Experiments in Lithic Technology 9780860546726, 9781407348216

Citation preview

Experiments in Lithic •· Technology

edited by

Daniel S. Amick and Raymond P. Mauldin

BAR International Series 528 1989

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S528, 1989: 'Bxperi:aents in Lithic Technology'

©The Individual Authors, 1989 The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860546726 paperback ISBN 9781407348216 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860546726 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Contributors

•

•

'

'

t

Preface

iv vi

DANIELS. AMICK, RAYMOND P. MAULDIN,and LEWIS R. BINFORD The Potential of Experiments in Lithic Technology ••• MARTINP. R. MAGNE Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes. . . . . . .

15

STEVENL. KUHN Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Organization Artifact Replacement and Discard

and Strategies of • • • • • • • • • • •

33

DAVIDL. POKOTYLO and CHRISTOPHER C. HANKS Measuring Assemblage Variability in Curated Lithic Technologies: A Case Study from the Mackenzie Mountains, Northwest Territories. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

49

RAYMOND P, MAULDIN and DANIELS. AMICK Investigating Patterning in Debitage from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction ••••••••••••••••

67

WILLIAMC. PRENTISSand EUGENEJ. ROMANSKI Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Typology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

89

. .

.

..

MARKF. BAUMLER and CHRISTIANE. DOWNUM Between Micro and Macro: A Study in the Interpretation of Small-Sized Li thic Debitage • • • • • • • • • • • •

101

ERICE. INGBAR,MARYLOU LARSON,and BRUCEA. BRADLEY A Nontypological Approach to Debitage Analysis ••

117

STEVENA. TOMKA Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach • • • • • • • • • • • • •

. .. . . .

137

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

163

GEORGEH. ODELL Experiments in Lithic

Reduction.

STANLEYA. AHLER Experimental Knapping with KRF and Midcontinent Overview and Applications •••••••••••• BRIAN HAYDEN and W. KARLHUTCHINGS Whither the Billet Flake? ••• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Cherts: , , , '

•

•

'

JENNYL. ADAMS Methods for Improving the Analysis of Ground Stone Artifacts: Experiments in Mano Wear Pattern Analysis

iii

•

I

•

. ,_

.. .

199

235

259

CONTRIBUTORS Jenny L. Adams Arizona State USA.

Museum, University

of Arizona,

Tucson,

Arizona

Stanley A. Ahler Department of Anthropology, Box 8254 University Station, of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202 USA. Daniels. Amick Desert Research Institute, Quaternary 60220, Reno, Nevada 89506 USA.*

Science

85721

University

Center,

P.O.

Box

Mark F. Baumler State Historic Preservation Office, Montana Historical N. Roberts, Helena, Montana 59620 USA.

Society,

Lewis R. Binford Department of Anthropology, New Mexico 87131 USA.

Albuquerque,

University

Bruce A. Bradley Crow Canyon Archaeological Research Cortez, Colorado 81321 USA. Christian E. Downum Department of Anthropology, 85721 USA.

University

of New Mexico,

Center,

23390 County

of Arizona,

Tucson,

Christopher C. Hanks Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, Yellowknife, of the Northwest Territories X1A 2L9 CANADA. Brian Hayden Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser British Columbia V5A 1S6 CANADA. W. Karl Hutchings Department of Anthropology, M5S 1A1 CANADA.

University

Eric E. Ingbar Department of Anthropology, Box 3421 University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070 USA.* Steven L. Kuhn Department of Anthropology, New Mexico 87131 USA.

University

of New Mexico,

Mary Lou Larson Department of Anthropology, Box 3431 University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070 USA.*

iv

Station,

Arizona

Burnaby,

Toronto,

Station,

Rd. K,

Government

University,

of Toronto,

225

Ontario

University

Albuquerque,

University

Martin P.R. Magne Archaeological Survey of Alberta T6G 2P8 CANADA. Raymond P. Mauldin Department of Anthropology, New Mexico 87131 USA. George H. Odell Department of Anthropology, 74104 USA.

Alberta,

8820 -

University

University

112 Street,

of New Mexico, Albuquerque,

of Tulsa,

David L. Pokotylo Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CANADA.

Steven A. Tomka Department of 78712 USA.

1

Current

mailing

Tulsa,

Oklahoma

Museum of Anthropology, British Columbia V6T 2B2

William c. Prentiss Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser British Columbia V5A 1S6 CANADA. Eugene J. Romanski 1804 Cloudpeak Drive,

Edmonton,

University,

Burnaby,

Worland, Wyoming 82401 USA.*

Anthropology,

University

addresses

V

of

Texas,

Austin,

Texas

PREFACE This volume is largely the outgrowth of a common interest in li thic reduction experiments among the contributors. Many of the papers in this volume were presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Phoenix, Arizona in May 1988 in an organized symposium entitled "Methodological Contributions to Li thic Analysis." Dr. Harold L. Dibble (University of Pennsylvania) and Dr. Lewis R. Binford ( University of New Mexico) served as discussants. Although time for interaction between the participants was limited, we felt that the gathering of researchers with a common interest in lithic reduction experimentation provided a chance to assess the progress of current experiments and consider future directions. Many of the people who attended the symposium had questions about the implications of this work to their own archaeological problems. In conclusion, it became apparent that our current understanding of lithic assemblage variability and its conditioners remains poorly understood and that a great deal more experimentation is needed to help answer these questions. In some ways, the symposium title was misleading. We were not showcasing new and improved typologies, concepts, and in terpre ta ti ve conventions. Our goal was to simply provide some examples of the role of experiments in lithic technology. Much of this work should be considered research into the patterns of assemblage variation rather than methods for application to archaeological data. We hope that this volume sets a tone for further basic research into the causes and nature of lithic assemblage variability. In the spirit of furthering our understanding of assemblage variability (especially debitage), several of the authors provide raw data as tables or appendices or are willing to share their experimental data on computer diskettes with interested parties. If you are interested in receiving data from any of the authors, please provide them with a diskette and mailer or appropriate reimbursement. We would like to thank all of our contributors submissions and revisions. Special thanks wordprocessed several of the papers.

to

for their timely Vel Begay who

Daniels. Amick Raymond P. Mauldin Albuquerque, New Mexico July 17, 1989

vi

THEPOTENTIAL OF EXPERIMENTS IN LITHIC TECHNOLOGY Daniels.

Amick. Raymond P. Mauldin. and Lewis R. Binford University of New Mexico

Although the papers in this volume reflect a variety of approaches to understanding lithic assemblage variation, they share a research strategy based upon experimentation. The critical aspect that distinguishes experimental studies from other approaches is explicit control over certain variables which are being investigated. By controlling variables, it is possible to observe their effects and determine if those varibles can be useful in describing the archaeological record. The primary goal of archaeology is to explain the archaeological record and this is a theoretical issue. Experimental research provides a method for improving descriptions of the archaeological record in terms which are relevant to these theoretical questions. In this paper we address aspects of experimental research design, current approaches to lithic experimentation, and how experimental work relates to archaeological problems. Experimental research cannot be used directly to interpret archaeological data. The most effective way of relating experimental results to the archaeological record is interactively. As a first step, it is archaeological patterning that should direct the experimentation. Archaeological problems remain the focus . but well designed experimental studies may serve to generate secure knowledge with which to address these problems. The comparison of experimental and archaeological data may result in a better understanding of the behavior of variables useful for interpreting the archaeological record. In some cases, the behavior of these variables may indicate ambiguity which needs to be explored by further pat tern recognition work through experimentation or the archaeological record. Continual comparison of archaeological and experimental data is required to improve understanding of the archaeological record. It is within this interactive posture that experimental research becomes most useful to archaeological interpretation. This volume focuses on reduction experiments and ethnographic observations in li thic technology. In a broad sense, both of these fields represent experiments in archaeology. Although the analysis of debitage is now common for most lithic assemblage studies, the linkage between typologies and inferences is often poorly articulated. There is a great need for experiments that will help to identify poorly constructed classificatory devices and potential ambiguities related to the interpretation of those typologies. Ethnographic observations are also considered experiments because of the way in which they can affect the explanatory frameworks within which archaeologists operate. Whereas reduction experiments are primarily related to the empirical definition of patterning, ethnographic observations contribute more

directly toward the building view such patterning.

of theorical

constructs

though

which

to

EXPERIMENTALRESEARCHDESIGN Experiments should be designed to address potential sources of variability that might be encountered given some prior knowledge about the formation of the archaeological record. Prior knowledge about the archaeological record which may be helpful in designing lithic experiments may be drawn from a variety of sources including: properties of the archaeological record itself, principles of fracture mechanics, differential properties of various raw materials, previous experiments or ethnographic observations, and archaeological record formation processes. An important aspect in designing or assessing an experimental design is working with appropriate scales of analysis. All scales are valid but different levels of knowledge are gained. At the most basic level, principles of fracture mechanics (Fonseca et al. 1971; Cottrell and Kamminga 1979, 1987; Moffat 1981) and highly controlled experiments such as Speth's (1972, 1974, 1975) work help define what variables are relevant to measure. For example, what variables are important in determining the length and width and platform dimensions of hard hammer percussion flakes? These highly controlled experiments are contrasted with experiments at a lower but more practical level such as attempts to determine the primary factors conditioning debitage variability within and between bifacial core reductions (e.g., Mauldin and Amick, this volume; Ing bar and Larson, this volume). The scale at which these experiments are conducted varies considerably, but each has the potential to contribute to our understanding of the relationship of the flaking process to flake morphology. However, the scale at which experiments are conducted needs to be appropriate for the inferences that are derived. The work by Speth, for example, has not proved to be accessible for most lithic analysts. He demonstrates many interesting relationships between flake morphology and variables such as impact angle and velocity, but archaeologists are more often worried with inferences at another scale. This does not mean that Speth's work is not useful. By examining several of the fundamental variables in the production of qard hammer flakes, he has illustrated the degree of variation in flake morphology that might be expected in relationship to core geometry and changing impact variables (see also Dibble and Whittaker 1981; Dibble 1985). The quality of the research design is of great importance in the evaluation of experiments. Spector ( 1981) provides a good review of the major principles of research design. Scientific methods of investigation must begin with a plan or structure regarding the number and types of variables of interest and their interrelationships. This structure is the "research design" and the goal of the design "involves structuring the variables in such a way that their relationships can be determined" (Spector 1981:18-19). Designs can be considered on a continuum depending upon the degree to which conditions are manipulated versus observed. For example, Speth' s (1972, 1974, 1975) research is characterized by a high degree of 2

controlled manipulation of experimental conditions. On the other hand, the work reported by several of the contributors to this volume is characterized by far less manipulation of conditions and a greater emphasis on observational methods. Careful observation is required when experimental conditions are not directly manipulated because extraneous factors remain uncontrolled and can potentially cause problems in the interpretation of results. Several terms are useful in the discussion of research design. Variables are the most fundamental since they "represent the concepts studied" and are simply defined as a "qualitative or quantitative entity that can vary or take on different values" (Spector 1981:11). Variables are generally categorized as independent (causes) or dependent (effects) but this is not always known and usually determined by theoretical considerations. The empirical results of experimentation may result in the need to modify theories if hypothesized relationships between variables are not supported. Another critical concept of design is measurement. "Measurement is simply the process of assigning numbers to variables that represent attributes or properties of subjects or treatments" (Spec t or 1981:12). The levels of measurement range from discrete to c onti nuous. Measurement is achieved through the use of an instrument, which may be a device or simply a procedure. In either case, measurement is always associated with a degree of error. Measurement error may be the result of several factors, such as, 1) limits in precision, 2) idiosyncratic tendencies of the operator, 3) bias in the design of the instrument, and 4) simple errors in the use of the instrument. It is worth emphasizing that measuring instruments in archa e ology do not always involve calipers or balance beams but are also represented by variable attribute states (e.g., estimations of percent dorsal cortex cover on flakes) and classificatory typologies (e.g., debitage classification paradigms). Perhaps the most important observation about measurement error is that it may be random or biased. Random error is assumed to be nonsystematic and therefore to averag e out. Biased error, on the other hand, is systematic and does not average out easily (regardless of whether it is unintentional or intentional). Two aspects are critical to the evaluation of a measuring instrument, reliability and validity. These two properties must each be met if our instruments are to be trusted. Reliability "refers to t)1e consistency of a measuring device" and reflects the "relative magnitude of error to the true or real score" (Spector 1981: 13-14). In other words, our instrument may be worthless because of a lack of consistent accuracy. The need to consider instrument reliability is emphasized in Odell's paper ( this volume) and is an important consideration in lithic analysis which is often overlooked (cf. Burgess and Kvamme 1978; Fish 1978; Larralde 1984; Amick 1987; Boyd 1987) • Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument "measures what it is designed to measure" (Spector 1981: 15). Precision in the meaning of concepts and the development of standards for comparison are important for the establishment of instrument validity. Theoretical justification is used to suggest relationships between the instrument and other variables. If hypotheses about the relationship of the instrument to other variables are not supported, then it must 3

be concluded that our instrument is invalid or our theories are inaccurate. An example of the problem of instrument validity in archaeology typically involves the concept of "inference." For example, it has been suggested ( Amick and Mauldin 1989; Ensor and Romer 1989; Ode11, this volume) that the validity of Sullivan and Rozen's (1985) debitage typology (which can be considered a measuring instrument) remains untested. In this case, experimental work (e.g., Prentiss and Romanski, this volume; Baumler and Downum, this volume) provides a mechanism for evaluating whether Sullivan and Rozen's typology (derived from theory about the relationship of the instrument to "inferential" variables) actually measures what it is intended to measure. Interestingly, Prentiss and Romanski (this volume) show that the Sullivan and Rozen typology is valid for certain inferences, but empirical patterning suggests that validity is established for different reasons. In other words, the relationship of the instrument to the variables is different than that suggested by Sullivan and Rozen which implies that problems exist in the theoretical framework used to develop their typology. The aspect of control is essential to experimental studies. Control can range from actual manipulation of cases or variables (e.g., Speth's tank prism studies) to simply structuring the design by case selection. As Spector (1981:23) notes, control can be "achieved by selecting only certain values of control variables and observing the variables of interest." However, when control is achieved by structuring the case selection there exists some potential to reduce the generalizability of the results to other cases. Problems sometimes arise in experimental control when variables are confounded, that is ", there may be a relationship between the control variables and experimental variables in such a way that one cannot be held constant without the other" ( Spector 1981: 16). As a consequence, confounding variables inseparable from variables of interest may distort experimental results and it may not be possible to determine which of these variables is affecting the dependent variable. Finally, an evaluation of research design must consider the generalizability of the results. This is a difficult task but generalizability is really an empirical matter and replication is required to demonstrate it. Basically, generalizability refers to the limitations of the experimental sample which may be related to the variables used, controls used, or subject assignment (Spector 1981:1819). Campbell and Stanley (1963) identify two problems for generalizability, internal validity and external validity. Internal validity concerns the ability to draw valid conclusions given the structure of an investigation. Confounding factors or faulty design structure may prevent conclusions regarding the relationship of independent and dependent variables. External validity is concerned with the degree to which conclusions may be extended beyond the population in the experimental study, given internal validity. The issue of generalizability of results is essential in evaluating a research design. Of course, there are other factors that impinge on research designs. Economical factors of time and cost can limit the practicality of certain design options. For example, li thic technologists are typically faced with the problem of analyzing large samples of waste flakes ( especially at quarry workshops). Research 4

designs that involve examination of individual flakes are impractical in such cases. One solution to this problem is the use of size-graded aggregate measurements, or what Ahler (1972, 1976, 1989, this volume) has termed "mass analysis" (see also Henry et al. 1976; Patterson and Sollberger 1978; Patterson 1982; Stahle and Dunn 1982, 1984; Bruce et al. 1983). An alternative solution might involve a statistical sampling program. The trade-off between economical efficiency and practicality is often faced in li thic analysis whether the research problem involves technological questions (e.g., debitage analysis, refitting studies, neutron activation analysis for source identification) or functional questions (e.g., microscopic examination for use-wear). This conflict results in the need to develop new instruments (e.g., mass analysis) and sophistocated research designs and/or sampling programs. The use of statistics and sampling techniques is common place in archaeology today. Sta tis tics are an important means of analyzing data and assessing the validity of research conclusions. Concomitant with the use of statistical techniques in archaeology, there have been frequent critiques of its abuses (most notably, Thomas 1978). Unfortunately, few archaeologists have considered research design as seriously (cf. Stafford and Stafford 1981)~ Research design and statistics should be considered inseparable partners in analysis. We suggest that in many cases the problems of understanding the archaeological record (Sabloff et al. 1987) are related to analytical structure or research design. Perhaps one of the most pervasive problems in archaeological interpretation focuses on what can be called "methods of inference" (Amick and Mauldin 1989). In the terms of research design, archaeologists use instruments which have not been assessed for either reliability or validity. As a consequence, they have no way of knowing whether they are able to measure accurately or if their measures are really measuring what they are intended to measure. Experimental studies offer one way to avoid this pitfall and the concepts of research design are not only important for structuring and assessing the experiments, but they provide a useful logic for evaluating the strength of archaeological inferences. APPROACHES TO EXPERIMENTATION To a large degree the approaches to experimentation in li thic technology have reflected growth to complement analytical interests. The historical development of flintknapping studies ( Johnson 1978) suggests that experimental approaches began in attempts to solve archaeological problems. Until about 1940, these questions concerned how stone tools were made (e.g., Evans 1872; Cushing 1881; Spurrell 1883; Holmes 1891 , 1894; Pond 1930) and of major importance: how can naturally flaked stones be distinguished from man-made flakes, cores, and tools? (Warren 1914; Barnes 1939; see Grayson 1986 for an excellent discussion). While both of these questions continue to stimulate lithic experimentation, other contemporary issues have been explored. Li thic experiments between 1940 and 1970 tended to be sporatic and casual at best (Ellis 1940; Knowles 1944; Baden-Powell 1949) with the exception of Goodman's (1944) underappreciated study of raw material properties. However, during the late 1960' s the flintknapping skills of Bordes ( 1947, 1950) and Tixier in France and 5

Crabtree ( 1971, 1972) in the U.S. were popularly recognized through the Les Eyzies conference (Jelinek 1965). This period marked a rediscovery of experimental flintknapping by archaeologists but most of the replication work by Bordes and Crabtree merely demonstrated plausible solutions to technical problems, for example, "rediscovering" the Corbiac blade technique (Bordes and Crabtree 1969) and replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom point (Crabtree 1966). Crabtree's legacy survives through his many flintknapping school students who largely follow the "replication" approach. The replicative or cognitive approach emphasizes the use of reduction patterns to discover prehistoric "mental templates" of tool production which would de fine individual ethnic populations (e.g., Bonnichsen 1977; Young and Bonnichsen 1984, 1985; Flenniken 1984, 1985; see also ethnoarchaeological work by White et al. 1977). We do not believe that archaeologists and lithic experimenters are limited because they operating under a different cultural system than the prehistoric groups they are studying. Rather,·we are interested in understanding other cultural sys terns under our own terms. It is because of these terms that the degree to which our categories reflect unknown cognitive categories is irrelevant. Even assuming we could reconstruct extinct cognitive categories, it is not clear what we would accomplish other than cultural reconstruction. In any case, attempts to reconstruct extinct cognitive systems can never be evaluated for accuracy because those systems no longer exist. As a result, we cannot effectively evaluate the degree to which our "mental template" matches those of extinct cultures we are replica ting and analyzing. During the 1970 's a few controlled approaches to understanding variability in archaeological assemblages, especially concerning debi tage, began to appear. The concern with debi tage analysis and theoretical approaches based on reduction systems are clearly articulated by Collins ( 1975). Most notable of early experimental debi tage studies are the "mass analysis" approach pioneered by Ahler ( 1972, 1976), and other size-grading approaches (e.g., Henry et al. 1976; Patterson and Sollberger 1978). These studies are characterized by at tempts to assess variability in debi tage assemblages produced under controlled conditions. In general, these approaches reflected an increasing archaeological concern with deriving technological information from waste flakes. The approach to experimentation which is focused upon in this volume is technological in orientation. Under such an approach it is assumed that the debris of lithic tool manufacture provides information regarding technological processes. Understanding these technological processes leads to greater understanding of cultural systems which are dependent upon technology. The organization and articulation of different technological processes within cultural systems is suggested by ethnographic observations (e.g., Pokotylo and Hanks, this volume; Kuhn, this volume) as well as other theoretical models (e.g., Binford 197 9; Torrence 1983) • Experimental research provides one aspect for evaluating the degree to which technological information can be successfully inferred from lithic debris. Among technological strategies, confirmatory

approaches, and exploratory. 6

we discern two analytical Confirmatory strategies are

usually associated with statistical discrimination models within which populations are defined by relevant variables. Parameters such as technique, raw material, and reduction stages are commonly manipulated. The concern of such studies is usually to determine whether the populations can be discriminated and with what level of success. In addition, it is of interest to determine which variables best discriminate the populations (e.g., papers in this volume by Ahler, Odell, Ing bar and Larson; see also Amick et al. 1988) • The goal of confirmatory approaches is typically to provide a model for the interpretation of an archaeological data set but often the confirmatory approach reveals surprisingly low predictablity. In these cases, it is apparent that problems of validity exist between the relationship of our analytical categories (instruments) to the factors we intend to measure in the external world. When we find that our analytical categories are not responding to the external world in the manner we expected or that seeming ambiguity exists, then we need to reevaluate the reliability and validity of these analytical categories. It is interesting that archaeologists find it relatively easy to interpret archaeological debitage assemblages but many experimental assemblages stubbornly defy "correct" interpretation (see discussion on the implications of this point by Ingbar and Larson, this volume). A second avenue of technological experimentation is identified as exploratory and is based on simple pat tern recognition models. The goal is to determine the fundamental structure of the data by defining relevant variables and their relationships, such as, independence, dependence, and conditioning or confounding interactions. This approach focuses on understanding what questions are reasonable to ask of the data given our observations. Are our analytical categories valid and what exactly are their relationships to the external world? For example, it is commonly assumed that recording flake cortex percentage can be used to re fleet stage of reduction. However, the relationship between the cortex categories and stages of reduction remains poorly defined. These exploratory studies are an aid to designing further experiments and evaluating archaeological inferences (e.g., Mauldin and Amick, this volume; Prentiss and Romanski, this volume). Direct implications for the interpretation of archaeological data may also be derived from pattern recognition studies but the orientation of such studies does not focus on the development of automatic classification techniques for application to archaeological data. Before we can build successful classificatory tools for application to archaeological data, we need to know more about the nature of our analytical categories and their validity relative to theories about how they behave. DISCUSSION Beyond issues that ambiguity Experimenters considering flexibility to reorient employ ad flexibility

theoretical differences, there are several methodological are relevant to lithic experiments. The problems of and equifinality are pervasive to lithic analysis. often design goal-oriented reductions rather than the flexibility within li thic reduction systems. This is evident in production rejects and failures, the ability production goals during reduction, and strategies which hoc reductions as products are needed. Much of this is conditioned by situational factors related to the 7

organization of tool using behavior and the degree to which tool are anticipated. Because of the variety of situational factors impinge on technologies, there is considerable variability technological solutions to these factors.

needs which in

The problems inherent to li thic experiments are evident among competing explanations of Folsom fluting techniques (similar arguments about Mesoamerican blade manufacture are well published). Current arguments about which technique is the most plausible and how to evaluate these competing explanations provide a good illustration of the role of experiments in li thic technology. Some of the proposed Folsom fluting solutions (e.g., Crabtree 1966) have ignored the variability that is present among Folsom point assemblages. For example, assemblages like Lindenmeier (Wilmsen and Roberts 1978) show that Folsom points may be unfluted, fluted on one side only, pseudofluted, fluted from the distal end, basally thinned, miniature, or multi ply fluted. Accounting for this variability requires a technological solution that is not based on a normative concept of the archaeological record. The goal of replicative work is to match archaeological evidence but our perception of the appearance of the evidence varies. Continuous interactive work between experimental and archaeological observations is necessary to accommodate our changing view of the archaeological record. The criteria for evaluating the validity of competing fluting techniques must also be subject to revision if they are found to be ambiguous (e.g., preform breakage types or channel flake and point thickness). Through the interactive process it may be possible to develop new variables which may distinguish competing experimental explanations (e.g., depth and cross-section profile of the flute suggested by Gryba 1988:64). The problem of ambiguity in evaluating replication studies is difficult. But as Gryba (1988:63) has noted, we must be aware that we are seeking homologs and not analogs when comparing experiments with archaeological examples. In addition, the archaeological record must serve as a baseline frame of reference for evaluating competing explanations. Regardless of the merit of Gryba's (1988) proposal for the Folsom fluting technique, it is evident that he recognizes the problems associated with relating experimental work and the archaeological record. The evaluation of various proposed fluting techniques must take into account empirical archaeological data, the results of replicative experiments, and logical arguments. While other proposed methods of fluting may produce some types of breakage seen among archaeological material, they also produce traits not yet seen on Folsom specimens (Gryba 1989:65). To this statement we would add that the interactive process of evaluating the validity of replicative solutions is continuous. As new explanations are developed and our perception of the archaeological record changes, it may be necessary to address potential ambiguities among our variables and competing explanations. The ability to work back and forth between experimental work and the archaeological record is essential for learning about the past. The archaeological record determines the level of detail at which we might seek relevance because it is not infinitely variable; patterning 8

exists in the way that the flow of lithic material is organized through a cultural system. Secure knowledge gained from lithic experimentation (in conjunction with other kinds of observations) can be used to begin to understand the organizational conditions standing behind such patterning. The questions of why patterning is present and how it may be related to other phenomena can lead to the design of lithic experiments that may produce secure knowledge. The patterning and structure in the archaeological record is what we must address with this knowledge. We cannot even talk about patterning except in a mechanical way without being able to bring a great deal of knowledge to the thinking about the patterning. The experimental work reported in this volume is critical because it provides some of the knowledge necessary for addressing patterning in lithic assemblages. Experimentation provides knowledge for designing how we ask questions about patterning once we see it and what we want to know next. For example, it is important to recognize that once we are able to confidently identify a billet flake we cannot stop there. The ability to accurately identify billet flakes does not help us to understand why they may vary in frequency. This question requires additional knowledge about patterning in the archaeological record at a different scale. It is the interplay between the systematic study of patterning at different spatial scales that begins to indicate intriguing patterning that needs to be explained. In addition, there are varying levels of resolution in patterning. At this point in analysis it becomes worthwhile to consider what might be done at an experimental level to inform about the patterning we observe archaeologically. The interaction between experiment and the archaeological record is continuous. The complexity of our experiments and the sophistocation with which we approach archaeological patterning increases as we learn more. Most importantly, we need to conceive of experimental work as being integrated with archaeological analysis rather than independent of it. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to A. Backer, H. Dibble, R. Greaves, S. Kuhn, and S. Larralde for discussions which helped shape some of our ideas on this subject. REFERENCES Ahler, Stanley A. 1972 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris. 30th annual meeting of the Plains Lincoln.

Paper presented Anthropological

Ahler, Stanley A. 1976 Mass Analysis of the author.

Manuscript

1989

of

Flaking

Debris.

at the Society,

in possession

Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Application of Analytical Techniques to Archaeological Data Sets, edited by D.O. Henry and G.H. Odell, in press. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1. Washington.

9

Amick, Daniels. 1987 Calculating 15(3):90-95.

Artifact

Planview

Area.

Amick, Daniels. and Raymond P. Mauldin 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's Archaeological Interpretation." 54(1):166-168.

Lithic

"Debitage

Technology

Analysis and Antiquity

!~~~!~~~

Amick, Daniels., Raymond P. Mauldin, and Steven A. Tomka 1988 An Evaluation of Debitage Produced by Experimental Core Reduction of a Georgetown Chert Nodule. Technology 17(1):26-36. Baden-Powell, D.F.W. 1949 Experimental Clactonian Technique. Prehistoric Society of Great Britain Barnes, A.S. 1939 The Difference Prehistoric Flint 112. Binford, 1979

Lewis R. Organization Technologies. 273.

Proceedings of the and Ireland 15:38-41.--

Between Natural and Human Flaking in Implements. American Anthropologist 41:99-

and Formation Processes: Journal of Anthropological

Bonnichsen, Robson 1977 Models for Deriving Cultural Information Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Series, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Looking at Curated Research 35: 255-

from Stone Tools. ~60:---Mercury

Bordes, FranCoise 1947 Etude Compartive des Diff~rentes Technique de Taille et des Roches Dures. L'Anthropologie 51:1-29. 1950

du Silex

Principe d'une Methode d'Etude des Techniques de Debitage et la Typologie du Paleolithic Ancien et Moyen. L'Anthropologie 54 ( 1-2): 19-34.

Bordes, FranCoise and Don E. Crabtree · 1969 The Corbiac Blade Technique 12(2):1-21. Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr. 1987 Interobserver Error States: A Case Study.

and Other

Experiments.

Tebiwa

in the Analysis of Nominal Attribute Tennessee Anthropologist 12(1):88-95.

Bruce, J.C., Mark Dubuc, and James Walsh 1983 Repeating an Experiment: Confirmation Variation in Lithic Debitage. Contract Archeology 3(2):147-154. Burgess, 1978

Bifacial Li~~!~

Robert J. and Kenneth L. Kvamme A New Technique for the Measurement American Antiquity 43(3):482-487. 10

of Quantitative Abstracts and CRM --of Artifact

Angles.

Campbell, D.T. and J.C. Stanley 1963 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Rand McNally, Skokie, IL. Collins, 1975

Designs

for

Research.

Michael B. Li thic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 15-34. Mouton, The Hague.

Cotterell, Brian and Johan Kamminga 1979 Th~ Mechanics of Flaking. In Lithic Use-wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 97-112. Academic Press, NY. 1987 Crabtree, 1966

The Formation

of Flakes.

American Antiquity

Don E. A Stoneworker 's Approach to Analyzing Lindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9(1):3-39. Experiments Pocatello.

1972

An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers Idaho State University Museum No. 28. Pocatello. Making.

Idaho State

and Replica ting

1971

Cushing, Frank H. 1881 Arrow Head 25:7.

in Flintworking.

52(1):675-708.

Smithsonian

University

Miscellaneous

the

Museum, of the

Collections

Dibble, Harrold L. 1985 Technological Aspects of Flake Variation: A Comparison of Experimental and Prehistoric Flake Production. American Archeology 5(3):236-240. Dibble, Harrold L. and John C. Whittaker 1981 New Experimental Evidence on the Relation Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal Science 8(3):283-296. Ellis, H.H. 1940 Flint-Working Experimental Anthropology,

Between Percussion of Archaeological

Techniques of the American Indians: Study. Li thicLabora tory, Department Ohio State University, Columbus.

An of

Ensor, Blaine and Irwin Romer 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 54(1):175178. Evans, Sir J. 1872 The Ancient Stone Implements, Britain. Appleton, NY.

Weapons, and Ornaments of Great

Fish, Paul R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43(1):86-89.

11

Flenniken,

J.

Jeffrey Past, Anthropological 13 : 187-2 0 3 •

1984 The

1985

Fonseca,

Present, and Perspective.

Future of Flintknapping: An Annual Review of Anthropology

Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited ~M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G. Pavesic, pp. 265276. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. J.G.,

J.D. Eshelby and C. Atkinson Fracture Mechanics of Flint-Knapping Processes. International Journal of Fracture

1971 The

and Allied Mechanics

7(4):421-433Goodman, Mary Ellen 1944 The Physical Properties Antiquity 9:415-433. Grayson,

1986

Gryba,

Donald K. Eoli ths, Archaeological "Middle-Range" Research. Future, edited by D.J. Sabloff, pp. 77-133. Washington ..

Eugene M. A Stone Age Anthropologist

1988 1989

of

A Mousetrap

Pressure

Stone

Tool

Materials.

American

Ambiguity, and the Generation of In American Archaeology: Past and Meltzer, D.D. Fowler, and J.A. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Method

of

Folsom

Fluting.

Plains

33(119):53-66. 10,000 Years

Too Late.

Plains

Anthropologist

34( 123): 65-68. Henry,

Don O., C. Vance Haynes, and Bruce Bradley Quantitative Variations in Flaked Stone Anthropologist 21(71):57-61.

1976 Holmes,

1891

William Henry Manufacture of Stone

Arrow Points.

Debitage.

American

Plains

Anthropologist

4:49-58. 1894

Jelinek,

1965 Johnson,

1978 Knowles,

1944

Natural History of Flaked Stone Implements. the International Congress of Anthropology, Wake, pp. 120-139. Schulte,Chicago Arthur J. Li thic Technology Conference, Antiquity 31:277-278.

Les Ezyies,

In Memoirs of edited by c.S:-

France.

L. Lewis A History of Flintknapping Experimentation, Current Anthropology 19(2):337-372. Sir Francis H.S. The Manufacture of a Flint stone. Occasional Papers Museum, Oxford University.

12

American

1838-1976.

Arrowhead by Quartzite Hammeron Technology 1. Pitt-Rivers

Larralde, 1984

Signa Quality Control in Li thics Analysis: A Test of Precision. Haliksa'i: UNMContributions to Anthropology 3: 1-8.

Moffat, Charles R. 1981 The Mechanical Prospects. Plains

Basis of Stone Flaking: Problems Anthropologist 26(93):195-212.

Patterson, L.W. 1982 The Importance of Flake Abstracts and CRMArcheology

Size Distribution. 3(1):70-72.

Patterson, L.W. and J.B. Sollberger 1978 Replication and Classification of Small Size Lithic Plains Anthropologist 23(80):103-111.

and

Contract

Debitage.

Pond, Alonzo W. 1930 Primitive Methods of Working Stone, Based on Experiments of Halvor L. Skavlem.Bulletin No. 2.------COgan Museum, Beloit College;-Beloit, Wisconsin. Sabloff, 1987

Jeremy A., Lewis R. Binford, and Patricia A. McAnany Understanding the Archaeological Record. Antiquity 61 : 203209.

Spector, 1981

Paul E. Research Designs. Sage University Papers on Quanti ta ti ve Analysis in the Social Sciences No. 23. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Speth, John D. 1972 Mechanical 37(1):34-60.

Basis

of Percussion

Flaking. into

American Antiquity

1974

Experimental Investigations Flaking. Tebiwa 17:7-36.

Hard Hammer Percussion

1975

Miscellaneous Studies in Hard Hammer Percussion Flaking: The Effects of Oblique Impact. American Antiquity 40(2):203-207.

Spurrell, 1883

F.C.J. Paleolithic Knapping Tools and Modes of Using Them. of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13:109-118.

Stafford, 1981

C. Russell and Barbara Stafford Some Comments on the Design of Lithic Technology 8(1):13-17.

Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn 1982 An Analysis and Application of Size Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial Archaeology 14(1):84-97. 1984

Experiments.

Journal

Lithic

Distribution of Waste Stone Tools. World

An Experimental Analysis of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from Biface Reduction. Technical Paper-No---:-T. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

13

Sullivan, Alan R. III and Kenneth C. Rozen 19 85 Debi tage Analysis and Archaeological American Antiquity 50(4):755-779. Thomas, David Hurst 1978 The Awful Truth About Statistics Antiquity 43(2):231-244. Torrence, 1983

In terpre

in Archaeology.

ta tion.

American

Robin Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In HunterGatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 1122. Cambridge University Press, NY.

Warren, s. Hazzeldine 1914 The Experimental Investigation of Flint Fracture and Its Application to Problems of Human Implements. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 44:412-450. White, J. Peter, N. Modjeska, and Irari Hipuya 1977 Group Definitions and Mental Templates: An Ethnographic Experiment. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R.v.s. Wright, ~380-390: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Wilmsen, Edwin N. and Frank H.H. Roberts, Jr. 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 24. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Young, David E. and Robson Bonnichsen 1984 Understanding Stone Tools:! Cognitive Approach. Peopling of the Americas Process Series No. 1. Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono. 1985

Cognition, Behavior, and Material Culture. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods,and M.G.-Pavesic, pp. 91-131. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

14

LITHIC REDUCTION STAGESANDASSEMBLAGE FORMATION PROCESSES Hartin P.R. Magne Archaeological Survey of Alberta This paper explores how knowledge of reduction strategies can be interrelated with assemblage diversity studies at a large scale, to provide sound inferences regarding assemblage formation and group mobility. Reference is made primarily here to curated technologies, in the manner which Binford (1977, 1979) has defined them, bearing in mind that any technology can exhibit characteristics of both curation and expedience, especially at various locations throughout a complete settlement system. Starting with an examination of the reasons why reduction experiements have been employed, focusing on some key areas of debi tage variability, I will discuss some of the ways in which standard interpretations can be affected by inappropriate measures, especially in situations of low availability of lithic resources. REDUCTIONEXPERIMENTS It is clear that lithic reduction experimentation has had a profound effect on archaeological typologies for lithic debitage. It is common for analysts to use flake size cortex presence, platform attributes, and debitage morphology categories in either intraor inter-site studies. Furthermore, there is increasing use of debitage assemblages to illuminate settlement pattern reconstructions (e.g., Sullivan and Rozen 1985; Henry 1986; Jefferies 1982; Kelly 1985; Camilli 1983; Magne 1985; Pokotylo 197 8; Raab et al. 1979). While there is increasing awareness of the role that debitage can play in interpretation, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the variability that is actually present in experimental situations thus leading to inaccurate inferences about the ways in which lithic assemblages are formed, and about what these assemblages can tell us about prehistoric hunting and gathering subsistence and settlement. In general terms, experiments are conducted to provide analogs to assist our understanding of assemblage variabli ty. Notwithstanding efforts to understand the precise manufacturing techniques required to make particular artifact types, such as Folsom points, there is now a great emphasis on debitage variablity. The reasons for focussing on debitage are relatively straightforward. Being an immediate byproduct of manufacturing activity, debitage largely escapes curative effects, ( Collins 1975; Magne 1985); it is also abundant, widespread and therefore suited to statistical manipulation (Collins 1975; Magne 1985; Magne and Pokotylo 1981). Debitage retains evidence of prior manufacturing steps, thus its variability must in some ways be related directly to the formal variability of intended products of manufacture.

15

The literature now contains scores of variables and attributes which can be applied to debi tage, either in pure experimental situations, in pure archaeological analyses, or in combined studies. I do not believe, however, that sufficient effort has been directed at simplifying debitage analysis now that there has been a fair amount of work demonstrating the redundancy of certain variables. The situation is certainly not what it was at the time when Speth (1974) conducted his classic experiments on the effect of force applications on debitage dimensions. At the same time, it appears almost retrogressive to simplify matters to the extreme of "interpretationfree" classification, such as that of Sullivan and Rozen (1985). Experiments function to add meaning to models, and to legitimize descriptions. They can increase the precision of reconstructions, primarily via appropriate controls and suitable quantification. Thus, several studies have investigated means of dividing the linear reduction continuum into discrete units that can be recognized in the archaeological record ( Magne 1985; Magne and Pokotylo 1981; Raab et al. 1979; Stahle and Dunn 1982). With few exceptions, reduction experiments have concentrated entirely on bifacial manufacturing techniques, despite that fact that bifaces are clearly not the most abundant artifacts found in archaeological assemblages. Certainly, more experimentation is needed which compares the products and byproducts of various reduction techniques. Similarly, intercomparisons are needed of bifacial, bipolar, and pressure flaking, cobble, pebble and outcrop core raw materials, and so on. More knowledge is required to recognize mid-stride changes in reduction technique. We also need work aimed at understanding the effects that human error and learning processes have on assemblage variability. Such studies are understandably beyond the scope of individual research projects. I will focus here on one aspect of lithic studies, reduction "staging." DEBITAGEVARIABLESAS REDUCTIONSTAGEINDICATORS Weight and size of debi tage are those two variables most often used to infer reduction stages. Intrinsically, there is no denying that very large flakes are not produced from pressure flaking, or during resharpening. Indeed, using multivariate statistics on archaeological materials, Katz (1976) and Pokotylo (1978) found that the weight or size of debi tage best accounted for most metric variability in assemblages, al though firm experimental controls for different manufacture stages were lacking in those studies. Stahle and Dunn ( 1982) attempted to demonstrate that flake size can distinguish separate bifacial reduction stages. One of the problems with these results lies in the large amount of small size debi tage that is produced at nearly all stages of the lithic reduction process. For example, close examination of Stahle and Dunn's data ( 1982: 92) shows that the later bifacial manufacture stages are most inaccurately distinguished. With respect to this, Tuohy (1987) has recently shown that there is no essential difference in the size distribution of debitage from pressure or percussion flaking. When I re-analysed some of the data obtained in my multi-core/tool experiments (Magne 1985), I found that hard-hammer percussion could be distinguished from soft-hammer 16

percussion ( 81 % accurate - on 994 plat form flakes) , but that platform and dorsal surface features were far more important criteria than weight, which did not even figure into the final resolution of the multiple discriminant analysis. Also, one must take into consderation the possibility that large flakes were retained for the production of other tools, hence the debitage left may not adequately represent the stage in which it was produced. For example, when I conducted my experiments in general reduction stage modelling (Magne 1985), I removed all large ( >30 g) flakes from the analysis, and found that weight was one of the least important variables in discriminating general stages. Another variable commonly applied, mainly in purely archaeological inference, is that of the amount of cortex present on flakes. In these analyses classifications are constructed using variables of complete versus partial versus absent cortex cover on flakes to infer reduction stages such as "primary", "secondary" and "retouch." My studies (Magne 1985) showed that cortex in any amount is overwhelmingly present in early or core reduction stages, and only rarely in other stages. .. Thus the effect of using this sort of flake typology is to constrain inferences to those which can pertain to early stage reduction, and . to . sharply limit the level of inference beyond that. These ·analyses also suggested that classifications of complete flakes versus shatter or blocky shatter cannot account for a range of manufacturing processes, since all of these are produced in all stages of manufacture (Magne 1985). In sum, a number of independent research studies suggest that a select few variables are useful in describing and discriminating reduction stages with a high degree of precision. I agree that independent studies are needed to verify · the utility of these variables, however, some independent verification has occurred (e.g., Gilreath 1982, 1983). In no particular order, those variables useful and non-redundant in reconstructing chipped stone tools, are as follows:

which appear manufacturing

to be most stages of

1) Platform Presence or Absence. The presence of a remnant striking platform is a basic criterion for assessing whether or not some of the other can be applied. Furthermore, platform flake/shatter ratios may be indicative of gross reduction stage (Table 1). 2) Dorsal Scar Count. Dorsal scar count increases through the reduction process. While it may be argued that scars will not continue to increase in frequency because the flakes are get ting smaller, the size factor is not a strong one, and besides, if the flakes are smaller, then scars become proportionally smaller. 3) Platform Scar Count. Platform scar count also increases frequency as reduction proceeds. This variable can be difficult observe on small platforms, in which case the dorsal scars should employed; 4) Cortex Presence or Absence. weathered exteriors of stone flakes

17

in to be

As noted above, the cortex or should decrease sharply following

initial reduction stages. platforms and dorsal faces.

Measures

of

cortex

5) Presence of Bifacial Platform. Biface indicators not only of a specific technique, reduction stages as well.

6) Presence of Bipolar Indicators. Bipolar be indentifiedby attributes such as crushed lines, and crushing, usually but not always and generally in combination. Table 1. Platform (from Magne 1985).

flake/shatter

ratios

Platform Flake/ Shatter Ratio

should

include

both

reduction flakes are but usually of later reduction techniques can platforms, bulbs, stress at both ends of flakes,

from experimental

reduction

Reduction Type/ Raw Material

• 90: 1

Bipolar Obsidian Bipolar Basalt Mean all Core Reduction Bifacial Basalt Single Platform Core Basalt Unifacial/Marginal Chert Unifacial/Marginal Basalt Unifacial/Marginal Obsidian

• 15: 1

• 36: 1 .45: 1 • 83: 1 1.05:1 1.16:1 1.33:1

The weight of flakes should still be recorded, of course, as it relates to the entire mass of an assemblabe. Furthermore, there are other variables whose utility in describing reduction stages still need more study, including platform angles, dorsal scar pat terning, bulb of force thickness, and measures which use ratios calculated from these, In saying that we need more work to explore these, I should note that I mean we need experiments which explore a wide range of behavior. We need to know what results from several knappers producing the same things, as well as what comes from one individual producing several i terns. In addition, raw material effects are one particular area of potential variability that has only begun to be examined. Even though I found that chert, basalt, and obsidian ~eduction stages could be distinguished in the same ways, one set of experiments does not lend much weight on a continental scale. The essential point here is that the reliability of cultural inferences with regard to assemblage variability depends a great deal on the confidence we place on reduction stage classifications. It is well understood that gaining confidence in inferences made from lithic assemblages is a problem in archaeological method ( Sullivan 1987a; Binford 1983: 14 3). Given that satisfactory resolutions to problems may be obtained through experimentation, r~search needs to be extended beyond experiments, to analytic modelling which presumes that reduction stages can be accurately described; _ other sources of variability need to be controlled as well. Lithic material availability and the overall diversity of lithic assemblages are two interrelated sources of irregularities which have been suggested as 18

contributors to the general Sullivan 1987a).

problem

of reliable

inference

(e.g.,

LITHIC RESOURCEAVAILABILITY, REDUCTION,ANDASSEMBLAGE FORMATION What sort of reduction strategies best conserve lithic resources, and how are these reflected in the archaeological record? These are questions which have not been addressed very thoroughly. We know, for example, that blade techniques produce relatively large amounts of cutting edge per mass of raw material, as we expect that raw material scarcity causes people to use their lithics to the point where small size renders tools ineffective. Also, one can expect carefully planned and executed core reduction, as well as a high degree of resharpening, maintenance, and refurbishing. Tool curation, maintenance, discard, and replacement occur at different rates depending on the availability of raw materials. Therefore lithic reduction staging may vary for equivalent activities within a settlement system (see Binford 1979). As Bamforth (1986) has stressed, one must be careful to keep raw material constraints (e.g., source quality, lithology, size) in mind when making inferences about regional cura tion patters. Also, as noted by Straus ( 1980) for the Spanish Solutrean, general lithology may have a great effect on assemblage variability when measured by standard typologies. In situations of raw material stress, standard bifacial, weight, cortex, and core reduction models will likely lead to incorrect inferences. For example, a strictly bifacial reduction model will not have a high degree of success in reconstructing bipolar reduction of small pebbles, nor will it be able to deal with scavenging of resources from previously occupied sites. Models emphasizing cortex amounts wil have to account for relatively small amount of cortex in scavenged assemblages, or with extraordinarily high amounts in pebblebased reduction strategies. Also, there will be little cortex present if mate .rials have been mined or if they have been brought from afar. Similarly, a model using debitage weight will be confronted, in either case, with unusally high amounts of small materials, which could lead to the conclusion that only later stages of reduction were practiced. One way to control for the effects of raw material availability may be to use the observed amounts of debitage and tools, in relation .to a dorsal or scar count method of defining reduction stages. Figure 1 plots debitage/tool ratios against the relative amount of late stage debitage, and illustrates different technological strategies. "Late stage" here refers to debi tage produced in finishing complex tools, and in resharpening and maintenance. Note that "Early stage" could be substituted in the model, with appropriate changes to the lower axis. The critical evidence, in either manner, must take the form of reliably identified extremes of lithic In this model, regardless of the availability of lithic resources, the nature of assemblage formation can be discerned. This model is capable of illustrating cases where assemblages have resulted from the curation or export of tools from sites, and cases where situational or more expedient manufacturing episodes occurred.

19

High

TOOL/BLANK MANUFACTURE HIGH EXPORT RATE

TOOL MAINTENANCE LOW DISCARD RATE HIGH CONSERVATION

0 ·,.:::.

ctS

a: O

~ ~

..,_. _____

---t

REOCCUPIED SITES HIGH REUSE/SCAVENGING RATE ..._ _____

_

C)

ctS ....

:0 Q) 0

TOOL/BLANK MANUFACTURE HIGH REJECTION RATE

TOOL MAINTENANCE HIGH DISCARD RATE LOW CONSERVATION RATE

SITUATIONAL REPAIR RAW MATERIAL SCARCE

SITUATIONAL REPAIR RAW MATERIAL AVAILABLE

Low._______

.___________________________

Low

Figure 1 • Assemblage and late stage debitage

_

%Late Stage Debitage

formation model employing proportion.

High

debi tage/tool

ratio

A situ ta tion where raw materials are scarce and no previously deposited li thic remains are available will lead to assemblages with high debitage/tool ratios and very high proportional amounts of late stage debi tage. However, with the presence of scavengable remains lower amounts of late stage debitage may result, through conservative use of earlier stage materials previously remaining on site. In general, one can expect that rates of tool maintenance will be lower when material is abundant, and that replacement rates will be correspondingly high. An actual example is presented in Figure 2, in which seven Paleoindian sites analyzed by Wilmsen (1970) are plotted, using the percentage of Wilmsen's "trimming" flakes to represent late stage debitage. The Levi assemblage would be interpreted as the result of conservation practices, with high tool maintenance and low tool discard rates. The Vernon and Williamson assemblages exhibit a 20

pat tern resulting from some export as we11, reoccupied, possibly scavenged materials.

but

appear

to represent

30 =1 ...

eLEVI

25 =1•

eVERNON e WILLIAMSON.

20 =1•

0

-~ cu a: 0

0

~O>

15,1•

-cu

:(l)0 0

10,11-

e LINDENMEIER 5 =1•

eHORNER eSHOOP e BLACKWATER I

0

10

I

I

20

30

I

I

I

I

40

50

60

70

% TrimmingFlakes

Figure 2. Debitage/tool ratios and trimming flake proportions seven Paleoindian assemblages. Data from Wilmsen (1970).

for

Comparing these patterns to the model in Figure 1 leads to the following interpretations. The Horner and Blackwater assemblages exhibit high tool discard rates, which likely followed intensive maintenance and repair, in the absence of readily available raw materials. Lindenmeier appears as a reoccupied site with relatively high tool discard, while the Shoop assemblage can best be interpreted as the result of a stronger emphasis on actual tool manufacture, with an available supply of raw material. Interestingly, all the raw material at Shoop was apparently ob trained from a source some 200 miles away. Thus at this basic level I would interpret the remains to indicate the importation of a considerable quantity of raw materials and/or cores. the the

While relative maintenance and discard rates can be modelled in preceding figure, replacement rates can be inferred by plotting relative amounts of tools made of a certain material versus the 21

relative amounts of debitage. When such plots are drawn up for each material present in assemblages, patterns of replacement and curation become quite clear. For example, at a synchronic occupation, an assemblage displaying a high obsidian tool to debitage ratio is evidence of obsidian tools being replaced by another material. Should a similar chert graph show this same assemblage to have high chert debitage but low chert tool representation, the inference can be made that the obsidian tools were being replaced by chert ones. The immediacy of the process can be inferred by examining the reduction stages evident. In the above example, the chert debi tage should be predominantly early and middle stages. If late reduction stage chert debitage is predominant, one would infer that the chert materials were deposited in another occupational episode.

,

Experimentation in this area could assist researchers in making inferences based on the physical appearance of debitage which results from use of previously deposted remains. In particular, breakage of leftover tools to provide blanks could lead to distinctive debi tage morphologies. Perhaps more importantly, however, means of maximizing tool production from small pebbles needs experimental work. Assemblages such as that from Bezya, located in northeastern Alberta ( Le Blanc and Ives 1986), which produce micro blades and bur ins on small cores, are obviously highly efficient in this regard. Inferences based on this particular assemblage were facilitated by a time-consuming refitting analysis, and benefitted from what appears to have been a high rate of tool deposition. If raw materials · are difficult to obtain, we can expect fewer "situational" tools, fewer large, single platform cores, more bipolar flaking, and more evidence of materials such as utilized biface reductton flakes. While tools would be less "expedient," they should also be less specialized, more multipurpose, and those deposited should be highly fragmentary. Debitage in such assemblages should reflect later reduction stages more commonly. Furthermore, if flake size is maller in scarce situations, then size cannot be used to reconstruct reduction stages with any confidence. Let us consider Shott' s ( 1984) contention that assemblage diversity (number of tools used in daily activities) will decline as mobility frequency or mobility magnitude increases. When we also consider Sullivan's (1987b) related statement that logistical mobility will increase as residential mobility decreases, we can frame detailed li thic assemblage expectations. For example, if access to raw materials is poor, we can expect that at logistical sites, late stage debitage will increase porportionately. We can expect, however, evidence of more careful planning, perhaps in the form of caches, or deliberate reoccupation of sites with abundant debris. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE DIVERSITYANDREDUCTIONSTAGES Thomas (1983, 1984) and Kelly (1985) have recently approached the problem of lithic assemblage size and diversity (Jones et al. 1983) in an innovative manner. Noting that assemblage size ( total number of artifacts) will always be highly correlated with assemblage diversity (total number of artifact types), they have argued that the slope of regression lines can illuminate assemblage formation processes. They have shown that differing slopes may be conditioned by the rate of 22

assemblage accumulation. This finding has been tested in several instances, which will be discussed here. This methodological contribution is complementary to a finding of my British Columbia Interior Plateau study, where the numbers of tools left in assemblages, when compared to the relative amounts of late stage debitage in assemblages, suggest relative (i.e., greater or lesser) site occupation spans (Magne 1985).

300-

e LINDENMEIER

250-

Cl)

cQ) ~200~

...

u. "C C

n, Cl)

0

eSHOOP

150-

0

.....

0

>,.

0 C

~ 1001-

g ...

eHORNER

eVERNON

u.

eLEVI eBLACKWATER

e WILLIAMSON 50-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% TrimmingFlakes

Figure 3. Frequencies of tools proportions of trimming flakes, Data from Wilmsen (1970).

and for

tool fragments plotted against seven Paleoindian assemblages•

Wilmsen' s ( 1970) study of Paleoindian assemblages relied almost exculsively on lithics to yield inference pertaining to group size and length of site occupation. In the following, data from Wilmsen' s study were used to further test the relationships between assemblage size, diversity, and occupation span. While I could not plot assemblage size and diversity using Thomas' and Kelly's method, because the number of artifact classes is not readily available, Wilmsen' s inferences were supported almost precisely using trimming flakes to represent "late" stage debitage, and plotting the relative abundance of these against tool frequencies (Figure 3). Lindenmeier

23

is clearly distinguished from the others in this comparison. Wilmsen interpreted Lindenmeier as having resulted from long occupation durations, while Horner, Blackwater, and Levi were inferred to have resulted from relatively brief occupations. Williamson is known to be a quarry site, while the Vernon assemblage is probably the product of two relatively brief occupations. Shoop is also probably a reoccupied site, but clearly the sum total of these occupations did not approach the total occupation span of Lindenmeier. I was able to apply Thomas' and Kelly's method to Interior Plateau sites, clearly distinguishing (by what I refer to here as "diversity slopes") long and moderate term house pit assemblages, as figured from my tool/debitage method, from other sites (Figure 4). These other site types include small surface lithic scatters, as well as lithic scatters associated with firecracked rock and cachepit features. Clearly, this sample is a small one, but the patterns derived do adhere to the model.

1.5

I.O CJ)

Q) CJ)

~ (.)

LONG & MODERATE TERM HOUSEPITS

0 .5

0 o.__ ____

o~.5----~1.o._

___

_.1.5 ____

_,,2.-o----2~

.5----~3.o

Log Assemblage Size

Figure 4. Diversity slopes Data from Magne (1985).

for Interior

24

British

Columbia assemblages.

Similarly, when applied to Stevenson's (1985) Peace Point assemblage, those four layers which he inferred to have resulted from relatively long-term occupations clearly yield a steeper diversity/abundance slope than the other 14 layers (Figure 5). These layers are also clearly separated when tool frequencies and late stage debi tage proportions are plotted ( Figure 6). As Stevenson explains, the various layers at Peace Point, when viewed in such a manner, may reflect the gradual adaptation of a hunting and gathering society to a particular location over time. At one point in time a location may have been the scene of quite a limited suite of activities, whereas at another time it may have been occupied by several families for a considerably longer time. Unfortunately, as with many archaeological deposits in deeply stratified contexts, a small areal sample constrains what one can realistically "reconstruct" as to the actual limits of each occupational episode.

1.5

1.0 Cl)

Q) Cl) Cl)

(lj

~~t:::,

... u

(.)

\,~~

-·-e

Y"~~ 0~

(lj

0

Low

L._ __________

Low

......;;;,._

__________

_

High

%Late Stage

Figure 7. Lithic assemblage and proportion of late stage

Special Use Sites

SITUATIONAL 'EMERGENCY' CAMPS

MANUFACTURING SITES

formation debitage.

model employing

diversity

slope

contribute to theory bulding. In the sense of Vierra ( 1982) good typologies provide reliable measurements, or accurate instrumentation. This, I believe, should be the role of lithic reduction experiments in modelling assemblage formation: to provide reliable means of inference, be those models highly specific, or highly general. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper has benefitted greatly from comments received from Daniel Amick, Bruce Ball, Jack Brink, Peter Bobrowsky, Bob Dawe, Jack Ives, Ray Le Blanc, R. G. Matson, Raymond Mauldin, David Pokotylo and Marc Steven~on. REFERENCES Bamforth, 1986

D.B. Technological Efficiency Antiquity 51:38-50.

28

and Tool

Curation.

American

Binford, L.R. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips. In Stone Tools edited by R.v.s. Wright, pp. 24-36. of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 1979

Organization Technologies. 2·73.

1983

In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding Thames and Hudson, New York.

Camilli, 1983

As Cultural Australian

and Formation Processes: Journal of Anthropological

Markers, Institute

Looking at Research

the Archaeological

Curated 36: 255Record.

E.L. Site Occupational History and Li thic Assemblage Structure; AriExample From Sou th eastern Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Collins, M.B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. Li thic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited E.H. Swanson, pp. 15-34. Aldine, Chicago.

In by

Gilreath, 1982

A. Stages of Biface Manufacture: Learning From Experiments. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

1983

Bifacial Debitage and Sampling at a Small Lithic Scatter: An Experimental Study-.-UnpublishedMaster's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Henry, D. O. 1986 Correlations Between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Jeffries, 1982

R.W. Debitage as an Indicator of Intraregional Activity Diversity in Northwest Georgia. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:99-132.

Jones, G.T., D.·K. Grayson, and · c. Beck 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size i~ Archaeological · Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quiiiiby, edited by R.C. Dunnelland D.K. Grayson, pp. 55-74. Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Katz, P. Analysis of the Kansas City Hopewell Chipped 1976 A Technological Stone Industry. Ph.D-.- dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

29

Kelly, R. L. 1985 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism: A Great Basin Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, uri'Iversity of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Le Blanc, R.J. and J.W. Ives 1986 The Bezya Site: A Northeastern Alberta. 10: 59-98.

Wedge-Shaped Core Canadian Journal

Assemblage From of Archaeology

Magne, M.P.R. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia. Mercury Series No. 133. National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Magne, M.P.R. and D.L. Pokotylo 1981 A Pilot Study in Bifacial Technology 10(2-3):34-47.

Lithic

Reduction

Sequences.

Lithic

Pokotylo, D.L. 1978 Lithic Technology and Settlement Patterns in Upper Hat Creek Valley, B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Raab, L.M., R.G. Cande, and D.W. Stahle 1979 Debitage Graphs and Archaic Settlement Arkansas Ozarks. Midcontinental Journal 4:167-182.

Patterns in the of Archaeology

Shott, M.J. 1984 Forager Mobility and Technological Organization. Paper presented at the 49th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland. Stahle, D.W. and J.E. 1982 An Analysis .Flakes From Archaeology

Dunn and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World 14(1):84-97.

Stevenson, M.G. 1986 Window on the Past: Archaeological Assessment of the Peace Point Site, WooctBuffalo National Park, Alberta.-Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and Hist~Parks Canada, Ottawa. Straus, L.G. 1980 The Role of Variability.

Li thic Raw Material in Lithic Technology 9:68-72.

Li thic

Assemblage

Sullivan, A.P. III 1987a Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability: A Regional Case Study Near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeologist 8:41-71. 1987b Artifact Scatters, Adaptive Diversity, and Abandonment: the Upham Hypothesis Reconsidered. Anthropological Research 43:345-360. 30

Southwestern Journal of

Sullivan, A.P. III and K.C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological American Antiquity 50:755-779.

Interpretation.

Thomas, D.H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 59, Part 1. New York. 1984

Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer presented at the 49th annual American Archaeology, Portland.

Cultural Geography. Paper meeting of the Society for

Tuohy, D.R. 1987 A Comparison of Pressure and Percussion Crabtree Obsidian Stoneworking Demonstration. 30.

Debitage From a Tebiwa 23:23-

Vierra, R.K. 1982 Typology, Classification, and Theory Building. In Essays in Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 162-175. Center for American Archaeology, Evanston. Wilmsen, E.N. 1970 Lithic Analysis Anthropological Tucson.

and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-Indian Case. Papers of the University- of Arizona No:--T6.

31

32

HUNTER-GATHERER FORAGING ORGANIZATION ANDSTRATEGIES OF ARTIFACTREPLACEMENT ANDDISCARD Steven L. Kuhn University of New Mexico Within the past decade, archaeologists have begun to ask a series of novel questions of stone tools. A fruitful and active area of research explores links between technology and aspects of huntergatherer subsistence and mobility strategies. Theoretical treatments of hunter-gatherer technology fall into two major groups. One group, which builds largely on the empirical work of Oswalt (1976), examines how tool design parameters and toolkit diversity vary according to the ways in which hunter-gatherers make a living (e.g., Torrence 1983, 1987; Bleed 1986; Shott 1986). The second group of studies (e.g., Binford 1977, 197 9; Goodyear 197 9; Parry and Kelly 1987) focus on linkages between subsistence organization and strategies of stone tool manufacture, use and discard. The effect of mobility and foraging patterns on the scheduling of manufacture and maintenance activities is an important but little discussed issue. The scheduling of manufacture and maintenance determines where, when and how often manufactured items are repaired or replaced. Because artifacts must be maintained during the interval between their manufacture and their eventual replacement, the scheduling of replacement in turn affects the condition of the artifacts entering the archaeological record. HUNTER-GATHERER FORAGINGORGANIZATION Most of the theoretical literature on hunter-gatherer subsistence organization focuses on two principal variables, mobility strategies and foraging patterns. Both are closely linked to technological systems, and both have important effects on the scheduling of manufacture and maintenance activities. Binford (1980) distinguishes between two types of mobility. Residential mobility involves shifting the base of operations for an entire corporate group. Logistical mobility describes a situation in which special task groups harvest resources and transport them back to relatively stable residential bases. Most hunter-gatherers employ a combination of both strategies. The mix of mobility strategies is determined largely by the spatial and temporal distribution of resources. High residential mobility is common among hunter-gatherers living in tropical and subtropical environments where food resources are both evenly and thinly distributed across the landscape. In these contexts, people tend to forage out from a central base until resources are locally exhausted, and then move on (Binford 1980; Kelly 1983). In high latitudes, hunter-gatherers rely more on logistical strategies of mobility. Residential camps are situated near to stable resources like water, fuel, and building materials, while 33

seasonally exploited

and spatially variable concentrations of food resources through logistical forays (Binford 1980; Kelly 1983).

are

The allocation of time to subsistence activities varies similarly. Seasonal variation is low in the tropics and subtropics, and many resources can be harvested year round. Subsistence is consequently a continuous, day-to-day activity ( Binford 1980; Kelly 1983). Hunter-gatherers in northern latitudes are more dependent on temporary, localized aggregations of animals and fish. During the seasons when food is scarce, people subsist on stored provisions (Binford 1980). The amount of time spent locating, procuring and processing food is highly variable, occurring in proportion to the seasonal abundance of food resources. A comparison of general time allocation data for the residentially mobile San ( Lee 1979) and for high latitude hunters (Oberg 1973; Irimoto 1981) highlights these differences. MAKINGANDMENDING:THE ORGANIZATION OF MANUFACTURE Technological activities tend to be organized and scheduled around subsistence activities (cf. Torrence 1983:13). It takes time to make tools, to gather the appropriate raw materials and to shape them into useful forms. Time spent making and maintaining tools potentially detracts from the time available for getting food. This is not to say that the basic task of making a living is always time consuming for hunter-gatherers. Many foragers actually spend relatively little time in subsistence related pursuits compared to agricultural peoples (Lee 1968; McCarthy and McArthur 1960). Food-getting is the energetically and adaptively dominant concern, however. Humans alter their consumption of tools by adjusting the ways in which they use them, whereas they can alter rates of food consumption only by going hungry. Opportunities to make, repair, and replace gear are structured differently among logistical and residentially mobile hunter-gatherers as a consequence of differing schedules of resource acquisition. In contexts of high residential mobility and more-or-less continuous subsistence activity, time for making and repairing gear is available in brief, daily episodes throughout the year. The character and tempo of time availability are very different for logistically organized hunter-gatherers like the Inuit. During peak hunting season: ••• weather and hunting conditions become the primary determinates of activity rhythms •••• If weather is good and hunting productive, a hunter may stay up 24 hours or longer until he collapses from exhaustion (Condon 1981:142). Taking the time to make or repair tools during intensive resource procurement or food processing activity could result in the loss of precious opportunities to harvest vital resources (cf. Torrence 1983: 12). On the other hand, marked seasonal variation in the availability of food resources and reliance on storage result in prolonged intervals of "down time" when technological activities do not interfere with subsistence-related pursuits. Residential mobility affects the variety and number of material goods that hunter-gatherers can keep on hand (Draper 1975; Hitchcock 1982; Service 1979:10; Tanaka 1971). There are direct energetic costs 34

associated with carrying things. Among pedestrian hunter-gatherers, there are also absolute limits on the quantity of durable goods people can move from place to place (e.g., Clastres 1972: 44; Steyn 1971 ) • This point is demonstrated by Hitchcock's (1982) comparison of artifact inventories for two San bands, one mobile and one sedentary. Similarly, Shott ( 1986) demonstrates a significant negative correlation between the number of residential moves per year and toolkit diversity. Residential mobility has complementary effects on where and when new items can be made. The practicality of keeping finished or halffinished backups on hand is limited by what people are willing and able to transport. In a context of high residential mobility, it is impractical to keep many backups on hand, even for an item which is by all evidence old and about to fail. Since lulls in subsistence activity are short, it is seldom possible to replace a complete tool kit at one time. Transport is generally not a major limiting factor for logistical hunter-gatherers. Since most mobility involves task-specific forays out from relatively stable residential locations, only a small portion of the total artifact inventory must be carried around at any one time. It is possible to keep spares, backups, and half-finished items in abundance. The only real cost may be that of protecting extra gear from the environment. Differing transport limitations and contrasts in the scheduling of opportunities for tool making result in different patterns of manufacture and maintenance activity. In contexts of high residential mobility, manufacture and maintenance take place in short episodes throughout the year and across most or all of the settlement system. The nature of the activities may vary according to the time of year and the availability of raw materials, but the day-to-day allocation of time to technological pursuits is relatively homogeneous. Anthropologists often observe that residentially mobile foragers seem to be constantly at work repairing or making something, using free time when and where they find it: Manufactured articles people work sporadically, the partially finished 1977:76).

often take a long time to complete; for short periods of time, and carry goods from one camp to another ( Yellen

Work connected with the processing of raw materials and the making and maintaining of tools, weapons, and other artifacts ••• is the way men spend their time when not hunting or travelling. "Make and mend" does not involve constant exertion: work carries on between frequent pauses ••• (Silberbauer 1981:243). Smyth ( 187 8: 123), Spencer and Gillen ( 1927: 519), make similar observations of Australian aborigines.

and Gould

( 1977: 33)

Logistically organized hunters are distinguished by the existence of marked seasonal variation in the frequency and intensity of manufacture. Periods of reduced subsistence activity are used to "gear up" for future episodes of hunting or fishing. Olberg's (1973) 35

study of the Tlingit is among the best documented examples of seasonal fluctuations in manufacture and processing activities in a storage-based hunter-gather system. Similar patterns are also documented for northern Chipewyan (Irimoto 1982:182-187), Eskimos ( Rasmussen 1952: 7 4), and subarctic Athabaskans (Clark · 1974: 35-41; Crow and Obley 1981:507-508). Many Eskimo groups set aside certain periods of the year explicitly for making and fixing equipment, and, perhaps most importantly, for making winter clothing (Arima 1984:450451; Birket-Smith 1929:236; Damas 1984:389; Rasmussen 1929:190-194). Unscheduled manufacture and maintenance certainly occur among logistical hunter-gatherers (e.g., Birket-Smith 1929: 234), often in response to unexpected failure of tools or novel situations. The importance of unscheduled maintenance is probably inversely proportional to the amount of prior preparation, however. CACHINGANDCHUCKING:STRATEGIESFOR ARTIFACTABANDONMENT AND REPLACEMENT The constraints imposed by transport and the time requirements of subsistence result in divergent schedules of tool manufacture and maintenance among logistical and nonlogistical hunter-gatherers. We would expect the criteria governing decisions about when to discard or abandon items of technology to vary as well. In situations of high residential mobility and essentially continuous manufacture, tools and implements must renewed or replaced in serial fashion, as they wear out. Abandonment of artifacts is closely linked to absolute and immediate utility. While the manufacture of a replacement may begin before a tool actually breaks or falls to pieces, tool are normally retained until they are nearly exhausted. This strategy is best exemplified in the Gusinde 's ( 1961 : 213) description of the Yaghan, a highly nomadic group that formerly inhabited Tierra del Fuego: no one owns more than one extra utensil of those most frequently needed •••• It is only when want and need force him to restore the loss of an implement that he (the Yaghan) instantly and decisively sets to work. Gould ( 1980: 127) provides resharpening of stone adzes

a similar by Australian

observation Aborigines.

regarding

the

Among logistically organized hunter-gatherers, manufacture and maintenance are scheduled around preparation for anticipated periods of intense work, a process often described as "gearing up." The failure of a weapon or other tool can have dire consequences when resources are available only for a limited period. The central concern is whether a particular implement will last through a period of heavy use. Logistical hunter-gatherers tend to invest more in the manufacture of complex, sophisticated technologies ( Torrence 1983; Bleed 1986), paying the price of high manufacture costs in return for high reliability. An alternative strategy for insuring reliability is to replace implements before they show signs of advanced wear. This strategy is clearly illustrated by Binford' s ( 1979: 264, emphasis in original) description of preparations for logistical forays among the Nunamiut:

36

personal gear was heavily curated •••• One never went into the field with personal gear that was not in good condition and relatively new; informants agreed that personal gear was inspected before going into the field so that worn items or items in need of repair were either repaired first or replaced before leaving •••• In a logistical context, implements are replaced in the active tool kit when they present an unacceptable risk of failing before another opportunity arises to replace them. Because the items replaced are still potentially useful, they may not be actually discarded. Functionally specialized artifacts are often temporarily abandoned (cached) in the context of seasonal moves (Schlanger 1981; Schiffer 1987:92). More general purpose items, elements of personal gear and the like, may be cached in anticipation of some undefined future need or recycled into another functional context (e.g., Binford 1979:272). People intend to retrieve intentionally or casually cached implements, but abandonment, temporary or not, greatly increases the probability that an item will enter the archaeological record. Caches may be forgotten, lost, or destroyed for a number of reasons (Schiffer 1987:78-79). Among relatively sedentary horticulturalists in New Guinea, valuable polished stone axes are often cached and then lost over the course of a year (White and Modjeska 1978). Artifacts left behind for repair or re-use but never retrieved or relocated are an important component of the archaeological record in Eskimo territories. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS The contrasting strategies of artifact manufacture and abandonment are summarized in Table 1. Residentially mobile and logistically organized hunter-gatherers differ in the criteria governing the replacement and abandonment of artifacts. These differences should result in contrasting patterning in the residual utility of maintained implements which enter the archaeological record. The residual utility of chipped stone tools can be measured in several ways. For continuously retouched artifacts ( uni faces), the dimension perpendicular to the working edge represents a rough index of how much of a tool remains. For tools with more complex, bifacial pat terns of resharpening other variables such as overall size and width/thickness ratios are more appropriate. The frequency of breakage or advanced resharpening within a class of artifacts are other rough measures of residual utility. Exploiting artifacts to their maximum utility before replacement, the pat tern associated with high residential mobility, should result primarily in the discard of exhausted or "used-up" artifacts. Artifacts may enter the record at other stages of utility through accident or other random processes, but these should be relatively rare ( cf. Yellen 1977: 103). Measures of the residual utility of artifacts discarded in the con text of a "replace when e){hausted" strategy wi 11 be unimodal ly distributed within maintained too 1 classes, and skewed towards more extensive reduction. The degree of 37

Table 1. Summary of proposed relationships between mobility, time allocation, manufacture scheduling, and discard patterns. SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION (after Binford 1980) PARAMETER

FORAGERS

COLLECTORS

Mobility Strategy

High residential Low logistical

Low residential High logistical

Subsistence Time Allocation

Daily input thoughout year

High seasonal variability

Manufacture Time Allocation

Continuous manufacture and and maintenance

Intensive gearing up and continuous maintenance

Replacement of Gear

Serial

Periodic retooling

Discard/ Abandonment Strategy

Discard when exhausted

Abandon based on probability of failure

bias, and the relative frequency of exhausted items probably vary with the distribution of raw materials. If the appropriate raw material is ubiquitous, tools can be replaced more frequently, and the overall level of exhaustion will be lower. The strategy of abandoning tools based on the likelihood of failure has very different archaeological implications. Artifacts Worn but which fail or are used-up will be thrown away for good. still functional artifacts will be abandoned or cached after retooling in anticipation of prolonged mobility or periods of intensive activity. In principle, curated tool classes from highly logistical systems should be marked by large numbers of both exhausted and partially worn iterns. The presence of relatively large numbers of whole, unexhausted tools may even produce bimodality in measures of residual utility. Even where bimodality is absent, the variance in residual utility within a class of artifacts should be quite high relative to an assemblage representing a residentially mobile system. These patterns should be especially evident in extensive, "coarse­ grained" assemblages or where spatially isolated caches were present but are not preserved or recognized. Whether a bimodal pattern of residual utility is recognized in assemblages generated by logistical collectors depends in part on the stability of the land surface and the redundancy of residential patterns. Both factors should thus be considered in attempts to evaluate subsistence organization. Under conditions of gradual soil accumulation and regular reoccupation of sites, more cached or abandoned items wi ll be recovered and re-used and few er whole, unexhausted tools will permanently enter the archaeological record. I 38

emphasize that these expectations apply tools made and discarded expediently regardless of subsistence and settlement

only to maintained will be present organization.

artifacts; for re-use

The distribution of raw materials is a potentially confounding factor for the model of artifact replacement and discard. For heuristic purposes, only the effects of time scheduling and mobility on strategies of artifact replacement are considered. The availability of raw material may also have important effects on the scheduling of manufacture ( Bamforth 1986; Wiant and Hassen 1985) • Where raw material is scarce, proximity to the source certainly affects the replacement of curated gear. The problem is how to evaluate the "scarcity" or "cost" of raw materials. Simple geographical distance is not an effective measure because different mobility strategies result in varying patterns of landscape use. Logistically organized hunters often collect raw materials during subsistence related forays, thereby minimizing the actual "cost" of the materials (Binford 1979:280-281). Residentially mobile foragers do not undertake logistical forays as frequently in which raw material procurement can be embedded. Raw material distribution may be a significant factor if the distance between discrete sources exceeds the normal foraging or logistical radii, or in regions where raw materials occur in locations unsuited for other uses. The difficulties in procuring raw material during seasons of deep snow cover in high latitude contexts will also result in unusually intense recycling of abandoned artifacts. Three Test

Cases

The associations between foraging organization and strategies of artifact abandonment/replacement described above are largely inferential. The ethnographic record contains little information useful for direct evaluation of these expectations: ethnographic observers seldom describe the act of throwing things away. One study of relevance to the present discussion is Shott's ( 1989) comparative analysis of tool use-lives. Shott examines published data on manufacture costs and and artifact use-lives for two hunter-gatherer groups, the residentially-mobile !Kung (Lee 1979) and the more logistically organized Ingalik Eskimo (Osgood 1940). He shows that there is a weak but significant correlation between manufacture time and use life in the !Kung data, but that no such correlation exists in the Ingalik data. Assuming that manufacture time increases as a function of the durability of the materials worked, it can be argued that the ! Kung pat tern re fleets abandonment of artifacts as they wear out. The Ingalik pattern appears to reflect an abandonment strategy which is independent of the absolute durability of tools, as would be expected in a logistically organized system. The propositions offered above may also be evaluated through the use of archaeological case studies in which there is some control over mobility and foraging organization. Since it is also important to control raw material distributions, the ideal test cases are those in which different land-use systems can be compared within a single region. Two recent archaeological studies conducted in arid western

39

North America (Bamforth 1986; Kelly 1988) present data which allow preliminary evaluation of the arguments presented above. San Antonio

a

Terrace

Bamforth (1986) discusses assemblages from a series of open-air locations on the San Antonio Terrace in southwestern California. Raw material is found in abundance within a few kilometers of the study area. Bamforth divides assemblages into Early and Recent Periods. He argues that the Early Period is characterized by little activity differentiation between sites. The Recent Period lithic assemblages exhibit greater intersi te variability and are thought to represent more logistical use of the area, similar to historically documented land-use patterns (Bamforth 1986:42-45). Although it is unlikely that full-fledged logistical mobility was ever practiced in the region, Bamforth demonstrates that differentiated, logistical use of the territory increases through time. Tables 2 and 3 (after Bamforth 1986:Tables 6 and 7) contain frequencies of broken versus whole artifacts and retouched versus unretouched tools for the two time periods. Bamforth (1986:46) notes that there are significantly more unbroken tools and fewer retouched tools in the Recent Period sites, the sites thought to represent a more logistical pattern of land-use. Table 2. by period

San Antonio Terrace frequencies (after Bamforth 1986:46). PERIOD

BROKEN

of broken and unbroken WHOLE

TOTAL

Recent

22

21

43

Early

16

3

19

TOTAL

38

24

62

Chi-square

corrected

for continuity=

4.8,

df=1,

Table 3. San Antonio Terrace frequencies of retouched tools by period (after Bamforth 1986:46-7).

p < 0.05 and unretouched TOTAL

RETOUCHED

UNRETOUCHED

Recent

12

31

43

Early

12

7

19

TOTAL

24

38

62

PERIOD

Chi-square

corrected

for continuity=

5.5,

tools

df=1,

p < 0.025

Based on these data, Bamforth argues that increases in logistical organization are assoc i ated with a decrease in the importance of "curation" in the prehistoric technology. This is contrary to the expectations offered by Binford ( 1977). Bamforth' s conclusion is based on the assumption that the curation is associated with high frequencies of artifact renewal and re-use ( after Binford 1977: 35). 40

He further ass umes that fre q uencies of retouch and breakage on archaeological specimens are direct indicators of the importance of artifact maintenance and recycling behavior within the prehistoric system. Bamforth's data can be interpreted very differently if viewed in terms of artifact replacement and abandonment strategies. During the Early Period, when the study area was exploited via a more generalized "foraging" pattern of land use, we would expect transported tools to be replaced gradually, and to be discarded only when their utility was significantly diminished. Later, when the San Antonio Terrace was used in a more logistical fashion, people would have geared up for forays into the area. Worn tools would have been replaced (using the material from nearby sources) and abandoned prior to undertaking logistical forays. Few old or worn tools would have been carried into the San Antonio Terrace area. It is thus no surprise that a higher frequency of apparently still useful (whole, unretouched) tools are found at the Recent Period sites. The data do not reflect differences in the importance of curated tools in the system, but instead show the effects of different strategies of curation. Carson Sink A recent paper by Robert Kelly (1988) discusses mobility linked changes in lithic reduction strategies and the functional role of bifacial technology in the Carson Sink of Nevada. Unlike the San Antonio Terrace area, the Carson Sink is poor in raw materials (Kelly 1988:717-718). Kelly argues that changes in the functional role played by biface technology reflect changes in the mobility patterns of prehistoric peoples using the area. The use of bifaces as portable cores during the Devil's Gate Phase (4950-3250 BP) is considered indicative of logistical use of the Carson Sink. This interpretation is consistent with Thomas' (1985:374) views on the use of nearby Hidden Cave as a storage location and logistical outpost during this period. A sharp decline in the use of portable bi face cores during the succeeding Reveille Phase ( 3250-1450 BP), in combination with other evidence, is used to argue for exploitation of the area by means of short-term residential mobility (Kelly 1988:730). Table 4 presents Kelly's (1988:730) data on the frequency of projectile point resharpening from the Devil's Gate and Reveille Phases. The results parallel Bamforth' s San Antonic Terrace data. The Devil's Gate Phase (with greater logistical mobility) is characterized by less frequent evidence of resharpening on projectile points compared with the (Reveille) period of high residential mobility. Data on breakage are not presented, so it is not clear whether the projectile point samples represent discarded, abandoned or lost artifacts. Given that the Carson Sink lacks good supplies of raw materials, it is likely that the higher frequency of unresharpened Devil's Gate points is the result of retooling conducted prior to making logistical forays into the area. Devil's Gate points in the assemblage from Hidden Cave, hypothesized to be a logistical node, are much more frequently resharpened (Pendleton 1985:185-188). This site could well represent a location where hunting equipment was maintained and replaced.

41

Table 4. Carson Sink points, by period (after

frequencies of resharpening Kelly 1988:730). Valley Floor

PERIOD Devil's

Sites

RESHARPENED Gate

on projectile

UNRESHARPENED TOTAL

2

10

12

Reveille

13

12

25

TOTAL

15

22

37

Chi-square

corrected

for continuity=

3.94,

df=1,

p < 0.05

Mountain Sites PERIOD Devil's

RESHARPENED Gate

UNRESHARPENED

TOTAL

0

5

5

Reveille

11

12

23

TOTAL

11

17

28

Cell counts

too low for chi-square DISCUSSION

Two very different strategies of artifact r __ eplacement and abandonment have been identified. A "replace when exhausted" model is expected to characterize residentially mobile foragers, while a "replace based on probability of failure" strategy is predicted for logistically organized hunter-gatherers. Both strategies involve transported, maintained tools. Variation in subsistence organization is linked to differences in the treatment of curated implements. Diagnosing the organization of prehistoric subsistence and land-use systems is a more complex matter than simply counting "curated" versus "expedient" tools. A number of authors argue that residentially mobile foragers shou l d emphasize long-lasting, renewable tool forms (e.g., Bleed 1986, Kel l y and Todd 1988). Such arguments are essentially complementary to the theme of this paper. Different characteristics of particular artifact forms or manufacture techniques may be emphasized in different contexts, however, and many basic tool forms (e.g., bifaces , en ds crap ers on bl ad es) ar e common t o a wi de varie t y of pr ehisto r ic systems. Focusing on abandonment strategies and the treatment of artifacts prior to abandonment can help to clarify the conditions which favored the use of a particiular des i gn strategy. The proposition that logistically organized hunter-gatherers abandon whole, unexhausted curated tools more frequently than do residentially mobile foragers may seem contradictory to other discussions of the relationships between technology and subsistence 42

organization. Torrence ( 1983) argues convincingly that logistical organization is marked by diverse, complex and, by implication, heavily curated tool kits. Binford (1977:35) also asserts that logistical organization should be marked by increased dependence on curated technology. The contradiction is more apparent than real. Resharpening or reworking tools is simply a tactic for maintaining the utility of curated implements. We expect curated tools to be maintained, but the duration and extent of maintenance does not necessarily correlate with the general importance of curation as a technological strategy. Logistical organization selects for efficient technologies ( Binford 1977:35; Bleed 1986; Torrence 1983), which can be relied on to perform in crucial situations. Maintaining worn tools defers the cost of making new ones. The longer a tool has been maintained and reworked, however, the greater the chance it will fail or wear out at some critical time. The manufacture of most stone tools involves relatively little time or energy; the shaft or handle of a composite tool is probably the most "expensive" component by far (cf. Keeley 1982). Frequent replacement of maintained classes of stone tools is probably a better indicator of more intensive "husbanding" of technology than is the habit of using implements until they wear out. Archaeological measures of the frequency of resharpening or repair are not direct indicators of the importance of artifact maintenance in a living system. Archaeologists often use criteria such as the proportions of unbroken and broken tools or the relative frequency of resharpened artifacts as measures of the importance of cura tion within a prehistoric cultural system (e.g., Bamforth 1986; Shott 1986). These indices are actually measures of the likelihood that an artifact was renewed, repaired, or broken before entering the archaeological record. They do not measure the frequency of artifact repair or maintenance in the past. Logistically organized huntergatherers may well invest more time and energy than residentially mobile foragers in maintaining technology. Individual implements show less extensive evidence of renewal or repair because they are replaced earlier in their use cycle. REFERENCES Arima, E. 1984 Caribou Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. v. Arctic, edited by D. Damas,PP. 447-462. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Bamforth, D. 1986 Technological Efficiency Antiquity 51(1):38-50.

and Stone Tool Curation.

American

Binford, L. 19 7 7 Forty-Seven Trips : A Case S t"ud y in the Cha r a c t er of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R.v.s. Wright, pp.24-36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

43

Binford, L. 1979 Organization Technologies. 273.

and Formation Processes: Journal of Anthropological

Looking at Research

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-gatherer Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Curated 35:255-

Settlement American

Birket-Smith, K. 1929 The Caribou Eskimo. In Report of the 5th Thule Expedition 1921-24, Vol. 5 ( 1-2), edited by K. Rasmussen. Danish National Museum, Copenhagen. Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Reliability?

Design of Hunting American Antiquity

Weapons: Maintainability 51(4):737-747.

Clark, A. 1974 Koyukuk River Culture. Canadian Ethnology No.18. National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Clastres, 1972

Service

or

Paper

P. The Guayaki. In Hunters and Gatherers Today, edited by M. Bicchieri, pp. 138-174. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY.

Condon, R. 1981 Inuit Behavior and Seasonal Change in UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor.

the Canadian

Crow, J. and P. Obley 1981 Han. In Handbook of North American Indian, Subarctic, edited by J. Helm, pp.506-513. Institution Press, Washington.

Arctic.

Vol. VI. Smithsonian

Damas, D. 1984 Copper Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. V. Arctic, edited by D. Damas~.397-414. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Draper, P. 1975 !Kung Women: Contrasts in Sexual Egalitarianism in the Foraging and Sedentary Contexts. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by R. Reiter, pp. 77-109. Monthly Review Press, New York. Goodyear, A. 1979 ! Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-indian Groups of North America. Research Manuscr i pt Series No. 156. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Gould, R. 1977 Puntutjarpa Rockshel ter and the Australian Desert Culture. Anthropology Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 54. New York.

44

Gould, R. 1980 Living Archaeology.

Cambridge University

Press,

NY.

Gusinde, M. 1961 The Yamana: The Life and Thought of the Water Nomads of Cape Horn. HumanRelations Area Files ~ew Haven. Hitchcock, R. 1982 The Ethnoarchaeology of Sedentism: Mobility Strategies and Site Structure AmongForaging and Food Producing Groups in the Eastern Kalah~Desert, Botswana:- Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Irimoto, T. 1981 Chipewyan Ecology. Group System. Senri Ethnological of Ethnology, Osaka.

Structure and Caribou Hunting Studies No. a:-- National Museum

Keeley, L. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects American Antiquity 47:798-809. Kelly, R. 1983 Hunter-gatherer Anthropological 1988

on the Archaeological

Mobility Strategies. Research 39(3):277-306.

The Three Sides 734.

of a Bi face.

Kelly, R. and L. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Mobility. American Antiquity

Record.

Journal

American Antiquity

Early Paleoindian 53(2):231-244.

of

53 ( 4): 717-

Hunting

and

Lee, R. B. 1968 What Hunters Do for a Living, or, How to Make Out on Scarce Resources. In Man the Hunter, edited by R. Lee and I. Devore, pp. 30-48. Aldine-;-chicago. 1979

The ! Kung San: Men, Women and Work in Cambridge University Press, New York.-

a Foraging

Society.

McCarthy, F. and M. McArthur 1960 The Food Quest and the Time Factor in Aboriginal Economic Life. In Records of the American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem---r.and, Vol. 2: AnthropolO&Y and Nutrition, edited by C. Mountford. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Oberg, K. 1973 The Social Ethnological

Economy of the Tlingit Society Monographs No. 55.

Oswalt, W. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis Wiley and Sons, New York.

45

Indians. American Washington.

of Food Getting

Technology.

John

Osgood, C. 1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Publications 22. Yale University, · New Haven.

in Anthropology

No.

Parry, W. and R. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. Johnson andC. Morrow, pp. 285-309. Westview Press, Boulder. Pendleton, L. 1985 Material Culture: Artifacts of Stone. In The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada, edited by D. Thomas, pp. 183-218": Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 61. New York. Rasmussen, K. 1929 The Intellectual Culture of the Iglulik Eskimo. In Report of the 5th Thule Expedition 1921-1924, Vol. 7(1), edited by L Rasmussen:-lfanish National Museum, Copenhagen. 1952

The Alaskan Eskimos. In Report of the 5th Thule Expedition 1921-1924, Vol. 10 ( 3), edited by K. Rasmussen. Danish National Museum, Copenhagen.

Roth, W. 1897 Ethnological Aborigines. Schiffer, 1987

Studies Among the North West-Central Brisbane.---- --

M. Formation Processes of the Archaeological of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Record.

Queensland

University

Schlanger, s. 1981 Tool Caching Behavior and the Archaeological Record. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Diego. Service, 1979

E. The

Hunters.

Prentice-Hall,

Shott, M. 1986 Technological Organization Ethnographic Examination. Research 41(1):15-51. 1989 On Tool-Class Archaeological

Use Record.

Englewood Cliffs,

and Settlement Mobility: Journal of Anthropological

Lives and the American Antiquity

Silberbauer, G. 1981 Hunter and Habitat in the Universiti Press, New York.

Central

Formation of 54(1):9-30.

Kalahari.

Smyth, R. 1878 Aborigines of Victoria (with Notes Relating the Nati ves of Other Parts~ Australia Government Printing Office, Melbourne.

46

NJ. An

the

Cambridge

to the Habits arid"Tasmania --

of

J.

Spencer, 1927

B. and F. Gillen The Arunta: Study of~

Steyn, H. 1971 Aspects Groups.

Stone Age People.

MacMillan,

London.

of Economic Life Among Some Nomadic Nharo Bushman Annals of the South African Museum 56:273-322.

Tanaka, J. 1971 The Bushmen.

Shisakusha,

Tokyo.

Thomas, D. 1985 The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 61. NY. Torrence, 1983

R. Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Technology. In Huntergatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 1122. Cambridge University Press, New York.

1987

Hunter-gatherer Technology and the Management of Risk. Paper presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, Canada.

White, J. and N. Modjeska 1978 Where Do All the Tools Go? Some Examples and Problems in Their Social and Spatial Distribution in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. In The Spatial Organisation of Culture, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 25-38. Duckworth, London-.Wiant, M. and H. Hassen 1985 The Role of Lithic Resource Availability and Accessibility in the Organization of Technology. In Lithic Resource Procurement, edited by S. Vehik, pp.1O1-114. Occasional Paper No.4. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Yellen, J. 1977 Archaeological

Approaches

to the Present.

47

Academic Press,

NY.

48

VARIABILITYIN CURATED LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL CASESTUDYFROMTHEMACKENZIE BASIN, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES,CANADA David L. Pokotylo University of British Columbia and Christopher c. Hanks Prince of Vales Northern Heritage Centre

Archaeologists have had a long standing interest in chipped stone tool technology and have spent considerable effort developing models and analytical techniques to study lithic tools and artifact assemblage variability. Although stone artifacts are generally acknowledged to be important to the study of prehistoric huntergatherers, considerable doubt persists about the potential of inferring past behavior from archaeological lithic analysis due to the lack of developed theory and models of stone tool manufacture, use, and discard, and the adaptive role of li thic technology ( see Draper 1985). Since the mid-1970s archaeologists have addressed this concern by focusing on the technological organization of stone tools ( see Binford 1979; Wiant and Hassan 1985), particularly the relationship between the structure of lithic tool assemblages and hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement systems, in order to develop middle range theory and models of hunter-gatherer stone tool manufacture and assemblage formation. As concern with the organization of lithic technology increases, archaeologists have recognized that assemblage variability is the product of many factors, not just the functional requirements of activities. This in turn has prompted research to identify the processes that can affect formal lithic artifact variation and assemblage composition, and must be considered when inferring behavior on the basis of lithic studies. This research includes studies of tool design parameters ( Bleed 1986; Keeley 1982; Shott 1989), toolkit diversity and linkages between subsistence organization and stone tool manufacture, maintenance, and discard (Bamforth 1986; Binford 1979, 1980; Hayden 1978; Kelly 1988), site formation processes ( Stevenson 1985); de bit age analysis and li thic reduction strategies (Fish 1981; Magne 1985; Sullivan 1987; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Such models and analytical techniques have considerable potential to further our understanding of lithic variability, but many studies note that the lack of useful ethnographic data on lithic technological organization puts methodological limitations on our ability to generate sound inferences about factors which shaped prehistoric artifacts and assemblages. Usually the organizational context of lithic technology is inferred from archaeological patterning (see Kelly 1988). In some cases, modern hunter-gatherer groups using modern technologies are used to extrapolate back to lithic use contexts, al though there are obvious perils in such interpretation (see Binford and O'Connell 1984; Hayden 1979; Weissner 1983).

49

Ethnoarchaeological studies of lithic technology usually present descriptive accounts of tool manufacture and use (e.g., Gallagher 1977; Gould 1977; Gould, Koster and Sontz 1971) but they are often criticized for failing to produce general principles which can contribute to the development of middle range theory (Schiffer 1978: 239-242). Nevertheless, such descriptive studies constitute an important data base for dealing with theoretical issues. Archaeologists rarely have the opportunity in the 1980s, however, to observe stone tools regularly used to any degree in contemporary hunting and gathering societies. Any contemporary ethnographic situation where stone tools are employed i n only a small part of a society's technology warrants detailed description of tool manufacture and use activities, their cultural contexts, and evaluation of their potential utility as a source of information for models about past behavior (see Hayden and Nelson 1981). In this paper, we report initial ethnoarchaeological research conducted among Mackenzie Basin Dene ( Athapaskan) Indians. Although Northern Athapaskan groups have undergone considerable change since European contact, recent studies among the Mackenzie Basin Dene have shown the persistence of traditional socio-economic activities within a 20th century technological context (see Janes 1983). This provides an unprecedented opportunity for ethnoarchaeological research that addresses questions of hunter-gatherer technological organization. We describe the contemporary manufacture and use of chipped stone tools, "memory culture" accounts of lithic procurement, and tool use and discard patterns. These data are used to evaluate current assumptions about artifact curation and their implications for the interpretation of archaeological assemblages. Three case presented:

studies

of Dene lithic

technological

organization

are

1) Patterns of tool use and discard associated with activities carried out at contemporary residential camps that can influence the composition of lithic assemblages formed at these types of sites; 2) Past lithic procurement activities and their effect on the composition of mountain quarry site assemblages; 3) The design requirements, manufacture, use, and curation of contemporary hide softening stone tools. An important contribution of this study is to document the types of stone tools still in use in contemporary-traditional Dene bush camps of the Northwest Territories. Generalizations derived from the st udy should apply to the manufacture, use and discard of lithic artifacts by mobile temperate zone hunter gatherers, and may allow us to better understand how these behavioral sources of variability affected lithic assemblage content in the past. MACKENZIE BASIN DENEETHNOARCHAEOLOGY Since archaeological Mountains Territories, Slavey Dene focused on

1983, we have conducted ethnoarchaeological and research in the eastern slopes of the Mackenzie and the middle Mackenzie River valley, Northwest Canada, the traditional territory of the Mountain and Indians respectively ( see Figure 1). This research has the nature of hunter-gatherer subsistence-settlement 50

.. ·· .... 500

1000km

0

0

Figure 1. basin study

Map of area.

the

Northwest

Territories

IOOmiles 200km

middle

Mackenzie

River

systems in the northern forest and their implications for interpreting the archaeological record of high elevation hunting groups. Lithic studies were only one part of the project, which included studies of 51

subsistence and settlement patterns, site formation processes, and archaeological site survey. The majority of our work has been conducted among the Mountain Indians, given the continuity of essential ecological and cultural adaptations between the precontact and fur trade periods. The Mountain Dene are Athapaskan speaking Indians whose traditional territory includes the eastern Yukon continental divide area and the eastern slopes of the Mackenzie Mountains, Northwest Territories, (Ebbutt 1931; Gillespe 1981; Michea 1963). This region consists of rugged mountainous terrain, with alpine tundra on the uplands and peaks, and deeply-incised river valleys covered by white and black spruce boreal forest (Porsild 1945; Simmons and Miller 1982). Contact with Europeans began in the early nineteenth century, although it was infrequent until the mid-1800s due to the absence of trading posts within Mountain Dene territory. Throughout the fur trade period, Mountain Indians had contact with Whites only beyond their territory, at trading posts in the Mackenzie River valley. The Mountain Dene traded a mix of meat and furs, resulting in a "contact-traditional" (Helm and Damas 1963:10-11) pattern where the pre-existing large game hunting economy was intensified, rather than decreased, to produce surplus meat for trade. This trade was most intense in the Keele and Mountain river basins, the only navigable mountain rivers that allowed the use of mooseskin boats to transport large quantities of meat, fat and furs down to the Mackenzie River posts. The resulting annual round involved visits to Fort Wrigley, Fort Norman, and Fort Good Hope in the fall and spring to trade meat, and return to the mountains for the summer and winter (Gillespe 1981). In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Mountain Indian groups resided for long periods of time at the Mackenzie Valley posts, but seasonal mountain utilization continued into the twentieth century. The last major trek into the mountains and travel down the rivers by mooseskin boat occurred in the late 1950s (Michea 1963). The banning of the meat trade in the late 1940s, and other factors (e.g., population decrease from tuberculosis) led to a major reduction of mountain utilization. The only sizable present day Mountain Dene population is located at Fort Norman. Many Fort Norman Mountain Dene still lead active bush lives and frequent the mountains regularly for subsistence. Elders possess a vivid memory culture of former subsistence and settlement strategies carried out in the region between the Keele River basin. Relative to the Mountain Dene, Slavey Indians in the Mackenzie Valley have had more extended contact with European cultures. However, major aspects of Slavey culture remained relatively intact until the Second World War (Asch 1981:346). Most of the changes that occurred during this period were related to the adoption of trade goods, particularly metal implements and firearms. Nevertheless, some stone tools were still being made in the late 1800s (Bompas 1888:40, 92). Although Euro-Canadian influence has greatly increased since the 1950s, and trapping for income to purchase Western material items is now the major economic activity, smaller native communities still rely to a large degree on bush resources for subsistence. The data reported here were collected from one Slavey and three Mountain Dene male informants, ranging from 45 to approximately 75 52

.

years i n temporary ca mps a t Ma cke nzie

ag e . The field research was carr i ed out a t Fort Norman, bush camps along the Keele River, and permanent residential Drum (Wri gley) Lake and the confluence of the Wil lowlake and Ri vers (see Fig ure 1).

MOUNTAIN DENESUBSISTENCE- SETTLEMENT AND TECHNOLOGICAL ORGAN I ZATI ON Mountain Dene hunters purs ue a hig h ly mobile, logisti c allyorganized subsistence strategy that involves repeated short-term utilization of specific site locations. Hunting in the mountains involves male hunting parties that travel separately from the rest of the band, and regular scheduled meetings at residential camps. Hunters range around a logistically structured pattern of base camp movement. Women are often responsible for camp set-up, take-down and transport to new locations. Men hunt, carry out the primary butchering, and transport the kill back to the residential camps. Evidence of secondary processing of game (e.g., fine butchering for consumption and storage, bone grease production) should, therefore, be limited to residential camp contexts. Although not as prominent in the contemporary setting, cultural prohibitions concerning women, hunting gear, and the blood of kills, can affect the social circumscription of many hunting versus butchering activities, and anticipated artifact manufacturing and discard patterns. For example, women must not come in direct contact - with male hunting gear in order that they not contaminate the equipment and endanger hunting success. Contact wit h animal blood is considered to adversely affect women ' s health an d re prod uc t io n. Wom en do n o t norm all y ass ociate wit h game unt il a ft er i t is b l ed a nd i nitially dismembered i nto anatomical portions. At this stage, they are solely respons i ble fo r meat handling. Hunting equipment, in both active and passive contexts (see Binford 1979), is therefore kept away from fami ly camp activities. If th i s pattern of proscript i on has antiquity, there should be differential distributions of hunter's personal gear and female domest i c artifacts at resident i a l camp. Given our ethnoarchaeological observations at Mountain Dene residential sites, we expect a mutually exclusive distribution of hunting personal gear and female domestic artifacts. This is the pattern evident at archaeological sites surveyed in the Drum Lake locality ( see Figure 1). Only one site tested to date has yielded direct evidence of female-related activities - a cortex spall scraper with use polish along the working edge, similar to contemporary hide softening tools discussed below. The site does not, however, contain lithics interpreted as hunter's personal gear, although manufacturing rejects (two conjoining fragments of a biface blank) of such gear are present. Our ethnoarchaeolog i cal research has also indicated differences in hearth form related to s i te use ( Hanks and Pokotylo 1989); we are currently analyz i ng the hearth features as an independent test of the lithic interpretations. ORGANIZATION OF DENELITHIC TECHNOLOGY Al though replacement of traditional technologies has been extensive throughout the western subarctic, ethnographic accounts note some persistence of chipped stone industries ( Leechman 1954; Graham 1935) and a "memory culture" of their use ( Leechman 1950) in to the 53

mid-20th century. Our elder Mountain Dene informants provided an unexpected amount of information on the past organization of li thic technology. The elders have never made or used stone tools, but they can easily recall fathers and grandfathers quarrying stone and manufacturing adzes, points, and strike-a-lites. They noted that the adze-head was the most important item in the lithic toolkit, and readily distinguished tree stumps cut with a stone axe from those cut with steel axes during our visits to ethnohistoric residential sites in the mountains. Although knowledge of lithic technology is not an active part of the present Mountain Dene technological system, it is retained as contingency information, to be implemented in critical situations when modern tools fail. For example, the elders were informed of the chert source locations discussed below when they were young hunters, and continue to pass on this information on to new generations in case modern gear fails in the bush and they are in dire need of strike-a-lites for fire or cutting edges (see Binford 1979:261 for a similar situation among the Nunamiut). In addition to the Mountain Dene elders' memory culture knowledge of chipped stone technology, one Slavey informant in the Mackenzie River Valley still makes chipped stone tools for use by female family members in hide processing activities. Lithic

Procurement

Strategies

Mountain Dene elders have identified several lithic source locations on topographic maps and described specific quarrying methods. To date, we have archaeologically confirmed two of these quarries. The salient characteristics of one site are outlined below. The Ekwi River quarry site (KjTc-1) is a limestone outcrop situated at treeline (2300 meters above sea level) in the Ekwi River headwaters area of the Backbone Range of Mackenzie Mounta ins, approximately 65 km from the Yukon Northwest Territories border (see Figures 1 and 2). Both Mountain Dene elders independently identified the location, stating that workable "hard" stone (a dark grey chert) was available by simply pulling up small stands of willow on the site. One elder provided directions to his nephew who had never been to the site but took us to directly the location. During our visit at the site, we used the technique described by the elders to easily dislodge tabular pieces of chert, fractured by root action and freeze-thaw cycles, which lay buried beneath the moss layer and intertwined among the willow roots. Dense bush growth and moss cover obscured archaeological evidence of previous quarrying and workshop activities, and we were only able to collect raw material samples during the limited time spent at the site. Our informants still hold strong ideological connections to mountain quarries and other geological features of significance to them. Prior to our visit to the Ekwi River quarry site, both elders insisted that we leave an offering of personal gear (e.g., ammunition, matches, or tobacco) at the site. In this context, Dene attitudes toward li thic procurement are tied to traditional beliefs about the payment of spirits who reside within the earth. One informant stated that offerings are left in return for the chert taken in order to prevent the resource from being lost due to colluvial or fluvial processes that could obliterate it. Such ideological behavior can

54

affect sites.

the composition

Figure

2.

of lithic

The Ekwi River quarry

assemblages

site,

formed at quarry/workshop

Mackenzie Mountains.

If the practice of "offering" personal gear at quarries has an ti qui ty, we expect li thic assemblages at these sites to contain still functional items of some importance to hunters, in addition to quarrying debris and exhausted artifacts replaced at the site (cf. Gramley 1980). Such "offered" artifacts would likely be assumed to be out of context with the major activities carried out at quarry sites. Although these artifacts may constitute a relatively low proportion of the lithic assemblage, their absolute number may monitor the frequency that the site was visited for lithic procurement. We will be conducting more research to archaeologically verify other mountain quarry sites, and test the above hypothesis. The ethnographic data collected to date suggest a limited distribution of quarry sites with good quality lithic material. Given the high degree of mobility of Mountain Dene groups in the past and present, and the remoteness of the quarry locations, lithic procurement was probably an embedded strategy. The Mountain Dene elders gave no response when asked if specific lithic procurement trips were carried out in the past but they were quick to point out raw material suitable for particular tool types in the course of regular bush activities. The mountain quarries would be covered in seasons of deep snow cover, limiting access to the brief snow-free period. Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain any information on the implications of this restricted availability to tool curation and recycling. The regional archaeological record is characterized by a paucity of formed stone 55

tools and high proportions of late stage which suggest that curation of bifacial practiced. Contemporary

bifacial thinning debitage, implements was extensively

Chipped Stone Artifacts

We have observed chipped stone tools being used in hide processing activities at a Slavey residential camp at the confluence of the Willowlake River in the Mackenzie River Valley (see Figure 1). Al though men usually butcher game, hide tanning is a constant occupation of the women. This di vision of labor is typical of most North American native cultures where hunting of medium and large game provides the majority of the subsistence base (Driver and Massey 1957:343-344). Among the Dene, hide working is usually carried out at residential camps. At the Willow Lake River camp, hides were stored in out buildings and processed beside them. Hafted cortex spall flakes with marginal bifacial retouch, or tthete, are used to soften hides. The artifact described below was observed in use in 1985, was collected by the senior author immediately prior to its discard. The tool at time of collection was four years old, and had been used to soften a minimum of 10 large moose hides during its use-life (see Figures 3 and 4). The tool is 151 mm long, 110 mm wide, and 21 mm thick (see Note 1). It had been manufactured from a chert pebble spall flake, and was hafted to a spruce pole split at one end. The - pole is 850 mm long and 31 mm in diameter. Commercial materials replaced traditional ones for hafting the implement. A metal nut and bolt placed through holes hand-drilled in both the stone and the haft, and nylon cord, and "J" cloth secured the tool. The tthete is used in the final stage of softening a hide prior to smoking it. The operation thins the hide by removal of remaining cuticles of flesh still attached. The haft is held with two hands as the · worker pushes the tool edge hard against a stretched hide supported on a framework and pulls it downward (see Figures 5 and 6). Depending on initial placement on the hide relative to height of the worker, both sides of the working edge can come into contact with the hide. There is no "up" side to the tool and it is rotated in the course of the hide working. Approximately six hours are required to soften an adult moose hide. The activity is broken up into a series of short intervals, as it requires considerable effort. The stoneworker described the general stages involved in the manufacture of the tthete. Procurement of lithic raw material is an embedded strategy ( Binford 1979: 259-261). The flake blank had been collected from the banks of the Mackenzie River. The stoneworker stated that he constantly was on the lookout for suitable lithic material during the course of bush activities and kept a supply of additional flake blanks, also procured from the river banks , at the residential camp, for future tool production. The five items available for inspection (see Figure 7) had been brought back to camp in an unaltered state for further reduction when required. The flake spall used for the present tool originally had a curved "beak" at one end; this was removed by flaking with a metal hatchet to straighten and shape the working edge. It was then bifacially retouched approximately 7 mm in from the margins to purposefully roughen the edge for a better grip on the hide. The most extensive retouch was 56

Figure 3. Willowlake

Using a hafted River residential

softening camp.

stone

tool

to

work

Figure 4. Detailed view of the hafted softening stone work moose hide, Willowlake River residential camp.

57

moose

tool

hide,

used

to

Figure 5. Plan view of hide softening along margin of working edge.

Figure

6.

Lateral

view of hide

tool,

softening 58

note

tool.

extensive

use polish

Figure tools,

7. Dene stoneworker with Willowlake River residential

flake camp.

blanks

for

hide

softening

carried out to shape the tool for hafting. At the time of the field observations, both sides of the working edge were extensively polished from use as much as 7 mm in from the margins. The users considered the tool to be approaching a nonfunctional state and in need of maintenance. It had been rejuvenated "many" times ( the exact number was not stated by either the maker or the users) by bifacially retouching the worn working edge to roughen it. Both the stoneworker and the users considered the specimen to have a further use-life if it was resharpened. The major considerations

59

stated in determining the overall lifespan of the tool tool size from resharpening episodes and breakage.

were decreasing

Comparative observations for the Tahltan Indians of northern British Columbia, who also make and use contemporary stone tools similar to the tthete (Albright 1984 :57-59), indicate that extended curation of this technologically simple tool class in the absence of raw material stress is common to subarctic technological organization. Albright ( 1984 :57-58) reports curation periods as long as 100 years that involve inheritance of tools among related females. Janes (1983:99-100) presents similar observations for metal versions of this tool class used by other Mackenzie Basin Dene, although the curation period is considerably less (4 - 30 years) than the Tahltan case. DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS Our observations of Dene lithic technology have important implications for archaeological studies of technological organization and assemblage formation processes. The tool discard patterns reported for mountain residential sites and quarry sites indicate that ideological factors can have a major effect on the "mapping relations" ~etween tools and activities (see Ammermanand Feldman 1974:610) that determine the location and frequency of artifact discard. Ideological variables, however, are not formally considered in current models of discard behavior and assemblage formation processes. Their inclusion may provide more satisfactory explanations of seemingly anomalous situations in the archaeological record. The data on contemporary hide softening tools warrant some reassessment of current models of tool curatio~ as they relate to technologically "expedient" artifacts. Binford (1973, 1977, 1979) originally defined curated technologies as consisting of tools useful in a variety of tasks, manufactured in anticipation of use, maintained through a number of uses, transported from site to site for these uses, and recycled to other tasks when no longer functional in their original activities. Curation should produce distinctive, technologically complex assemblages, containing tools made for a variety of anticipated purposes. In an alternative approach, Bamforth (1986) states that curation includes at least five distinct aspects of stone tool manufacture and use: 1) production of implements in advance of use, 2) design of implements for multiple uses, 3) transport of implements from location to location, 4) maintenance, 5) recycling. Bamforth regards tool curation as a complex set of behaviors that cannot be explained by any single factor, and proposes that two aspects of curation - maintenance and recycling - vary in response to raw material availability. They are not related directly or solely to settlement organization (cf. Binford 1979), or time limitations on the activities for which tools are used (cf. Torrence 1983). Rather, local lithic resource availability places fundamental constraints on technology: • • • rates of tool maintenance and recycling will decrease when such (lithic raw material) shortages are absent and the cost of replacing worn tools is therefore low (Bamforth 1986:40).

60

In the most recent reassessment of the curation concept, Shott ( 1989:24) defines curation as "the realized utility of a tool, and cura tion rate can be measured as the ratio of realized to potential utility." He argues that curation can be practiced to varying degrees within a technological system, and specific tool classes can be curated to greater or lesser extent. Shott advocates an approach that measures the curation rate of different tool classes in an assemblage by studying the "elemental properties" of tools (e.g., degree of reduction) to infer use-life and behavioral correlates. Few of the factors or relationships presented in the above models adequately account for the subarctic cases presented here. Given the morphology and the relatively simple lithic reduction process involved in the manufacture of hide softening tools, contemporary specimens would likely be interpreted as "expedient" tools (Binford 1979) in an archaeological context. Our observations indicate that hide softening tools served a single function only, and were discarded rather than recycled when no they are longer functional (see Note 2). Given that hide processing activities are now restricted to residential sites, there is a low probability that these i terns were transported. The remarkable periods of extended curation for this tool class are unexpected, given there is no raw material stress to promote high cur a tion. The irnportan t factor here may be hafting, as this is the most intensive operation involved in manufacturing the composite tool (cf. Keeley 1982). The data also do not support Shott's hypothesis of manufacturing cost and curation rate. Although our comparative sample is small, the cura tion potential and use-life of hide working tools does not appear to be directly proportional to amount of effort expended in production, whether this is measured by procurement effort, degree of elaboration and reduction intensity. Shott (1989:22-23) did not find a strong relationship between manufacturing cost and use-life in Ingalik technology; this poor fit may reflect a high latitude pat tern. On the basis of our observations, we expect that even technologically expedient tools are underrepresented in the archaeological record relative to their intensity of use in systemic context. While many researchers may think that ethnoarchaeological studies of contemporary lithic technology have a limited potential to provide clues to the past organization of hunter-gatherer lithic technology, the above cases reveal the vast amount of information which is still available in subarctic North America. The data that we have presented should aid archaeologists in recognizing factors involved in artifact discard at both quarry and residential sites of mobile huntergatherers. They will also help in the interpretation of life-cycles and the curation potential of technologically simple tools in studies of assemblage variability. We hope that our observations of Dene lithic behavior will prompt other archaeologists to reconsider current methods and interpretations, and aid the development of new approaches to study lithic technology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research funds for these studies were provided by UBC Humanities and Social Sciences Research Grants, the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, the Northern Oil and Gas Action Plan, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the UBC Museum of Anthropology Shop 61

Volunteers. Our most sincere appreciation goes to our Dene colleagues, particularly Fred Andrew, Baptiste and Alice Betsedia, Gabe Echinellie, and George and Vivian Pellissey, for their patience, understanding, and cooperation. Graphics were prepared by William McLennan and Susan Matson. NOTES 1. Measurement of tool length requires removal of hafting material. This would adversely affect the integrity of the specimen, so an estimate was made. 2. A similar hide softening tool in the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre collection was discovered at a recently abandoned Dene residential camp by the Liard River. The item is still hafted and in usable condition, suggesting that it may have been left as site furniture (Binford 1979:263-264). REFERENCES Albright, 1984

Sylvia L. Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology. Publication Number 15. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Ammerman, Albert J. and Marcus w. Feldman 1974 On the 'Making' of an Assemblage Antiquity 39:610-616. Asch, Michael I. 1981 Slavey. Subarctic, Institution

of Stone Tools.

American

In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. VI, edited by J. Helm, pp. 338-349. Smithsonian Press, Washington.

Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency Antiquity 51:38-50.

and

Tool

Cura tion.

American

Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability The Mousterian and the "Functional" Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227-254. Duckworth, London. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by R. Wright, pp. 24-36. Humanities Press, Atlanti~ Highlands. 1979 Organization Technologies. 273.

and

Formation Processes: Looking at Journal of Anthropological Research

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Systems and Archaeological Antiquity 45:4-20.

62

' Hunter-Gatherer Site Formation.

Curated 35:255-

Settlement American

Binford, 1984

Lewis R. and James F. O'Connell An Alywara Day: The Stone Quarry. Research 40:406-432.

Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Reliability.

Design of Hunting American Antiquity

Bompas, William C. 1888 Diocese of Mackenzie Knowledg~ London. Draper, Neale 1985 Back to the Drawing Assemblage Variability Archaeology 17:3-19.

River.

Journal

of Anthropological

Weapons: Maintainability 51:737-747.

Society

for

Promoting

or

Christian

Board: A Simplified Approach to in the Early Paleolithic. World

Driver, H.E. and W.C. Massey 1957 Comparative Studies of North of the American Philosophical Ebbutt, F. 1931 The Gravel River Indians. 2:311-321.

American Indians. Transactions Society n.s. 47(2):165-456. Canadian

Geographical

Journal

Fish, Paul R. 1981 Beyond Tools: Middle Paleolithic Debitage Analysis and Cultural Inference. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:374-386. Gallagher, James P. 1977 Contemporary Archaeology.

Stone Tools in Journal of Field

Ethiopia: Archaeology

Gillespe, B. C. 1981 Mountain Indians. In Handbook of North Vol. VI, Subarctic, edited byJ:-ife°lm, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Implications 4:407-414.

for

American Indians, pp. 326-337•

Gould, Richard A. 1977 Ethno-archaeology; or Where do Models Come From? In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, editedby R. Wright, pp. 162-168. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands. Gould, Richard A., Dorothy Koster and Ann H.L. Sontz 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert American Antiquity 36:149-169. Graham, A. 1935 The Golden Grindstone: The Adventures Oxford University Press, Toronto. Gramley, R.M. 1980 Raw Material Source Areas and American Antiquity 45:823-833.

63

Aborigines.

of George M. Mitchell.

"Curated"

Tool

Assemblages.

Hanks, Christopher C. and David L. Pokotylo An Alternative Approach to Dene and 1989 The Mackenzie Basin: Metis Archaeology. Arctic: in press. Hayden, Brian 1978 Snarks in Archaeology: or, Inter-assemblage Variability in Lit h i cs (a V i ew fr om t h e A nt i podes). I n Lithics ��� Subsistence: The Analysis of Stone Tool Use in Prehistoric Economies, edited by D.D. Davis, pp. 179-199• Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology 20, Nashville. 1979

Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Excavations Among Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

1987

Past to Present Uses of Stone Tools in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 160-234. University of Arizoria Press, Tucson.

Hayden, Brian and Margaret Nelson 1981 The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46:885-898. Helm, June and David Damas 1963 The Contact-Traditional All-Native Community of the Canadian North: The Upper Mackenzie "Bush" Athapaskans and the Iglumiut. Anthropologica n.s. 5:9-21. Janes, R.R. 1983 Archaeological Ethnography among the Mackenzie Basin Dene, Canada. Technical Paper No.� Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary. Keeley, L.H. 1982 Rehafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798-809. Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface.

American Antiquity 53:717-734.

Leechman, D. 1950 Aboriginal Tree-Felling. In Annual Report of the National Museum for the Fiscal Year 1948-49, pp. 44-49. Canada Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa. 1954 The Vanta Kutchin. Bulletin No. 130. Anthropological Series No. 33. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Magne, Martin P.R. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior Britisheolumbia. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper 133. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

64

Michea, J. 1963 Les Chit tra-Got tineke: Essai de Monographie d 'un Athapascan des Montagnes Rocheuses. In Contributions to Anthropology, 1960, Part 2:49-93. Bulletin No. 190. Anthropological Series No. 60. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Porsild, 1945

Alf E. The Alpine Flora of the East Slope of Mackenzie Mountains, ic:>r"thwest Territories.--Bulletin No. 101. Biological Series No. 27. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Schiffer, 1978

Michael B. Methodological Issues in Ethnoarchaeology. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by R.A. Gould, pp. 229-248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shott, Michael 1986 Technological Organization Ethnographic Examination. Research 42:15-51. 1989

On Tool-Class Assemblages.

and Settlement Journal of

Use Lives and the Formation American Antiquity 54:9-30.

Simmons, Hilah and Sam Miller 1982 Notes on the Vascular Plants of the BarrensandSurrounding Area. Report TerritoriesWildlife Service Information

Mobility: Anthropological

An

of Archaeological

Mackenzie Mountain No. 3. Northwest Series, Yellowknife.

Stevenson, Marc 1985 The Formation of Artifact Assemblages at Workshop/Habitation Sites: Models from Peace Point in Northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50:63-81. Sullivan, 1987

Alan P. Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability: A Regional Case Study near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeology 8:41-71.

Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological American Antiquity 50:755-779• Torrence, 1983

Interpretation.

Robin Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In HunterGatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp.1122. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Weissner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276.

65

San Projectile

Wiant, Michael D. and Harold Hassan 1985 The Role of Lithic Resource Availability and Accessibility in In Lithic Resource the Organization of Lithic Technology. Proc urement: Procee dings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by s. C. Vehik, pp. 101-114. Oc c as i on a l Pub l ic a t i ons No. 4. Cent e r for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

66

INVESTIGATING PATTERNING IN DEBITAGEFROMEXPERIMENTAL BIFACIALCOREREDUCTION Raymond P. Mauldin and Daniel S. Amick University of New Mexico

Debitage is now a major focus of lithic analysis, used to inform us about manufacturing techniques and reduction strategies (e.g., Collins 1975), and ultimately about the integration of tool manufacture and use at a landscape level (e.g., Raab et al. 1979; Jefferies 1982; Sullivan and Rozen 1985; Amick 1987; Sullivan 1987). Archaeological debitage analysis currently employs several attributes which are assumed to reflect chipped-stone tool production behavior. Some of the at tributes are based on experimental evidence, some are based on logical arguments, and s6me are based on intuition. This paper explores two aspects of reduction, the use of certain flake attributes in assigning debris to reduction stages, and the similarities and differences between debitage assemblages produced by the same type of reduction. Using data generated from the bifacial reduction of three nodules into preforms, conducted in an experimental setting, we examine a set of attributes which are commonly used to infer the relative position of a flake or set of flakes in the reduction process (e.g., cortex cover, dorsal scars, flake size). We argue that cortex cover distinguishes only the earliest reduction debris, and patterning in dorsal scars is of little utility for elucidating reduction stages. Platform size appears to be related more to mechanical parameters, while attributes reflecting flake size show only weak trends through the reduction process. We conclude that initial core size and shape, as well as situational conditions, complicate any direct interpretation of these attribute states in terms of reduction. We also consider the effects of changing hammer types through the reduction sequence on these attributes, as well as the use of flake types at an assemblage level to infer reduction types. Comparison of similarities and differences between debi tage ·assemblages from the three bifacial core reductions, demonstrates considerable variability which could be interpreted in an archaeological context as reflecting different reduction types. The use of a combination of size grades and cortex produces similar distributions for all three cores, suggesting that approaches which combine individual attributes may eventually prove useful for identifying bifacial core reduction. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES The data used in this study were gathered in the fall of 1983 and consist of flakes from the reduction of three cobbles of Georgetown chert, a highly siliceous material derived from the . Edwards Plateau in Central Texas. The goal of each reduction was identical, the production of a standard sized and shaped bi facial "blank." All of the knapping was done by Steven A. Tomka of the University of Texas. 67

The data recording was done by Tomka and Mauldin. The tool kit consisted of a large hard hammer (230 g), a small hard hammer (63 g), a large antler billet (650 g), a small antler billet (180 g), and an antler pressure flaker. Thus, the only physical parameters that were not identical for the three reductions were the initial size and shape of the chert nodules. Other parameters which changed were the sequence and strategy of flaking tool use. The experiments were conducted over a series of large plastic sheets. Each time a blow was struck, any resulting debris was collected, placed in a plastic bag, and given a percussion event number. Most blows produced multiple flakes and each flake was given a unique specimen number. These procedures and terms follow those described by Magne (1985:95). The analyzed data set consisted of 1241 flakes resulting from screening all debris through 1/4 inch (0.64 x 0. 64 cm) mesh. This simulated the analysis of many archaeological data sets, and also greatly reduced the analytical burden of dealing with small shatter. Reduction of the first core produced 413 flakes and involved 106 events ( about four flakes per event). The second reduction produced 325 flakes in 101 events ( about three flakes per event), while the third core produced 503 flakes in 155 events (about 3 .25 flakes per event). These debris figures are slightly higher than similar biface production experiments reported by Magne (1985:9596) which reflects both a longer reduction sequence as well as the recovery of smaller debris. Several attributes were recorded in the flake study. These were selected because they are commonly used in li thic analysis, and the measurements are easily recorded and replicable. Figure 1 details the metric measurements and Table 1 defines all initial variables. On all flakes, regardless of the presence or absence of a platform or termination, the maximum length, maximum width, and the weight of each piece was measured. The number of dorsal scars longer than 0.5 cm and the direction from which they originated was also recorded. This was done by placing a flake on a sheet of polar coordinates graph paper and orienting the platform at the top. The graph paper was divided into eight equal segments of 45 degrees and the number of flakes in each segment were counted. Estimations of the percentage of dorsal and platform cortex cover were recorded using quartile categories. On flakes which retained platforms, all of the above attributes were noted plus the maximum length and width of the platform. On complete flakes (defined by the presence of both a platform and termination), the width of · the midpoint of the flake and the distance from the maximum width to the platform were recorded as further indicators of flake shape which was expected to vary with changing percussors and increased reduction. Although the raw material type, knapper, toolkit, analysts, and production goal were held constant, two significant parameters varied. First, the sizes and shapes of the original cobbles were not identical. Core 1 and Core 2 are similar in weight (about 800 g), while Core 3 is about twice as large (about 1800 g). All three cores were basically flattened nodules, although Cores 1 and 3 were roughly ovoid in contrast to Core 2 which was somewhat triangular in planview. These size and shape differences were expected to cause variability in cortical flake frequencies as well as altering the strategy of biface production. Secondly, the sequence of flaking tool use and reduction 68

6

VENTRAL VIEW

3

.I

1. LENGTH - maximum flake length from point of impact. 2. 01ST - length from point of impact to perpendicular axis of MAXWIDTH. 3. MAXWIDTH - maximum width perpendicular to 01ST and LENGTH. 4. MIDWIDTH - width at midpoint of LENGTH perpendicular to 01ST and LENGTH. 5. PWIDTH - maximum width of platform. 6. PTHICK - maximum thickness at point of impact perpendicular to PWIDTH.

Figure 1. Flake measurement techniques for linear measurements (illustration adapted from Fish 1979). stategy were determined by the knapper and are considered to be largely a response to the situational demands imposed by the changing core size and shape. ANALYSIS Analysis of the experimental debitage has relied upon a pattern recognition strategy to identify conditioning variables and their effects and interactions. We began by examining a series of bivariate plots, box plots, and stem-and-leaf diagrams to assess the shapes of the distributions and relationships between variables. This was followed by the construction of several correlation matrices. These techniques helped us identify variables and attributes that were redundant or of little analytical utility. Cortex The debitage attribute that is most commonly used in lithic Flakes reduction analysis is the percentage of cortex on a flake. that have a dorsal surface covered by cortex are logically assumed to reflect early reduction, and flakes without cortical cover are assumed 69

Table

1.

Variable

Variable EVENT

coding format. Dea.cription

Ordered sequence

of percuss i on blow.

SEQUENCE Unique specimen number given to all HAMMER

Flaking hammer, 5=antler

flakes.

tool type. · 1= large hard hammer, 2=smal l ha rd 3=large antler billet, 4=smal l antl er bil let, tine pressure flaker .

FRAGMENT Flake fragmen t t ype. 1=complete, 4: bif ace fragment, 5=indeterminate. CORTEX

Dorsal cortex cortex present. 99%, 5=100%.

SCARS

The number of scars surface .

2:prox i mal ,

3=dista l ,

cover est i mated i n ord i na l categor i es of O=none, 1=1-2 4%, 2 =25-50%, 3=51-74%, 4=75greater

than

5 mm long on the dorsal

DIRECTION The number of directions, recorded on an 8 coordinate system, which have scars present on the dorsal surface. WEIGHT

Recorded to the nearest

0.1 g.

LENGTH

Recorded to the nearest

0.1 cm.

MIDWIDTH Midpoint flakes.

width

recorded

MAXWIDTH Maximum width recorded

to the

nearest

to the nearest

0.1

cm on complete

0.1 cm.

DISTANCE Distance from the platform to the maximum width recorded the nearest 0.1 cm on complete flakes. PWIDTH

Platform platform

width recorded to the remnant bear i ng flakes.

nearest

P.THI CK

Platform platform

thickness re cor ded to the nearest remnan t be ar ing flakes.

0.1

to

cm on al l

0.1 cm on all

to reflect late r reduct i on. An ext ension of t hese ass umpt ions i s that the relati ve per cen t age of cortex cover monit or s i ncr eas i ng redu cti on of a cortex covered nodule. Our anal ys is cor ro bor ates the results of earlier studies ( Magne a nd Pokot yl o 1981; Magne 1985) which sug gest that the percentage of cortex is only useful as an indicator of early red uction. Most cortex is removed after half of the events in each of our core reductions had been completed. This is apparent in Figure 2 which plots the percentage of flakes within three ordinal cortex categor i es for each of four reduction stages. An arbitrarily defined four stage model, with each stage containing 25% of the events r ecorded for a given core, was selected to provide adequate samples yet still allow us to closely monitor increasing reduction. Stage 1 70

·

100ll

90.

80.

70.

(I)

er

6o.

m w

0

Li..

0

w

50.

~ z w

u

0::

w

40.

a.. 30.

20.

10.

NO CORTEX

D STAGE# 1

Figure

2.

Cortex

categories

1 - 50. CORTEX CORTEX CATEGORIES t::,.STAGE # 2 ◊ STAGE # .3

by reduction

51 - 1oca CORTEX

X STAGE # 4

stage.

consists of the first 25% of the events for each core, Stage 2 contains the next 25%, and so on. The graph shows that in Stage 1, noncortical flakes make up about 38% of the debris. In Stage 2 this increases to about 70%, while in Stage 3 almost 90% of the flakes lack cortex. In the last stage, over 97% of the flakes are noncortical. Remember that these reductions were stopped after the production of a ·blank; continued reduction would have resulted in more noncortical debitage. The percentage of cortex on flakes, then, is only an effective measure of the earliest reduction stages for this type of core reduction strategy. There is also considerable variability in the percentage of cortical flakes produced by the three reductions, as can be seen in Figure 3. A chi-square test comparing the three decortication categories among the three cores indicates that a statistically significant difference exists (Table 2). Examination of the cell chisquare contributions shows that cortical flake proportions are less than expected for Core 1, while noncortical cover flake proportions are greater than expected. Core 2 is marked by a greater than expected number of flakes with 51-100% cortex while Core 3 is distinguished by less than expected frequencies of noncortical flakes and especially flakes with 1-50% cortex cover. In an archaeological 71

60. (/)

ix m w 0

50.

..... 0

w (!)

~ z w

40.

(.)

0:::

w

Q_

30.

NO CORTEX

Figure

3.

Cortex

1-50. CORTEX CORTEX CATEGORIES D CORE 1 6 CORE 2 ◊ CORE 3

categories

51-1005I

CORTEX

by core.

context, this degree of interassemblage variability might be interpreted as indicating significant differences in reduction trajectories even though these three reductions are essentially the same. The differences that exist between the cortex frequencies cannot be accounted for by core size as Cores 1 and 2, which evidence considerable variability in cortical flake frequencies, are roughly similar in size. However, if we control for flake size in comparing the proportion of different cortical groups, the distribution patterns between the three cores are consistent with core size. Flake size was measured by using the maximum dimension (length or width) of a piece to place it into one of six ordinal categories. Size Class 1 contains those flakes less than one cm in maximum dimension, Size Class 2 flakes are between one and two cm, Size Class 3 flakes are two to three cm, Size Class 4 flakes are three to four cm, Size Class 5 flakes are four to five cm, and Size Class 6 contains those flakes greater than five cm in any one dimension. Figure 4 presents the percentage of debris without cortex for each of these 72

Table 2. Contingency analysis of dorsal between the three bifacial core reductions. Dorsal Cortex

cortex

cover

categories

Cover 51-100%

Totals

None

1-50%

Core 1

0:349 E:282 chi:15.9

0:36 E=93 chi:34.9

0:28 E:38 chi:2.6

413

Core 2

0:200 E:222 chi:2.2

0:76 E:73 chi:0.1

0:49 E:30 chi:12.0

325

Core 3

0:299 E:344 chi:5.9

0:166 E:113 chi:24.9

0:38 E:47 chi= 1. 7

503

848

278

115

1241

Totals Chi-square=99.9,

df=4,

p .:;

:::::,

E :::::, 0

40 30 • • • • • P&R Biface ,. N N N 1e P&R Endscraper 1 1 1 1 1 P&R Block core Geeet P&R Spheroidal core aoooe Bradley Expt. 2 maaae Bradley Expts. 3& 4

20 10

0 Complete flake s

Prox. flakes

Flake fra gments

Ang. debris

Figure 1. Cumulative frequency curves for Prentiss volume) core types and Experiments 2 through 4.

Split flakes

and Romanski (this

assessed with a battery of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests or with a least squares regression model ( Kohler and Blinman 1987; Stahle and Dunn 1982, 1984) based upon experimental flake type frequencies. Scar Count/Hierarchical

Analyses

Magne ( 1985) has presented one of the most goal oriented experimental studies to distinguish biface reduction from block core reduction and both of these from bipolar core reduction. Additionally, Magne derived measures of stages of bi face and block core reduction. The results of his experimental studies (see also Magne and Pokotylo 1981 ) are applied to archaeological cases. To make his ex perimental work applicable to archaeological assemblages, the variable list is shortened into a taxonomic key (Figure 2). Although we did not define "stages" as such in our experiments, they are roughly simulated by dividing the sequentially numbered flakes into tripartite groups (corresponding to Stage 1 to Stage 3) for experiments 2, 3, and 4. Experiment 1, which broke very quickly because of a material flaw, is considered to be entirely Stage 1. We examined whether this taxonomic key provided accurate results, at least relative to our stage designations. A series of crosstabulations was performed in which the predicted core stages of 122

Regular flake morphology

No platform (shatter)

Platform-bearing flakes

r

Platform

acar

2

0-1

I Early

'

Middle

Bipolar morphology

count J♦

\ Late

Figure 2. Hierarchical and scar counts (after

l

' '

Dor■ al

Faceted

llpr•d

2

0-1

I

Middle

Early

Blfaoe (Late)

■ car

classification Magne 1983:129).

count

J+

\ Late Bipolar

scheme using

flake

flak•

morphology

Magne (Early, Middle, Late, Biface reduction) were contrasted with our simulated stages. The experiments should be classified as bi faces using Magne's (1985) scheme and stages should be separable, at least in a relative sense. The overall correct classifications for platform-bearing flakes and flake shatter are shown in Table 3. of correctly classified 3. Percentages flakes, ( 1985) key. Nonconjoined experim~ntal data only.

Table

Key Variable

All Experiments

Platform scar count

37-7%

Dorsal scar count

44.8%

Expt.

Expt.

Expt.

Expt.

3

4

47. 8%

20 .O'fo

34. 8%

57. 1%

47.8%

40.0%

1

44. 4%

using

2

Magne's

Obviously, the classification is not very accurate. There are .several possible reasons for this. First, Magne's stages are mostly based on block core reduction, so this key may not be very applicable to bifacial reduction. Alternatively, our division into stages may not correspond to Magne's stages, as our divisions are arbitrary and not based on different tool-shaping actions as Magne' s ( 1985) are. However, we still expected the general relationship to have held, and inspection of our crosstabulations indicated that it did not. Second, there are differences in raw material between assemblages. Third, differences in flintknapper strategies may also come into play here. Magne's analysis apparently works well for identification of the consta nts which he sought, yet it is not necessarily accurate for the identification of other constants. Application of Magne' s technique for our archaeological cases requires that assumptions be made about their similarity to British Columbian assemblages, which we feel is unwarranted.

123

Discussion We expected that both of these techniques would work equally well for our experimental data. Many of the controlling factors seemed to be the same. Yet, we found that the item completeness technique worked quite well and the hierarchical scar count technique did not. This may be due to differences in control factors as well as problems in the techniques themselves. This underscores a point made earlier: techniques are developed and evaluated so that they work on other controlled assemblages. Archaeological assemblages are obviously not controlled in the same way. A subtler point is that different experimental assemblages may also not be controlled in the same way, as we perhaps have demonstrated. This suggests that in many experiments, the experimental controls needed to identify the constants of interest are so rigid that they work only for that experiment. Analysis of archaeological cases, based on experimental techniques, necessitates the use of controls that are appropriate to archaeological assemblages. These techniques may often be of such a general nature that no constant can be identified. Techniques developed from this perspective therefore do not, and cannot, use a typological framework. A NONTYPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CHIPPED STONEREDUCTION As discussed above, one of our goals is the definition of variation in the reduction of chipped stone, both from different sources and from the same sources of raw material. A typological approach to this might be to define biface reduction stages and contrast the frequencies of "Stage 1" to "Stage 2" reduction indicators. However, what is more relevant to our archaeological goals is the comparison between the reduction of different raw materials. Figure 3 illustrates several hypothetical relationships between the reduction sequences of different material types. Raw material A falls into the early portion of a reduction continuum, B into the late portion, C contains parts of the early portion and the late portion, but not the middle, whereas D contains the entire reduction sequence. Reduction is modelled as a continuous process, which allows two characteristics of assemblages to be explored. The first is whether reduction of an assemblage, however defined, is continuous or disjunct. Figure 3 illustrates that Materials A, B, and Dare continuous, Material C is disjunct. The second characteristic is the pc ~ition along a reduction continuum of two or more assemblages relative to each other. Almost every chipped stone analyst has noted that some continuous variables change predictably through the reduction process. Dorsal scar count, for example, is expected to increase as reduction continues. Flake size is expected to decrease. We examined plots of several variables and combinations of variables against removal number and found that length, width, flake surface area, platform area, and dorsal scar density (100 x dorsal scar count/flake surface area, yielding dorsal scars per square centimeter) decreased with increasing removal number. Platform scar counts and dorsal scar counts did not decrease predictably.

124

HYPOTHETICAL REDUCTION COMPARISONS M A T E R I A L

A

B

C

D

EARLY-----------------------..

LATE

REDUCTION STATE Figure 3. Hypothetical along a scale of relative

relationship reduction.

between

different

raw materials

These considerations led us to consider a regression approach to predicting flake removal number, after trying a number of other approaches (see note 2). Logarithmic transformations of the values of skewed variables were made and a series of jack-knifed stepwise regressions (SPSS-X REGRESSION) were used to isolate multivariate solutions with good relative rankings of individual flakes. Our definition of "good relative rankings" needs some explanation. We wished to find a regression formula that would allow the position of a flake within the reduction continuum to be accurate relative to flakes removed just before it and just after it. The actual values of the resulting predicted sequence numbers are less important than their relationship and can be adjusted through the use of a constant term in the regression. The overall coefficient of determination (r-squared) is a first measure of the accuracy of prediction of a model. However, high r-squared values do not necessarily indicate a useful relationship, simply an accurate one. A perfectly accurate and useful regression solution should yield a slope of 1 when predicted removal number is plotted against actual removal number and a linear slope is calculated. Slopes less than 1 indicate that variate values ( in this case, predicted removal number) have a smaller range than the actual values. In other words, the predicted values are clumped together. Since comparison of ranges along a continuum of reduction is of interest, this situation is undesirable. The reverse situation, in which slopes are greater than 1 when regressing actual removal number on predicted removal number, is much more desirable. Solutions yielding slopes greater than 1 are still "distorting" the ideal relationship. Yet, if reduction is continuous and sample size is sufficient, the resulting predicted values should tend not to have multiple modes (suggesting discontinuous portions of the reduction continuum). In order to achieve good relative rankings,

125

an additional criterion for our selection of models was that slope values approximate or are greater than 1 but less than 2. In developing the regression formulae (Table 4), we used only proximal and complete flakes from the nonconjoined numbered removal data (Table 1, column labelled "n of unconjoined sequenced debitage"). W e u se d o nly the u nc o n jo in ed data beca u s e i t p robably b ett er approximates archaeological assemblages. However, classification of the experimentai samples using the regression equations includes all unconjoined flakes regardless of platform presence. Table 4. Stepwise regression equations yielding adequate predictions of removal number. Model fl 1.

Predicted y = -1.04(THICK)+3.77(DOSCAR)+0.15(PSD)-0.59(WIDTH) overall r squared = .71

2.

Predicted y = -2.06(THICK)+4.40(DSD)+2.50(DOSCAR) overall r squared = .89

3.

Predicted y = -2.04(THICK)+5.07(DSD) overall r squared = .91

4.

Predicted y = -12.14(LOGTHK)+9.65(LOGDSD) overall r squared = .94

5.

Predicted Y = -63.75(LOGTHK)+18.24(LOGDSD)+29.62(LOGAREA) overall r squared = .50

VARIABLES: THICK = maximum flake thickness in millimeters, DOSCAR = dorsal scar count (scars > 2mm), PSD = platform scar density (100 x (platform scar count/platform width x depth)), WIDTH= maximum flake width in millimeters, DSD = Dorsal scar density (100 x (DOSCAR/length x width)), LOGTHK = Log (THICK), LOGDSD = Log (DSD), LOGAREA = Log (LENGTH x WIDTH). We isolated several functions with high r-squared values and reasonable slopes. Five such models are presented in Table 4. The intercept constant is omitted from all of these models, since the predicted sequence numbers are only useful in comparison to each other. Model 4 is the simplest model, and has a very high r-squared value. However, Models 1 through 4 all have slopes less than 1. Consequently, the simplest model that achieved adequate r-squared values and a slope coefficent between 1 and 2 is Model 5. This equation yields good separation of most of the sequence and adequate prediction (Figures 4 and 5). When the indivictual experiments were compared to each other, in the same fashion as Figure 3, the results conformed to expected patterns (Figure 6). Experiment 1 is limited to the earlier parts of the reduction spectrum, while Experiments 2, 3, and 4 span the observed sequence. In passing, the differences in the regression slopes for predicted versus actual removal numbers in Experiments 1 to 4 are of some interest. Perhaps, the somewhat different starting point s (differing core thicknesses, core edge shapes, etc .) result i n 126

15

.-

ExpelirMntf1 Actual ... .,,...... ---13. 75(1otthk)+1l.24(1ofdad)+21.12(1ogcna)

• • •

t

•

C

• • • •

• •

•

o~------ ------------

1

Predicted removal number

.-

Actuql ~'2 valuee - 13. 75(1ogthlc)+1a.l:ckMJded)+21.12(1ogorea)

• •• •• •• • • • •• • •••

•

• •• • • • • •• •

• ... • • •• •

020 :,

i 1s 10

5

• • • •• • • • •• • I •I• • • •• • • • • • 1

1

Predicted removal number Figure 4. Plots number, Experiment

of predicted removal number against 1 (top) and Experiment 2 (bottom).

actual

removal

slightly different shapes of flakes that are somewhat consistent throughout the reduction sequence for a given core. This suggestion should be considered ten ta ti ve , and the subject needs further exploration, since radically different regression slopes would have a 127

7.13

_,_ VL AotuCII • • -13.75{1otthk)+1L 4(1otdN)+21.12(1otGrea)

30

•

•

•

•

•

•• • • • •• • • •• • • • • •

•

•

•

-

• •• • • • • •• ••• • • • • •

•

0--------....--......-.......-....................

1

Predicted removal number

.•

•

••

' · ' • • •

• • • ••• • • •1 • • • •

,;20 :,

l 'a

•

10 5

•

·, ,·

• •• • • ••• • • ••• • • •• • • \ •• •

• • •

• •

•

·- . ,

• 0...-.,-.,.........,.....�........................... 0

•

I •

1

'l"'"""'I ...... ,._.............._

1

1

Predicted removal number

Figure 5. Plots of predicted removal number against actual removal number, Experiment 3 (top) and Experiment 4 (bottom). great influence on comparative plots like that shown in Figure 6, compressing some assemblages while expanding others. 128

x

as

Experiments 1 to 4 Predicted values -63. 75(Iogthk)+ 18.24(Iogdsd)+29.62(Iogarea)

. ···----·--.

4

............

I- 3 Cl)

..0

E :::, C

1: 2 Cl)

•

..

•

.........

• ■•n-•-

..... • •• •

E ·c

.,

...... .....

0.

w, )(

0-'--------------......_ -100

-50

0

___ 50

.--r--r--r-T--r-~r--r-.,....,r-r~

100

150

200

Predicted removal number Figure 6. Plot of predicted removal number against experiment for all four experiments, using nonconjoined data only.

number

The regression formula (Table 4, Model 5) was also applied to two archaeological samples. The McKean site, in northeastern Wyoming contains a long sequence of occupations (ca. 3500 BP to protohis~oric). Figure 7 illustrates the relationships between finegrained raw materials using predicted removal numbers. Variation in the portions of the removal sequences is evident. The predominant local raw material (first from the bottom of the y-axis) has the widest and most continuous distribution. Other raw material types show variation in the portions of the reduction sequence present and perhaps in the contiguity of reduction portions as well (e.g., fourth from the bottom of the y-axis). Analysis of chipped stone remains from the Early Plaine Archaic levels (ca. 7500-5000 BP) at the Laddie Creek site, located in northcentral Wyoming, illustrates some potential applications for the nontypological approach. Figure 8 compares predicted sequence numbers for two Basin raw material sources (Basin A, second from top, Basin B, at top) and two mountain raw material sources (Mountain A at bottom, Mountain B, second from bottom). Descriptive statistics for 129

Q)

c. �

t 0

•

-·

••

-· . • •

•

•••

•

--- ·-

• •

.. . • ••• ••• •

. . - . -···. . . .

-··-

. . -·

McKean Site Fine-grained raw materials

•

100

150

. . - - --··----------------50

Predicted removal number

130

200

T h e re are s t i l l s ev e ral u n answered q u e st i o ns ab out this technique, and we are continuing its investigation. For example, the predicted removal values tend to be normally distributed in the experimental data. Ideally, the predicted removal numbers should not follow a normal curve. This is partly an artifact of the regression technique itself, which attempts to minimize the sum of squares around the means of the axes. Nonetheless, this may be a useful property that permits the comparison of different assemblages, raw materials, or "minimum nodules" to each other by using t-tests, z-scores, Another question is Kruskal-Wallis tests, or some other statistic. whether different materials, core reduction techniques, etc., can be distinguished from each other by examination of the slopes of the

these materials are presented in T able 5. While differenc es are visible in the distribution of raw material types, t-tests of differences between mean predicted sequence numbers of the four raw material types were not significant. Investigation of this assemblage now focusses on comparisons of raw material sizes, core forms, and reduction sequences in the different levels at the site.

Figure 7. Plot of predicted removal number against material type, major fine-grained materials from the McKean site (48Ck7).

C �

·c .....,Q)

C

I

regression controlled

line. More experimental work with a wider conditions is needed to address these questions.

variety

of

Laddie

Creek ................

♦

BASIN MATERIALS

....................

♦

Q)

a.

~

-+-'

♦♦ ♦♦

-··-···

.......

MOUNTAIN MATERIALS ♦

-100

♦♦♦♦

11 ■ •-

so 100 150 -so 0 Predicted removal number

Figure 8. Plot of predicted montane raw materials (lowest two lines), Laddie Creek site Table 5.

...........

Descriptive

statistics

♦

200

removal number against material type, two lines) and basin materials (highest (48Bh345). for Laddie Creek raw materials.

PREDICTEDSEQUENCENUMBER mean standard deviation

Material

n

Basin A

37

109.997

52.65

Basin B

20

86.063

41.566

Mountain A

242

104.270

35.109

Mountain B

154

103.059

33.807

131

SUMMARY ANDCONCLUSIONS In summary, we have presented a brief review of the conceptual bases of typological approaches to debi tage analysis, in which the goal of the study is to find a constant. We evaluated two such approaches using experimental b~face replications. One technique accurately classified the experimental data into core or biface reduction techniques, but the same classification can probably be achieved subjectively. The second technique failed to · produce an accurate classification of our experimental data. Raw material differences, flintknapper idiosyncrasies, or some other factors may affect the accuracy of this technique. Neither analytical technique yielded results that are useful to our own research questions. In accordance with our own research goals, we have begun to develop a regression technique to compare reduction sequences to each other. In this approach, constants are not sought, since each subassemblage is simply compared to other subassemblages. Although many questions about this technique remain, its initial utility seems high. Obviously there is a need for further evaluation of regression approaches. Other experiments need to be conducted with different raw materials, flintknappers, core types, and so on. While we have criticized, directly or indirectly, many experimental studies they are important. Their strength is also their weakness: the identification of typological constants. Typological approaches to debitage studies have shown that there is no ultimate constant, at least given our present knowledge. Development of more comprehensive experimental studies may allow us to define debitage variation, but perhaps not to explain it. Experimental studies are attractive in that they provide a controlled link between method and theory. To be most effective, such studies must have a clear statement of research questions, and perhaps at the present the discipline does not have clear research questions. For this reason, and because of practicability, we have chosen to use a "relativist" approach to debitage analysis. We look forward to further experimental studies, because each study helps delimit variation in chipped stone remains. The most interesting studies will be those that link this variation to questions about the archaeological record. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals helped us to formulate the ideas presented here. We are, of course, solely responsible for any errors, misconstruals, or other faults of this paper. Alan Korell helped us with the drudgery of attribute recording. Bill Prentiss, Dan Amick, Ray Mauldin, Gene Romanski, Steve Tomka, and Marty Magne served to stimulate our thinking, and our interest in experimental chipped stone analysis. NOTES 1. The data that we recorded is available for other researchers, should it be of use to them. Please write for details. Current mailing address for both authors is the Department of Anthropology, 132

University 82071.

of Wyoming, Box 3431,

University

Station,

Laramie,

WY

2. We first examined the predictive value of all of our attributes as single variables, using either removal number or the tripartite stage assignments discussed above. Only cortex ( in quartile percentages, was a good predictor (of Stage 1 only). We then investigated the use of paired at tributes. Hierarchical log-linear modelling showed that only a few nominal attribute pairs produced useful relationships, and these were of limited applicability ( similar to the cortex-Stage 1 relationship above). For continuous variables, discriminant functions were employed to distinguish stage. Several seemingly useful functions were found, that provided approximately 65% accurate classification of stage. We are somewhat mistrustful of our stage assignments, as well as the utility of typological definitions of reduction stages, so we chose not to explore this avenue further. REFERENCES Amick, Daniel S. , Raymond P. Mauldin, Steven A. Tomka 1988 An Evaluation of Debitage Produced by Experimental Core Reduction of a Georgetown Chert Nodule. Technology 17(1):26-36. Binford, Lewis R. and Sally Binford 1969 Stone Tools and Human Behavior. 220(4):70-84. Burton, John 1980 Making Sense of Science 7:131-148. Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics Tradition: Archaeology

Waste Flakes.

Scientific

Journal

Bifacial Li!~!~

American

of Archaeological

of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. of Eastern North America 7(1):1-180.

Dibble, Harold L. 1987 Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene Old World, edited by Olga Soffer, pp. 33-46. Plenum Press, New York. Frison, George C. and Bruce Bradley 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology University of New Mexico Press,

at the Hanson Site, Albuquerque.

Henry, Don O. C., Vance Haynes and Bruce Bradley 1976 Quantitative Variations in Flaked Stone Anthropologist 21(71):57-61. Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. 734.

133

Debitage.

American Antiquity

Wyoming.

Plains

53(4):717-

Kohler, Timothy and Eric Blinman 1987 Solving Mixture Problems in Archaeology: Analysis of Ceramic Materials for Dating and Demographic Reconstruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6(1):1-28. Larson, Mary Lou and Eric E. Ingbar 1989 Perspectives on Refitting: Critique and a Complementary Approach. In Piecing Together the Past: Studies in Refitting edited by Jack L. Hofman and James Enloe, in press. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Magne, Martin P. R. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior Britisheolumbia. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series Paper No. 133. Ottawa. Magne, Martin P. R. and David L. Pokotylo 1981 A Pilot Study of Bifacial Lithic Lithic Technology 10(2-3):34-47.

, Reduction

Sequences.

Rozen, Kenneth C. 1984 Flaked Stone. In Habitation Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains, edited by A. Ferg et al., pp. 421-604. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 147. Tucson. Rozen, Kenneth C. and Alan P. Sullivan III 1989 Measurement, Method and Meaning in Lithic Analysis: with Amick and Mauldin's Middle-Range Approach. Antiquity 54(1):169-174.

Problems American

Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn 1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bi facial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14(1):84-97. 1984

Sullivan, 1987

An Experimental Analysis of the Size Distribution of Waste FTakes from Bi face Reductiori"':Technical Paper No. 2. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Alan P. III Probing the Sources of Variability: a Regional Near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North Archaeologist 8(1):14-71.

Sullivan, Alan P. III and Kenneth c. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological American Antiquity 50(4):755-779.

Case Study American

Interpretation.

Wenban-Smith, F. F. 1989 The Use of Canonical Variates for Determination of Bi face Manufacturing Technology at Boxgrove Lower Paleolithic Site and the Behavioural Implications of this Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16(1):17-26.

134

APPENDIX Attributes millimeters

recorded on experimental and numbered removals.

debi tage

larger

than

50 square

EXPERIMENT NUMBER REMOVAL NUMBER FLAKETYPE

1 = REGULAR 2 = ERAILLURE 3 = OUTREPASSE

FLAKEMORPHOLOGY PLATFORM PRESENCE/ABSENCE 0 = NOT PRESENT 1 = PRESENT 2 = CRUSHED,BUT ALL ELSE IS THERE FRAGMENTATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CORTEX

0 1 2 3

= = = = ·4 = 5 =

DORSALSCARCOUNT

(ALL SCARS>2mm,EXCEPTPLATFORM ASSOCIATEDSCARS, 99:MISSING)

LENGTH

(mm, PARALLELTO LONGAXIS)

WIDTH

(mm, MAXIMUM DIMENSIONPERPEND. TO LONGAXIS)

THICKNESS

(mm, MAXIMUM THICKNESSOF FLAKE,INCLUDING BULB)

PLATFORM MORPHOLOGY WIDTH

= = = = = = =

COMPLETE PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL LATERAL INDETERMINATE SHATTER PRESENT LONG. SPLIT W/PLATFORM ABSENT 0 TO 25% 25 TO 50% 50 TO 75% 75 TO 100% 100%

(mm PARALLELTO EDGEOF CORE; 99=MISSING)

DEPTH

(PERPENDICULAR TO EDGEOF CORE; 99=MISSING)

PLATFORM SCARCOUNT

99=MISSING

PLATFORM-DORSAL SURFACE ANGLE

99=MISSING

PLATFORM LIPPING

0 = NONE1 = PRESENT9 = MISSING

PLATFORM ISOLATION

0= NONE1= ISOLATED2= INDETERMINATE 9 = MISSING 135

BIFACIALPLATFORM

O:NONBIF.PLATFORM,1:BIF. PLATFORM 9:MISSING

PLATFORM PREPARATION GRINDING MARGINAL NIBBLING CRUSHING

(9:MISSING FOR THESECATEGORIES) 0 = NONE 1 = PRESENT 0 = NONE 1 = PRESENT 0 = NONE 1 = PRESENT

136

DIFFERENTIATING LITHIC REDUCTION TECHNIQUES: AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH Steven A. Tomka University o~ Texas

Few archaeological debitage samples represent single knapping events. Rather, many collections are likely to be composites of various reduction techniques and multiple events over hundreds or thousands of years. These types of assemblages present numerous analytical and interpretive challenges, including the definition of lithic debitage attributes diagnostic of the different reduction techniques, and the development of analytical tools to differentiate the individual reduction techniques present in a collection. One avenue in addressing these challenges is to experimentally replicate the distinct reduction strategies and analyze the resulting debitage. This approach identifies the most sensitive indicators of particular reduction strategies and offers a comparative baseline for archaeological collections. This paper focuses on the definition of debitage attributes diagnostic of three reduction techniques: 1) mul tidirectional core reduction, 2) bifacial cobble/nodule reduction; and 3) bifacial flake core reduction. A series of debitage attributes are examined for each type of reduction. Several of these attributes, used individually or in combination, reveal differences between the three reductions. These differences are attributed to technological causes. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Three reduction techniques were replicated. The first technique was the mul tidirectional reduction of a small ( 65x45x45 mm) angular chert nodule to obtain flake blanks for the production of arrow points. The flake blanks obtained were not further reduced. The final dimensions of the core are 37x34x28 mm, and it contains 13 mul tidirectional flake scars. The second experiment involved the bifacial reduction a (88x65x24 mm) lenticular chert nodule to a "secondary trimming" stage ( Collins 1975). The product was a bi face (82x44x10 mm). The third reduction was also bifacial, the core was a flake ( 66x42x14 mm) with 25-50% dorsal cortex and two flake scars. The fina l product was a Dawson dart point (maximum thickness= 55 mm; maximum blade width= 25 mm; maximum thickness= 8 mm), a type well represented in Late Archaic sites in the southcentral United States. All experiments were carried out using fine-grained Edwards Plateau cherts. A total of 548 flakes, fragments, and angular debris retained by the 1/4 inch (0.41 x 0.41 cm) hardware cloth were produced. Of these, 205 were obtained from multidirectional core reduction, 187 from biface reduction, and 156 from dart point production. A large number of flakes, fragments, and chunks, however, passed through the mesh: 137

1,998 from the multidirectional from the dart point reduction.

2,051 from the biface,

core,

and 2,128

INDIVIDUALATTRIBUTEANALYSIS Eight at tributes were recorded in this study. A discussion the attributes, along with definitions and methods of recording, presented in Appendix 1. Table 1 presents the raw counts for attributes relative to the reduction experiments. Table

1.

Debitage

attribute

VARIABLE Attribute

counts

by reduction

Multidirectional Core

FLAKE TYPE Complete Proximal Chip Chunk Totals

technique.

Biface

Dart Point

101 14 78 12 205

63 36 85 3 187

90 21 43 2 156

105 80 6 2 193

111 42 21 10 184

115 30 5 4 154

53 0 33

DORSALCORTEXPERCENT

0% 1-50% 51-99% 100% Totals CORTEXLOCATION Margin and End only Middle only End only All over Totals

2

54 2 7 10

88

73

28 6 1 4 39

23 40 62 36 17 13 191

30 47 44 21 14 18 174

21 27 41 35 16 10 150

3 106 62 17

10 111 33 20 13 187

19 98 26 9 4 156

DORSALSCAR COUNT 1 2

. 3 4 5

>6 Totals

MAXIMUM DIMENSION 1-10 mm 11-20 mm 21-30 mm 31-40 mm > 41 mm Totals

17

205

138

of are all

Table

1.

Debitage

attribute

VARIABLE Attribute

counts

by reduction

Multidirectional Core

PLATFORM FACET COUNT 1 2 3

stage

Bi face

44

(continued).

Dart Point

86 22 5 1 114

20 19 16 99

38 26 26 19 109

PLATFORMGRINDING Present Absent Totals

5 109 114

62 37 99

76 33 109

CORTEX PLATFORM Present Absent Totals

2 112 114

15 84 99

10 99 109

>4 Totals

Lithic debitage attributes may be affected by variability in indi victual flintknapping techniques ( Tomka 1985). In addition, core size and shape affect the final percentages of corticate versus decorticate flakes and other at tributes. Similarly, breaking and/or discard of artifacts at different reduction points may affect the frequency of some attributes. The removal of flakes which could serve as tool blanks or expedient tools in a prehistoric context from the debi tage assemblage may also complicate the pat terns. While these factors offer ample reason for concern, experimental studies are on of the first step in understanding and recognizing variability in lithic assemblages.

It has recently been argued that variations in flake type successfully differentiates between tool production and core reduction (Sullivan and Rozen 1985; cf. Mauldin and Amick, this volume, Prentiss and Romanski, this volume). Figure 1 shows the breakdown by flake type within the three reduction techniques. Complete flakes represent the largest percentage of flakes in the dart point and core reduction debitage. In the biface debitage, however, chips occur in the highest frequency. Chips are the second most abundant flake type in the other two assemblages, followed by proximal fragments and chunks ( angular debris). Core reduction generates the highest frequency of chunks relative to the other experimental reductions (cf. Flenniken 1981:3248) though the overall percentage is quite low ( 6%). A chi-square test between the three reductions for flake type yielded a statistically significant result (Table 2). The differences reduction episodes employed. The high

between the flake types produced during the three may be due to differences in the percussors rate of complete flake production in dart point 139

80

•

•

• MULTIDIRECTIONAL CORE (n==205) 0BIFA.CE (n==187) ... • • DART POINT (n ==156)

0 0 70

60 (/)

~

50