Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Summer 2017 Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51 Sherri M. Middleton Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Middleton, Sherri M., "Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51" (2017). All Master's Theses. 711. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/711 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARING A SURFACE COLLECTION TO AN EXCAVATED COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SKAGIT RIVER DELTA AT 45SK51 ________________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Cultural and Environmental Resource Management _______________________________________________________________________ by Sherri Michelle Middleton June 2017 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Sherri Michelle Middleton Candidate for the degree of Master of Science APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Patrick T. McCutcheon, Committee Chair ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Steven Hackenberger ______________ _________________________________________ Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon ________________ _____________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies ii ABSTRACT COMPARING A SURFACE COLLECTION TO AN EXCAVATED COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SKAGIT RIVER DELTA AT 45SK51 by Sherri Michelle Middleton June 2017 In the Puget Sound Lowland of the Pacific Northwest, archaeologists have investigated a shift in settlement and subsistence patterns occurring in the mid-Holocene Epoch. The artifacts used as the evidence of this shift are interpreted with a concept known as resource intensification. This shift in artifact frequencies has been studied only in the last thirty years and in limited areas of the Puget Sound Lowlands. An opportunity to investigate a site dating to after the shift presented itself when Central Washington University acquired the Lower Skagit River Delta Surface Collection (LSRDSC). This artifact assemblage was collected from a plow-zone surface in the Lower Skagit River Delta with permission of the landowner. This plowed field is the same location as site 45SK51, a sample of which was excavated in the 1960s. The purpose of this study is two- fold: to determine if LSRDSC can be combined with the 1960s excavated sample and used to detect the presence of resource intensification and then compare those results to two other site analyses from the Lower Puget Sound. Differences in the selective conditions are proposed to account for differences in artifact types between 45SK51 and the other two sites. These differences may be tied to uneven distributions of relative frequencies for tool technologies across different microenvironments, which is a consistent pattern found in earlier research in the area. iii Keywords: Washington state archaeology, precontact subsistence and settlement shift, resource intensification, Brainerd and Robinson Coefficient Agreement. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee for the tremendous support and encouragement I have received through this process of obtaining my degree. Specifically, to my thesis chair, Dr. Patrick McCutcheon for his constant patience, stern direction and helping me with my research. To Dr. Steve Hackenberger for always having your door open to me when I have needed advice. To Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon, thank you for taking a special interest in my research and in me as one of your students. To Dr. John Bowen, thank you for taking the time to develop the Visual Basics program and teaching me how to use it for running the statistics for this research. A very special acknowledgment to Steve and Belinda Davis for whom this research would not be possible without the both of you. I am honored that I have been given the opportunity to do this research with a collection that has been entrusted to me, Dr. McCutcheon and the University. To my son, Chris, and my father, Larry, it has been a long road, and I would not be here today if it was not for your endless support and love, thank you. Sean, my dear partner, my best friend, thank you for your never-ending support and your love. You took life’s burdens from me so I could push through and finish this thesis successfully. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 Problem ........................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 4 Significance .................................................................................................... 6 II STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................... 8 Physical Setting ............................................................................................. 8 Culture and History ..................................................................................... 13 III LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 18 Objective One: Northwest Coast Culture History ...................................... 18 Objective Two: LSRDSC Classification .................................................... 24 Objective Three: Statistical Analysis ......................................................... 28 Objective Four: Inter-Site Comparison ...................................................... 31 IV THEORY, METHOD, AND TECHNIQUE ...................................................... 36 Theory......................................................................................................... 36 Method ........................................................................................................ 37 Technique ................................................................................................... 40 V STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 47 Brainerd and Robinson Coefficient Agreement ......................................... 47 VI RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 50 Summary of Results ................................................................................... 68 VII COMPARING A SURFACE COLLECTION TO AN EXCAVATED COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SKAGIT RIVER DELTA AT 45SK51...72 COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCES .............................................................. 121 APPENDIXES ……………….………………………………………………131 Appendix A: Relative Frequencies and Proportion …………………....132 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Assemblage, artifact type counts and occupational times. ....................................40 2 Artifact Type Paradigmatic Classification (Ames and Maschner 1999; Andrefsky 2005; Mattson 1971; and Mattson and Coupland 1995; Schalk et al. 2010). ........42 3 LSRDSC and Mattson (1971) dimensions of representativeness from artifact type paradigm. ...............................................................................................................51 4 LSRDSC and Mattson Technology classes sample representativeness. ................52 5 Tool Technology classes, counts, and percent observed for LSRDSC and Mattson. ................................................................................................................................53 6 Brainerd and Robinson scores and p values for LSRDSC and Mattson’s sample.54 7 45IS2 and 45KI23 technology classes sample representativeness. .......................60 8 Tool technology classes, counts, and percent observed for LSRDSC, 45SK51 assemblage, 45IS2, and 45KI23.............................................................................61 9 Brainerd and Robinson scores and p-values for 45SK51 compared to 45IS2 and 45KI23. ..................................................................................................................62 10 Brainerd and Robinson scores and p-values for LSRDSC compared to 45IS2, and 45KI23. ..................................................................................................................63 11 Brainerd and Robinson scores and p-values for 45IS2 compared to 45SK51 and LSRDSC. ...............................................................................................................66 12 Brainerd and Robinson scores and p-values for 45KI23 compared to 45SK51 and LSRDSC. ...............................................................................................................67 vii LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Tables in Article (Chapter VII) Page 1 Assemblage, artifact type counts and occupational times. ....................................79 2 Artifact