two different axes and might thus be called quadri-polar artifacts.
There is quite a large range in size of these artifacts. Unlike other sites where the bipolar technique is described as a means to reduce small pebbles of high quality chert into usable flakes, the range of material used at the Hacklander site is much more varied.
Small pebbles of high quality chert were used, but also pieces of angular shatter, a quartzite pebble, a biface edge fragment, and even a large bifacial thinning flake was utilized. This variety suggests that these artifacts were something other than cores.
Table 11
Metrical Attributes of Whole Bipolar Artifacts
length -(cm) width- thickness- n range m sd range m sd range m sd 145 .9-3.8 2.3 .67 .7-4.9 1. 9 .73 l .2-2.5 .8 .41
Unifacial Artifacts
This category of artifacts from the Hacklander site is defined as
"artifacts flaked on one surface only" (Crabtree 1972:97). These 43 artifacts are differentiated from the large category of utilized flakes by the presence of intentional modification of shape or angle of a flake edge. The flake scars from this modification should have a regular pattern and be over 1mm in length. The controlled edge modification was probably accomplished by application of pressure flaking. The techniques used to collect morphological information were as simple as possible. Length was measured along the flake axis and the width was measured at the widest point perpendicular to the flake axis. Tool thickness was measured at the thickest point of the artifact other than at the bulb of force. The edge angle of the modification was measured in the manner of Wilmsen (1968) and the arch of modification is a technique used by Schiffer (1975) to record how much of the flake edge has been modified. An unmodified flake 0 will have a o of arch while a flake modified along all of its edges
° will have an arch of 360 . The measurement of this arch is better than a metric length because it is easier to compare the amount of modification from one artifact to another. All the information col lected from the unifaces is compiled in Appendix B.
Unifacial tool classes were determined by 1) the orientation of the modification to the flake axis, and 2) the shape of the modifica tion. If a tool has modification located at the distal part of a flake, opposite the bulb of force, it was classified as "end". Side modifications are along the lateral edge of a flake more or less parallel with the flake axis. The most common edge shapes are convex, straight, and concave; also present in small numbers are the forms described as point, graver, beak, denticulate, serrated, and irregular. 44
The "point" form only indicates the shape of the modification, it is not a class of unifacial projectile points.
Table 12
Distribution of Unifacial Artifact Classes
Area I Area II Area III Test Tool Class R.S. Judg. R.S. Judg. R.S. Judg. Pits Totals end convex 36 28 17 16 13 7 11 128 end straight 14 18 12 11 3 8 5 71 end concave 2 5 2 4 2 1 0 16 end other 2 3 0 2 1 2 2 13 side convex 14 23 5 6 3 12 2 65 side straight 14 18 2 7 1 5 1 48 side concave 13 12 7 0 3 6 1 42 side other 9 4 1 1 1 2 1 19 others 21 8 4 8 3 3 0 47 fragments 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 9
TOTALS 127 125 50 56 31 46 23 458
End modification
End convex (n=l28, Plate XXIX). This is by far the largest class of unifaces on the site. There are almost twice as many of these tools as any other class of uniface. These unifaces are characterized 0 by steep retouch. Over half of them have edge angles over 65 (Table
14). This class of tool includes the form usually called the "thumb nail scraper". The dominance of this artifact reflects its importance in the maintenance activities on the site.
End straight (n=71). These artifacts are distinguished by the straight edge of the retouch that truncates the end of the flake at a 45 perpendicular or oblique angle to the flake axis. As a whole this
tool class is slightly smaller than the "end convex" class (see
Table 13), but they have proportionally even steeper edge angles.
These morphological differences indicate possible functional dif
ferences between these classes.
End concave (n=l6). The edge angles on these artifacts seem to
° be weakly bimodal. One group clusters around the low angles of 10 -
° ° ° 25 wh1·1e the other group c 1us ters towar d ht e steep ang1 es f o 60 -70 .
The relative rarity of artifacts in this tool class indicates that most flakes do not have ends that are suitable for concave retouch.
This must be related to the desired size of the concavity and function of the tool.
End other (n=l2). This general heading is the catchall for numerically minor forms. The following 5 morphological classes grouped together here:
Irregular (n=4). The only thing that can be said about these artifacts is that the modifications do not reveal any symmetrical intention. These edges may be the result of unrecognized heavy use wear, but there is no clear evidence for this. These edges are a series of notches, nibblings, and curves of different sizes and shapes.
Graver (n=4). This unwanted functional term has popped into this descriptive section because no other term really fits the morphology. The modification on these tools is a chisel-like tip on a flake.
Notch (n=2). These two modified flakes have a single small
notch taken out of their ends. These may not be "real" artifacts. 46
They may be the result of accidental or use damage.
Point (n=l). This tool shows obvious modification at the end of a narrow flake. The resulting tip is awl-like.
Denticulate (n=l). A series of regular notches along the convex edge are the distinctive features of this artifact. This tool was very carefully made.
Table 13
Summary of Metrical Attributes of the Major Uniface Classes
length width thickness n in sd in sd m sd end convex 128 2.3 . 71 1.9 .53 .5 .20 end straight 71 2.2 .63 1. 7 .45 . 4 .19 end concave 16 2.3 1.10 2.2 .92 .4 .15 side convex 65 2.6 .96 2.0 . 74 . 5 .24 side straight 48 2.3 . 81 1. 9 .61 . 5 .31 side concave 42 2.4 • 77 1. 8 . 54 .4 .21 combinations 43 2. 7 . 79 1. 9 .59 • 5 .25
Side modification
Side convex (n=65, Plate XXX). This is the third most numerous uniface class. Tools in this class are larger in size than the end modified classes. This may be due either to the original selection of the flake blanks or the changes caused by retouch. It should not be surprising that end retouched unifaces are shorter than side re
touched unifaces.
In contrast with the classes of end modified unifaces this class 47
has a strong tendency toward low edge angles. The distribution of
these edge angles appears to be bimodal with a small cluster around
° ° 60 , while almost half of these tools have edge angles 30 and under
(Table 14). This bimodular distribution suggests two separate uses
of these tools. One use may be similar to the "end convex" class,
but the other may be quite different.
Side straight (n=48). Like the above convex class there is a
tendency for these artifacts to cluster at the lower end of the edge
° ° angle distribution, 20 -30 . This tendency is very weak though, and
these artifacts have an unusually wide distribution throughout the
range of edge angles.
Side concave (n=42). There is a definite preference for the
lateral edges of flakes to be selected for concave modification.
Within th±s class there also is a strong trend toward low edge angles.
° Over 50% of the tools in this class have edge angles of 30 and under.
° ° There is also a weak cluster between 50 and 70 . A similar bimodal
distribution is also reflected in the "end concave" class.
Side other (n=24). This is a somewhat larger and more varied
group of tool classes than for the "end" unifaces. In many instances
it appears that some morphological feature on a flake was exploited
and retouched to create the desired form.
Irregular (n=7). The unifying feature of these artifacts
is the unsystematic modification on their edges. These edges may be
a sort of saw tooth attempt but observable wear was not defined with
a 10 power lens.
Graver (n=7). These are plain examples of the utilization 48 of usable features on a flake blank. On these flakes there are ear like protrusions that were modified into a chisel-like point.
Notch (n=2). These artifacts have a simple notch retouched on one of their edges. These may or may not have tools.
Point (n= 2). Pointed projections on the sides of flakes were modified into a more durable form. Although these artifacts are similar to the gravers in general shape the retouch is different between these two classes. The "points" have long and slender pro jections while the "gravers" are shorter, thicker, and steeply re touched.
Beak (n=l). Morphologically this artifact falls somewhere between a "graver" and a "point". Again a natural protrusion on the side of a flake was modified into this unique form.
Denticulate (n= 4). These side denticulates are very similar to the "end" class. A regular series of notches are spaced along a convex edge.
Serrated (n=l). This artifact is differentiated from the denticulates because of the small size of the notches. These notches are set along a thin convex edge creating a series of sharp saw-like teeth.
Combinations (n= 39, Plate XXXI). This class of uniface is dif ferent from either the "side" or "end" classes because each of these tools has more than one edge retouched. Sometimes the modifications have reduced the entire circumference of a flake. The two, three, or more separate working edges on a single tool may have varying shapes and edge angles. Each of these tools probably were used for a whole 49 series of functions.
The unifaces in this class are on the average larger than any of the other uniface tool classes. This may be explained in terms of the size of the original flake blank. The larger the flake the longer its edges are. These relatively lengthy edges could then be exploited and modified into two or more working edges. The use of large flakes as multiple tools is an efficient utilization of the available raw ma terial.
There are several individual unifaces that show extensive modi fication which produced a distinctive form. These artifacts have to be treated separately because they cannot be easily placed into any of the other tool classes. (Plate XXXII).
Graver (n=l). This is a large piece of Upper Mercer chert that is triangular in cross section. All three of the edges have been worked or blunted. At the distal end where the edges meet at a point there is a chisel-like tip. The micro wear oriented away from the tip of this tool indicates that it did indeed function as a graver (Lynott
1975:128).
Notch (n=l). Unlike other examples of single notched unifaces this notch is almost large enough to be considered a small concave edge.
Point (n=l). This uniface is long and the point is straight and sharp. This is a robust example of this kind of tool.
Denticulate (n=l). This tool is the best example of this kind
of modification from the assemblage. The series of regular notches
almost covers the entire convex circumference of the tool. Table 14
Correlations Between Edge Angles and Major Uniface Tool Classes
edge angle end convex end straight end concave side convex side straight side concave
° 0 5 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 ° to 14° 1 1 1 1 ° 0 4 15 to 19° 0 0 1 1 ° ° 0 0 20 to 24 2 2 2 12 ° ° 6 6 25 to 29 0 1 1 ° ° 2 2 0 30 to 34 6 1 ° ° 0 14 7 13 35 to 39 0 0 ° ° 0 0 0 0 2 40° to 44° 7 1 6 7 3 45 to 49 1 1 0 1 0 ° ° 10 0 50° to 54° 7 0 7 8 5 55° to 59° 4 1 0 0 0 1 60 ° to 64° 30 11 5 12 8 4 65° to 69° 6 4 0 1 1 0 37 70° to 74° 16 3 4 5 4 75° to 79° 5 0 1 0 1 0 to 84 19 80 ° ° 12 0 3 1 1 85 to 89 4 3 0 1 0 0 ° 90 3 2 0 0 0 0
V, 0 51
Uniface fragments (n= 9). There may have been many more of these
fragments in the assemblage that went unrecognized in this analysis.
These fragments are usually pieces of steeply retouched edges which
are probably the result of tool breakage during use, or even the result of reworking a uniface edge. Only a few of the recognized
unifaces had broken edges. This indicates that the tools that were
broken were remodified and reused again before they were discarded.
This maintenance and reuse is a basic difference between the uni- facial and utilized flake tool classes.
Utilized Flakes
Unlike artifacts whose working edges were purposely modified
into a desired form, like unifacial and bifacial tools, utilized
flakes were used without alterations. The flakes were probably
selected because their natural edge morphology suited the task. These
flakes were probably used for a single task and then discarded, or
discarded when the flake was damaged beyond usefulness.
The best criteria for differentiating this edge damage from re
touch are the size, regularity, and patterning of the flake scars
(Tringham et. al. 1974:181). Replicative experimentation suggests
that natural processes only creates random damage to the edges of
flakes, and that this can be distinguished from worked or use damaged
edges (ibid:191-192). Because the Hacklander site has never been
extensively cultivated, mechanized damage to material near the sur
face is probably minimal, and it should be possible therefore, to
get a fairly good idea about how important this category of artifacts Table 15
Distribution of Classes of Utilized Flakes
Area I Area II Area III Tool Class Ran. Judg. Ran. Judg. Ran. Judg. Test Pits TOTALS end convex 287 484 37 22 157 133 30 1150 end straight 141 204 28 23 96 90 24 606 end concave 6 5 3 1 5 2 2 24 end other 27 34 2 6 20 13 3 105 side convex 63 91 8 9 31 44 13 259 side straight 29 31 9 11 24 18 10 132 side concave 26 16 7 3 9 8 3 72 side others 21 14 6 2 15 14 3 75 others 10 5 1 2 4 3 2 27
TOTALS 610 884 101 79 361 325 90 2450
lr1 N 53 was in the maintenance of the prehistoric groups who used the site.
The methods used to describe the utilized flake classes were basically the same as for the unifacial artifact classes. The classes of utilized flakes in the "Other" group are usually pointed tips and irregular edges. Unfortunately the size of this category of artifacts has made it impossible to do a complete description and analysis at this time. Only a few general observations and inferences will be preferred. The size of the collection of utilized flakes from this site is probably the best reflection of the importance of these arti facts in the prehistoric economy. More attention should be given to their identification and analysis. The categories of unifacial arti facts and utilized flakes are morphologically similar and probably functionally related. In many cases it can be inferred that exis tence of a unifacial tool is the result of the resharpening of a suitable utilized flake.
Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts
This category of artifacts is traditionally saved for the end of every report. These artifacts from the Hacklander site are amorphous in shape, fragmentary, and finished forms are rare. It would be difficult to make any statements from these artifacts about their importance in the activity on the site. This appears to be a common situation throughout the Great Lakes during the Late Woodland period.
(c.f. McPherron 1967:159). Finished artifact classes are usually represented by single tools. 54
Celt (Plate XXXIII)
Only one artifact, an unfinished bit fragment, represents this class. This fragment is finely pecked, symmetrical, and has a wedge shaped bit. The raw material is a medium grained andesite and needs only the final smoothing and sharpening of the bit edge. This arti fact was found in Area II.
Ax
This tool was recovered in two pieces from an excavation unit in
Area I. The bit of this ax exhibits the classic wear illustrated by
Semenov (1964:125). The leading corner is worn off, and small flakes have been driven off both faces of the ground edge.
The ax was first roughly formed by flaking a fined grained gray basalt. It was then ground into its functional form. This artifact appears to have been manufactured out of a large flake because of its plano-convex cross section.
Adze
This tool class is also represented by a single artifact. Like the ax described above, the adze was first roughly flaked out of a
micro-crystaline rock and then ground into shape. The bit of this
tool has the curved edge and asymmetrical cross section that defines
this tool type (ibid:127). This is a crudely made tool; only the
working edge shows any care in its manufacture. 55
Palette (Plate XXXIV)
The two artifacts in this class are quite different. The one found in Area I is made out of a piece of a very fine grained sand stone. One side has a shallow symmetrical concavity worn into it by circular grinding movements. This artifact is interpreted as being used to prepare, by grinding, very small quantities of sub stances, perhaps pigments for paints or substances used in medicinal treatments.
The second palette was recovered from Area II. This artifact is made on a large flake of coarse grained quartzite. The edge of the flake has been ground smooth. In the middle of the ventral side there is a circular area where the quartz crystals are ground and smeared.
The area between the crystals seem to have reddish pigment clinging to the surface (c.f. Semenov 1964:134-39).
The interpretation of this artifact as a palette may be incorrect, although it is the preferred one here. An alternative interpretation would be that it was used as a knife or scraper. The convex edge could have been blunted as a result of use wear. The circular ground area in the center of the flake could be explained as the result of the hand grip on the surface of the tool, particles of dirt adhering to the hand being the grinding agent and tool movement the force.
Slate disk (Plate XXXV)
The single example from the Hacklander site is oblong with rounded ends. It has been flaked around its entire circumference and is 56
slightly waisted. This artifact might possibly be interpreted as a
net sinker if there were any other evidence of net fishing on the site. The distinguishing feature on this artifact is the presence of incising on the flat cleavage surface. There are three distinct lines
intersecting and creating a simple six pointed star*,
Gorgets
There are a total of 3 known gorgets from the Hacklander site.
Two of these are fragments and the other is a possible preform. One of the fragments is in the surface collection of Mr. Craig Steketee.
This is a small, thin gorget, rectangular in shape, and broken at both ends. There is a single biconical hole drilled in this fragment at one of the breaking points. The material is a light gray slate.
The second fragment was recovered from excavations in Area I.
This fragment is from a slightly larger gorget. There is no evidence of holes drilled in this artifact. The outline is that of an elongated pentagon. This piece is more or less symmetrical down a medial axis and its thickness is uniform. Some of the edges look like they may have been ground, but the flat faces seem to be natural surfaces with no signs of grinding. The material of this object is a dirty white limestone with ferric inclusions. Whether this is in fact an unfinished gorget is indeterminate.
Grinders (Plate XXXVI)
This class of artifact has often been termed grinding or rubbing
stones. These granitic, basaltic, and quartzite cobbles are 57 characterized by one face that has been ground smooth and flatish by some kind of operation. These tools may have been used in conjunc tion with anvils having ground faces (see below). These two artifact classes were probably responsible for some of the preparation of plant foods, animal products and vegetable fiber.
Another feature on many of these tools are areas of battering on the ends and edges as on a hammerstone. The 10 complete examples from the Hacklander were probably selected out of river or beach gravels because their natural shape and properties fitted then for the desired function(s).
Anvils
The artifacts in this class were defined by their large size and the nature of their utilized surfaces. There are 3 varieties of these surfaces: battered, pitted, or smooth and flat. Four anvils show a generalized battering on their surfaces and probably were platforms for breaking and crushing material. There are 3 anvils in the collec tion that have distinct concavities pitted into their surfaces. These artifacts are often called nutting stones but they may be functionally more closely related to the bipolar wedges. Anvils in the above varieties often show battering on their ends and edges indicating that they were also used as heavy duty hannners or mauls.
There are 3 anvils in the collection that have smooth flat sur faces. Two of these were recovered from our excavations but the finest example is in the Steketee collection. These two classes of artifacts, anvils and grinders, appear to be interrelated. They share 58 wear attributes like smoothed surfaces and battered ends and edges.
Hammerstones
The objects in this class were identified as hammerstones because of the battering on their ends and edges. The 23 identified hammer stones from the site were of various sizes and materials. The granite, basalt, quartzite, and sandstone used as hammers shared a similar water worn history. The smallest example was a quartzite pebble that weighed 18.6g and the larger examples graded into the anvil class weighing over a kilogram. Although there is a wide range in weight, the median of the class is around 150 grams.
It is often assumed that hammerstones are exclusively associated with flint knapping activity. Although the working of chert was a major activity at the Hacklander site many of the hammerstones are too heavy or too hard to have been useful for the manufacturing of the small tools in this collection. Hammerstones should be thought of as a tool class with diverse functions like temper crushing, bone crack ing, and stake or pole driving, in addition to flint knapping. Also these tools could be used for plant food processing like crushing nut shells.
Sandstone abraders
Sandstone is an excellent source of abrasives in primitive tech nologies. The loosely cemented grains of quartz makes an irregular surface of a very hard material that gives away and resharpens itself as it is used. This abrasive is used in flint knapping to grind 59
platform edges to strengthen them before flake removal. Sandstone is also useful for finishing wood, antler and bone tools, as well as the shaping, sharpening, and resharpening of ground stone tools.
Ten of these abraders were recognized by narrow grooves worn into their surfaces. There were another 10 pieces of this reddish sandstone with either flat, squared-off, or concave surfaces and edges. These pieces are too fragmentary to determine their probable function.
Ground stone fragments
This final class of material is made up of rock fragments that have ground or flattened surfaces. There are 53 pieces in this class which probably includes fragments of grinders and anvils. Many of these were not manufactured tools, but were merely cobbles with suitable surfaces that were easily replaced from a nearby gravel beach. CHAPTER IV
INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In Chapter II it was mentioned that description is only a step toward interpretation. When dealing with a large collection, like the Hacklander site, interpretation can become multi-leveled and convoluted. The different interpretive levels of this chapter are organized so that it starts with problmes of context and function and then goes on to more and more generalized aspects of site struc ture and the position of the site in prehistory.
Relationships Between Technology and Raw Material; Functional Interpretation of the Lithic Assemblage
Distribution of debitage
From the pattern of excavation units on the Hacklander site there appear to be four areas of concentrated lithic debitage (Map 2).
Three of these concentrations are in the northern part of Area I.
These three concentrations are stretched out along a southwest-north east trending line along the face of the slope in the area. The fourth concentration is in the southern part of Area III. This con centration also extends south to where the hillside and creek bank meet and form the continuous slope that defines the southern limit of the prehistoric occupation.
These four lithic concentrations are the main locations of chipped stone tool manufacturing on the site. The presence of large numbers
60 61 Distribution of Debitage; All Classes.
Map 2 :-:-:--:---..._L@ HACKLANDER site • DATUM
� 13 fi;fl GI ., � t;i g D B 13 �, g 13 [3 [iii] E3
- __- _- _-\IO•!>"' s :_;� 1 13 a,_ m Cl l3 8 I
•&\.Owt s I�S S 4 I 9 1� 1.!I � ,11 I N ,e,.o ... I ,.,,.� ... I
� ...... ____ 0 5,.. u..u.u ,.,...... 0 ... 2.0ft ....!, 62
of cores, decortication flakes, bifaces, bifacial thinning flakes, and unifaces is clear �roof that all stages of tool production were carried out at Hacklander. The level of activity indicated by the debitage present is consistent with the amount of finished stone tools recovered from the site. This is a different situation from that reported from sites like Spring Creek and Moccasin Bluff, where tool manufacturing was no t an important activity on the site (Fitting
1968:32; Bettarel and Smith 1973:33-34).
As summarized in Table 4, 93.1% of the lithic material at Hack lander is derived from locally available, glacially deposited chert.
This involved the acquisition of chert in the form of water worn pebbles and cobbles. Some initial working of these pebbles may have taken place at the site of acquisition, for example at Deer Lick
Creek, but quantities of raw cobbles were also brought back to
Hacklander and reduced there, as is demonstrated by the recovery of pebble cores and decortication flakes on the site.
After the glacial pebbles were reduced into pebble and block cores by the removal of their cortex, flakes were removed for use as blanks in the production of uniface and biface tools. A few of the bifaces on the site were produced directly from suitably shaped pebbles to produce a class of core tools; these tools are rare and tend to be
quite large.
The manufacture and maintenance of bifaces was a very important,
if not the most important product of the knapping activity on the
site. The amount of recognized bifacial chipping debris, preforms,
biface fragments, and finished bifaces is impressive, amounting to a 63
total of 10,007 pieces. Their distribution over the site corresponds
with bhe concentrations of general chipping debris (Map 3). The manu
facture of finished bifaces was not the only produce of this process.
A high percentage of the uniface tools (21.8%) and utilized flakes
(23%) were derived from the waste chippage of biface manufacture.
These unifacial tools are on flakes with recognizable platforms. Many more unifaces were made on the unidentifiable flake class.
The use of local chert may have had an important affect on the size of the Hacklander bifaces. This glacial chert has many internal flaw causing the cobbles often to fracture irregularly when force is applied. The resulting cores are small and only small flake blanks can be produced off of them. Since lithic technology is a reductive
technology, the finished tools manufactured out of the blanks will also be small. This may be, in part, an explanation for the observed small size of most of the projectile points recovered from Hacklander, but it only would apply to artifacts produced out of the local cherts.
Exotic cherts
As mentioned in Chapter III (Table 4), exotic cherts also occur
on the site. These exotic cherts include the Michigan sources of
Bayport and Norwood, along with the southern sources, Upper Mercer,
Flint Ridge, Indiana Hornstone, and Illinois cherts. Because these
cherts are usually distinguishable from the local cherts, it is
possible to compare the uses of the two. It was found that the exotic
materials were recovered in small �?unts, that the d�9i_!:aEe tended
to be small, and that there was nearly a total absence of decortication 64
Distribution of Bifacial Artifacts; All Classes/All Fra ments.
Map 3 HACKLANDER
ffil [� BJ rn E;:J � IE] BJ eg
!¾., �� ..,.. �, \,80· ... are m 'O '□ 0 6) ... E @ ,6,,0wt I� I (ID f§l ,.,!!_/ I I Nt I I .,.�""---- "u.u..u , ... o,,. olt ...... I 65 flakes from exotic cherts. These observations indicate that the exotic chert must have been acquired either in semi-finished forms, like preforms or flake blanks, or as finished tools. In fact, one large flake blank or Upper Mercer chert was recovered (Plate XXXII). While these exotic cherts make up less than 7% of the debitage from the site they account for 18.8% of the bifaces, 18.8% of the unifaces, and 10.7% of the bipolar artifacts. This represents a total of 17.4% of all chipped stone tools from the site.· These percentages may reflect the phenomenon demonstrated by Schiffer (1976). That is that sup�rior_raw material, like the exotic cherts, are often conserved and reused longer than tools of local cherts. There are only two basic ways to acquire these exotic materials. Either the people procured the materials directly from the sources, or, more likely, they received these cherts via some sort of exchange mechanism. Barbara Luedtke has recently discussed exchange in these terms: Among band and tribal societies, three major categories of spheres of conveyance can be distinguished. The first sphere involves exchange with important political function. The kinds of goods in this sphere will be described here as "valuables". The second sphere involved goods, here called "utilitarian goods", which are exchanged primarily for economic reasons. Finally, there are goods exchanged primarily for social reasons which will be referred to as "gifts" (Luedtke 1976:41-42). The exotic cherts at the Hacklander site would seem to constitute evidence for these kinds of interaction with other peoples. Bipolar artifacts The production of bipolar artifacts is an interesting aspect of 66 the chipped stone industry at Hacklander. The majority of these artifacts are produced out of local cherts, usually very small pebbles. These distribution of these artifacts also seems to be correlated with the heavy debitage concentrations (Map 4). These objects were originally defined and interpreted as cores (Binford and Quimby 1963). These artifacts will not be interpreted as cores here. Since a core has been defined as a source of flake blanks, the evidence is against the interpretation of bipolar tech nique as consisting of placing a core firmly on an anvil and striking it on top with a hammerstone. This application of force crushes both the top and bottom of the "core" and detaches flakes from the top, bottom, or both ends of the object. The authors (1963:277) state, that "it is a crude and poorly controlled method of working stone". McPherron's experiment (1967:136-7) and my own attempts at replication support this statement. The size of the bipolar artifact is h���____ variable,, __ __ ... but most of them are too small to produce flakes of usable size. In an assem blage where bipolar "cores" are found one should expect to see flakes produced by this technique systematically used and modified into tools. McPherron (1967:143) observed, that "it appears then that these blade lets were utilized (if at all) in the same casual way that other ir regular flakes were occasionally picked up, retouched and used". This appear to be the situation at the Hacklander site. The bipolar technique for producing flake blanks is neither efficient nor control lable, and on these grounds cannot, in fact, be regarded as a core/ flake manufacturing process. 67 Distribution of Bipolar Wed es· Whole Fra ments Map 4 HACKLANDER c-... @] @ �-a, "'- -o., ri) "', �� D ,,, D D �rf) IS] rE D Eil D @!o D � D D � 00 ,., 11()-�"' ... 1· o ar-m � l ,.,.o ... '� D '□ o ,.,.!I l � I N ,91-.0• I ,,,..llj, .... j o«' ,.�. •'5-'5,.. 0 5,., o, .. :&Oft 68 There has never been a mystery about these artifacts. Harrison (1966) referred to artifacts like bipolar cores as wedges and McPherron (1967:141) described some of his as wood gouges. Even Binford and Quimby (1963:289) observed that some of their "cores" had been uti- lized as tools and that they may represent core tools, a finished end product in a knapping process. The most illuminating work on this subject is MacDonald's report on the Paleo-Indian Debert site in Nova Scotia (1968). In this report he compared this class of artifacts with the pieces esquillfes from the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. "Pi�ces esquillees are generally considered to combine several functions, primarily as a wedge but secondly as a slotting tool, both of which are associated with the groove and splinter technique of working bone antler, ivory, and hard wood" (1968:88). Semenov (1964:149) also discusses them in the context of chisels or gouges for bone and wood working. The artifacts illustrated in both these texts and the description by MacDonald match the artifacts recovered from the Hacklander site. In Michigan this artifact has considerable time depth. They are reported from Holcombe Beach, a Paleo-Indian site (Fitting 1966). They are reported by Harrison (1966) and Fairchild (1977) from the Late Archaic Schmidt site. Richner (1973) reports them from the Middle Woodland Winters site, and at the Schultz site they were encountered in the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland levels (Fitting 1972). This artifact, as a functional type, is extremely widespread and its absence from a site collection may be more significant than its presence. The pi�ces------esquill�es,------or wedges as they will be referred to here, 69 at the Hacklander site were made out of small pebbles of chert. They were manufactured in the manner Binford and Quimby (1963) suggested, but instead of the flakes and bladelets being the desired end product, it was the angular, wedge shaped nucleus that was wanted. Indeed, as mentioned in Chapter III, any fragment of stone with a fortuitous wedge shape edge was likely to be used. The term "bipolar core" and its conception as a core rather than a tool should be dropped from lithic analysis. Instead the types of behavior that these tools represent, i.e. bone, antler, and wood working, should be studied. Heat damage During the first stages of analysis of the tools and debitage from this site an effort was made to determine if any of the residents of Hacklander were systematically trying to improve the quality of their chert by thermally altering it. Experiments have determined that silica minerals can be made to fracture more predictably and ° field sharper edges if they are carefully heated to 350-400 c and then allowed to cool slowly (Crabtree and Butler 1964, Purdy and Brooks 1971). This heat treating process leaves several recognizable features on the altered material. Some of the trace impurities will oxidize and a pink or reddish shade will be added to the chert. Also, a properly heat treated piece will have a waxy luster on a freshly broken surface, while the original surface remains dull. Experiments also determined what happens when chert has been improperly treated. Pot lidding occurs if a sample is heated too fast, and as a result of differential expansion and escaped steam little cores of chert explode 70 off the surface. A special type of scalloped or crenated fracture ° occurs if the material is heated too far above 400 c or if it is cooled down too fast (Purdy 19 75: 136-7) • These features color change, pot lidding, and crenated fractures ... need not be the result of deliberate heat treatment. Any piece of debitage or discarded tool exposed to enough heat will become dis colored or fractured. This accidental kind of alteration should be classified as heat damage rather than heat treatment because it is not caused by the intentional application of heat. This kind of damage may mislead some investigators into believing that heat treat ing of chert took place on their site. There is n_'.:t_��CE_ go'?_ _� evi dence ��� heat treating chert on Micbigan sites, although there does seem to be some evidence from the Early Woodland levels at the Schultz site (Ozker 1976b:357). At the Hacklander site there is a lot of heat damage to debitage and artifacts, but absolutely no evidence for heat treatment having been practiced at the site. In midden areas, especially around hearth features, there is often heat damaged chert. There is, however, only one artifact from the site that appears to be heat treated; this is a Middle Woodland blade made on Burlington chert imported from Illinois. Unifaces and utilized flakes The distribution of the uniface and utilized flake classes are also related to the debitage scatter. These tool classes are concen trated in the same areas as the debitage (Map 5). It is assumed here that the morphology of a unifacial tool has a 71 Distribution of Unifacial Artifacts and Utilized Flakes; All Classes of Unifaces/All Classes of Utilized Flakes. Map • DATUM HACKLANDER5 site j[r/1 11/":l §) IE! @>, D 11:,-, "� U,O-�"' t,(J or-m ,, ' (!iiJ Cl 0 B .. � 61 ,&\.OWi I� I� lfil I � I N I j .,.'>'"---- " .... o, ...... u L....1-.J 72 relationship with its function. The attributes of edge placement, edge shape and edge angle have been studied previously (Semenov 1964, Wilmsen 1968). Of these three features edge angles have been given the most attention. Some of Wilmsen's conclusions derived from the analysis of eight Paleo-Indian sites will be summari2ed and compared with the Hacklander collection. Wilmsen found that the distribution for edge angles peaked in 0 0 0 0 0 0 the 26 to 35 , the 46 to 55 , and the 66 to 75 ranges. He inferred 0 0 that the most acute an�_les, (26 to 35 ) should be associated with behavior related to the cutting of_ me_a,t__ and_ b_i_g�s. These structually thin and weak edges would hold up under "soft" cutting duties. ° ° . The 46 ------to 55 peak_ was associated wit. h b ot h 1 atera 1 an d d"ista 1 flake edges and Wilmsen's edge angles most frequently fell in this range. The possible �unctions inferred for this retouch were; (1) skinning and hide scraping, (2) heavy cutting of wood, bone and ° antler, and (3) tool backing. Interestingly the edge angles of 45 ° to 50 is the range given by Semenov (1964:111) as the best angles for whittling knives, another wood working tool. 0 0 The steepest edge angles peaked at the 66 ------to 75 range. Wilmsen found that 12% of all side retouched and 48% of all end retouched tools had these steep edge angles. There was a clear preference for putting steep retouch on the ends of tools. The probable functions for these tools are wood----- and bone working (Wilmsen 1968:202). The collection of unifacial tools from the Hacklander site shares some similarities with Wilmsen's data but also differ from them. There is a strong correlation between side modification and acute 73 edge angles. These tools almost certainly functioned in the cutting of soft materials like fresh meat, skins, or some vegetable products. The exception to this would be the "side concave" class of tools. These forms were probably restricted to some whittling-like operation on soft round materials such as reed, twigs, or sinew (Sorensen n.d.). Unlike the results from Wilmsen's analysis there is only a weak ° ° clustering of values in the 46 to 55 range, and the artifacts with these edge angles seem to be �venly distributed between end and side modified classes (Table 14). This could be interpreted to reflect the fact that the tasks that Wilmsen associated with these tools were not important to the Hacklander residents, or at least that those tasks were not being performed at the Hacklander site. A more reasonable interpretation, considering the occupational history of the site, is that those activities listed by Wilmsen were accomplished at the Hack lander site with tools that had higher edge angles. The exception is tool backing. There is not much evidence for this form of modification in this predominately Late Woodland collection. ° ° S t�� dge ang 1es, 66 to 75 an d a b ove, are strong 1 y associate. d with e��__E!Q_c!_i,fie1 tools, as in the Wilmsen study. However, there are also steep edge angle peaks in the side modified tool classes. The woo��nd �<=:?�_working functions attributed to these tools by Wilmsen seems much too limited. Convex edged tools with steep edge angles would still be useful for hide scraping (Semenov 1964:85-89). Straight edged tools would not be efficient for hide scraping because the edge morphology would not conform to a surface that stretches and the tool corners might lacerate the skin. The straight edged tools with steep 74 edge angles would be suitable for cutting, carving, and shaping wood, bone, and antler objects. The concave edged tools would also be used for modifying hard and tough materials. The concave edge of the artifacts is especially useful for smoothing and straightening because the concave edge of the tool is guided along the surface of ' the worked object. The various "pointed" unifaces probably are a variable class of tools that functioned as awls and perforators of soft materials. The other uniface tool classes like denticulates, serrated, etc. were probably tools manufactured for some specific function that remains elusive. The reduction of pebbles and cores and the manufacture of bi faces in the peripheral area of the site left concentrations of thousands of sharp waste flakes. While these areas were probably undesirable for walking and sleeping, they were indispensible for other activities. This same concentration of flakes is also a reser- voir of tool blanks. It appears from the distribution of tools on the site that rather than selecting a handful of suitable flakes and carrying them to another spot to perform some task, that the work was done right in the areas of lithic concentration. In this way the concentration of debitage also became areas where broken and discarded tools were concentrated. If this interpretation is correct it helps explain the relative absence of debris and tools on the central part of the site, presumably the main living area, because all kinds of tasks requiring stone tools were carried out on the site's periphery. Another possible explanation of this zone of lithic debris and 75 tool concentration could be that the site underwent periodic or systematic cleanings, where all kinds of refuse was picked up off the living area and dumped along the periphery. However, the intensity in which this same area of lithic concentrations was used for feature building, and presumably feature related activities, reinforces the idea that most of the maintenance activities like tool manufacture and food preparation were restricted to a gradually sloped zone on the site's edges. An attempt was made to make the identification of chert types more objective than just relying on the visual identifications of the author. A series of chert samples from various sources were subjected to trace element analysis using particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE) by Dr. Stephen Fergusen of the Physics Department, Western Michigan University. This kind of analysis, like neutron activation (Luedtke 1976), determines the amounts and proportions of trace elements present. It had previously been demonstrated (Gibeson 1977) that three chert sources could be distinguished by distinctive patterns of trace elements using this technique, and we hoped to expand the utility of this technique by analyzing additional sources. The second stage of this project proceeded when a series of 19 Hacklander artifacts, identified by the author to be of certain chert types, were submitted to the Physics Department to see if my identi fications matched the patterns generated from the PIXE analysis. The results confirmed my identification of Norwood, Bayport, Deer Lick Creek, and Burlington chert. The PIXE technique did not successfully "fingerprint" Upper Mercer chert, but considering the distinctive 76 colors of this chert type its identification in hand specimen is not difficult. The biggest problem that emerged is with the Flint Ridge material. Only one of the four artifacts I identified as this chert type was confirmed by PIXE. This problem stems from the tendency to lump all brightly colored chalcedony into the Flint Ridge type. However, similar chalcedonies do occur within glacial deposits that definitely did not come from central Ohio. Luedtke (1976:165) had a similar problem in her analysis. There is no easy solution to this problem, which is compounded by the low and variable trace element content of Flint Ridge material. As a result of the PIXE analysis, it would appear that the number of artifacts and the amount of debitage identified by me as Flint Ridge chert much be considered inflated by some unknown degree. At least the presence of some Flint Ridge material has been confirmed for the Hacklander site. Components The components of the Hacklander site have been defined by the recognition of certain ceramic types (Kingsley 1977). In this analy sis it was found that some tool classes were associated with certain of these components. On this basis, a limited discussion follows of the relationship of these tool classes, mainly bifaces, to the ceramic chronology. 77 Middle Woodland The Middle Woodland occupation is a sparse and ill-defined scatter over the northeast side of the site, principally Area II. The physical evidence for this component consists of sherds repre senting two ceramic vessels described by Kingsley (1977:102). The lithic evidence is a little more tenuous. It consists of three corner notched projectile points and a unifacial tool recovered from Area II. The projectile points are large, corner notched varieties; two have convex bases, and one has a straight base. They are all broken but are noteworthy because of their large size and high quality of work manship (Plate XXXVII). Two of them were recovered from excavation unit BB. One of these points in particular has a slightly convex Norton-like base (White 1968:71) and is possibly made out of Upper Mercer chert. Another one of these points is made out of Illinois material. Of particular interest is the unifacial tool also recovered from Area II. This artifact is a true blade made out of heat treated Burlington chert from Illinois. This is the only artifact on the whole site that exhibits the waxy luster characteristic of heat treat ment (Purdy 1975). This creamy white chert did not, however, take on the pinkish tint usually associated with heat treating. The manufacture of blades from heat treated cores was an impor tant chipped stone technique of the Hopewell Middle Woodland of the Illinois Valley (White 1963). These artifacts are not unknown in Michigan from Middle Woodland context. They have been found at the 78 Schultz site, Spoonville, and associated with some of the early material from Moccasin Bluff (Fitting 1972:215-217, Flanders 1969:148- 149, Bettarel and Smith 1974:150). The nature of this Middle Woodland component is problematical. All of the identified material could easily have been abandoned during a single short term stay. No features were assignable to this period. It appears that a small group of Indians with some Hopewellian connec tion stopped at Hacklander, perhaps did a little hunting and foraging, then left, never to return. Early Allegan component This occupation has been called the Early Allegan component and has been defined by Kingsley (1977:103-108) on the basis of the presence of varieties of Allegan Ware ceramics and the construction of deep, conical features containing warm weather faunal indicators. One of these features, Feature 25, yielded a radiocarbon date of A.D. 690�110. The ceramic types associated with this component are scattered over the entire site. Kingsley interpreted this distribution as an indication that the site was seasonally reoccupied by the same group that utilized slightly different areas within the site. The projectile point classes that are most closely associated with this component are medium and small sized expanding stemmed and corner notched points. There is a tremendous range in chert types and in quality of workmanship. Because of the extensive nature of the Early Allegan component and the likelihood of disturbance by later groups it is impossible to determine how much debris and which 79 classes of tools were manufactured and abandoned by these people. On the eastern side of the site there are four deep conical features associated with this component. These features are 7, 8, and 9 in Area I and Feature 48 in nearby Area II (Map 7). These deep pits probably served as some kind of storage facility and were filled in with assorted refuse after they were used. It is in this area that a number of grinders and ground stone fragments were recovered; four of the 10 grinders and other fragments. This hints at a possible functional relationship between deep features and these "heavy" pro cessing tools. The construction of these deep storage pits apparently does not occur during later occupations on the site. This suggests that there was a change in the economic behavior of the people that inhabited the lower Kalamazoo River basin. This could either be a change in the basic utilization of the available resources, or a change in the kinds of economic activities that took place on the site itself, since there is no evidence that there was environmental shift and a change in the resources present. The Hacklander component This component is defined by a distinctive complex of ceramic attributes including dentate rocker stamping, interior striations, and shoulder applique strips that make up the Hacklander Ware group (Kingsley 1977:85-90). This occupation is restricted to the northern half of the site including parts of Area I and II. The Hacklander Ware is not plentiful nor are there many features associated with 80 this occupation. Only three features, 15, 16, and 56, all in Area I, have been associated with the Hacklander component. Two of these features, 15 and 16, each yielded carbon samples that were dated to A.D. 1070 � 110 and A.D. 1020 1 100 respectively. The evidence indi cates that the site may have only been occupied once during a warm weather season (ibid:114). It is, again, hard to correlate any specific tool classes with this component. The fact that the three Hacklander features are all in areas of dense debitage deposits suggests that the Hacklander Ware peoples were responsible for at least some of this debris. The area aroqnd Feature 56 is the densest concentration of chipping debris on the site. Of the three Hacklander component features only one, Feature 15, included projectile points within its fill (Table 16). In this fea ture there were five expanding stemmed projectile points, only one of which was complete. Within the midden around features 15 and 16 seven other expanding stemmed and corner notched points were recovered. Another expanding stemmed point was found in the midden outside of Feature 56. It appears that in Area I these two projectile point classes are associated with the Hacklander component. It seems reasonable that some of the expanding stemmed and corner notched points in Area II are also related to the Hacklander occupation. The uniqueness of Hacklander Ware in Michigan archaeology, its tight clustering of shared traits, and its circumscribed distribution on this site has been interpreted as evidence of a short term occupa tion of a group intrusive into the Kalamazoo Valley (Kingsley 1977:157). 81 The lithic assemblage neither confirms nor refutes this hypothesis. The Hacklander component materials are pretty much mixed with some of the earlier deposits. The distribution of unifaces in no way suggests a different pattern than the other components on the site. The associated projectile points are usually fragmentary and are not distinctive as a type from any of the notched or stemmed projectile points recovered from over the site. While there is much to distin guish the Hacklander component ceramically, there is little to dif ferentiate it from the Early Allegan component in the lithic assemblage. The distribution of exotic chert suggests it was utilized by both the Early Allegan and Hacklander phase peoples. This material is widely distributed over the site and seems broadly associated with the Early Allegan ceramics. However, where Hacklander ware is found there is also exotic chert. Unfortunately, these two components are not spat ially separated so it is impossible to tell how important exotic sources of chert were to each group. Since the exotic materials have a wider distribution across the site than Hacklander ware, and the Early Allegan occupation was more intensive, it is assumed that most of this chert is related to the Early Allegan occupation. The use of exotic chert, especially Upper Mercer, in small amounts seems to be characteristic of the Early Late Woodland in southern Michigan (Luedtke 1976:365-71). Late Allegan component This occupation, as defined by Kingsley (1977:114-118), is char acterized by Spring Creek collared pottery and Allegan ware variants. Table 16 Lithic Tool Classes Recovered Within Aboriginal Features Feature No. Function Biface Classes Wedges Uniface Classes Ground & Pecked Stone Classes 2 Refuse 1 knife 0 1 end concave 0 1 side convex 4 Hearth 0 0 1 end convex 0 1 side convex 5 Refuse 0 1 0 0 7 Stor/ref 0 1 1 side straight 0 8 Stor/ref 0 0 1 side convex 1 Fragment 11 Hearth 0 0 0 1 Hammerstone 14 Hearth 0 0 0 1 Hammerstone 15 Refuse 5 exp. stemmed 4 3 end convex 0 1 drill 1 side convex 1 preform 2 combinations 16 Hearth 1 knife 0 1 end convex 0 1 combination 17 Refuse 1 si notched pp 0 4 end convex 2 Fragments 1 end straight 1 end irregular 2 side convex 3 side straight 1 side concave 1 combination 18 Hearth 0 0 0 2 Fragments 19 Indeter 1 preform 0 0 0 23 Indeter 2 exp stem pro pt 0 1 end convex 1 Sandstone pallet 30 Refuse 1 knife 0 1 end convex 1 side convex 0 00 N Table 16 (continued) Lithic Tool Classes Recovered Within Aboriginal Features Feature No. Function Biface Classes �edges Uniface Classes Ground & Pecked Stone Classes 31 Roasting 1 prefonn 0 0 0 32 Indeter. 1 corner note pp 0 0 0 33 Hearth 1 triangular pp 0 0 0 37 Indeter. 0 0 1 end convex 0 1 end straight 39 Indeter. 1 exp stemmed 0 0 0 40 Refuse 2 triangular pp 0 1 end convex 1 Hammers tone 1 exp stemmed 1 end straight 1 prefonn 1 denticulate 1 side convex 1 combination 43 Hearth 0 0 0 1 Grinder Fragment 44 Hearth 0 0 0 1 Fragment 46 Refuse 3 triang proj pts 0 1 end straight 1 Sandstone Abrader 1 drill 1 side straight 48 Refuse 0 1 3 end convex 0 1 side convex 1 side straight 1 side concave 51 Indeter 0 0 1 side irregular 1 Anvil 1 Object 52 Indeter 0 0 0 1 Sandstone Abrader 54 Hearth 0 0 1 side convex 0 56 Hearth 0 1 1 end convex 0 00 w 84 The distribution of these ceramics is restricted to a concentrated area around the east end of the block excavation in Area I and to a scatter throughout the block excavations in Area III. Only one feature, Feature 4, has been definitely associated with this occupa tion. This component may also have been of a relatively low intensity and short duration compared with the Early Allegan occupation. Perhaps there was a single reoccupation in Area III by a smaller group during cold weather. Although there were many attempts by this author to match lithic tool class distributions with ceramic type distributions there were generally very few significant results. The highest degree of corre lation that occurs on the site is between the Late Allegan ceramics and triangular projectile points (Map 6). Kingsley guess dates this occupation within the period of A.D. 1100-1300 and it must be related to the "collared cordmarked horizon" that Fitting (1968:67) feels had a widespread distribution ca. A.D. 800-1000. Sometime during this period, probably around A.D. 1000-1100, the accepted way to shape projectile points changed in southwestern Michigan from a variety of notched and stemmed bases to a triangular form. Very little can be said about the post-Late Allegan phase occupa tions. There is a series of ceramic vessels attributable to later periods but they occur in low frequencies which Kingsley (1977:121-122) believes represent at least two distinct periods of occupation. These later prehistoric occupants probably also manufactured and used tri angular projectile points and may be responsible for some of the isolated points outside the Late Allegan ceramic distributions. Since there is 85 Correlation Between Late Allegan Ceramics-A and Triangular Pro·ectile Points-T. Map 6 • DATUM;---D HACKLANDER site DD C'� Q!l (;;I -o., D �� D [!) CtfJD �\ D D I� D ..... D [jJ D D D D D rn ...... ,., �,., ... I a,_m 'ti., D 0 ,., D ...... I ,e1.o-. I Q] D '□ o ,.,.� l � I N ,e1-.o• I ,.,..� ... j ,.,._ o "" •'-�"" 0 5'111 ·- 1114 o ,,. o.oft 86 only one feature assigned to this period. Feature 31 in Area III, a large, deep roasting pit unique to the site, very little can be said about the activities represented by any of the stone tool classes. In fact, no single stone artifact can be confidently assigned to this period. The last aboriginal occupation of the site appears to be a Late Historic (A.D. 1760-1820) fur trapping camp. In Area III a series of three features, 30, 40, and 46, yielded primarily remains of fur bear ing animals (Martin 1976:122). Other historically related material from these features were white seed beads and some metal and glass fragments. The lithic assemblage from this occupation consists of three gun flints of European origin. Two are "gun spalls" of tannish brown French flint and the other is a blade fragment of black English flint (Witthoft 1966:27). All three of these artifacts are heavily damaged through use. It is assumed that during this period chert projectile points, knives and scrapers were replaced by guns and steel tools and the chert artifacts recovered from the historic features were accidently introduced into the fill when the pits penetrated the prehistoric midden. Site Structure From the above discussion of the function of different aspects of the lithic assemblage it is obvious that there are functional divisions within the site. This is demonstrated by the distribution of tools, refuse, and features, and all of their relationships to the geomorphology of the entire site area. There are four of these areas 87 on the site and they will be discussed in terms of the sample areas in which they are found. Area I This is the largest of the three sampling universes and it can be subdivided into two separate but contiguous zones. The first is the relatively flat area between the 180m and 181m contour of the site. This zone appears to have been the main occupational area of the site throughout its history. Although no post hole patterns were found several isolated post molds were recognized. It is believed that this flat area was reserved for temporary structures, sleeping floors, and some maintenance activities. This part of Area I faces north and overlooks the Kalamazoo River. It is exposed to the west and north winds and the associated feature and midden faunal material indicates a warm weather utilization of this area (Martin 1976:122). This zone is characterized by a generally uniform low density of chipping debris. There is also a low density of features in this area. Two of these features, 9 and 25, have been identified as Early Allegan storage/refuse pits. The other five features, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 27, are all hearths, but with no chronologic placement (Map 7). The density of all tool classes is also low with utilized flakes being the most numerous. Activities associated especially with the bipolar wedge seem to be absent from this area. There are several places in this zone that lend themselves to interpretation as specific activity areas. Excavation unit #711 is remarkable for its concentration of 5 bifaces. At least two of 88 Distribution of Abori inal Features. Map 7 HACKLANDER �Fl - � o F3 .., D □ D C!D '\� D D F[lV □ F25 D D □ c,J D □ D □ D \,10·�"' L-'r, ar-m "O '□ II e ...r, ., I F36! ,eu>.,., I D 4 QF37 I F 3 ,.,., I� � I N ,ei,O""" I ,.i-...... .,.. I •. ,...o .�.s"" 0 Sm o s,. :tolt 11"-ll 89 these bifaces were used as heavy duty wedges, and one was a drill. This unit is interpreted as a wood working area where relatively large pieces of wood were split and probably shaped and perhaps drilled to produce needed objects. The uniface recovered from this 0 unit was a "combination" tool with an edge angle of 60 . Since these tools were recovered from levels 3 and 4, the wood working may have taken place during a relatively early occupation of the site. In excavation unit #1048 there was a scattered hearth, Feature 10. Just outside this feature, collected in the first two levels were, two gravers and three bipolar wedges along with two other uni- faces, a side concave and an end convex. If these tools are considered as functionally related then this hearth may have been a locus for manufacturing bone or antler artifacts. Along the southern edge of this zone there are a series of excavation units that have surprisingly high concentrations of tools, especially utilized flakes. The explanation of this phenomenon will be called the "shadow effect". Just below this series of units is an area of debitage concentration. As mentioned before, it is believed that many tasks were brought to the concentrated debris to be preformed. Not all of these activities took place in the midst of the debris, however. Instead of sitting in the middle of a pile of core shatter and sharp flakes to clean a fish, it might have been more attractive for some to move a very short distance away from the concentrated debitage to do the job and discard the tools. This would leave a "shadow" of discarded tools around the area of maximum debris density. Just to the north of the "living zone" just described and below 90 the 180m contour line is a belt of concentrated lithic debris and feature building activity. This belt starts in the west of Area I around the block excavation and runs to the northeast toward excava tion unit XX and down through unit #146. This belt has been dis cussed repeatedly in respect to the manufacturing and maintenance activities that are represented by it. In the Area I block excavation there are two distinctive periods of cultural deposits containing mutually exclusive artifact classes which includes three of the components found on the site. These two periods are separated both spatially and stratigraphically (Map 8). This block excavation can be divided into two parts, east and west. The western section is made up of excavation units #624, A, B, and C. Within this section are the Hacklander component features 15 and 16. There were a total of 12 projectile points recovered from this section, including the five from Feature 15. These points were either expanding stemmed (6) or comer notched (6); no other point class is represented here. Most of these points were recovered relatively deep in the cultural deposits; none were found in level 1, two were recovered from level 2, and the remaining 10 were recovered from level 3 or deeper (Table 17). The eastern section of the block excavation includes units #535, D, E, H, N, M, 00, PP, RR, and the north end of the geology trench (Nl0, W73). Four features were defined in this section; features 18 and 22 have been determined to be hearths, Feature 17 appears to be a refuse pit, but no function was established for Feature 19 (Table 16). None of these features has been assigned to components on ceramic evidence. 91 Excavation Units and Special Zones. Map 8 HACKLANDER site ' �o 13 T.,•·[gj3 B ,._, s '>.. ·� ,.,,, � ..,,,, 0 � @ {a 0 0 ll1 121 --IIIO•°l"' -,.,,....,-,..� I area m "D 2• ..,., 6) IJ! .I I� ,tt,..o..ii. I� g I ra lg 1•1.!> I N ,po""' I ,.,..~-- I o Sm 0, , • ...,11 � 92 The variety and distribution of projectile points in this eastern section is quite different from the western end of the block. All five classes of projectile points were found through the midden of this eastern section. Only Feature 17 had a projectile point (side notched) within its fill. It is felt that feature building has caused some mixing of the midden in this area but some patterns are discern able. Unlike the western section the first two levels (O-6 inches below the surface) contained many points. Also unlike the western section, triangular, side notched and stemmed forms were recovered. Of the 18 points found in these two levels of the eastern section, 9 were tri angular, 3 side notched, 2 expanding stemmed, 2 corner notched and 2 were stemmed. In the deeper levels of this section proportions a change to a pattern more similar to the western section. Ten projec tile points were recovered from below level 2; 6 expanding stemmed, 2 corner notched, and 2 side notched. No triangular or stemmed points were found below level 2 in the eastern end of the block excavation (Table 17). One artifact class more than any other supports this conceptual division within the block excavation; the limited spatial and strati graphic distribution of the triangular projectile point certainly indicates a separate occupation from the users of the expanding stem med and corner notched points. The limited number of these latter classes recovered from the upper two levels can perhaps be explained by their upward displacement by later feature building activity. Other tool classes seem to be stratigraphically separated from 93 the later deposits. Biface drills and bipolar wedges trend toward the deeper levels. The 5 drills recovered from level 3 in unit E and the 4 drills recovered from unit RR argue for intensive activity in this area. Level 3 of unit E also included 6 bipolar wedges and nearby unit H produced 8 more of these artifacts from level 3 or below. These concentrations of tools indicates an early period of intensive processing and manufacturing. The open question is, how are these two classes of tools functionally related? Table 17 Stratigraphic Relationships of Selected Tool Classes in the Area I Block I I East Section* West Section1�* I Levels Tool Class 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Proj. Pts. triangular 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 si notched 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 exp. stem 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 12 cor. note 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 10 stemmed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Drills 2 5 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 15 Bipolar Wedges 2 2 11 3 2 1 4 3 6 1 35 *Excavation units #535, D, E, N, M, PP, RR, and north end of geology trench. **Excavation units #624, A, B, and C. There is also evidence for two different periods of flint knapp ing activity in this block area. In the western section of the block level 3 contains the highest counts of debitage while in the eastern 94 section it is level 2 that contains the most debris. Even the make up of the chert present in these deposits suggest two episodes of use. On the first inspection the proportion of exotic chert in the debit age seemed to be nearly the same, around 8 to 9%, in both the sections of the block. However, during a more detailed study a significant difference in the proportion of the Upper Mercer chert was observed. In the western section 6.9% of the debris collected is Upper Mercer while only 2.2% of the debitage from the eastern section is this material. Despite the difference in percentages the amount of Upper Mercer chippage is not significantly different from one excavation unit to another although there is a slight increase from east to west. It is important to note that the total amount of chipping debris is greater in the eastern section of the block excavation. The appar ently equal proportions of exotic materials of all kinds between the east and west sections resulted from the amount of chert initially identified as Flint Ridge. Subsequently, th e problems of identifying Flint Ridge chert were realized, and it is clear that an unknown amount of this material was misidentified and is actually of local origin. Thus, a false proportion of exotic chert was derived. The more easily identifiable Upper Mercer chert provides a better indicator for comparing chert utilization. The fact that there is a more-or-less equal amount of Upper Mercer chippage scattered through out the midden in this block area suggests it was deposited by people who shared methods of acquiring raw material. The lower proportion of Upper Mercer chert in the eastern section was caused by a second episode of flint knapping activity that increased the total amount of 95 debris in the midden. This second episode utilized local glacial cherts in greater frequency than the presumably earlier activities, and in this way the already small amount of Upper Mercer chert becomes proportionately smaller. From the above discussion it is clear that two successive periods of deposition are represented in the Area I block excavation. The earlier period is stratigraphically deeper, used exotic chert, espe cially Upper Mercer, and manufactured primarily comer notched and expanding stemmed projectile points. These occupants also performed activities related to the use of drills and small wedges. The second occupation is shallower, used triangular and to a lesser extent side notched projectile points made out of local cherts, and is restricted to the eastern end of the block. Because of their shallow position, and the occurrence of triangular projectile points and collared cordmarked ceramics in the surrounding midden, it is inferred that features 17, 19, and 22 are Late Allegan features while the deeper, more westerly Feature 18 may belong to an earlier phase. It must not be overlooked that Early Allegan type ceramics occur in number throughout the area. In the discussion of the distribution of lithic debris and tools in this area it must be realized that some of this material, if not most of it, is related to the pre-Hacklander, Early Allegan phase. The distribution of Upper Mercer chert is espe cially important in this regard because of Luedtke's observations that: "In the early part of this period (A.D. 700-1000) this chert type is found on all ceremonial and burial sites, most village sites, and some small sites. In the later part of the time period, Upper Mercer chert was found only on ceremonial/burial sites if at all (1976: 371)." 96 -Area---- II The lithic assemblage in this section of the site is notable for two reasons; (1) the occurrence of possible Hopewell Middle Woodland artifacts and, (2) the very low density of chipping debris. Indeed, this part of the site did no t yield much in the way of any kind of cultural remains. The only place in the area that suggests a pattern of tool use is the northern part of the block excavation. In this block the dis tribution of all classes of lithic debris and tools increases from south to north. There is a very low level of chipping debris in this block so it appears that little or no tool manufacturing went on in this area. However, 13 projectile points were recovered. Only one other biface, a preform, was found in the block. On the other hand unifacial tools and utilized flakes were relatively abundant but there is no discemable pattern of their distribution. Because of the relative concentration of stone tools in the block excavation, especially projectile points, this area will be interpreted as a special use area, probably related to fresh meat processing. This area is low, close to water and away from the pro posed living zone. Unfortunately, good supportive evidence for this hypothesis, like concentrations of animal and fish bones, is not available. This absence of faunal material can perhaps be explained by the poor conditions for preservation in this area, which is period ically wet and dry, often flooded in the spring, and damp most of the year. Furthermore the proximity of the Kalamazoo River might lead 97 one to suspect that unwanted waste from the food preparation could have been disposed of by tossing it into the river. In the extreme northern part of Area II there is another excava tion unit, #74, with a concentration of bipolar wedges; four whole and five fragments, and a pitted anvil probably used in their manu facture. This indicates that some kind of special work was going on there, and considering that a "side concave" uniface and a sandstone abrader were also found in the unit, it is believed that bone or antler tools were being manufactured on this spot. The use of the "block" area seems to date to the Middle Woodland occupation. Both ceramic and lithic artifacts from this period have been identified. This area was subsequently used during the Early Allegan and Hacklander phases, as indicated by the ceramic types found here. The projectile points are either comer notched or expanding stemmed. There is only a single example of a side notched point from the block area. There is a notable absence of Late Allegan phase ceramic types from Area II. Kingsley (1977:118, 120-122) explains this as a consequence of a high lake level that flooded most of Area II. During this Late Allegan phase Martin (1976:94) suggests a 179 meter high water stage. Kingsley supports Martin's analysis, citing water rolled sherds in Area II, and the occurrence of only one collared rim sherd below the 179 meter contour. Given the demonstrated relationship between Late Allegan phase ceramics and triangular projectile points it is not surprising that there is also an absence of these artifacts in Area II. There is only 98 a single triangular point found below the proposed 179 meter maximum water line, and no triangular points recovered below the 178.Sm line. All of the evidence indicates an avoidance of this area during the late period of the site for whatever reason. -Area-- --III Most of this area is the southern extension of the flat living zone discussed for Area I. This area between contours 180m and 181m overlooks the creek toward the east and abuts the base of a steep slope to the west. To the south of the flat strip is a narrow wooded ravine from which the creek flows. This section of the site is pro tected from the south, east, and west, making a desirable location for a cold weather camp. In other ways this area is not a simple extension of Area I. Excavations in this area revealed unusually deep midden deposits and a high density of features. Unfortunately, this feature building activity greatly obscured any stratigraphic relationships in this part of the site. The debitage from the block excavations at the southern end of this section is dense and one of the four chipped stone tool manufacturing areas is located here. There are mostly local cherts represented in this debris; exotic cherts are rare. Within the biface classes of tools there are a high proportion of knives (10) and drills (9). The bifaces also show a lot of reworking and reuse as summarized in Appendix A. The density of unifacial tools and utilized flakes equals that of the block excavation in Area I. Further evidence that the region of the block excavations was intensively used is the fact that all but 99 3 of the 35 projectile points recovered in Area III came out that small section. If indeed this area was occupied during cold weather, as feature and midden data suggest (Martin 1976:122), then some of this intense activity can be explained. Because of the narrowness of flat space in this area maintenance activities were crowded toward the edge of the bank while shelters were presumably set near the protecting hill slope. Unfortunately, no post patterns were discovered here. The reuse and reworking of stone tool8 may reflect the difficulty of procuring new raw material from snow covered ground and frozen river banks. According to ceramic evidence this southern part of Area III was occupied during the Early and Late Allegan phases. There is a nearly total absence of Hacklander ware in Area III. It appears that this section of the site was reserved for cold weather occupation and the warm weather Hacklander phase peoples did not find it necessary to utilize this area during their occupation. The latest occupation of this area is defined by the three his toric features discussed earlier. The construction of these features contributed greatly to the mixing of the midden deposits. The pro jectile point classes found over the other sections of the site are also found here. Considering the ceramic/projectile point relation ships discussed previously, it will be assumed that most of the comer notched and expanding stemmed projectile points were used during the Early Allegan phase while the triangular points were manufactured and used during the Late Allegan phase. The concentration of triangular 100 projectile points in the historic features 40 and 46 is explained by filling in of these pits by scraping off the upper levels of the midden and thus dumping a high proportion of this point class into the deep context. Summary and Inter-site Comparisons The lithic assemblage of the Hacklander site is a product of ••• n three------separate processes. •••-- -•• The most important of these was the process of reducing------�------· cores - ..by- hammerstone to produce thin flat flakes. These flakes were used as "blanks" for modification into tools. Unifacial tools were made by fine retouch along flake margins, probably with an antler pressure flaking tool. Bifacial tools required shaping and thinning by means of an antler billet. This would create a bifacial "preform" that could be transformed into a "finished" tool by final shaping, notching, and sharpening by pressure flaking. Projectile points were one of the important end products of this process. Hunting activities were very important to the maintenance of the societies that lived at the Hacklander site (Martin 1976:123). The second manufacturing process is related to the ground stone tool category. The crude character of this collection attests to the relative lack of economic importance of finely finished tools of this kinds. However, there were many artifacts that displayed pecked or ground surfaces which define this group of macrocrystalline stone tools. Any number of the hard hammerstones from the site could have served as the initial pecked tool to shape these artifacts. The num erous pieces of sandstone recovered would have been used for final 101 smoothing and sharpening of the working edges of an adze or ax. Al though many of the tools in this category show an absolute minimum of alteration they must have been necessary to accomplish many unknown but essential tasks. The last manufacturing process created the pi�ces esquill{es or bipolar wedges on the site. Small pebbles of chert were placed on - __ ...,,. ...� - anvils and struck on top with a hammerstone. This action splits, or shatters the pebble, and the resultant tools have sharp, wedge shaped edges. Many other pieces of angular chert were picked up out of the general debitage scatter and used as wedges also. These wedges are assumed to have been used to split and splinter bone, antler, and wood so that these materials could then be modified into tools. Two sites that have produced many antler and bone tools, Juntunen and Schultz, have also yielded many bipolar wedges. All of the cherts utilized at the Hacklander site were not avail- able in the local glacial deposits. Cherts from north and east Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were also used on this site, especially during the earlier occupations. This chert was probably obtained in the form of flake blanks, preforms, and even finished tools. This exotic chert was of a higher quality than most local material and it appears to have been intensively utilized and con served as part of the tool assemblage. The chert was probably pro cured by exchange interaction between groups of people that had easier access to raw materials. Systems of long distance exchange in the Late Woodland period have been discussed by Fitting (1975:146-147) and Luedtke (1976:41-77). 102 In Michigan archaeology attempts have been made to characterize site function by a ratio of biface tools to uniface tools (Taggart 1967; Fitting 1968, 1975). The major assumptions behind these attempts are; (1) bifaces represent male activities associated with hunting mammals, an activity believed to have been concentrated during fall and winter, and (2) uniface tools are associated with female activities, fishing, and spring and summer occupations. Ideally after one has counted the project±le points and scrapers from a site and determined their proportions, their major insights about subsistence activities, seasonality, and sex ratios can be derived. When used within the context of comparing total tool assemblages, faunal and botanical economic remains, and environmental settings of single components, the use of such tool ratios can help illustrate intersite relationships as Taggart (1967) demonstrates for two Late Archaic sites in the Saginaw Valley. However, this technique can easily be abused so as to reduce intersite comparisons to a point of being useless or misleading. An example of this would be the inter pretation of unifacial tools as evidence of intensive fishing acti vities. There is probably a functional relationship in the Saginaw Valley Late Archaic where this idea was developed but to apply this interpretation to the Hacklander site where intensive fishing acti vities are demonstratably absent (Martin 1976:140-42) is a misuse of the comparative method. Furthermore, care has to be taken to use single component assemblages because cultural change or even differ ential use of the site will bias the validity of the ratio. This does not even touch on the problems of adequate and comparable sampling 103 of the sites themselves. This researcher sees no simple pan-cultural functional inter pretation of any tool class; a female can use a biface to chop up fish and wild vegetables as well as a male can use a uniface to shape a spear shaft or finish a bone awl. On the Hacklander site there are several components which vary in age, duration, and site utilization. It has not been possible in this analysis to satisfactorily segregate tool assemblages for these components. To arbitarily lump all, or any portion of these tools together in order to create a meaningless ratio would only obfuscate any evolutionary, functional, or historical meaning in the data. An attempt has been made to trace the development of projectile point "styles" through the occupational history of the Hacklander site. This proved to be a difficult task because of the amount of morpholo gical variation in a collection where flint knapping skill seems to be absent, and asymmetry is the rule. The three projectile points assigned to the Middle Woodland occupation are outstanding for their size and workmanship. Well over half of the identified projectile points on the site are either small corner notched or small expanding stemmed. These point classes were recovered from every part of the site and often in stratigraphically deep context. Since their spatial and strati graphic distribution matches with some early ceramic types it must be inferred that most of these points were used during the Early Late Woodland. Other evidence also suggests an early placement for most of these ,points. Although 18.8% of all the projectile points were made 104 out of exotic chert, 27.2% of the expanding stemmed and 36.7% of the corner notched points utilized these cherts (c.f. Luedtke 1976:333 and Fig. 16). The inclusion of a series of corner notched and expand ing stemmed points in and around the Hacklander phase Feature 15 indicates that these projectile point classes were still used during that occupation of the site. The triangular projectile points from the Hacklander site are spatially and stratigraphically related to the Late Allegan occupation. Unlike the corner notched and expanding stemmed point which were most often recovered from level 3 or deeper, 18 of the 29 triangular points from the site were recovered in the first two levels. This proportion would be higher except for the mixed deposits in Area III. Of all of these triangular points, only one was identified as exotic chert. While three of these points bear a resemblance to the Levanna type (Ritchie 1961:31-32) and four more look like the Madison type (ibid: 33-34) most of these points, because of the poor quality of their workmanship and thickness, are closer to the Juntunen triangular type (McPherron 1967:148). Surprisingly, the numerically minor projectile point classes, side notched and stemmed, seem to be associated spat ially and stratigraphically with the triangular points. Taken toge ther these two classes add up to 24 points. Compared with the 29 triangular points it appears that the side notched and stemmed classes may have been nearly as important at the triangular points during the later phases of the site occupation. It is not the contention of this author that only expanding stemmed and corner notched points were made and used during the early 105 occupation while the other three classes were used during the later history of the site. Considering the ambiguity of many of the chron ological associations, this is totally unwarranted. What is obvious from the Hacklander collection is that a major shift in the kinds of classes of projectile points used at the site took place around A.D. 1000 and probably a hundred or more years later. This shift also shows up in the types of chert utilized. The locally occurring cherts, always the most important source, became almost the only chert used in the later period. This shift in projectile point classes is in contrast with the Juntunen site. There, triangular points and notched points seem to have occurred in roughly the same proportions through the sites occupational history, A.D. 800-1400 (McPherron 1967:152). Although the Juntunen and Hacklander sites were occupied during a similar time period a comparison of the projectile point collections indicate some significant differences between the sites. The lithic assemblage of the Hacklander site is difficult to compare with other sites. Most sites from the Late Woodland period in Michigan have only small collections, and very few are well dated. In western Michigan, Moccasin Bluff on the St. Joseph River is the largest excavated site reported on in the area (Bettarel and Smith 1973). During the Middle Woodland-Early Late Woodland transition Brems phase (A.D. 500-1050) there is a series of small side and corner notched projectile points vaguely similar to some of the Hacklander points. The authors suggest that triangular points first appeared at Moccasin Bluff around A.D. 700-800 (Bettarel and Smith 1973:152). In 106 the later Moccasin Bluff phase (A.D. 1050-1300) the point class changed to side notched and triangular classes (ibid:153). The A.D. 700-800 date for the first triangular points is taken from Ritchie (1961), and may or may not be correct for Moccasin Bluff or Hacklander. Despite this superficial similarity in the sequence of point classes at the sites, the lithic collection from Moccasin Bluff is very different from Hacklander. That collection is dominated by the late Moccasin Bluff phase; of the 143 points in the collection 104 of them are triangular. There are very few ceramic or economic similari ties between the sites at this time (c.f. Kingsley 1977:153). The Spring Creek site (Fitting 1968) is on the Muskegon River. It has been dated by a single radiocarbon assay at A.D. 960 � 75, and has many ceramic and lithic similarities to Hacklander. The stone artifacts include slate discs and gorgets (ibid:50). Despite a low concentration of debitage, a possible result of using 1/2 inch screen (Fitting 1968:8 and 32), there are quite a few projectile points. Many of these points are larger than Hacklander points. The large expanding stemmed (11), medium expanding stemmed (16), and narrow expanding stemmed (8) classes are all larger than most of the Hack lander points. However, the small expanding stemmed (4), side notched (8) and triangular (28) point classes correspond very closely to the similar Hacklander classes. Looking at it from the perspective of the Hacklander collection, there appears to be at least two components at Spring Creek. The earlier component would be characterized by most of the expanding stemmed points. The radiocarbon date probably comes in toward the 107 end of this occupation. The second component is defined by the occurrence of Spring Creek collared ceramics and the triangular pro jectile points. It is my interpretation that this hypothesized second component is later than the single radiocarbon date indicates. The 46th Street site is within the Kalamazoo Valley and physi cally the closest of the sites discussed to the Hacklander site. The two corrected C-14 dates from this site are A.D. 1060 t 100, and A.D. 1150 t 100. The twenty projectile points from this site are quite similar to the Hacklander collection. The points tend to be small and poorly made (Rogers 1972:61). The 46th Street projectile points are almost evenly divided between stemmed (7), notched (8) and triangular (5) points. The radiocarbon dates places this site at a time intermediate between the Early Allegan and Late Allegan phases at the Hacklander site. This transitional position may also be reflected by the even proportion of classes of projectile points. There does seem to be a basic evolution in projectile point form during the Woodland period in the Midwest. The large corner notched and expanding stemmed points of the Middle Woodland generally decrease in size through time. In Illinois the Early Late Woodland points are described as micro points (White 1968:180). In Michigan this same trend is illustrated at the Schultz site where large expanding stemmed points become less frequent and small expanding stemmed points and triangular points become more numerous through time (Fitting 1972: 213-215). There is a very similar situation in Wisconsin where the Effigy Mound Complex seems to have developed out of the Middle Wood land and lasted until the early historic period. The Early Effigy 108 Mound phase (A.D. 300-700) is characterized by a series of notched and steim11ed projectile point types. During the Middle Effigy Mound phase (A.D. 700-1100), triangular points are observed in most collec tions but they are still numerically less significant than notched point varieties. In the Late Effigy Mound phase (A.D. 1100-1642) most collections consist entirely of triangular or side notched triangular varieties (Hurley 1975:353-394). The situation in the Kalamazoo Valley is somewhat different. There appears to be no resident Hopewell Middle Woodland population in this area (Kingsley 1978). The Woodland population seems to have been an outgrowth of the resident Late Archaic population, with the simple addition of ceramics (ibid). This cultural conservatism is also reflected in the projectile point classes. There is a wide variety of forms and sizes. During the early occupation of the site the points constitute a variable collection with respect to form. There does appear to be a reduction in size through time, however, and the classes do shift during the Late Allegan phase when triangular points start to dominate the collection. From the handful of artifacts that have been identified as Middle Woodland, very little can be inferred about the utilization of the Hacklander site during this time. These artifacts represent a short term encampment of some undeterminable function. The Early Allegan phase is very different. It appears from the ceramic evidence that groups of closely related people seasonally reoccupied the site over some length of time. The northern area of the site was used during the warm seasons of the year while the l 109 protected southern area was used during cold weather. During these occupations the site was divided up into functional zones. The high flat area was reserved for habitation. In a belt-like zone just to the north and slightly down slope from the main occupation area, lithic tool production constituted the major activity. This zone also became the locus for all kinds of maintenance activities that required stone tools. Down slope from this zone there was an area near river's edge that was probably used to process fresh game. Important economic characteristics of this phase are the numerous projectile points recovered and the deep conical pits, possible stor age features. There may be some relationship between these features and an observed distribution of flat sided grinders. Numerous uni facial tools and utilized flakes indicate that a broad variety of maintenance activities took place also. In Area III, the functional zones of the site merge so that they overlap. This happened because of the circumscribed living space available. Stone tool production, feature building, and food proces sing seem to be concentrated at the edge of the flat area overlooking the creek. The observed seasonal reoccupation during the Early Allegan phase is probably responsible for most of the aboriginal activity and debris recorded from the site. This stability may be an important factor that helped to establish exchange relationships with neighboring groups. The passage of material through these relationships should explain the occurrence of exotic chert on this site. The spatial distribution of Hacklander phase materials seem to 110 correspond exactly with that of the Early Allegan in the northern half of the site. The utilization of the same functional zones and the inability to distinguish between tool classes of the two phases may indicate that they are more closely related than previously suspected. However, some differences still exist. For example, Hacklander ceramics are almost absent from Area III and there are no clear associations with the conical pits. Unlike the pattern of site reoccupation during the Early Allegan phase, the people that used Hacklander ware may have occupied the site as a single warm season camp. The Late Allegan phase people utilized only two areas of the site; a small part of Area I, and the southern part of Area II. This restricted use of the site may be due in part to the flooding of the lower areas of the site during a high lake level. This phase is also characterized by a relatively small and short-term occupation. In the lithic assemblage this phase is distinguished by the dominance of triangular points and the almost total dependency on local cherts for tool manufacturing. There are three post Late Allegan phase components represented at this site. None of these have any recognizable lithic associations. There are some smoothed body and scalloped lipped ceramics, possibly associated, although not directly, with the deep roasting pit, Feature 31. This material is similar to late ceramics at Moccasin Bluff. A guess date of A.D. 1200-1300 has been given to it (Kingsley, personal communication). The next component is defined by the miscellaneous castellated 111 ceramics that are scattered over the northern part of the site. No feature associations are available. These are very late types that Kingsley suggests are post A.D. 1300. The last component is the Late Historic occupation described earlier. This occupation is associated with the use of a small area in the extreme southern end of the site. The 3 features assigned to this component are in part responsible for the extreme mixing of the midden in Area III. The only lithics associated are the 3 gun flints recovered from the site. These last components may be widely separated in time. Each of these occupations looks to be a single, small, short-term camp. These camps perhaps served a single function for that group, like food pre paration or fur trapping. This leads to the observation that there were two episodes of use for the Hacklander site during the Late Woodland period. The first episode is characterized by seasonal reuse by a single group or related groups of people. These people of the Early Allegan occupa tion had a stable economic adaptation and showed gradual ceramic and lithic change through time. The second episode is characterized by sporadic occupations of ceramically dissimilar peoples. There is no continuity between these second episode occupations; each one appears to have had a specific and different use for the site. This first episode of site use lasted at least from A.D. 600 to A.D. 1000 or 1100. The second episode represents the time from A.D. 1100 to A.D. 1820. The enigmatic Hacklander phase seems to straddle these two periods temporarily. Triangular projectile points are 112 related to the later episode. Only the study of valley wide pattern will determine whether these observations are real, or is a biased interpretation caused by sampling a single site from a much larger subsistence-settlement system. 113 LITERATURE CITED Bettarel, Robert L. and Hale G. Smith 1973 The Moccasin Bluff site and the Woodland cultures of south western Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 49. Ann Arb0;r. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-25. In Contemporary Archaeology edited by Mark P. Leone. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwards ville. Binford, Lewis R. 1963 A proposed attribute list for the description and classifi cation of projectile points. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No,. 19, pp. 193-221. Ann Arbor. Binford, Lewis R. 1964 A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29:425-41. In Contemporary Archaeology edited by Mark P. Leone. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbon dale and Edwardsville. Binford, Lewis R. and George I. Quimby 1963 Indian sites and chipped stone materials in the northern Lake Michigan area. Fieldiana: Anthropology. Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 277-307. Chicago. Binford, Lewis R. and Mark L. Papworth 1963 The Eastport site, Antrim County, Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 19, pp. 71-123. Bradley, Bruce A. 1975 Lithic reduction sequence: A glossary and discussion. In Lithic Technology edited by Earl H. Swanson. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Paris. Brose, David S. 1970 The archaeology of Summer Island: Changing settlement sys tems in northern Lake Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 41. Ann Arbor. 114 Collins, Michael B. 1975 Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Lithic Technology edited by Earl H. Swanson, Mouton Pub lishers, The Hague, Paris. Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An introduction to flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum. No. 28, Pocatello, Idaho. Crabtree, Don E. 1975 Comments on lithic technology and experimental archaeology. In Lithic Technology, edited by Earl H. Swanson, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Paris. Crabtree, Don E. and B. Robert Butler 1964 Notes on experiments in flint knapping: 1 Heat treatment of silica minerals. Tebiwa Vol. 7:1:1-6. Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Ellis, H. Holmes 1960 Surface exposures of flint and chert in Michigan. In Selections From The Michigan Archaeologist Volumes 1-10, edited by James E. Fitting. Michigan Archaeological Society Special Publication No. 1. Ann Arbor. Fairchild, Jerry D. 1977 The Schmidt site: A pre-Nipissing village in the Saginaw Valley, Michigan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University. Fitting, James E. 1968 The Spring Creek site, 20 MU 3, Muskegon County, Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 32, pp. 1-78. Ann Arbor. Fitting, James E. 1972 Lithic industries of the Schultz site. In the Schultz site at Green Point; a stratified occupation area in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan, edited by James E. Fitting. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 4. Ann Arbor. Fitting, James E. 1975 The archaeology of Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Revised second edition. ll5 Fitting, James E., Jerry DeVisscher, and Edward J. Wahla 1966 The Paleo-Indian occupation of Holcombe Beach. Anthropo logical Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 27. Ann Arbor. Flanders, Richard E. 1969 Hopewell materials from Crockery Creek. Michigan Academician. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 147-51. Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Review of "An introduction to American archaeology, Vol. 1: North and Middle America" by Gordon R. Willey. Scientific American. 217(2):119-22. Gibeson, Jeanette E. 1977 Analysis of chert by particle induced X-ray emission. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Physics, Western Michigan University. Garland, Elizabeth B. 1976 Completion report, Hacklander Archaeological Project 1975 Excavations; Allegan County, Michigan. Unpublished manu script submitted to the Michigan History Division, Michigan Department of State, Lansing, Michigan. Garland, Elizabeth B. 1978 Late Woodland occupation of the Lower Kalamazoo Valley with particular reference to the Hacklander site (20 AE 18). Paper given at the 54th meeting of the Central States Anthropological Society. Harrison, Sidney 1966 The Schmidt site (20 SA 192), Saginaw County, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 49-70. Ann Arbor. Hurley, William M. An analysis of effigy mound complexes in Wisconsin. Anth ropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 59. Ann Arbor. Kingsley, Robert G. 1977 A statistical analysis of the prehistoric ceramics from the Hacklander site, Allegan County, Michigan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan Univ ersity. Kingsley, Robert G. 1978 On the lack of a Hopewellian occupation of the Kalamazoo River Valley. Paper given at the 54th meeting of the Central States Anthropological Society. 116 Luedtke, Barbara E. 1976 Lithic material distributions and interaction patterns during the Late Woodland Period in Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Lynott, M. J. 1975 Explanation of micro wear patterns of gravers. Plains Archaeologists. Vol. 20(68), pp. 121-28. MacDonald, George F. 1968 Debert: A Paleo-Indian site in central Nova Scotia. National Museum of Canada, Anthropological Papers, No. 16. Ottawa. Martin, Paul S. 1971 The revolution in archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 1-8. Martin, Terrance J. 1976 A faunal analysis of five Woodland period archaeological sites in southwestern Michigan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University. McPherron, Alan 196 7 The Juntunen site and the Late Woodland prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes area. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 30, Ann Arbor. Meyers, J. Thomas 1970 Chert resources of the Lower Illinois Valley. Northwestern Archaeological Program Research Paper, Vol. 2. Newcomber, M. H. 1971 Some quantitative experiments in hand ax manufacture. World Archaeology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 85-104. Ozker, Doreen 1976a A descriptive report of the surface collections from site 20 MD 28, Chippewa Nature Center, Midland County, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist, Vol. 22, No. 1. Ozker, Doreen 1976b Heat treatment of Bayport chert. The Michigan Archaeologist, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 357-68. Purdy, Barbara A. 1975 Fractures for the archaeologist. In Lithic Technology, edited by Earl H. Swanson, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Paris. 117 Purdy, Barbara A. and H.K. Brooks 1971 Thermal alterations of silica minerals: An archaeological approach. Science, 173:322-25. Ranere, W. H. 1975 Analysis of a pre-ceramic collection from Panama. In Lithic Technology, edited by Earl H. Swanson, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Paris. Richner, Jeffery J. 1973 Depositional history and tool industry at the Winter site: A Lake Forest Middle Woodland cultural manifestation. Un published M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University. Ritchie, William A. 1961 Typology and nomenclature of New York projectile points. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin No. 384, Albany. Rogers, Margaret B. 1972 The 46th Street site and the occurrence of Allegan Ware in southwestern Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 47-108. Rovner, Irwin 1975 Lithic sequences from the Maya lowland. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Schiffer, Michael B. 1976 Behavioral archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York. Semenov, Sergei A. 1964 Prehistoric technology. Barnes and Noble, New York. Sheets, Payson D. 1975 Behavioral analysis and structure of a prehistoric industry. Current Anthropology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 368-91. Sorensen, Jerrel H. n.d. An experiment in the function of concave scrapers. Unpub lished manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University. Spero, George B. 1976 Hacklander site soil pH. Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University. Xeroxed. 118 Taggart, David W. 1967 Seasonal patterns in settlement, subsistence, and industry in the Saginaw Late Archaic. The Michigan Archaeologist, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 153-70. Ann Arbor. Tringham, Ruth, Glen Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Ann Whitman 1974 Experiment in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 1, pp. 171-96. White, Anta Montet 1963 Analytic description of the chipped stone industry from the Snyders site, Calhoun County, Illinois. Anthropolog ical Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 19, pp. 1-70. Ann Arbor. White, Anta Montet 1968 The lithic industries of the Illinois Valley in the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 35. Ann Arbor. Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1974 A history of American archaeology. W. H. Freeman and Company; San Francisco. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1968 Lithic analysis in paleoanthropology. Science Vol 161, pp. 982-87. In Contemporary Archaeology edited by Mark P. Leone, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Witbhoft, John 1966 A history of gunflints. Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. 36, Nos. 1-2. 119 APPENDIX A Attributes of Bifacial Artifacts (centimeters) I. Projectile Points Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I RSI! - 150.1 Stemmed 1. 4 1. 6 2.0 2.6 .8 .2 .6 - 150. 3 I - - - - Ex Stem 1.1- 1.0 .- 8 .2 .5 - 150.4 Cm Note . 8 1.8 2.3 . 3 . 4 X 248.2 Cm Note 1. 7 1.4 2.3 2.2 . 7 .4 .6 X - 256.4 Si Note 2.0 - 1.5 1.7 2.1 . 8 . 2 . 8 rs - 431.1 Si Note 1.9 1.3 1.8 2.0 . 9 .3 .6 rs 535.1 - - - Cm Note 1.4 1.1- 1.8- - .- 8 .-2 .4 546.4 Triang 2.6 . 4 X IL 594.4 Crn Note 1.7 1.4 2.0 2.0- . 6 . 4 . 8 rs- HS- 612.3 Si Note 1.7- 1.0- 2.0- 1.0 . 5 . 4 702.1 Ex Stem - - - - .1 .5 - - 751.1 Si Note 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.2 . 4 . 6 915.2 Crn Note - - 2.2 1.5- 2.1- 1.0- . 3 .5 - -FR 922.2 Triang 2.0 3.6 - . 7 922.3 - - - - - Ex Stem 2.1 1.1- - . 9 - . 4 - - 1033. 2 Triang 1.9 1.6 - . 4 1033. 3 - Stemmed 1.3 1.2 1.7 2.1 1.3 .- 2 . 9 rs- 1217.2 Stemmed 1.7- 1.8 2.1 3.1 1.0 . 6 IL 1254.1 Crn Note 1.4- 2.3- 2.6- .-8 .- 5 . 5 rs- HS- 1254.2 Triang 1.9 - . 4 1305.2 Cm Note 2.2 1.5 2.3 1. 2 .5 . 6 rs HS - - - - - X 1336.1 Crn Note - 2.7- - - - .6 - HS- 1512.2 Triang 2.4 . 7 Judg - - - B.2 Ex Stem 2.4 1.8 - - . 6 - B.3 Cm Note 1.6 1.0 1.8 1. 3 . 8 . 5 .5 rs- UM B.3 Cm Note 1.3 1.0 1.7 2.0- .5 .- 3 .5 - NW B.3 Cm Note 2.2 1.4 - . 8 . 3 UM I I I 120 Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I Points Judg - . 8 - B.3 Crn Note 1.6 1.3 .6 .4 .4 - B.3 . 8 - - Crn Note 1.5 1.1 1.- 9 2.1- - .4- .5 - - F-15 B.3 Ex Stem 1.7 1.5 - .4 F-15 B.3 Ex Stem 1. 9 1.5 - - - - - . 3 - F-15 B.4 Ex Stem 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 .3 .6 X - - - - - UM F-15 B.4 Ex Stem 1.8 1. 2 - . 4 C.2 Crn Note 2.9 2.1 ------.5 - - F-15 C.3 Ex Stem 2.2- 1.9 2.6 1.0 . 3 .6 D.2 Ex Stem 1.4 ------2.7- - - - .7 - - E.l Triang 2.1 - . 4 E.l Triang 1.8 ------2.1- - .4 - - E.l Si Note 1. 6 .9 .9 . 3 E.l Triang ------2.5 - - - - .5 - E.l Triang 2.1 - . 4 - E. 2 Si Note 1.1 - .-8 1.0- 1.- 4 .-6 .- 2 . 5 rs- - E.2 Triang 2.4 .4 E.3 Ex Stem 1.1 1.0 2.3- 2.1 1.0 . 5 .6 rs IL E.3 Ex Stem 1.5 - - - - . 9 - - - - .6 - -FR F-17 E.3 Si Note 1.8 1.4 . 4 E.3 Ex Stem 2.6- 2.1 2.5 1. 7 1.0 .2 . 7 rs- IL G. 2 Ex Stem 1.6 2.9 2.5 . 7 . 7 . 8 - F-23 G.5 Ex Stem 1.7 1. 3 2.3 2.0 1.1 . 3 1.0 rs - F-23 G.6 Ex Stem 2.7 2.3 ------1.1- - . 7 - - H.4 Ex Stem 1.4 1.4 .4 NN.4 Si Note 2.0 1. - - -3 2.2- 1.5- 1.0- .- 5 . 5 -rs - PP.l Crn Note - . 4 PP.2 Triang 2.1 - - - - - 3.5- . 5 - PP.2 Crn Note 1.3 1.0 1.8- - .7 . 3 . 5 FR PP.2 Si Note 1.1 . 8 - - - - .- 8 .4 - - PP.2 Stemmed 1. 4 1.1- 1.- 7 1.1 . 7 PP.3 Ex Stem 1.8 - - - - .4 - HS- PP.4 Crn Note . 9 .- 7 1.4- 1. 4 .4 . 3 .4 RR.l Triang 2.0 ------3.3 - - .5 - - RR.l Triang 1. 6 - 3.1 .5 RR.l Triang 2.2 ------.4 - RR.l Stemmed 1.3 1. 3 2.1 4.3 . 7 .3 . 7 rs TT.3 Ex Stem - - 1.5 1. 3 2.5 3.1 .8 . 4 .7 - Ext XX.l Ex Stem 1. 2 1.0 1.4 2.4 .5 . 2 .4 BP S5-W73.2 Crn Note - - 1.6 1.2 1.7 2.5 .6 . 4 . 4 - Nl0-W73.l Si Note 1.8 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 . 5 .6 rs Nl0-W73.4 ------UM Crn Note .4 - - Nl0-W73.4 Ex Stem 1. 2 1.1 1.6 2.2 .5 .1 .4 121 Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area II Points RS# - 66.6 Ex Stem . 6 1.3- 1.7- . 6 .3 . 5 rs- IL 74.3 Ex Stem 2.0 1.5 . 8 . 3 . 5 FR- 74.3 Ex Stem 1.3 1.0 1. 9 1.6 . 7 .3 . 5 rs- - 165.8 Ex Stem LO . 8 1.6 1.-4 . 6 . 2 .5 - 187.1 Cm Note 1.8 1.3 2.5 1.0 .5 .6 IL- 187.4 Ex Stem 2.2- 1.8-- 3.2 2.6 1.4- -.6 1.0 rs- - 222.1 Triang - 2.7 . 3 - - 222.1 Si Note 1.3 1.7 2.0 . 6 .2 . 8 X - 318.4 Cm Note 1.- 3 1.1 1. 9 2.0 .6 . 2 . 5 - 414.1 Si Note 1.2- 1.5- 2.2 -.7 .- 2 • 6 rs- - 471. 5 Triang 1.1 3.1 . 2 Judg - BB.l Ex Stem 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.4- 1.0 .1 . 7 rs- BB.l Cm Note 2.1 1.3 3.1 - 1.1 . 7 . 5 - UM- BB.l Cm Note 2.3 1. 4 2.7-- 1.1 .-6 .6 - - BB.4 Ex Stem 2.0- 1.3 1.2 .6 - - GG.4 Ex Stem - 1. 2 2.1 1.8 1.4 . 6 . 7 JJ.2 Si Note 1.1 1.5 2.5 . 9 .2 .4 rs HS X LL.3 Crn Note 1. 9 1.7 2.2 2.0 .8 .3 1.0 UM- LL.4 Crn Note 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.0 . 8 . 2 .8 rs - X NW VV.2 Ex Stem 1.6 1.1 2.5 - 1.1 . 6 . 8 - - VV.4 Ex Stem 1.5 1. 2 2.3 .9 . 7 . 6 Area III RS# - 06.2 Si Note 1.2 .9 1.4 1.8 . 8 .3 . 5 rs F ------37 169.3 Triang 1.4 2.2 .3 - 277. 5 Si Note 1.8- 1.4 2.0 2.1 1.0 .3 . 5 rs 287.6 Ex Stem 1.3 1.5 2.8 1.1 .1 .8 rs- IL- 323.1 Ex Stem 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 . 3 . 7 - 323. 4 Ex Stem 2.2 1.5- 2.0- 3.4 1.5- .- 3 1.1 rs- - 323.11 Triang 1.8 - 2.0 .4 - - 333.5 Stemmed 1.3 1.4- 3.0 1.0-- . 3 . 8 - - 408.4 Triang 1.8 1.6 2.9 .5 Judg - - F-32 J.5 Cm Note 2.2 1. 6 2.8 3.3 1.3 . 5 . 8 - - - - - K.2 Triang 1.8 - 2.8- .5 rs- - L.5 Cm Note 1.6 1.2 . 9 . 2 . 4 - L.8 Cm Note 2.2 1. 4 2.3 2.6 1.3 . 4 .7 rs - L.12 Crn Note 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.3 . 8 . 3 . 6 rs - - - - X - F-33 L. 9 ' Triang 1.2 2.5 . 7 122 Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area III Points Judg - N.l Ex Stem 1.7 1.4 2.2 3.0- 1.1 . 2 1.0 rs - F-39 0.6 Ex Stem 1. 9 1.6 2.1 1.4 .2 . 7 rs - - - NW P.5 Stemmed - 1.5- 2.2- 3.4- - .3 1.0 - P.5 Cm Note - - - .- 2 .6 - BP- F-40 P.7 Triang 1.7 2.0 .4 - T.6 Cm Note 1.4 1.1- 1.- 6 2.0 .- 7 .4- . 4 rs- - U.l Triang 1.8 2.2- . 6 - U.2 Crn Note 2.0 1.9- 2.6- 1.1- .- 3 . 9 -X - F-40 V. 6 Triang 1.4 - - 1.8-- - . 3 - - F-46 V.3 Triang 2.4 - - - - . 6 - - F-46 V. 3 Triang 2.7 - - 2.6 - . 5 -- F-46 V.4 Triang 1.2 1.8 - . 3 w. ------7 Triang 1.-6 2.2 . 4 - W.14 Cm Note 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.0 . 4 .6 rs w. - - F-40 7 Ex Stem 1.2 1.0 2.1 2.0- . 7 .5 . 4 - Z.3 Stemmed 1.0 1.1 1. 9 1.0 .2 . 6 HS Test---- Pits ------TP4.l Triang 1.4 2.0 . 5 - - TP8.2 Ex Stem 1.5 1.3 2.5- 2.2- 1.1 .5 . 7 - - TP12.l Si Note 1.5 1.0 1. 2 .3 . 4 - TP12.3 Ex Stem 1.2 1.0 1. 6 2.8 . 7 .4 . 5 rs - TP12. 7 Ex Stem 1. 6 1. 3 2.2 4.0 1.0 . 3 .7 rs - TP15.3 Ex Stem 1. 9 1.3 1. 7 1.5 1. 2 .4 . 6 X II. Drills Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I RS# - - - - X 150.3 . 9 - - 5.7- -- . 7 - HS- 399.1 1.1 . 5 - - - - X - 535.2 1.9 - - 1.- 9 -- . 6 - - 546.1 2.3 - - - - . 6 - - 605.4 2. 7 3.4 . 9 - - - X - 711. 3 1.8 - - 1. 7 - . 5 .5 - 915.2 2. 7 1.9 - .7 X - X 1223.2 2.2 1.- 7 2.0- 1.0- .1- . 7 FR 1305.2 1.0 2.9 .6 rs UM 1305.3 1. 6 1. 2 1.3 1. 2 .8 .1 .4 X FR 123 Prov. Class Base Tang Shld1 Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I Drills Judg B.3 1.8 X - 1.-3 1.- 6 2.2 .- 8 -• 3 .6 - F-15 B.3 1. 6 3.4 .4 rs - - - - X - E.l 1.9 - 1.9 . 5 E.3 - - X - 1.0 - 1.4- 2.5 - - .4 - - E.3 2.1 - 2.8 .5 E.3 1.3 ------1.8 - - . 4 - - E.3 1.6 - 1.9 • 3 E.3 - - - X - 1.1 - - 5.2- - - • 7 - - H. l 1.- 6 - - - .5 NN.2 2.0 ill. 3 .8 X HS RR.2 1. 9 - - - 1.3- 1.3 1.5- -. 5 - .4 - RR.2 2.3 - .5 X RR.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 . 5 . 3 . 5 X UM - - - - RR. 3 2.1 2.2 .7 X - Area II RS# - - - - - 276.3 1.9 2.6 .6 X Area II - - Judg None ------Area III RS# - - - 163.1 - - X 1.8 1.9 .5 - 277. 3 1. 4 1.0 1.4 3.1 . 8 . 2 . 5 X 323.3 X - 2.0- 1.5- 2.4 1. 9 .-8 .4- .7 - - 323. 4 .8 2.6 • 5 - - - X - 362.3 1.3 1.2- 1.7 - - .4 - 408.6 1. 6 - 2.0 .4 X Judg - 0.3 2.0 1.5 1. 7 1.5 1.0 . 2 .5 X P.l 1. 2 • 8 1.0 1.1 . 6 .2 .4 X - X - V.10 1. 6 1.3- 1.8- 1.7 .- 8 .- 3 . 5 - F-46 V.4 1.9 2.1 .4 X ----Test Pits None 124 III. Knives Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I RSI! . ------08.2 1.9- - - - - 1.6 - 45.2 6.1 1.1 - - NW 146.5 2.7 2.8- 2.9- 3.0 2.0- .1 . 8 F-2 150. 7 3.8 5.2 - 1.0 X UM 256.1 ------NW 3.0 - - - 1.0 - - 544.3 2.6 - 4.8 . 9 624.3 - - - - - 2.5 - - 5.8 - - . 7 rs- 624.4 2.5 4.3 1.4 - F-16 624.4 1.6 1.4 2.0 8.0 1.0 .1 1. 2 rs - Judg - - - - - B.3 2.5 - 3.- 7 6.1 - - . 7 - E.3 2.6 5.1 .5 UM Area II RSI! - - - - 74.2 3.1 3.9 5.0 - 1.3 126.1 - - - - - 1.0 - 1.-6 - - - . 8 rs - 380.3 1.9 .4 - Judg NONE Area III RSI! - - - - 333.6 1.7 2.6 4. 7 1. 4 - Judg - - - - - J.4 3.2 - 3.4 5.2 1.4 K.4 - - - - - 1.4 - - - - . 8 rs- - K.5 3.0 - --7.6 - - .9 - - N.4 2.5 - - - .6 - - N.6 2.8 3.4 4.7 1.1 P.6 - - - X - 1.1- - 1.4 3.8 - .6 - W.15 1.8 4.5 - .6 rs F-30 - - - - X - W.11 2.2 - - 4.0 - . 7 - Z.2 2.9 4.6 - 1. 2 rs ----Test Pits X - TP5.l 1.8 1.8- 2.0 2.3 1.3- .2- 1.0 - - TP12.3 2.4 2.5 3.7 . 8 125 IV. Preforms and Miscellaneous Artifacts Prov. Class Base Tang Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area I RSI! ------150.2 2.6 - - 4.3 - - 1.1 - - 150. 3 1. 9 - - 3.2 - 1.2 - - 251.1 2.5 3.7 - 1.3 - - - - - IL 256.2 2.2 - 3.0 . 6 256.3 - - - - 2.1-- 2.6- 5.4 - - 2.1 - - 293.2 - - 2.7 - - .5 - - 399.2 - 2.3- 3.8 - - . 5 - - 431. 2 2.3- - - 3.8 - - 1.0 - - 480.2 -- 4.8- - - 1.2 - 558.4 3.2 - - - - . 8 - FR 594.2 2.2 - - 3.7 - - 1.2 - -IL 605.3 2.5 - 3.0 - - . 7 - - 605.5 1. 6 - 2.0 2.8 - - . 6 - - 711.4 2.2- - 3.3- 5.2 - - 1.1 - - 711.4 - - 5.3 - - .8 - - 711. 4 Wedge 3.2 - - 5.4 - - 1. 4 - - 711. 4 Wedge 2.9- - 5.0 - - 2.0 - - 720.3 - 3.8- 4.3 - - . 9 - - 917. 2 4.5 - - 5.8 - - 2.2 - - 1125.1 2.2 - 3.6- - - .9 - - 1223.3 1.9 - .7 Judg ------F-3.3 Wedge - 5.5 10.0 - - 2.9 - A.3 1.- 7 - 2.9- 3. 7 - - . 8 - -FR F-15 B.2 - - 2.6 - - . 5 - E.3 1.9 - - 3.4 - - . 8 - FR- F-19 E.3 4.9- - 5.5 - - 1.7 - - G.l - - 2.0- 2.7 - - . 6 - - G.2 - - 4.5 - - .8 - - G.2 1.4- - 4.2 - . 9 - - NN.2 4.2 5.1 - 2.1 ------NN.2 - 2.6- 3.4 - 1.7 - - RR.2 3.1 6.0 - . 9 - - - - - IL XX.3 2.3 - - 4.5 - - 1.2 - - Ext XX.l 1.8 -- 3.1 - - . 8 - - Ext XX.2 3.5 - 3.8 - 1.8 - YY.l 2.2 - 4.2 - . 7 BP - - - - - IL Nl0-W73. l 2.2 - 4.2 - - 1.0 - Nl0-W73. l 1.8 - 3.2 . 8 - 126 Prov. Class Base Tang I Shldr Axis Tang Note Th Rewor Mat Area II RSI! None ---Judg - - .- - - - JJ.3 1.5 2.7 . 6 Area III RSI! ------219.4 - 2.8 3.6 - - . 7 - - 219.4 2.2 3.0 4.1 1.3 - - - - X - 287.6 Scrap 2.4 - 2.2 -- . 7 - - F31 287.12 1.0- - 2.0 3.4 - - . 5 - - 323. 2 Wedge - 3.2 4.5 - - 1.5 - - 362.2 2.3 - 2.3 3.0 - - . 5 - - 408.4 2.4 - 3.1 3.3 - - . 7 - - 408.5 1.5 2.1 2.6 . 5 ---Judg - - - - - K.l 2.5 - 3.0- 5.6- - - 1.6 - - N.3 3.5 - - - . 7 - - 0.2 1.0 - 1.4- 2.8 -- . 7 - - P.5 2. 7 3.3 - - 1. 2 - - F-40 V.9 1.7 - 2.3 4.3 1.1 --Test --Pits ------TP12. 5 2.0 2.5 . 9 Abbreviations Materials crn note= corner notched IL= Illinois ex stem expanding stemmed HS = Hornstone X presence of reworking on tool UM= Upper Mercer rs presence of resharpening on tool FR= Flint Ridge si note = side notched NW Norwood prov provenience BP= Bayport tr:iiang triangular mat materials rewor = reworked note notched judg judgment F-48 = Feature 48 Ex. Extension (of excavation unit) Scrap = Scraper Shldr Shoulder Th Thickness 127 APPENDIX B Attributes of Unifacial Artifacts ( centimeters) I Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle !Arc of Retouch Mat Area I RS# ° ° 8.2 s st 3.1 1.6 . 3 UM 20° 85 ° 8.2 combo 1.7 1.4 . 2 40 - ° 250° 8.2 combo 3.8 2.5 . 7 60 140 - I ° ° 8.2 combo 4.0 2. 7 . 7 - 30° 130° I UM 8.4 combo I 1.9 1. 6 . 2 10 ° 150° 8.4 s ex ' 3.2 1.6 . 3 UM 30° 120° 8.4 combo 4.0 2.8 . 7 65 - ° 230° 22.1 s irr 2.7 1.6 - . 8 60° 75 22.1 sex 3.0 2.0 . 4 ° - 30° 50° 45.3 combo 1. 6 1.0 . 2 20 - ° 190° 146.1 e ex 1.9 . 9 .2 80 35 - ° ° - 146.2 e ex 2.5 1.5 .4 60 40 ° ° - 146.3 est 2.2 1.1 . 3 90 35 ° ° - 146.3 s st 2.6 1.1 . 3 40 30 ° ° - 146.4 est 1.7 1.5 . 3 80 55 ° ° - 146.5 e ex 2.1 2.4 . 7 70 70 ° ° - 150.2 e ex 3.1 2.0 LO 70 35 ° ° - 236.3 combo 2.6 1.9 . 2 50 260 ° ° 248.1 sex 2.3 1.8 . 2 80 - ° 130° 251.1 s cc 4.0 2.0 .5 30 80 NW ° ° - 251.1 s cc 2.3 1.1 . 7 60 130 ° ° - 251.1 s st 1.5 1.4 . 3 40 ° 80° 251.1 e ex 2.3 1.8 . 3 80 ° 30° NW 251.1 est 1.9 1.6 . 3 70 - ° 30° 251. 2 e ex 2.6 1.5 . 3 60 - ° 15° 251.2 e ex 1.6 1.3 . 3 70 - ° 60° 251. 3 e ex 2.0 1.5 .2 60 50 - ° ° - 256.1 sex 4.0 3.1 1.0 200 90 ° - 256.3 s cc 3.6 2.6 . 5 10 120 ° ° - 256.3 combo 2.1 2.5 . 5 70 230 ° ° 256.3 e ex 1. 2 1.8 .3 60 - ° 140° 256.5 s cc 2.0 2.3 . 3 30 UM ° 90° 268.2 combo 2.3 - 1.9 . 3 40° 220 268.2 combo 2.2 2.5 .4 20 - - ° ° - 293.3 s st 1.8 1.5 . 3 30 ° 70° 347.1 combo 3.4 1.4 . 6 30 320 - I 128 r-- Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of RetoudM at Area I RS# ° ° 347.1 s st UM 1.8 1.4 . 3 20° 80° 347.1 s st UM 1.0 1. 9 . 2 70 ° 160 347.2 s irr no 0 - 3.2 1. 3 . 9 90° ° 362.2 e ex 2.1 1. 7 . 6 60 40 - ° ° - 399.1 e cc 1. 2 1.6 .2 60 50 ° ° - 399.1 s st 1.7 2.3 . 4 70 40 399.3 graver - - - 3.0 1. 7 . 4 ° ° F4 399.1 - e ex 2.3 1.3 .5 70 ° 35 ° F4 399.1 sex - 3.5 2.5 . 3 20° 90 ° 431.1 - sex 3.1 2.0 .4 50 ° 30 ° 480.2 - est 2.3 2.0 . 7 70 ° 30 480.3 - - e st 2.1 2.1 . 4 65° ° 480.3 combo 2.0 1.6 .4 80 290 HS ° ° - 535.2 e st 1.7 1.3 . 3 80 55 ° ° - 535.3 est 2.4 1. 9 .4 60 60 ° ° - 535.5 s dent 1.4 1.8 . 3 50 105 ° ° - 546.2 combo 3. 7 1. 6 . 3 70 ° 310 ° 546.2 e pt 2.5 1.9 . 3 70 70 IL ° - 558.4 s ex 2.1 1.7 . 4 70 - ° - - 558.4 e ex 2.6 2.0 . 6 70 ° 558.5 - - sex 1.5 . 8 . 3 60 ° ° 569.4 combo - 1.1 . 8 . 2 80 ° 220 ° 583.3 e ex 1.1 . 9 . 3 55 45 - ° o - 594.4 combo 3.1 2.1 .5 60 ° 270 ° 594.4 e ex 2.3 1.5 . 2 70 40 FR ° ° - 605.1 e ex 1. 9 1.1 . 4 30 ° 70 ° 605.2 s ex 2.0 2.2 .4 50 ° 100 ° IL 605.2 s cc 2.0 2. 7 . 2 30 80 IL 0 ° - 612.1 e ex 2.1 2.2 . 3 10 ° 100 ° 612.1 sex 1. 6 1.4 . 3 10 90 - ° - - 612.1 e ex 1. 9 1.2 .4 90 ° ° - 612.3 e ex 1. 9 1.5 . 3 50 ° 60 ° 612. 4 e ex 2.5 3.4 . 5 60 65 I ° ° IL 612.5 est 1. 9 1.4 .5 30 90 - ° ° - 612.6 s cc 2.4 1.4 . 5 30 ° 100 ° 624.1 - e ex 1.5 1.0 .5 60 ° 250 ° 624.2 s st 2.6 1.7 . 3 30 90 UM ° ° - 624.2 e ex 3.2 2.4 .6 60 ° 35 ° 624.3 e ex 1.8 2.2 .4 0 - 7 0 260 ° 624.4 s notch 2.1 2.0 . 3 10 30 UM ° ° - Fl6 624.3 combo 2.7 2.4 .5 50 270 ° ° - Fl6 624.3 e ex 2.5 1.8 . 7 70 90 ° ° UM 702.1 s st 3.2 1.5 .4 50 ° 70 ° 702.2 s cc 3.0 1.0 . 4 30 90 - 129 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retoud Mat Area I RS# ° ° 711.2 combo - 2.5 1.6 .7 60° 360° 719. 4 sex 1.8 1.3 . 7 - 45° 130 ° 720.4 e ex 1.0 1.5 . 4 - 80° 100° 720.4 e ex 2.5 1.0 .6 70° 40° IL 720.6 s cc 2.6 2.9 . 3 50 - ° 80° 720.7 combo 2.7 2.0 . 5 70 NW ° 360 ° 915.2 e ex 1.5 1.4 .5 80 80 UM ° ° - 915.3 combo 2.1 1.0 . 3 40 280 ° ° - 917. 2 s st 2.7 1.8 .6 60 40 ° - 917.3 est 2.1 1.6 . 3 25 - ° ° - 917.4 sex 2.6 1.7 .6 30 140 ° - 922.3 e ex 1.5 1.5 . 2 60 - ° - 925.3 s st 1.7 2.1 . 5 60 - 0 ° 925.3 s serr 2. 7 1.3 . 3 - 10° ll5° 925.4 pt 3.6 1.8 .8 40 300 - ° ° 942.3 s cc 2.1 2.3 . 4 70 - ° 50 ° 1048.1 s cc 2.8 2.2 . 3 20 120 - ° ° - 1048.2 s graver 3.6 2.0 . 4 50 20 ° ° - 1048.2 s graver 2.3 2.0 .5 20 20 0 ° - 1048.2 e ex 2.1 1.6 .4 70 35 ° - - 1056.1 e ex 3.1 1.8 . 6 60 ° ° llOO.l e cc 2.8 1.6 .5 50 20 - ° ° llOl.l s st 2.6 2.0 . 3 60 - ° 30° llOl.2 s cc 3.6 2.1 .6 30 50 - ° ° - 1101.2 est 2.0 2.9 . 5 80 55 ° ° - ll25.2 e ex 3.5 2.1 . 5 80 ° 35° 1125.2 est 3.4 2.2 . 5 60 20 - ° ° ll25.2 e ex 2.5 1.6 . 3 80 20 - ° ° 1125.3 s st 2.5 3.1 . 5 70 60 - ° ° - ll25.3 est 1.2 1. 2 .2 60 85 ° ° 1129.1 e graver 2.1 1. 3 . 2 60 300 IL ° ° - 1135.1 s ex 3. 7 1.9 . 3 60 170 ° ° - ll52.2 s irr 5.1 2.1 1. 2 30 70 ° ° - 1223.3 e ex 1.5 1.6 .6 60 90 ° - - 1223.3 s cc 2.1 1.5 .6 60 ° ° - 1254.1 s dent 3. 7 2.0 1.3 30 100 ° - - 1254.1 est 1.6 2. 7 . 5 50 ° 0 - 1254.2 s cc 3.0 1.5 .2 30 no ° - 1254.2 e ex 1.4 1.0 . 3 - 60° ° 1305.3 e ex 2.4 1.6 . 5 80 40 UM ° ° - 1305.3 est 1.9 1.6 . 3 70 ° 70° 1330.1 s st 2.7 1.6 . 4 50 130 IL ° ° - 1330.2 e ex 3.1 3.0 . 4 50 35 ° ° - 1336.2 e ex 2.6 2.5 .4 85 90 130 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area I RSI/ ° ° 1377.3 sex 2.0 2.5 .4 30 105 - Judg ° ° F-2.2 s ex 3.2 2.5 . 5 30 - ° 80° F-2.5 e cc 5.3 4.8 .6 70 20 UM ° ° - F-7.2 s st 2.4 1.4 . 3 30 110 ° ° - F-8.8 sex 3.4 2.0 .5 30 60 ° ° A.2 sex 4.8 2.8 .7 NW 50° 120 A.2 s cc 3.0 1.7 . 3 20 - - ° ° A.2 e st 2.4 2.0 .6 60 - ° 60 ° A.3 s ex 1.0 1.7 . 4 20 65 UM ° ° B.2 e ex 3.3 2.6 .6 70 65 - ° ° - B.2 s ex 4.0 3.3 .7 30 50 ° ° - B.2 sex 2.3 1.8 . 3 70 70 ° ° - B.2 est 1.6 2.2 . 3 80 60 ° ° B.2 s ex 2.1 1.5 .4 60 ° 80 ° IL B.3 s st 2.1 1.1 . 2 60 125 UM ° ° B.3 e ex 2.5 2.7 . 4 60 - ° 60 ° B.3 e cc 1.5 1.5 . 3 70 100 - ° ° - B.3 s st 2.4 2.7 .3 60 110 ° ° - B.3 e irr . 8 1.7 . 3 60 180 ° ° - B.3 est 3.0 1.0 .4 80 30 ° ° - B.3 est 1.6 1.7 . 2 50 60 ° ° - B.4 e ex 2.6 2.0 .6 50 60 ° ° F-15 B.3 e ex 1.6 1.0 . 2 - 70° 80° F-15 B.4 combo 2.8 2.8 1.2 40 ° 165 ° IL C.3 combo 2.3 2.2 .5 80 NW ° 280° F-15 C.3 s ex 2.1 1.8 . 6 85 110 UM ° ° F-15 C.3 s cc 1.8 1.5 1.3 50 - ° 70 ° F-15 C.4 e ex 3.9 2.5 1.0 60 - ° 65° D.l s ex 2.0 1.8 . 3 - 50° 140° D.2 s cc 2.0 2.6 . 3 70 ° 55° IL D.2 s beak 3.0 1. 9 . 3 - 20° 20° D.3 s cc 4.4 1.8 .6 70 IL ° 45 ° D.3 s st 1. 9 1.5 .2 - 60 ° 70 ° D.4 sex 2.5 1.9 .6 - 65° 55 ° F-17 D.4 e ex 3.2 2.0 . 5 70 �s ° 140 ° F-17 D.4 s st 1.8 2.3 . 5 40 ° 50 ° UM F-17 D.5 e graver 3.8 1.9 . 5 70 - ° 20 ° E.l e cc 3.8 2.9 .4 20 50 - ° ° - E.l sex 1.7 1.1 . 2 30 80 ° ° E.l sex 1.9 1.3 .4 20 - ° 70 ° E.l s st 3.1 2.1 . 5 70 - ° 50 ° E.l sex 2.4 1.8 .6 60 90 - ° ° - E.l e cc 2.8 1.3 .3 60 30 131 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area I Judg ° ° E.l s ex 1.7 . 9 . 2 60 - ° 60 ° E.l est 1.8 . 9 . 3 50 40 - 0 ° E.l e st 2.1 1.5 . 2 10 - ° 40° E.l combo 2.6 1. 3 . 5 50 - ° 170° E.2 e ex 3.0 1.5 . 5 65 - ° 80° E.2 s st 2.5 1.0 . 3 20 - ° 130 ° E.2 s st 1.5 1.7 . 2 50 80 UM ° ° E.2 s cc 1.8 1.5 . 3 50 - ° 120 ° E.2 s ex 3.2 2.1 . 6 40 NW ° 140° E.2 s st 1.5 1.4 .3 40 100 - ° ° E.2 sex 1.1 1.4 . 3 20 - ° 90° E.3 combo 2.8 2.5 . 9 - 75 ° 360 ° E.3 s cc 2.2 2.1 . 2 20 65 IL ° ° - E. 3 est 2.3 1.8 .4 65 60 ° ° E.4 est 2.8 2.6 . 7 70 45 - ° ° - E.4 s cc 1.9 1.8 . 4 30 80 ° ° - F-17 E.2 s st 2.6 1. 7 . 3 50 90 ° ° - F-17 E.2 e ex 2.0 1.1 . 3 60 45 ° ° - F-17 E.2 sex 2.1 1.4 . 3 60 70 ° ° - F-17 E.2 combo 2.5 2.5 .5 60 310 ° ° - F-17 E.2 s cc 3.2 2.5 . 7 70 40 ° ° F-17 E.2 s st 2.0 3.2 .5 30 - ° 30 ° F-17 E.2 e ex 1.6 2.0 . 4 70 - ° 40° F-17 E.3 s ex 5.1 2.3 . 7 - 50° 310° F-17 E.3 e ex 3.0 2.8 .6 50 - ° 60 ° F-17 E.4 e irr 2.4 2.2 .4 80 - ° 35° F-17 E.4 est 1.9 1.4 . 3 50 - ° 40° G.2 e ex 2.2 2.1 .5 50 260 NW ° ° - G. 2 e ex 2.7 1.6 . 3 30 150 ° ° G.2 sex 2.9 2.0 . 4 30 70 UM ° ° - G.2 s ex 3.5 3.0 1.3 70 ° 130° G.2 est 2.4 2.3 . 2 80 - ° 50° G.3 sex 4.2 5.0 .7 40 - ° 80° G.3 e ex 2.0 2.4 . 5 - 70° 60° G.4 e ex 2.4 . 7 - 3.2 70° 120° G.4 e ex 2.1 1.8 .4 70 180 FR ° ° F-23 G.4 est 2.0 1.4 . 4 60 70 - ° ° - F-23 G.5 e ex 1.8 1.8 .5 70 210 ° ° H.3 s ex 2.6 1.5 .5 80 - ° 30 ° H. 3 e ex 2.2 2.5 . 4 60 - ° 1500 F-24 H. 6 s st 1.5 2.0 60 20 - .4 ° ° 00. 3 combo 2.6 3.0 .4 40 250 - ° ° - 00.3 e ex 2.8 2.8 . 7 50 260 ° ° - 00. 3 s st 2.8 1.8 .3 50 55 132 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area I Judg ° - 00.4 - combo 3.4 1.7 . 4 20 ° ° PP.l e ex 1.1 2.2 .8 70 180 FR ° ° - PP.3 e ex 2.1 .5 2.4 . 60 ° 60 ° PP.3 combo 2.8 2.3 .5 60 240 - ° ° - PP.4 s st 4.5 2.0 1.0 80 75 ° ° - PP.5 est 1.7 1.6 . 2 65° 70 ° RR. l est 4.1 2.2 . 0 40 IL 7 7 ° ° - RR.l e ex 2.0 1. . 4 0 90 7 7 ° - RR.l s st 2.6 2.0 . 4 25 - ° ° - RR.3 est 2.5 . 4 1.9 60 ° 40 ° SS.2 est 3.6 2.3 . 5 45 50 - ° - - SS.2 s st 1.4 1.4 . 3 50° ° SS.2 s dent 3.1 1.8 . 4 40 60 - ° ° - SS.3 e cc 2.2 2.7 . 5 70 65 ° ° - SS.3 s cc 3.0 2.8 . 6 80 130 ° ° - SS.3 s dent 3.0 2.4 1.2 40 105 ° ° - XX.2 e ex 2.6 1.9 .7 70 ° 70 ° XX.2 sex 2.6 1.6 .2 60 ° 120 ° BP XX.2 1.2 .2 UM s cc 1.5 10 ° 60 XX.3 est 1. 3 1.2 . 2 80 - FR ° ° - . 4 20 F-56 XX.3 e ex 2.8 1.8 80 ° ° Ex. XX.l s st 2.5 1.3 .3 30 60 - ° ° - Ex. XX.2 s dent 1. 3 2.5 .6 50 80 ° ° - YY.l est 2.1 1. 6 . 3 60 50 ° - - YY.l e ex 1.9 2.0 .3 90 ° ° - YY.2 e ex 2.6 2.1 . 3 70 30 ° ° - YY.2 e ex 2.0 2.2 . 3 70 120 ° ° - YY.4 s st 2.1 3.1 . 9 0 70 7 ° ° - ZZ.2 e ex 2.2 2.7 . 3 90 65 ° ° - S5,W73.2 s cc 3.1 1.8 . 3 20 175 ° ° - Nl0, W73. 2 est 1.9 1. 1.0 80 70 7 ° - Nl0,W73. 4 s cc 1.8 1.3 . 3 30 UM Area II RSI! ° ° - 66.7 s cc 1. 1.5 .2 55 0 7 ° 7 ° - 4.2 e cc 1.6 2.5 . 5 5 65 7 7 ° ° - F-51 4.5 s irr 2.9 2.1 .4 60 100 7 ° ° - 126.2 s cc 2.8 1. 9 . 5 60 ° 35 ° 161.1 s cc 1. 6 1.8 . 2 10 60 UM ° ° - 161.1 e ex 3.8 3.5 1.1 5 35 7 ° ° - 2.2 2.2 0 161. 3 s st .6 7 ° 60 ° 165.1 est 3.2 2.2 .6 40 70 NW ° ° - 165.2 e ex 4.4 2.1 .7 70 50 133 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area II RS/I ° ° - 165.3 e ex 2.1 1. 2 .2 60 45 0 ° - 165.5 combo 2.5 2.5 . 4 5 200 0 ° 165.8 combo 1.9 1.2 . 2 7.0 215 - ° ° - F42 165.5 est 1.2 1.2 . 3 60 100 ° ° - 187.2 e ex 2.6 1.4 . 3 55 65 ° ° - 187.4 est 1.9 1.1 .2 80 ° 50 0 220.1 e ex 2.4 2.3 .4 60 no UM ° ° 222.3 sex 3.5 2.8 . 6 30 140 - ° ° - 273.2 est 1.8 1.3 . 9 85 60 ° ° - 276.3 est 2.0 1.8 . 6 50 ° 40 ° 276.4 s cc 1. 3 1. 6 .2 30 95 UM ° ° - 276.5 sex 1.7 2.0 .3 60 60 ° ° - 380.2 combo 2.1 2.0 . 3 50 130 ° ° - 380.3 e ex 2.7 1.9 . 2 60 30 ° ° - 386.1 e ex 1.5 1.1 . 3 40 85 ° ° 408.1 e ex 4.6 2.2 . 4 45 25 FR ° ° - 408.2 e ex 1. 3 1. 4 . 3 70 100 ° ° - 408.3 est 1. 6 1.7 .4 70 100 ° ° - 408.3 est 1.9 1.4 .4 55 75 ° ° - 408.3 s cc 2.5 2.5 . 4 60 35 0 ° - 408.3 combo 2.8 2.4 . 6 10 180 ° ° 2.2 - 408.5 e ex 2.0 . 2 20 ° 75 ° 408.6 2.8 1.6 . 3 70 IL est ° 60 ° 408.8 est 1.9 1.5 . 5 80 95 - ° ° - 414.1 e ex 1.9 1.5 . 4 85 40 ° ° - 414.1 e cc 1. 9 1.5 .5 40 60 ° ° 2.5 1.9 20 45 - 414.1 sex . 3 ° ° 414.2 est 2.9 2.0 .5 80 100 - ° ° 414.3 sex 2.5 1.9 .2 40 45 BP ° ° - 414.3 e ex 3.2 2.2 1.1 82 140 ° ° - 414.5 e ex 2.1 2.4 .3 30 50 ° ° - F48Ex414.3 e ex 2.6 1. 9 . 3 40 90 ° ° - F48Ex414.3 e ex 1. 6 1.2 . 3 70 90 I ° ° - F48Ex414.3 sex 3.2 2.2 . 6 70 50 ° ° - 60 40 F48Ex414.4 e ex 2.3 1.8 . 4 ° ° 2.2 2.6 . 2 40 130 FR F48Ex414.4 s cc ° ° F48Ex414.5 s st 3.1 2.6 .9 50 ll5 - ° ° - 463.2 I est 1.8 1.5 .5 50 120 ° ° IL 463.4 I est 2.0 . 8 . 3 70 50 ° ° - 471.4 e ex 1.5 1.4 .1 60 I 105 Area II --Judg ° ° BB.l e irr 2.8 1.8 .4 70 25 FR 134 I Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area II -Judg ° ° s ex 4.0 2.6 . 25 145 NW BB.3 7 ° ° - 3.3 1.8 .5 62 0 CC.l e ex ° 7 ° - 5.0 2.1 . 9 0 180 CC.2 s st 4 ° ° - DD.2 e st 2.8 1.7 . 3 78 ° 50 ° e ex 3.5 2. .5 5 40 FR EE.3 7 7 ° ° - 2.2 2.1 .6 89 350 EE.5 combo ° ° - GG.2 e irr 3.0 2. . 4 60 75 7 ° o 0 - GG.3 e ex 2.6 2.6 .6 80 n ° ° - GG.3 e ex 2. 7 2.0 .7 65 70 ° 0 FR GG.4 s st 1.1 1.5 .2 72 55° 0 130 - GG.4 s ex 2.8 2.1 . 4 18° ° 1. 1.8 . 3 80 95 - GG.5 s ex 7 ° ° - GG.5 e ex 2.9 2.1 .5 30° 65° 3.2 .8 60 45 - HH.1 e cc 3.2 ° ° - s 3.4 2.5 . 5 50 145 HH.3 cc ° ° - 1. 9 1.5 . 3 0 50 HH.4 s ex 7 ° ° - JJ.1 est 1. 9 2.0 . 3 0 80 7 ° ° - JJ.l e cc 1.1 2.8 . 4 25 160 ° ° - JJ.1 combo 3.9 2.5 1.0 65° 335° JJ.2 combo 4.6 1. 6 1. 2 63 290 UM ° ° UM JJ.2 e cc 2.1 1.8 . 4 60 ° 95° 3.1 1.4 .4 15 160 - JJ.3 s irr ° ° - 2.5 2.5 .4 90 25 JJ.4 e notch ° ° - JJ.4 e ex 4.3 2.1 . 3 55° 24° JJ.4 e ex 2.5 1.9 .8 60° 80° HS JJ.5 s st 2.8 1.8 . 3 20 70 HS ° ° - 1.8 1.1 . 3 55 5 JJ.5 e ex ° 7 ° - 3.2 2.0 . 3 30 150 F54 KK.5 sex ° ° - LL.2 s st 2.4 1.4 . 6 65 55 ° ° - LL.3 s st 2.8 2.3 1.6 25 95 ° ° - LL.5 combo 2.0 1.1 .4 0 150 7 ° ° - LL.5 est 1. 2 1.1 . 2 85° 85° 1.4 . 2 20 50 - MM.1 e st 1.5 ° ° - 2. 1.2 . 0 60 MM.1 e ex 7 7 7 ° ° - 2.2 1.0 . 3 50 40 MM.1 s cc ° ° - 2.2 1.6 .5 0 30 MM.1 est 7 ° ° - MM.1 est 1.5 1. 4 . 3 20 90 ° ° - est 2.2 1.5 . 4 85 30 MM.1 ° ° - 1. 9 1.8 . 2 40 60 MM.1 e ex ° ° - est 2.0 1. 2 .4 80 40 MM.1 ° ° - 1. 6 1. 4 .5 80 25 MM.2 est ° ° - MM.2 e ex 2.3 2.0 .5 5 45 7 ° ° - MM.2 e ex 2.1 1.4 . 3 80 40 135 Prov. Class .Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area II Judg ° ° - MM.2 e ex 2.3 1. 2 .2 70 40 ° ° - MM.2 s st 3.0 3.9 1.4 30 ° 55 ° MM.2 notch 1.8 1.8 . 2 30 160 HS ° 0 - MM.2 s st 2.9 2.5 .8 20 no ° ° - MM.3 est 1.7 1.7 . 3 80 65 ° ° - e ex UU.2 1.7 1.3 . 3 65° 55 ° UU.4 s ex 1. 9 2.8 . 4 26 95 IL ° ° - UU.4 combo 2.5 2.6 .6 85 250 ° ° - VV.1 combo 2.6 LO . 2 60 340 ° ° UM VV.1 e cc 2.0 L6 .2 15° 60 ° vv. 2 combo 4.4 L6 . 6 40° 360 ° IL VV.3 est 2.5 L9 . 3 90 20 - Area III RS# ° ° - 004.3 est L 7 1.1 .6 70 60 ° ° - 006.1 e ex 2.0 2.3 .4 75 60 ° ° - 006.2 s ex 3.3 2. 7 .7 20 180 ° ° - 82.2 sex 2.5- 1.6-- . 4 60- 90- 102.2 s cc NW ° ° - s 169.5 cc 1.0 LO . 3 30° 85° F37 169.5 e ex 2.8 L7 . 4 50 45 - ° ° - F37 169.5 est 2.9 2.1 .3 60° 70° 270.4 e ex 2.9 3.1 1.1 70 60 ss ° - 277. 4 s irr 2.9 1.8 . 3 70 UM ° ° - 287.2 s cc 1.5 L 6 . 5 40 30 - ° - 287.3 dent 3.2 2.3 .8 325 ° - 287.4 e ex 3.7 2.4 . 6 70 - ° ° - 287 .10 e ex 2.4 1.9 . 4 80° 100° e ex - 323. 2 2.5 L6 . 7 50° 100° 323.6 e ex 2. 7 2.3 .7 70 75 - ° ° - 333.1 e ex 2.5 2.2 .4 70 120 ° ° - 333.3 e ex 1.9 L5 . 5 80 65 0 - - 333.4 e cc 2. 7 2.5 .5 10° ° 333.5 est 2.5 1.8 . 5 60° 60° NW 362.2 e ex 2.0 2.2 .4 40 50 - ° ° - 362.2 combo 1.4 1.9 . 5 50 180 ° ° - 362.3 e ex L2 L4 .1 20 90 ° ° - 362.3 e cc L2 1.9 .4 20 80 ° - - 362.4 e ex 2.1 2.3 .8 40 ° - 394.2 s st 1. 3 .9 .2 30 UM ° ° - 394.4 e ex 2.0 L5 . 3 70 180 ° ° - 394.5 s irr 1.1 1.8 . 2 40 60 136 Prov. Class Length Width Th Edge Angle Arc of Retouch Mat Area III RSI! ° ° 394.5 e graver 1. 2 1.0 .2 70 - ° 20 ° 394.5 e ex 1.5 2.0 . 4 60 100 - ° ° 408.2 e ex 2.9 1.8 . 3 80 50 - ° ° 408.4 combo 2.6 2.1 . 5 65 - ° 90° 408.4 s ex 2. 7 1. 7 . 4 40 - ° 180 408.5 e ex 1.5 2.2 . 3 75 - - Judg ° ° J.2 e ex .8 1.5 .2 65 120 - ° ° - J.3 combo 3.2 2.6 . 7 40 150 ° ° J.4 s cc 2.5 1.4 . 3 20 80 UM ° ° - K. l s st 1.8 1. 2 . 3 20 70 ° ° - K.6 s cc 3.1 1.5 .3 20 40 ° ° - K. 6 est 2.1 2.5 .3 50 ° 60 ° L.l e cc 2.1 1.4 . 3 60 30 IL ° ° - L.5 e ex 2.0 2.4 . 4 30 ° 100° M. 7 est 3.4 1.9 .4 60 - ° 60° M.8 s cc 1.4 1.1 . 3 30 140 UM ° ° - N.3 s st 2.8 1.5 . 5 50 100 ° ° - N.4 est 2.8 1.6 . 3 80 60 ° ° - N.6 est 2.3 2.0 . 4 80 ° 45 ° N.6 sex 2.0 1.3 . 2 40 190 UM ° ° - N. 7 s ex 3.2 1.8 . 4 20 260 ° ° - N.8 s st 1.6 1.9 .6 50 60 ° ° - N.9 sex 3.0 2.2 . 9 60 100 ° ° - o.3 s st 2.4 3.5 . 9 40 60 ° ° - 0.5 sex 1.8 1.5 . 4 20 100 ° ° P.l s st 1.3 1. 2 .4 30 - ° 90° P.l sex 1.4 2.5 . 4 40 60 - ° ° - P.4 e ex 2.5 1.8 .4 60 75 0 ° P.6 s cc 2.1 1.5 . 2 10 80 UM ° ° - P.6 s cc 1.6 1. 6 .5 40 70 ° ° P. 7 est 2.5 1.6 . 3 70 30 IL ° ° - F40 P.6 e dent 1.5 1.3 . 3 75 135 ° ° - F40 P. 7 e ex 1.9 1.0 . 2 40 60 ° ° - S.3 combo 2.0 1.1 .2 25 280 ° 0 T.4 s notch . 9 1. 6 .4 no UM 50° ° T.4 est 3.6 2.8 1.1 40 - ° 80° T.6 sex 5.6 4.8 1.4 50 60 QZ ° 0 ,_ T.6 sex 2.8 1.9 . 3 60 no ° ° T.6 e ex 2.5 1.7 .4 40 70 - ° ° - U.4 sex 1. 7 1.3 . 5 140 30° ° U.4 sex 1.7 1.9 . 2 15 120 IL ° ° - V.4 e ex 2.1 1.3 • 6 60 40 137 Prov. Class Length Width Th Ed ge Angle �re of Retouch Mat Area III Judg ° ° F46 V.3 e st 3.2 1.5 . 7 80 55 - UM F46 V.4 s st 2.5 1.5 .2 40 105 - W.13 s cc 3.2 1.7 . 8 30 70 UM F30 W.8 sex 2.0 1.4 . 2 60 so - F30 W.9 e ex 2.8 2.4 .9 70 110 F40 w. 3 combo 2.5 1.6 .4 30 300 UM w. - F40 4 est 2.8 1.4 . 3 65 40 - F40 W.5 s ex 1. 2 1.5 . 3 20 100 - AA. 3 s ex 2.8 2.4 . 4 20 40 ----Test Pits - TP2.2 s ex 1.4 1.1 .4 so 85 - TP4.1 e ex 1.6 1. 2 . 4 60 80 - TP4.1 e ex 2.4 1. 6 .4 60 140 - TP7.1 sex 2.3 1. 4 . 5 30 140 - TP9.1 s irr 3.8 2.8 . 3 20 130 - TP9.2 s cc 2.2 1.3 . 2 5 90 - TPl0.1 est 2.5 2.4 .5 70 75 - TPll.1 e ex 1.7 1.7 . 3 so 80 - TPll.1 e ex 1. 4 1.0 .5 70 65 - TPll. 2 est 1. 2 1. 7 . 2 70 75 - TPll. 3 e ex 2.8 2.0 .4 70 45 UM TPll.3 e ex 2.9 1.6 . 6 60 so - TP12.1 e graver 2.6 1.1 . 2 30 30 - TP12.1 est 2.0 1. 6 . 3 70 75 - TP12.2 e ex 2.0 2.8 . 8 65 40 - TP12.2 e ex 1.9 1. 7 . 5 30 so - TP12.4 e ex 2. 7 1.4 . 6 85 40 • 3 - TP12.5 est 1.5 1.9 80 80 - TP12.6 est 2.3 1.3 . 3 70 40 - TP12.6 e ex 1.8 1. 8 . 5 60 40 TP12.7 s st 2.2 2.0 .3 60 65 IL- TP14.2 e notch 2.3 1.5 . 7 60 150 - TP15.2 e ex 3.8 1.7 .5 70 so Abbreviations e ex end convex e irr end irregular e st end straight e dent = end denticulate e cc = end concave combo combination e pt end point 138 = s ex side convex s irr side irregular s st side straight s dent side denticulate s cc side concave judg judgment s pt side point Th thickness = = Prov provenience Arc of Retouch Arch of Retouch = Mat material = F-48 Feature 48 Materials IL Illinois BP Bayport HS Hornstone SS = Sandstone UM = Upper Mercer QZ Quartzite FR = Flint Ridge NW = Norwood 139 ; .• ,_. ··•r,; / ~- -0 ',' ·,.~,~ - / . . ,·,. I ..,,• N- \ ~ a b 0 0 z � u C d Plate I. Hacklander Cores. a� Pebble b. Block. , .. 0 2 3 IN---=:J�-- 0 2 5 6 CM Plate II. Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points. 140 4cc I \ 0 .5 2 J IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate III. Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points. _.,. 0 .5 2 3 IN 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate IV. Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points. 141 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 : 3 4 5 7 CM Plate V. Expanding Stennned Projectile Points. 0 .S 2 3 IN 01234 S6 7 CM� Plate VI. Expanding Stemmed Projectile Points. 142 0 . 5 2 IN 0 234 56 7 CM- Plate VII. Stemmed Projectile Points. . . .... 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate VIII. Corner Notched Projectile Points. 143 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 ' 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate IX. Corner Notched Projectile Points. , A. f· 0 .5 2 IN 0 '34 56 7 CM� Plate X. Corner Notched Projectile Points. 144 .,, Plate XI. Comer Notched Projectile Points. l,.__ i , .: ... 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XII. Side Notched Projectile Points. 145 , 0 .5 IN 0 '34 56 7 CM Plate XIII. Side Notched Projectile Points. I • 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XIV. Triangular Projectile Points. 146 I 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XV. Triangular Projectile Points. l'J .,�' Plate XVI. Triangular Projectile Points. 147 ,.I I .• • ' I, . \·, 0 . 5 IN 0 2 3 4 6 CM Plate XVII. Knives. 0 . 5 2 J IN ;;j 0 2 J 4 6 7 CM • Plate XVIII. Knives 148 ,' f. 0 .5 IN 0 3 4 Cfv' � Plate XIX. Elongated Drills. ' .• ·- 0 .5 2 J IN 0 '.2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XX. Expanding Based Drills. 149 I I I •• ,I a b C d e g h f 0 .5 2 IN 0 2 3 4 5 CM Plate XXI. Expanding Based Drills. a., c., d., f., h., Flake drills. b., e. , g., i., j. ,J 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 34 5 6 7 CM Plate XXII. Reworked Projectile Point Drills 150 ---- Plate XXIII. Preforms. I I ,.,•' 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 234 56 7 CM- Plate XXIV. Preforms. 151 b a C d 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 134567 CM Plate X. Other Bifaces. a. Scraper b-d. Wedges \ ' 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XI. Bipolar Wedges. 152 - -�- �;;; "'' ....,:�.;; . .,_., ..· ... ,. f • ., t. .i,I. 1, . ..,; .. ·-"1� :·,·,. .... -_ ..· ...... �� ---_�- • ·'�:-" ·-�'_ -· . -...... 0 1 IN 0 234 56 7 CM- Plate XXVII. Bipolar Wedges . ., ( ..3lt -...,. !·~ ; <. :.... 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XXVIII. Bipolar Wedges. 153 M .,., � M "' .,., 0 0 z :E u Plate XXIX. End Modified Unifaces. t 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 134 567 CM- Plate XXX. Side Modified Unifaces. 154 ( 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XXXI. Combination Unifaces. C d a e f g 0 .5 2 3 IN 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM Plate XXXII. Other Unifaces. a. Flake blank. b. Graver. c. Point. d. Side serrated. e. Notch. f. Denticulate. g. End point. 155 b d a IN��r--- - o 1 1 3 J 5 - 6 CM �-� Plate XXXIII. Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. Ax. b. Adze. c. Celt. d. Fragment. b a ,..: ., .. "' �'. � .... ' .~ ��- - .-- d e IN 0 2 3 :. c,v.---..i--� Plate XXXIV. Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a., d., e., Sandstone abraders. b. Quartzite palette. . c. Sandstone palette. - 156 " <) ,,, b " M a "' .,., 0 0 z :E u C Plate XX.XV. Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. and b. Gorgets. c. Slate disk. ,' IN 0 I l 3 •1 : b I CM�� Plate XX.XVI. Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts. a. Pitted anvil. b. Grinder. c.-e. Hammerstone. ,. 157 0 I 2 3 IN CM Plate XXXVII. Middle Woodland Artifacts.