University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2019 Learning From Stone: Using Lithic Artifacts to Explore the Transmission of Culture at Bridge River, British Columbia Anne V. Smyrl University of Montana, Missoula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Smyrl, Anne V., "Learning From Stone: Using Lithic Artifacts to Explore the Transmission of Culture at Bridge River, British Columbia" (2019). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11485. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11485 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEARNING FROM STONE: USING LITHIC ARTIFACTS TO EXPLORE THE TRANSMISSION OF CULTURE AT BRIDGE RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA By ANNE VIRGINIA JOSETTE SMYRL Bachelor of Arts, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 2014 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Anthropology The University of Montana Missoula, MT December 2019 Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Dr. Anna Marie Prentiss, Chair Department of Anthropology Dr. John Douglas Department of Anthropology Dr. H. Rafael Chacón Montana Museum of Art and Culture i ABSTRACT Smyrl, Anne, M.A., Fall 2019 Anthropology Chairperson: Dr. Anna Marie Prentiss Learning From Stone: Using Lithic Artifacts to Explore the Transmission of Culture at Bridge River, British Columbia Inherent in all tool-making traditions is the necessity of teaching the next generation of toolmakers. The learning process, although crucial to our understanding of past societies, is difficult to study archaeologically, due to its intangibility. However, some technologies leave visible traces of their production. Key among these are chipped stone tools, known as lithics, which leave distinct archaeological traces of each part of the creation processes. Modern experimenters have recreated these processes, and as a result, have revealed archaeologically-visible differences between novice and expert knappers. These can be identified in archaeological lithic assemblages, and serve as a starting point for identifying the potential presence of novice knappers at archaeological sites. The Bridge River site, a pithouse village site in British Columbia, has yielded a collection of stone projectile points ranging from expertly crafted to crude and unfinished. Using these projectile points, this project seeks to piece together the social context within which novice toolmakers learned to knap. In order to do so, the project examines the points themselves, but also places them in the context of ethnographic depictions of the St’át’imc, the village’s builders and inhabitants, and of the broader literature on craft learning. From these three lines of evidence, a model of the transmission process at the Bridge River village is suggested, one dominated by an informal, perhaps observation-based learning environment. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As is always the case, this thesis would not have been possible without the help of a great many people. First and foremost, I am indebted to the St’át’imc people, whose generosity in supporting the Bridge River archaeological project made my work possible. To the people of Xwísten in particular I owe a great debt. I also honor and acknowledge the Selis and Qlispe people, on whose land I have lived and conducted my research during my time in graduate school. I must also thank Dr. Anna Prentiss, my graduate adviser, for supporting and encouraging this research, and for her genuine enthusiasm and encouragement every step of the way. Her feedback and support has made me an undeniably better thinker, writer, and anthropologist. Dr. John Douglas has been part of this project from the beginning, and his time and patience had enriched it immeasurably. I am grateful to him for seeing it through to the end and serving on my committee. I am grateful also to Dr. Rafael Chacón for agreeing to jump into this project late in the process, despite the fullness of his schedule, and for the insights he brought to the project. Although I was not one of her students, Dr. Kelly Dixon has been an invaluable mentor to me during my time at the University of Montana. It is not an exaggeration to say that she shaped my entire graduate experience here, and I am grateful beyond words to her. Dr. Dixon provided support and enthusiasm, both personal and professional, and invaluable professional opportunities. I must also thank my friends, colleagues, and fellow students within the anthropology department. In particular, I must acknowledge Dr. Prentiss’ other graduate students, most notably Ethan Ryan Ashley Hampton, Haley O’Brien, Emma Vance, and Liz Dolinar. I also could not have made it through this experience intact without the friendship and camaraderie of Nikki Manning, Michaelle Machuca, Kaitlin Pipitone, Mary Casey, and Michaela Shifley. Despite its best efforts, graduate school did not consume my entire existence, and so I offer thanks to my colleagues at the Historical Museum at Fort Missoula for their encouragement and flexibility. Thanks also go out to my friends, for providing me with encouragement, hand-holding, and things to think about that had nothing at all to do with grad school. Special thanks to Isaac, Will, Clara, and Pilf. Thanks also to my family, for spending a lifetime encouraging me to follow my own academic path and for gracefully accepting all the times I fell off the face of the earth and didn’t reply to emails for months on end. Closer to home, my housemates provided stability, support, distractions, and a willingness to overlook unwashed dishes. To Jeremy, CJ, and most especially my partner Jeff, thank you. I would not have made it through this intact without you. iii Table of Contents 1 - Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 - Theoretical approaches ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 - Methodological approaches .......................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 - Attribute-based lithic analysis ................................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 - Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological comparisons ........................................................... 14 2.1.3 - Experimental archaeology .................................................................................................... 18 2.2 - Conceptual approaches ............................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 - Cognitive archaeology .......................................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 - Postcolonial archaeology ...................................................................................................... 25 3 - Cultural transmission of lithic technologies ...................................................................................... 28 3.1 - Cultural transmission .................................................................................................................. 29 3.2 - Archaeological examples ............................................................................................................ 34 4 - Housepit 54 and the Bridge River Village ......................................................................................... 48 4.1 - The Mid-Fraser canyon ............................................................................................................... 51 4.2 - The archaeology of Housepit 54 ................................................................................................. 56 4.3 - Learning at Bridge River............................................................................................................. 60 4.3.1 - Evidence from Teit ............................................................................................................... 60 4.3.2 - Evidence from contemporary St'át'imc sources ................................................................... 65 4.3.3 - Evidence from archaeological sources ................................................................................. 67 4.4 - Hypotheses and test expectations ................................................................................................ 69 5 - Methods of analysis ........................................................................................................................... 72 5.1 - Skill indicators ............................................................................................................................ 75 5.2 - Creating a symmetry index ......................................................................................................... 77 5.3 - Mapping point location ..............................................................................................................