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