Lithic Technology at The Below Forks Site, FhNg-25: Strategems of Stone Tool Manufacture. A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Archaeology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. By Steven C. Kasstan March 2004. © 2004 (Copyright Steven C. Kasstan. All Rights Reserved.) PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or make other use of material in this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Archaeology, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7N 2A5. i ABSTRACT The Below Forks site is a deeply stratified multicomponent archaeological site situated two kilometres downstream from the confluence of the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers. The lowest cultural occupation has been dated to 6000 rcybp. Projectile points diagnostic of the Mummy Cave series were recovered from excavations. The site was an open campsite situated on a middle level alluvial slope of the Saskatchewan River valley. A broad-spectrum fauna exploitation was represented at the site. The lowest component was occupied in late winter or early spring, based on immature bison elements. Collection and reduction of river cobbles into lithic implements was an important activity at the site. Debitage was the largest artifact class recovered from the site and deserved the greatest analytical attention. Lithic technology, specificially the methods of tool manufacture, was the central theme of study. A variety of analytical techniques were used, including the separate analyses of cores, debitage, and tools. These analyses were placed into a spatical context with geographic information systems. Three components were represented in the eastern area of the Below Forks site. A lithic reduction workshop and some habitation debris were contained in the upper occupation. Evidently, the middle component appeared peripheral to a habitation site. The lower occupation evidenced significant knapping activities within the confines of a habitation site. Interpretations from various analytical techniques were placed within a chaîne opératiore framework and fully documented the lithic technology. Certain types of material behaved in slightly different ways; individual knappers would have taken this into account and appropriately modified their technique. The thermal alteration of Swan River chert was an important component of the lithic technology. Bipolar technology had a prominent role in the production of flake blanks. Platform grinding was a commonly observed form of platform preparation. Platform flaking increased in importance with later stages of reduction. Ideally these preparations would allow flint-knappers to improve their control of intended flake detachments. In sum, lithic tools were manufactured ii within a myriad of technological sophistication. The properties of lithic fracture were controlled with great precision, preparation, and foresight in the manufacture of implements at the Below Forks site. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The sincerest acknowledgements are granted to my advisor David Meyer. I greatly appreciated his time, wisdom and guidance over the course of this project. He has provided myself access to site collections, funding, and to his encyclopedic memory. I extend gratitude to my committee members. I gratefully acknowledge Ernest G. Walker, who was always there with a quick reference, and deep insight for the work. I appreciate his support, especially in regard to administrative concerns. Margaret Kennedy has provided valuable assistance and always asked the sharpest questions of myself, and because of them, greatly improved this work. The assistance of Urve Linnamae and Chris Foley was highly valued. This project was mainly funded through the SCAPE (the Study of Cultural Adaptations of the Prairie Ecozone) project. The work was made possible by the courtesy of a major collaborative research initiatives (MCRI) grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). This thesis was also partly funded through the generosity of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Saskatchewan. Well-deserved gratitude is extended to Bev Nicholson of Brandon University, and director of the SCAPE project. Other members to whom I am indebted are Alwynne Beaudoin, Matt Boyd, Andrea Freeman, Scott Hamilton, Karen Havholm, Gerry Oetelaar, Garry Running IV, Brian Scribe and Dion Wiseman. Their conversations in the field and at conferences were of great benefit to the project. Extra gratitude is extended to David Christiansen for repairing the catalogue program, and to David Harkness for his sensible advice. Patrick Young and Miggs Green went above and beyond in their assistance through the cataloguing process. I am a much better archaeologist for their kind patience and wisdom. A great appreciation is given to the field crews of the Below Forks site excavations. I am particularly grateful to Perry Blomquist, Cassidy Burns, Derrick Burns, Matthew Burns, Frank Constant, Jon Hall, Kathryn Jenssen, Meaghan Porter, and Rebecca Robertson. The community of students of the SCAPE project deserves mention. Janet Blakey, Jason Gillespie, James Graham, Jenna Johnston, Lorie Mokelki, Jennifer Murray, David Norris, Justin iv Rogers, Laura Roskowski, and Woody Wallace have formed this community of mutual benefaction. The assistance from the following individuals was appreciably valued: Gary Adams, Butch Admunson, Bob Dawe, Ian Dyck, Guy Gibbon, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Michlovic, Barney Reeves, Bill Ross, Dale Russell, and Dale Walde. They provided encouragement, great advice, access to collections, shared research, and bolstered my confidence when dented. My colleagues from the University of Saskatchewan deserve recognition for their camaraderie, patience, and (mostly) helpful guidance. Thanks are extended to Vincent Balls, Laureen Bryant, Carrie Dunn, D'Arcy Green, Wade Dargin, Riel Cloutier, Kristin Ens- Kavanagh, Nathan Friesen, Jennifer Harty, Jeremy Leyden, Barb Neal, Brad Novecosky, Peter Popkin, Jocelyn Rutherford, Erinn Schneider, Jennifer Scott, Sean Webster, Kevin Whatley, and Kim Weinbender. My extended circle of friends deserves the sincerest gratitude for their interest, concern, patience, kindness, excitement, and inspiration towards myself, and this project. A series of thanks are extended to John Anderson, Kathleen Bailey, Amanda Braden, Julie Doiron, Eliza Doyle, Jeanne-Anne DuBois, Mary Eley, Jordan Erker, Mike Feuerstack, Jeremy Gara, Carrie Gates, Joe Gillis, Richard Ioenne, Rachel Lemke, Eryn MacKenzie, Nicholas McCormick, Ida Nielson, Chris Olson, Beatrice Parsons, Lucas Penner, Jeff and Chandra Peterson, Steven Reed, Darren Schikosky, Charlotte Stang, and Jane Willenbring. In the position of honour, my family deserves great thanks. Without the unyielding support of Marlene Kasstan, Gregory Kasstan, and Patrick Kasstan this project would not have been possible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE I ABSTRACT II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV TABLE OF CONTENTS VI LIST OF TABLES XI LIST OF FIGURES XIV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XVII 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Thesis Problem 1 1.2 Research Questions 2 1.3 Introduction to Archaeological Research in the Study Region 3 1.4 Discovery and Chronology of Excavation of the Below Forks Site 3 1.5 Problems in the Excavation and Mapping of the Below Forks Site 6 1.6 Position of Site Excavation Units 7 1.7 Methods of Excavation and Field Recording 7 1.8 Thesis Organization 8 2 BIOPHYSICAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 9 2.1 Geoarchaeological Summary 9 2.2 Context of the Site 10 2.3 Eastern Area Step Trench Profile 11 2.4 Eastern Area Excavation Profile 12 2.5 River Flooding 14 2.6 Environmental Overview 15 2.7 Faunal Community 17 2.8 Archaeological Floral and Faunal Assemblages 18 2.8.1 Faunal Assemblage 18 2.8.2 Floral Assemblage 18 2.8.3 Archaeological Catfish and Mid-Holocene Climate 18 2.9 Environmental Summary 19 2.10 Regional Culture History 19 2.11 Lithic Technology Summary 21 2.12 The Early Side-notched/Mummy Cave series 23 2.13 Lithic Technology and the Refugia Hypothesis 26 2.14 Summary 27 3 SITE SCALE ARCHAEOLOGY 28 vi 3.1 Introduction 28 3.2 Vertical Distribution of Artifact Types by Level 28 3.3 Three Dimensions 31 3.3.1. A Short History of Three Dimensional Analysis 31 3.3.2. Three Dimensional Models of Below Forks 33 3.4 Radiocarbon Dates of Below Forks 43 3.5 Summary 43 4 DEBITAGE ANALYSIS 45 4.1 Introduction 45 4.2 Methods of Debitage Analysis 45 4.3 Debitage: Selected Attributes of Analysis 46 4.4 Lithic Analysis: Refitting 48 4.5 Lithic Material Utilization 48 4.6 Thermal Alteration 52 4.7 Thermal Shock 55 4.8 Debitage Breakage 56 4.9 Flake Terminations 59 4.10 Flake Types 60 4.11 Metrical Analysis 62 4.12 Platform Shape 66 4.13 Platform Preparations 66 4.14 The Magne (1985) Analysis 69 4.15 The Wright (1980) Analysis 71 4.16 Platform Lipping: Analysis and Discussions 73 4.17 Size Grade Analysis 74 4.18 Fractal Dimension 77 4.18.1 The Fractal Dimension of Debitage 77 4.18.2. Fractal Dimension of Flake Types 80 4.18.3. Fractal Dimension and Thermal Alteration 81 4.19 Flake Initiations and Minimum Number of Flakes 85 4.20 Testing Henry et al.