Crowfield (Af Hj-31): A Unique Paleoindian Fluted Point Site from Southwestern Ontario 9781951519773, 9780915703760

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Foreword, by Henry T. Wright
Acknowledgments
Part I: Introduction and Background
1. Introduction
Site Location, Setting and Investigations
2. Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns
Diagnostics
Siliceous Artifacts: Lithic Raw Materials
Artifact Fracture Patterns
3. Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns
Location of Features
Distribution of Diagnostics
Distribution of Non-Diagnostic Material
Artifact Refits
Summary
Part II: Feature #1
4. Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces
Blank Types and Core Production Procedures
Unifacial Tools
5. Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools on Granitic Rocks
Fluted Bifaces
Other Bifaces
Biface Fragments
Tools on Granitic Rocks
6. Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions by Christopher J. Ellis, James R. Keron, D. Brian Deller, Roger King
Overall Artifact Distribution, Feature Size and Feature Shape
Soil Analyses
Distributions of Different Artifact Forms
Summary and Discussion
7. Feature #1: Its Meaning and Significance
Where Were the Objects Burned?
Is Feature #1 a Cache?
Utilitarian or Ceremonial Goods?
Deliberate or Natural Burning?
Is Feature #1 a Functional, “Active” Tool Kit?
Feature #1: An Individual’s Tool Kit?
8. Technological Organization: Explaining the Feature #1 Contents by Christopher J. Ellis
Factors Influencing Tool Inventories
Summary and Conclusions
Part III: Other Paleoindian Evidence
9. Paleoindian Artifacts
The Unheated Paleoindian Assemblage
The Heated Assemblage (Feature #2)
Unassignable Heated Artifacts
10. Feature #2
Summary and Conclusions
Part IV: The Crowfield Site: Summary and Conclusions
11. Summary and Conclusions
Appendix A. Feature #1: Unifaces and Blank Data
Appendix B. Feature #1: Fluted Biface Data
Appendix C. Feature #1: Data on Other Bifaces
References Cited

Citation preview

Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan Number 49

Crowfield (AfHj-31) A Unique Paleoindian Fluted Point Site from Southwestern Ontario

by

D. Brian Deller and

Christopher J. Ellis

with contributions by

James R. Keron and Roger H. King and a foreword by

Henry T. Wright

Ann Arbor, Michigan 2011

©2011 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-915703-76-0 Cover design by Katherine Clahassey The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology currently publishes two monograph series, ­Anthropological Papers and Memoirs, as well as an electronic series in CD-ROM form. For a complete catalog, write to Museum of Anthropology Publications, 4013 Museums Building, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079, or see www.lsa.umich.edu/umma/publications

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Deller, D. Brian. Crowfield (afhj-31) : a unique paleoindian fluted point site from southwestern Ontario / by D. Brian Deller and Christopher J. Ellis ; with contributions by James R. Keron and Roger H. King ; and a foreword by Henry T. Wright. p. cm. -- (Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan number 49) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-915703-76-0 (alk. paper) 1. Paleo-Indians--Implements--Ontario, Southwestern. 2. Projectile points--Ontario, Southwestern. 3. Stone implements--Ontario, Southwestern. 4. Excavations (Archaeology)--Ontario, Southwestern. 5. Ontario, Southwestern--Antiquities. I. Ellis, Christopher J., 1952- II. Title. E78.O5D45 2011 971.3’01--dc23 2011033373

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984 ­(Permanence of Paper)

Contents List of Figures v List of Tables viii Foreword, by Henry T. Wright xi Acknowledgments xiii

Part I: Introduction

and

Background

1 Introduction

3 Site Location, Setting and Investigations 3

2 Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns

13 Diagnostics 13 Siliceous Artifacts: Lithic Raw Materials 15 Artifact Fracture Patterns 20

3 Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

Location of Features Distribution of Diagnostics Distribution of Non-Diagnostic Material Artifact Refits Summary

25 25 26 27 33 34

Part II: Feature #1 4 Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

39 Blank Types and Core Production Procedures 41 Unifacial Tools 58

5 Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools on Granitic Rocks

67 67 87 100 100

6 Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions

101

Overall Artifact Distribution, Feature Size and Feature Shape Soil Analyses Distributions of Different Artifact Forms Summary and Discussion

101 107 109 123

Fluted Bifaces Other Bifaces Biface Fragments Tools on Granitic Rocks by Christopher J. Ellis, James R. Keron, D. Brian Deller, Roger King

iii

7 Feature #1: Its Meaning and Significance

125 126 126 127 128 129 134

8 Technological Organization: Explaining the Feature #1 Contents

137

Where Were the Objects Burned? Is Feature #1 a Cache? Utilitarian or Ceremonial Goods? Deliberate or Natural Burning? Is Feature #1 a Functional, “Active” Tool Kit? Feature #1: An Individual’s Tool Kit? by Christopher J. Ellis

Factors Influencing Tool Inventories Summary and Conclusions

138 151

Part III: Other Paleoindian Evidence 9 Paleoindian Artifacts

155 155 165 171

10 Feature #2

173 178

The Unheated Paleoindian Assemblage The Heated Assemblage (Feature #2) Unassignable Heated Artifacts

Summary and Conclusions

Part IV: The Crowfield Site: Summary

and

11 Summary and Conclusions

Conclusions

181

Appendix A. Feature #1: Unifaces and Blank Data Appendix B. Feature #1: Fluted Biface Data Appendix C. Feature #1: Data on Other Bifaces

185 191 195

References Cited

199



iv

Figures 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8.

Location of Crowfield site and chert outcrops in southern Ontario, 4 Topographic map of Crowfield site, 4 View of Crowfield site prior to excavation looking west, August 15, 1981, 6 Map of excavated area showing feature locations, 7 View of initial excavations looking east along 400N line, August 17, 1981, 8 View of Feature #1 as first exposed at the plowzone-subsoil interface, 8 View of Feature #1 at the plowzone-subsoil interface showing vandalized area, 9 View of Feature #1 at the plowzone-subsoil interface with all plowzone removed, 10

2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

Non-Paleoindian bifaces, Crowfield site, 14 Onondaga chert quarry block from outcrop near Grand River, 16 Schematic diagram showing stylized initial Onondaga and Collingwood chert blocks/block cores, 16 Collingwood chert quarry block from outcrop, 18 Crowfield artifacts showing “potlid” scars from heating, 21 Examples of heat fragments from Crowfield site, 22

2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 3.13. 3.14. 3.15. 3.16. 3.17. 3.18. 3.19. 3.20.

Distribution of Early Paleoindian heated diagnostics, 26 Distribution of Late Woodland points and preform, 26 Distribution of Late Woodland pottery, 27 Distribution of Archaic, Early and Middle Woodland lithics, 27 Distribution of Onondaga heated debris in plowzone, 28 Distribution of Collingwood heated debris in plowzone, 28 Distribution of Ancaster and Selkirk heated debris in plowzone, 28 Overall distribution of heated Onondaga, Collingwood, Ancaster and Selkirk debris in plowzone, 29 Distribution of calcined bone in plowzone, 29 Distribution of Kettle Point waste flakes, 29 Distribution of non-diagnostic Kettle Point and Selkirk chert tools and preforms, 30 Distribution of diagnostic, unheated Paleoindian tools and preforms, 30 Distribution of unheated, non-diagnostic Collingwood tools and preforms, 30 Distribution of unheated, non-diagnostic Onondaga tools and preforms, 31 Distribution of Collingwood waste flakes in the plowzone, 31 Distribution of Onondaga waste flakes in the plowzone, 31 Refitted fragments tied to Feature #1, 35 Refitted sets of heated fragments with no cross-mends in or above Feature #1, 35 Refitted sets of unheated Paleoindian fragments, 35 Square feature assignments of isolated heat-produced fragments, 36

v

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4.16. 4.17. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11. 5.12. 5.13. 5.14. 5.15. 5.16. 5.17. 5.18. 5.19. 5.20. 5.21. 5.22.

Large flake blanks derived from corners of initial quarry blocks and flakes from large biface cores, 42 Primary corner blanks, 50 Schematic diagram showing blank removals from initial blocks, 51 Primary face blanks, 52 Secondary corner flakes, 52 Secondary face blanks, 53 Unidirectional blanks, 54 Bidirectional blanks, 55 Normal biface core flakes, 57 End biface core flakes, 58 Biface thinning and channel flake flake blanks, 59 Concave side scrapers, 60 Concave side scrapers and fragment with spurs, 60 Miscellaneous side scrapers, 61 Retouched flakes, 63 Other retouched flakes, 63 Pointed tools, 66 Fluted points, 69 Fluted bifaces, 70 Overall length and flute length, Lamb, Thedford II and Crowfield caches, 71 Banding orientation, Feature #1 Collingwood chert fluted points, 72 Shouldered fluted points, 73 Fluted preforms, 75 Large unrefined Onondaga chert bifaces, 77 Large unrefined Onondaga, Collingwood, Selkirk and Ancaster bifaces, 78 Large unrefined bifaces, 79 Large unrefined biface, 80 Large unrefined bifaces, Feature #1, with matching unheated pieces, 80 Schematic diagram showing biface orientation in comparison to original flake blank orientation, 81 Schematic diagram showing biface blank derivation from near the corner of the initial quarry block, 82 Box-plot comparison of continuous variables for various biface types, 83 Banding orientation, Feature #1, all Collingwood chert fluted bifaces, 84 Variation in banding depending on orientation of point versus preform, 85 Small unrefined bifaces, 87 Scatter plot of length by width, unrefined bifaces, 88 Leaf-shaped bifaces, 89 Distinctive Feature #1 biface tools, 90 Large alternately beveled bifaces, 92 Large alternately beveled biface, 92

vi

5.23. 5.24. 5.25. 5.26. 5.27. 5.28.

Diamond-shaped large alternately beveled biface, 93 Onondaga normal backed bifaces, 95 Onondaga and Fossil Hill backed bifaces, 96 Bifacial perforators, 98 Miscellaneous bifaces, 99 Tools on granitic rocks, 100

6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. 6.9. 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. 6.13. 6.14. 6.15. 6.16. 6.17. 6.18. 6.19. 6.20.

Plan distribution of fragments/popouts by raw material types, Feature #1, 102 Plan map of Feature #1 showing location of disturbances, soil samples, calcined bone fragments and unheated flakes, 103 Density map of Feature #1 fragments and popouts, 104 Comparison of refit distances between actual and random distributions, 106 West to east and south to north profile views of fragment/popout plots, 108 Profile view in area where root disturbance undercuts southwest corner of feature, 108 Distribution of fluted points, 113 Distribution of other fluted bifaces, 113 Distribution of backed bifaces, 114 Distribution of alternately beveled bifaces and bifacial perforators, 114 Distribution of leaf-shaped bifaces, 115 Distribution of large unrefined bifaces, 115 Distribution of small unrefined bifaces, 117 Distribution of unrefined biface fragments, 117 Miscellaneous artifact distributions, 118 Distribution of refined biface fragments, 118 Distribution of side scrapers and refined unifaces, 119 Distribution of retouched flakes, 119 Distribution of tool blanks, 120 Comparative density of artifact types in “center of gravity” model, 121

8.1.

Implications of application-life and use-frequency for tool inventories, 150

9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.6. 9.7. 9.8.

Unheated Paleoindian bifaces, 157 Unheated Paleoindian end scrapers and notch/borers/denticulates, 159 Unheated Paleoindian denticulates, 159 Unheated Paleoindian retouched flakes, 162 Unheated Paleoindian radially broken tools, 163 Other unheated Paleoindian artifacts, 163 Heated Paleoindian tools, Feature #2, 168 Unassignable Paleoindian tools, Crowfield site, 172

10.1. Piece-plotted Feature #2 subsoil materials, 175

vii

Tables 2.1. 2.2.

Post-Paleoindian lithic diagnostics, Crowfield site, 14 Number of fragments per artifact, 21

3.1.

Data on refitted fragment sets, 34

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4.16. 4.17. 4.18. 4.19. 4.20. 4.21. 4.22. 4.23. 4.24. 4.25. 4.26. 4.27. 4.28.

Distribution of Feature #1 heated materials, 40 Artifact totals after refitting, Feature #1, 40 Distribution of blank types by artifact form, 43 Length, unifacial tool blanks, 43 Width, unifacial tool blanks, 43 Thickness, unifacial tool blanks, 44 Weight, unifacial tool blanks, 44 Platform length, unifacial tool blanks, 44 Platform width, unifacial tool blanks, 45 Platform angle, unifacial tool blanks, 45 Overall frequency of platform preparation types, 45 Platform preparation per blank, 46 Bulb of force, tool blanks, 46 Cortex and placement, tool blanks, 46 Unflaked surface and placement, tool blanks, 47 Lateral edge orientation, tool blanks, 47 Lateral edge orientation, unifacial tool blanks with expanding lateral edges, 47 Scar orientation, tool blanks, 48 Core facet angle, tool blanks, 48 Curvature, tool blanks, 48 Curvature placement, tool blanks, 49 Transverse section, tool blanks, 49 Number of dorsal scars, tool blanks, 49 Distribution of side scrapers by type, 61 Distribution of side scraper edges by plan outline, Crowfield Feature #1 and other sites, 62 Retouched flake, left lateral edge characteristics, 64 Retouched flake, right lateral edge characteristics, 64 Other tools, 65

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11.

Fluted point variables, 68 Number of flutes per face, fluted bifaces, 70 Fluted preform variables, 70 Shouldered fluted point variables, 73 Large unrefined biface variables, 76 Small unrefined biface variables, 88 Flake blank characteristics on small unrefined bifaces, 88 Leaf-shaped biface variables, 90 Large alternately beveled biface variables, 91 Normal backed biface variables, 94 Miscellaneous biface variables, 97 viii

6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8.

Comparison of cross-mended distributions, Feature #1, 106 Distribution of Feature #1 fragments by quadrant, 109 Distribution of types/classes by north-south division of Feature #1, 111 Counts for statistical calculations, 111 Statistical tests on single artifact types, 112 Distribution of major artifact types/classes by in situ and other contexts, 122 Distribution of major artifact types/classes by vandalized and non-vandalized contexts, 122 Interpretation of type/class distributions, 123

7.1.

Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene stone tool caches, 130

8.1. 8.2.

Distribution of Feature #1 chert artifacts by tool type and category, 139 Expectations of changes in transported tool kits as tool use episodes increase, 145

9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.6. 9.7. 9.8. 9.9. 9.10. 9.11. 9.12. 9.13. 9.14.

Unheated Paleoindian artifacts, Crowfield site, 156 Unheated ovate, unrefined bifaces, 157 Unheated trianguloid end scrapers, 158 Unheated denticulates, 160 Unheated notch/borers/denticulates, 161 Unheated retouched flakes, 162 Unheated probable Paleoindian waste flakes, Crowfield site, 165 Distribution of Feature #2 assigned heated lithic materials, 166 Paleoindian heated artifact totals, non-Feature #1 associations, 166 Heated retouched flakes, non-Feature #1 association, 169 Heated denticulates and notch/denticulate, non-Feature #1 association, 169 Heated probable Paleoindian waste flakes, Crowfield site, 170 Heated Paleoindian material unassignable to Feature #1 or #2, 171 Unassignable retouched flake characteristics, 172

10.1. Comparison of heated and unheated non-Feaure #1 assemblages, 174 10.2. Subsoil material, Feature #2, 174 10.3. Subsoil flaking debris, Feature #2 area, 174

ix

Foreword Henry T. Wright

The Great Lakes region during latest Pleistocene and earliest Holocene times provides some of the best evidence known to archaeologists of the organizational flexibility, resilience, and long-term success of foragers living under extremely difficult and often capricious conditions. Even as climate was changing, lakes were raising, lowering, and even vanishing in a matter of days, vegetation was changing rapidly, and different species of herbivores were changing their patterns of movement and perhaps even their adaptive strategies, foraging groups appear to have flourished. We have a record of these earliest known Great Lakes peoples thanks to the unstinting work of a network of individuals—both avocational and professional and from both Canada and the United States—over the last 60 years. The authors of this monograph have long been major contributors to the expansion of knowledge (Deller 1976; Deller and Ellis 1992; Ellis 1989; Ellis and Deller 2000, 2002) and this report of the investigations of the Crowfield site is yet another innovative contribution, an exemplar of both a theoretically informed description of artifacts and features to further evaluate established hypotheses and a presentation of new leading edge proposals that will be the object of further evaluation in the decades to come. The Crowfield site in the rolling sandy terrain of southwestern Ontario was discovered in 1968 (although its Paleoindian component was not recognized until some years later) and was almost completely excavated in 1981–1982. The report demonstrates that the late Paleoindian occupation at Crowfield is not simply represented by a single feature, but by two discrete features in an area of plow-disturbed occupational debris. The careful analysis and comparison of the flaked stone artifacts from these three contexts sustains the authors’ interpretation of the main feature, and perhaps the other, as evidence of an ancient ritual. A great strength of the report is the careful exposition of the history of the excavation and analysis, frankly outlining tactical decisions, some of which the authors now regret, and explaining the changing interpretations and continuing disagreements as the analysis developed. The honesty of this research account should be a model for future studies, especially those that—like this study—present archaeological evidence in new theoretical perspectives, and test new explanatory constructs.

xi

The evidence that the features result from single events associated with one or a very few individuals allows the authors to investigate aspects of technological organization. They are among the pioneers of the technological organizational perspective, and once again they demonstrate an innovative use of the approach that merits very careful reading. They account for almost every aspect of the material selection, the form, the reduction and wear of working edges, and the evidence of hafting of these fragments of stone waste and tools. They also point to a few anomalies they cannot explain, which point to possible new avenues for research—particularly when Crowfield assemblages that have not been so pervasively burned, and which can therefore be studied with use-wear techniques, are found. The authors’ argument that at least the main feature results from an ancient ritual, perhaps the interment of a hunter’s personal tool kit, is not the only possible way to understand this feature, and will doubtless draw a good bit of critical discussion from specialists. Indeed, it is possible that the badly burnt tools in the main feature represent, not a ritual, but some more mundane action, for example the deliberate destruction of one group’s caches by another group claiming the same territory. Whether this is the result of a sad and peaceful ritual for an honored member of a foraging group, or the result of aggressive social signaling by their enemies, it is clear that the study of North American late glacial foragers is moving beyond technology into the consideration of constructed cultural cosmologies, ethno-biologies and social networks. Decades ago, a prominent scholar of Paleoindian lifeways told me that “Paleoindians were 90% predator and 10% cultural and models adapted from predator ecology would explain most of what archaeologists could observe.” The Crowfield study is a clear demonstration that understanding must take into account cultural understandings, and that we can develop such understandings even of these most ancient Great Lakes peoples whose way of life has few if any modern survivals. The report highlights still-unanswered questions that remain for future research. No charcoal or other materials datable by radiocarbon techniques survived in good context. The excavations were completed before archaeologists were aware of the possibilities for luminescence dating. Without precise dating of Paleoindian assemblages, we cannot understand their variability in the context of the rapidly changing Great Lakes environments. Furthermore, the sandy sites in which archaeologists have concentrated their efforts have poor preservation of the remains of plants gathered and animals hunted by the occupants. While sand ridge sites still have much to teach us—and their ongoing destruction by agricultural land leveling, sand mining, and residential construction demand that we study them—we need to look for new kinds of sites, particularly in wet or anaerobic environments. Indeed, Ontario archaeologists are already searching for such sites (Sonnenburg, Boyce and Reinhardt 2011), and Museum of Anthropology archaeologists are finding new kinds of sites in the very bottom of the Great Lakes (O’Shea and Meadows 2009).* I predict that future researchers will find not only the humble by-products of gathering and hunting, but also tools still in their organic hafts, and these items decorated with the symbolic representations of long-lost world views and social orders. The Crowfield monograph is a giant step toward future research breakthroughs giving voices to the long mute first peoples of the Great Lakes region. *Elizabeth P. Sonnenburg, Joseph I. Boyce, and Eduard G. Reinhardt, “Quartz flakes in lakes: Microdebitage evidence for submerged Great Lakes prehistoric (Late Paleoindian–Early Archaic) tool-making sites,” Geology 39, no. 7 (July 2011):631–34; John M. O’Shea and Guy A. Meadows, “Evidence for early hunters beneath the Great Lakes,” Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences 106, no. 25 (June 23, 2009):10120–23.

xii

Acknowledgments

Excavations at the Crowfield site were made possible by grants from the Ontario Heritage Foundation awarded to D. Brian Deller. Additional funding for crew housing, to carry out soil and other analyses, and for some mapping and artifact drawings was provided by: 418218 Ontario Limited; a grant from the Agnes Cole Dark Fund, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Western Ontario awarded to Christopher Ellis and Roger King; Dean’s grants from the Faculty of Social Science awarded to Ellis; and a McGill Faculty Research Stipend awarded to Deller. We very much appreciate the assistance of the landowner, Mr. Joseph Willaeys, who kindly allowed us to excavate in his agricultural field. Over the last 30 years, Deller and Ellis have been especially blessed with a long line of landowners who have extended us every courtesy and much facilitated our research projects. Chris Ellis served as field director in 1981 and Juliet Garfit in 1982. We are grateful to the numerous individuals who assisted in the excavations. In 1981 full-time workers included Juliet Garfit (assistant field director), Peggy Garfit, Linda Gibbs, Rob MacDonald and Bud Parker. Part-time workers/volunteers included: Ray Baxter, Becky Brown, Bob Calvert, Ken Carter, George Connoy, Christine Dodd, Brian Farmer, Bill Fox, Barry Greco, Ian Kenyon, Jim Keron, Randy Laye, Peter MacLean, Charles Nixon, Ed Nixon, Joe Pelly, Bob Pearce, Ted Rowcliffe, Don Simons, Phyllis Simons and Ron Williamson. Don and Phyllis Simons and Peggy Garfit are especially thanked for their assistance in recording the piece-plotted data from Feature #1. In 1982 the full-time field crew included Juliet Garfit, Peter MacLean, Bud Parker and Melissa White. Volunteers included Gordon and Patricia Dibb, Chris Ellis and Joe Pelly. It is unfortunate that several of those who assisted in the excavations are no longer with us to witness the completion of this long and involved project but such is the nature of much archaeological research. Bill Fox, Art Roberts and the late Bill Roosa provided much needed advice in the field and Christine Dodd and Juliet Garfit cataloged the materials recovered. Mike Spence, Mark Skinner, and Jean Wright examined and commented on the calcined bone material from Feature #1; David Bellhouse provided advice on matters statistical; and several students at McGill assisted Deller in the ongoing refitting and idea generation, notably Sharon Baillie, Kathy Brodeur, Arnold Feast, Lynn L’Espérance, Mary Ann Levine, Susan McNabb, Nancy Ryder and Katharine Timmins. The artifact drawings are by Cesare D’Annibale except for Figure 5.22, which was done by Janie Ravenhurst. Chris Ellis did all other figures and plates and compiled the manuscript. Parts of Chapter 7 are an expansion and reworking of a section of an article on Crowfield published in American Antiquity (Deller et al. 2009). At the Michigan Museum of Anthropology Jill Rheinheimer, the publication series editor, did a wonderful job uncovering our typos/errors and in bringing this work to fruition. Katherine Clahassey is sincerely thanked for her imaginative cover design and for her work enhancing several of the figures. We also must acknowledge Henry Wright, who has long supported our Paleoindian research efforts. Despite his busy schedule he provided much needed feedback and corrections on the manuscript from as far-flung places as China and Madagascar (and Ann Arbor!) and kindly consented to write the preface. We cannot thank him enough for his efforts and encouragement over many years.

xiii

PART I

Introduction and Background

— Chapter 1 —

Introduction

Site Location, Setting, and Investigations

This monograph provides a detailed description and analysis of the Paleoindian artifacts and information recovered from Crowfield (AfHj-31), a fluted point site in southwestern Ontario. First reported in the 1980s (Deller 1988; Deller and Ellis 1984; Ellis 1984), the site is best known for a single feature containing over 180 purposefully burned and heat-fractured stone artifacts, something that has not been reported from any other Early Paleoindian site. This feature has been interpreted as grave goods associated with a long-decayed Paleoindian cremation (Deller and Ellis 1984) or simply a votive offering, perhaps in the context of shamanistic activities (Wright 1990:495, 1995:48). Regardless of specifics, and despite those who raise the possibility the pit represents a “trash pit” (e.g., Kelly 1996:236), there is compelling evidence that the feature represents “a significant ceremonial act” (Wright 1995:48; see also Deller et al. 2009). As such, Crowfield is one of the most important Paleoindian sites ever reported as it provides a rare glimpse of sacred ritual among these early peoples. Extensive Paleoindian research throughout North America for most of the last century has revealed much about the age, environmental context, lithic technology and subsistence practices of Paleoindians, but more esoteric aspects of their lifeways remain virtually unknown. Probably fewer than 20 sites with evidence of Paleoindian sacred ritual are known and Crowfield represents the only good evidence of such ritual reported for fluted point producing groups in all of eastern North America (see Deller and Ellis 2001; Deller et al. 2009; Ellis and Deller 2002).

The Crowfield site is located just southwest of the modern town of Strathroy, Ontario, in Caradoc Township, Middlesex County (Fig. 1.1). It is located in a plowed field on a small sand knoll on the Caradoc Sand Plain (Chapman and Putnam 1984:146), an extensive area of fine sandy soils that represent an old river delta where a late glacial period river discharged into an early, high water, pro-glacial lake at approximately 13,000 B.P. (Eschman and Karrow 1985:84). The site is just adjacent to a shallow gully housing a northwest flowing, small, intermittently used, tributary of the Sydenham River—one of the three main rivers draining all of southwesternmost Ontario (Fig. 1.2). The Crowfield site was first discovered and named during a general field reconnaissance in 1968. At that time, D. Brian Deller was teaching elementary school and often enlisted the aid of interested students in on-going archaeological survey of the Caradoc Sand Plain. On the afternoon of the site’s discovery, he was assisted by Reynold Welke. Having surveyed a number of plowed fields near the Sydenham River, it was decided to briefly search one more area on the route home: a small field offering a plowed sandy surface adjacent to an intermittent misfit stream. The stream’s valley was broad and shallow, possibly representing a relic spillway that drained the receding waters of Lake Whittlesey. Next to the stream, the investigators recognized a Late Woodland component represented by thermally-cracked rock,

3

4

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 1.1. Location of Crowfield site and chert outcrops in southern Ontario. Approximate locations of the nearest outcrops of the main toolstones employed at Crowfield are: Onondaga (42° 51' 08" North; 80° 01' 40" West); Collingwood (44° 19' 06" North; 80° 32' 19" West); Ancaster (43° 12' 20" North; 79° 48' 30" West).

Figure 1.2. Topographic map of Crowfield site. Datum assigned arbitrary elevation of 10 m.

Introduction chipping debris, and pottery sherds assignable to the Glen Meyer branch of the Early Ontario Iroquoian Tradition (see Williamson 1990; Wright 1966). A squabbling flock of crows on the site led the investigators to name it Crowfield. Deller recorded the site in his fieldnotes but more than a decade elapsed before attention was refocused on the area. In the meantime, the emphasis of the Caradoc survey work began to increasingly focus on Paleoindian materials. As locations were plotted onto various specialized maps, especially topographic, physiographic and soil survey maps, it appeared that Paleoindian site/findspot locations occurred in predictable settings, and it was thought that many of these locations could be interpreted as good places to monitor the movements of, and to hunt, caribou. Maps were searched to locate similar settings in regions beyond Caradoc Township, and time and agricultural conditions permitting, a number of these settings were searched in the field. The results proved positive and several of Ontario’s first known Paleoindian sites were discovered (Deller 1979). On November 10, 1979, Deller presented these findings at the Eastern States Archaeological Federation (ESAF) meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Survey strategies for locating Paleoindian sites in southwestern Ontario were summarized, especially the targeting of “promising” areas for survey based on the soil type combinations frequently associated with those site locations. Several slides illustrated the fact that Paleoindian sites often were located on a soil type classified as “Berrien Sandy Loam” on the old series of Ontario Department of Agriculture maps, especially if areas of that soil type were adjacent to or flanked by an expanse of what were called “Muck” soils. These soil location combinations were easily located on the color-coded maps and were a significant factor in determining which localities to survey. Berrien Sandy Loam soils are characteristic of the imperfectly drained Gray-Brown podzolic group. They consist of approximately a meter of sandy loam overlying a base of calcareous clay. Often the impervious clay supports a perched water table. Topography tends to be flat to gently rolling. Muck soils consist almost entirely of decomposing organic materials. They are commonly found in depressions in upland areas where water tends to collect and saturate the soil, promoting the accumulation of parent organic debris. In southwestern Ontario, these two soil types often occur in tandem adjacent to Late Pleistocene glacial landforms, especially moraines and shoreline ridges of former glacial lakes. It remains to be determined why Paleoindians were repeatedly attracted to these localities, or, conversely, what these physiographic settings repeatedly offered generations of Paleoindians. Until further research clarifies this issue, it is speculated that the attractive feature was a favorable ecozone associated with the Muck soils, or wetlands. Such wetlands and surrounding areas have been suggested to have been highly productive, diverse resource locales during the late Pleistocene to Holocene (e.g., Nicholas 1988). It is even possible that the adjacent Berrien Sandy Loam supported an attractive ecozone, created in part by elevated levels of moisture associated with the perched water table. This situation might have created a spruce

5

microenvironment existing within a broader pine forest. Pine was replacing the spruce and becoming the dominant species throughout much of the Paleoindian occupation, especially in more southerly areas of southwestern Ontario during the time of the inferred terminal fluted point occupations as represented by Crowfield (e.g., Muller 1999:21–46). As these data were summarized during the ESAF presentation, someone in the audience observed from the illustrations that there appeared to be additional patches of Berrien Sandy Loan adjacent to Muck soils, beyond the examples shown to be associated with early sites. It was inquired if any of these represented “promising areas” to be investigated. In response, a slide illustrating the distribution of soil types in Caradoc Township was used as an example to show additional localities where the soil combinations suggested potential for early materials. Of significance, attention was drawn to a locality having areas of these soil types in close proximity, separated by a narrow strip of soil classified as “Fox Fine Sand.” The Crowfield site was later found to be situated in this intermediate zone, less than 150 m from the Berrien Sandy Loam soils to the east and about 20 m from the Muck soils to the west. Two days after the ESAF presentation, Deller followed up on the discussion by suggesting to one of his students, Joe Pelly, that he search the area that had been used as an example at the meeting. Circumstances prevented Pelly from searching the area until the following spring, but on the initial visit he collected about 50 stone flakes from the Crowfield locality. In this collection Deller noted a fragment of “Collingwood” (Fossil Hill formation) chert, a raw material he knew to be highly diagnostic of Early Paleoindian industries in areas to the west of London in southwestern Ontario (Deller 1976, 1979). This material originates in southcentral Ontario, some 200 km northeast of Crowfield (see Fig. 1.1; Deller 1979:6; Roosa 1977a, 1977b; Storck 2004:121–26; Storck and von Bitter 1989). Pelly was urged to revisit the site to see if more of this material could be precisely located. The next day Pelly found 3 biface fragments of the Collingwood chert from the Crowfield site area on a small knoll. Deller then visited the site and recovered several other chert fragments from the knoll area. Of interest, these fragments did not appear to represent simple flaking debris. Rather, they were blocky angular fragments and it was clear that all the items had been burned. It was also clear that both bifacial and unifacial artifacts were present. It was unusual that all of the recovered items had been heated. Their heating also suggested the potential presence of hearths, which might allow radiometric dating, and since we had no clear diagnostic Paleoindian artifact forms, it was reasoned that the work at the site could be a potential test of the proposition that Collingwood chert was diagnostic of these occupations in the area. Moreover, the site was unusual among those investigated at that date in that it was not on, or even near, a fossil shoreline. On April 22, 1981, Deller and Pelly again visited the site. On this occasion the owner of the property, Mr. Joseph Willaeys, advised that he planned to plant the site in asparagus in the near

6

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 1.3. View of Crowfield site prior to excavation looking west, August 15, 1981. Brian Deller, Joseph Pelly and Barry Greco examining site surface. Stakes on surface mark artifact locations.

future. The planting of asparagus can be particularly destructive to archaeological features located within a half meter of the surface. Also, it is a long-lived, perennial crop for which it is prohibitively expensive to reimburse for the damage incurred by excavation. However, Mr. Willaeys was persuaded to delay planting until at least some testing of the site had been completed. Fortunately, circumstances were in favor of expedient salvage operations. In 1981 Deller and Ellis (1992a) were working at the Thedford II site, an Early Paleoindian Parkhill Phase site located about 40 km northwest of Crowfield. That work was supported, in part, by a research grant from the Ontario Heritage Foundation (now Ontario Heritage Trust). The Thedford II site field investigations were scheduled to end by the middle of August of that summer, which would make available field equipment and basic supplies for use at Crowfield. Several of the Thedford II site field crew volunteered to work at Crowfield. Also, since the site had a Glen Meyer component, Dr. Ronald Williamson (who was involved in excavating such components at the same time on the Caradoc Sand Plain) was willing to provide some fieldworkers to assist in our work. Deller contacted the Ontario Heritage Foundation and was granted permission to use limited funding from the Thedford II project to purchase additional supplies. Residential accommodations, subsistence and transportation for the volunteers were generously provided by a private corporation, Ontario 418218 Limited. Deller, Ellis, Pelly, two of the Thedford II crew members, Barry Greco and Christine Dodd, and volunteer Juliet Garfit ar-

rived at the site on the afternoon of Saturday, August 15, 1981, to begin preparing the site for excavations (Fig. 1.3). Piece-plotting of surface debris revealed that it was distributed in a rough ellipse centered on the knoll and covering at least 25 m2. Moreover, it became clear that a considerable amount of heat-fractured chert was present and that most was on Onondaga chert, the nearest bedrock outcrops of which occur some 100 km southeast of Crowfield. Although we were not 100% certain (Deller was certain . . . Ellis was skeptical), at least one of the collected small fragments on Onondaga appeared to be a fluted point fragment. We returned to the site the next day with additional personnel, including Ronald Williamson, and established a grid system to guide excavation. A main north-south baseline, oriented to magnetic north, was established through the center of the concentration that we arbitrarily called 400E. An east-west baseline was established at right angles to the north-south line across the south edge of the perceived concentration, which we labeled 400N. We then triangulated in a series of one-meter units that would be used to guide excavation. As a whole, the established grid ended up running slightly diagonally to the direction of site plowing, which was southwest to northeast in relation to grid north (see Fig. 1.4). The excavation units were actually laid out as two-by-two-meter squares and were referred to by the grid line intersection coordinates at their southwest corner. The four separate one-meter subunits excavated in each two-meter square were referred to counterclockwise from the southwest unit as 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively but for convenience will be referred to

Introduction

7

Figure 1.4. Map of excavated area showing feature locations. Each square is a 2-by-2-m unit.

here by the more descriptive SW, SE, NE, and NW. Hence, for example, the southwest subunit in the two-meter square called 400N/400E would be labeled 400N/400E-SW. Initially, the units were excavated in a checkerboard pattern beginning off, or at the west edge of, the surface concentration and gradually extending east across it (Fig. 1.5). One definite Onondaga chert fluted point fragment, which convinced even skeptic Ellis, was recovered on the first day of excavations. Moreover, other undoubted Paleoindian artifacts, such as a large, well-made, concave, side scraper (see Fig. 4.12a), were also found. These finds confirmed that the site was Paleoindian and that Onondaga artifacts were associated with that occupation. We began excavating using the same strategy we had used at other sites such as Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a). The plowzone was removed with shovels and passed through either 1/4” or 1/8” mesh. The finer mesh size was only used in the NE one-meter subsquares in order to get a sample, across the site, of smaller items. Only one shovel load was screened at a time and individual items were piece-plotted to a horizontal location in the center of the particular load. The subsoil was then carefully troweled off and examined for features. Unlike Thedford II, and in the interests of saving time, if no visible feature outlines were present the square was abandoned with only minimal subsoil excavation. On the first full day of excavations, August 17, 1981, the planned checkerboard excavation pattern was abandoned. One reason was to expose contiguous areas on the west and south-

west where several Glen Meyer pits and posts were located. However, the major reason was the discovery in the plowzone of the NW and NE one-meter subsquares of 402N/404E of a dense concentration of heat-fractured Paleoindian lithic debris predominantly on Onondaga chert but also including Collingwood chert specimens. The material was so dense that when placed in the screens used in excavation it sounded like glass shattering from the contact of individual fragments. After the plowzone was removed, it became clear that the debris continued down in to the subsoil. No outline of this subsoil feature was visible. The subsurface concentration consisted of a large semicircle of debris extending out from the north wall of the square and strongly suggested that a large circular feature was present (Fig. 1.6). Some observers at the time, such as William Fox, thought the soil was slightly reddened or oxidized, which might suggest in situ burning of the lithics, and in retrospect, some Kodachrome color slides of the feature area do seem to indicate a slightly reddish tinge. However, other observers, such as Deller and Ellis, could not clearly see such discoloration or thought it may simply be a product of iron staining due to normal soil formation processes. Regardless, the north half of the feature, which we called Feature #1, was still buried under the intact plowzone of the southern part of the two-meter square to the north (404N/404E). The discovery of this feature meant we needed to excavate a continuous area around it, especially since it was clear that the plowing that had truncated it had moved a considerable amount of material into the immediately surrounding squares. Moreover, so much material

8

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 1.5. View of initial excavations looking east along 400N line, August 17, 1981.

Figure 1.6. View of Feature #1 as first exposed at the plowzone-subsoil interface in the north end of square 402N/404E. Each stake marks an artifact location. Meter stick in foreground. The trowel in this and other photos points to grid north.

Introduction

9

Figure 1.7. View of Feature #1 at the plowzone-subsoil interface showing vandalized area, August 18, 1981.

was present that we abandoned, for lack of time, the individual piece-plotting of plowzone finds. We returned to the site the next morning (August 18, 1981), planning to remove the plowzone overlying the north edge of the feature. However, and very much to our chagrin, we found that the center of the exposed feature had been damaged by some elicit digging, which had disturbed a linear 20- to 40-cm-wide area in the feature’s center, both in the north edge of two-meter unit 402N/404E and in the south edge of the adjacent square 404N/404E (Fig. 1.7). The subsoil in both units and the retained plowzone in 404N/404E had been disturbed. This extremely unfortunate event was due to, as we later learned, the activities of local youths who visited the site with the landowner’s son following our departure after that first day of work. Later, having interviewed the adolescents, it was clear that no malice had been intended and the few curiosities that had been removed were returned. We are relatively confident that we recovered all materials these individuals had removed from the site. In cleaning up the back dirt from the disturbance (Fig. 1.8) we found a considerable amount of material that had to have originated in the feature or immediately above it in the plowzone, but there was still clearly considerable material remaining undisturbed in the center of the feature itself. We took steps to ensure this disturbance or vandalizing would not happen again. After removing the remaining overlying plowzone, we began feature excavations by piece-plotting each in situ fragment in three dimensions.

Initially, we individually bagged, and retained separately, artifacts identifiable to specific classes, such as biface or uniface, or types. We did not individually bag the initial recoveries of very small unidentifiable fragments and popout flakes (n = 138) that actually make up the bulk of the feature contents. However, we very quickly switched that day to a separate bagging of all individual piece-plotted artifacts. All troweled soil was also passed through 1/8”-mesh screen. In total, and including a small number of probably intrusive unheated flakes and bone fragments, 2010 pieces were recovered from the subsoil in the Feature #1 area. Of these, 1474 or 73.3% were exactly plotted. Virtually all the larger lithic objects produced by heat exposure were piece-plotted and the exceptions were mainly (488/536 or 91%) extremely small fragments or lithic popout flakes unassignable to even the grossest artifact classes. These excluded small items were easily dislodged during excavation from their original provenance in the very soft sandy matrix or were so small that they were found only when the troweled subsoil was screened through very fine mesh. In addition, a few were found in a rodent hole just outside the main artifact concentration at the southwest corner of square 404N/404E-SW or deeper in a tree/root disturbance in the southwest quadrant of the feature. These items were not piece-plotted because they were extrusive and clearly in a disturbed context. The main Paleoindian feature is described in detail in later chapters, but suffice to say, piece-plotting indicates it was relatively circular, about 1.5 m in diameter. It had a shallow basinshaped profile and extended down into the subsoil below the

10

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

plowzone for some 20–25 cm. In addition to the artifact recoveries, and some samples of the apparent feature fill, two matched sets of soil samples were taken at both 20 cm and 40 cm deep in the subsoil at intervals along the east-west (404N) and northsouth (405E) grid lines that very neatly transected the center of the subsoil artifact concentration. This sampling was continued beyond the feature artifact concentration in all directions, essentially to the edges of all two-meter units completely removed of plowzone at the time. It was hoped that these samples would assist in delineating the feature, in determining if the material was burned in place, and in providing insights into its former contents beyond the obvious lithic artifacts. Excavations continued at the site until September 1, 1981. By that time, the feature area had been completely excavated and we had managed to remove the plowzone from an 82-m2 area surrounding the feature itself thanks to the efforts of many volunteers (Fig. 1.4). In addition, Dr. Roger King of the Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, was contacted. He sampled soils at the site, including taking a soil column, to provide general knowledge of the site matrix. Besides heat-fractured debris we also recovered several Paleoindian tools/preforms or fragments thereof that were not heated. These were not found in the intact subsoil portion of the feature as some have reported (e.g., Wright 1995:48). Rather, all were plowzone finds or unassignable (for instance, in vandalized back dirt or in root distur-

bances in the feature area) and were largely found well outside the feature excavation units. They suggest a normal occupation component at the site in Paleoindian times in addition to the activities associated with Feature #1 (Deller and Ellis 1984:48). The only unheated objects in the subsoil in the Feature #1 area were seven small waste flakes, one of which is on a material (Kettle Point chert) that site evidence suggests is not associated with the feature. We believe these waste flakes are intrusive and due to post-depositional disturbances such as root and worm action, an intrusion not unexpected on a multicomponent site over the 12,000+ calendar years since the artifacts were first deposited. All the 1981 artifacts and excavated materials were taken to Simon Fraser University where Ellis was then a student and where the initial refitting and cataloging of the finds were carried out. Technical analyses of the first season’s lithic materials were presented in his PhD dissertation (Ellis 1984) and a summary of our work at the site was included in an archaeological license report submitted to fulfilll government mandated licensing requirements (Deller and Ellis 1982). The soil samples from the feature were taken to the University of Western Ontario where preliminary analyses were carried out by Roger King, although those results were not published. It soon became clear that several artifact pieces were missing and since even the peripheral excavated squares had relatively high concentrations of material, we believed considerable

Figure 1.8. View of Feature #1 at the plowzone-subsoil interface with all plowzone removed, August 18, 1981. Stakes mark heated artifact locations with bare area across center corresponding to vandalized area.

Introduction material was probably still at the site as well as within the unexcavated subsoil in most squares where it could have been easily intruded by over 10,000 years of rodent and root action. Therefore, Deller applied to the Ontario Heritage Foundation for funds to support additional work at the site in the summer of 1982. This funding was granted and a small field crew, under the field direction of Juliet Garfit, returned to the site that next summer. They excavated the subsoil down to at least 20 cm in the previously excavated squares surrounding the feature and, in addition, managed to expand the excavated area to encompass a total area of 208 m2 (Fig. 1.4). All tools and preforms found in 1982 were piece-plotted, even if recovered from the plowzone. An unexpected find, only briefly reported in a published 1984 paper on the site (Deller and Ellis 1984:44), was a second, more amorphous concentration of heat-fractured and unheated debris in the plowzone and subsoil some 6 m northwest of the original feature, centered at the juncture of two-meter units 406N/398E and 408N/398E. We named this concentration “Feature #2” (see Chap. 10 for a full discussion of it and its meaning). In 1983, all material from the two seasons of excavation was taken to McGill University for continued attempts at refitting and additional analyses. In the process, the collection served as the basis for courses in laboratory techniques and guided research supervised by Deller. Based on the two seasons of work, the Paleoindian component was briefly summarized in our 1984

11

paper and in Deller’s (1988) PhD dissertation, but as a whole was not reported nor examined in detail until we began working in 2001 on the present monograph and derivative papers (Deller et al. 2009; Ellis 2009). Moreover, since the initial published reports, continued attempts at refitting fragments have resulted in several new conjoins and, consequently, some changes in the frequency of items recovered as well as detection of some errors in our initial reported plottings. Therefore, the totals and spatial data presented herein should be considered more accurate and supersede all other reports. In the following, we begin in Chapters 2 and 3, or the rest of Section I, by examining the nature of the lithic assemblage recovered from the site and spatial distributions of features, artifact forms and lithic raw materials. The main aim of these chapters is to isolate the Paleoindian materials from evidence of later occupations, and to document how the three main subdivisions of the Paleoindian component (e.g., Feature #1, Feature #2, and unheated assemblage) were segregated for analytic purposes. In Section II, including Chapters 4 through 8, we describe in detail the Feature #1 assemblage, its context, and its possible significance. In Section III, or Chapters 9 and 10, we describe and discuss the non-Feature #1 Paleoindian lithic assemblages from the site. The concluding Section IV, containing Chapter 11, summarizes the main conclusions of the study.

— Chapter 2 —

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns

Diagnostics

The bulk of the Paleoindian lithic artifacts in the Crowfield artifact assemblage represent a limited range of raw material sources. Most have been damaged by heat exposure. The heated items are predominantly associated with Feature #1 at the site but as noted in Chapter 1, there is evidence of a second subsoil concentration that we call, for convenience, Feature #2. This second concentration consists mostly of heat-fractured artifacts but also includes some unheated materials. In addition, a number of Paleoindian artifacts were recovered from the plowzone that have no evidence of heat exposure; there are also some objects (and features) that represent later, predominantly Glen Meyer, use of the site. Therefore, before proceeding with the analyses, it is necessary to provide information useful for sorting out the Paleoindian from the post-Paleoindian debris. In addition, since the material associated with each Paleoindian feature, and the unheated Paleoindian assemblage, can potentially represent very different activities or events, it is useful to understand how that material can be, and was, sorted for analytical purposes. Evidence helpful in making such assignments includes the kinds of diagnostics recovered, the differing siliceous raw material sources used at the site, and the ability to recognize heat-fractured artifacts as opposed to those fractured by other means. These aspects are discussed in this chapter. Other lines of evidence useful in determining assignments are the spatial distributions of artifact forms, artifact refits, differing raw materials, and features (discussed in Chap. 3).

Aside from the obvious Early Paleoindian artifacts such as fluted points and channel flakes, there is evidence, in the form of diagnostic artifacts, for at least five non-Paleoindian components at the site. As previously noted, one major component represents occupation during the Late Woodland, specifically during the Early Ontario Iroquoian period, traditionally referred to in southwestern Ontario as Glen Meyer (Williamson 1990; Wright 1966). Artifacts characteristic of this occupation include typical pottery sherds from uncollared corded vessels, which had been decorated on the lip, rim, and neck with cord-wrapped stick impressions, incising and/or interior punctates/exterior bosses. At least two vessels are represented among the rim sherds and two others (which may represent the same vessels as the rims) are evident among the neck sherds (Williamson 1985:262–63). In addition, there are ten Late Woodland bifaces from the area, three of which were recovered outside the excavated area or that have no specific provenance other than a surface find designation (Fig. 2.1h, i; Table 2.1). The seven artifacts from the excavated area include six small, triangular, finished points or fragments thereof with slight to deep basal concavities characteristic of Glen Meyer assemblages. The remaining item is a small unrefined triangular biface or preform, the size of which indicates a Late Woodland affiliation. Two other triangular biface preforms discarded in manufacture were also recovered from the excavated 13

14

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 2.1. Non-Paleoindian bifaces, Crowfield site. A–D, Middle Archaic Stanly/ Neville-like points from area around Feature #1; E, Middle or Late Archaic corner-notched point from south of Feature #1; F, lobate stemmed point of probable late Early Woodland age found in Feature #2 area; G, sidenotched end scraper of probable Middle Woodland age from southwest part of excavated area; H–I, Late Woodland points from the Glen Meyer component.

Table 2.1. Post-Paleoindian lithic diagnostics, Crowfield site. FC #

Artifact Form

Cultural Affiliation

Raw Material

Provenance

9

triangular point tip

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

402N/400E-NE

10

triangular point

Late Woodland

Onondaga

surface east of excavation

82

triangular point

Late Woodland

Onondaga

398N/402E-NE

137

triangular point

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

394N/390E-SW

170

triangular preform

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

396N/398E-NW

171

triangular point

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

396N/398E-NW

174

triangular point tip

Late Woodland

Onondaga

398N/398E-NE

1058

triangular point

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

surface to NW

1189

triangular point tip

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

396N/400E-NE

1346

triangular point

Late Woodland

Kettle Point

surface

219

Stanly/Neville point

Middle Archaic

Selkirk

398N/404E-NW

220

Stanly/Neville point base

Middle Archaic

Onondaga

396N/404E-SW

1161

Stanly/Neville point

Middle Archaic

Kettle Point

406N/404E-NW

1290

Stanly/Neville point

Middle Archaic

Kettle Point

408N/406E-SW

124

corner-notched point

Terminal Archaic

Onondaga

400N/406E-SW

1095

lobate stemmed point base

Early Woodland

Kettle Point

406N/398E-SW

1288

stemmed point preform?

Early Woodland

Selkirk

408N/402E-SW

136

side-notched end scraper

Middle Woodland

Onondaga

394N/390E-NE

90

large triangular preform

Archaic?

Selkirk

400N/404E-SE

91

large triangular preform

Archaic?

Kettle Point

400N/404E-SW

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns area but these seem too large (60+ mm long) and thick (> 6 mm) to be Late Woodland preforms so could be associated with other post-Paleoindian components at the site. There are seven definitive pre-Late Woodland but nonPaleoindian bifaces that are of four general forms. One form is represented by four points (Fig. 2.1a–d; Table 2.1). Of these, one is complete, a second is complete except for a break at a basal corner, a third is missing the tip, and the last consists solely of a basal stem. These are all small, narrow, thin, stemmed points with slightly concave to almost notched bases, triangular fore-sections, and distinct basal thinning flakes removed from one (n = 3) or both (n = 1) faces. These might be classified as Early Archaic bifurcate base points of types such as Lake Erie bifurcated (e.g., Justice 1987:92–95), but we think they are best assigned to the immediately subsequent Middle Archaic Stanly/ Neville point category (e.g., Dincauze 1976:26–29; see also Ellis et al. 2009:803–5). Regardless, they indicate site use in the ca. 8500–7500 B.P. time period. Another Archaic point is a cornernotched form with convex blade edges (Fig. 2.1e). It would seem to fit best into the Terminal Archaic Small Point series of ca. 3000 B.P. based on overall size and thickness (Ellis et al. 1990:106–9) but it could be, given its outline shape, simply a small Middle Archaic Brewerton corner-notched form (Ritchie 1971:16). The outline of the Middle Archaic forms suggests they may have been made on triangular preforms. Similarly, the larger Late Archaic Small Point varieties were apparently made on preforms of that shape (e.g., cache blades). As noted earlier, there are two large triangular preforms from the site. These would be of a suitable size to manufacture the Middle or Late Archaic points and, hence, could be associated with one of those components. In fact, spatial distributions and the raw materials used suggest an Archaic association, as we describe in Chapter 3. Another point is represented by the base of a lobate stemmed form (Fig. 2.1f) that seems best assigned to a type such as Early Woodland Adena points. The outline of this item is somewhat unrefined and it may actually be a preform. A cruder biface with a comparable outline was also recovered from the site and it could represent a preform for a similar point that was discarded in manufacture. The final biface of note here is a side-notched end scraper, or perhaps strike-a-light, with a heavily polished bit (Fig. 2.1g). This item is most comparable to Middle Woodland Saugeen points, which can be made into tools such as scrapers and strike-a-lights (e.g., O’Neal 2001: Fig. 4.10d; Wilson 1990: Plate 11:1–10; Wright and Anderson 1963: Plate XX:21). Siliceous Artifacts: Lithic Raw Materials The majority of the siliceous artifacts recovered from the site can be assigned to three sources: Onondaga, Fossil Hill (­Collingwood), and Kettle Point. Exceptions are a few items on Selkirk chert and Ancaster chert, two small retouch flakes on Ohio cherts (one of Flint Ridge and one on Upper Mercer), as well as some items on unidentifiable materials. All undoubted

15

Paleoindian artifacts from the site, such as fluted bifaces, channel flakes, large beveled bifaces, and so on, occur only on Onondaga, Fossil Hill and Ancaster chert, while all diagnostics on Kettle Point are items such as small triangular points associated with the Late Woodland. Moreover, while much of the less diagnostic Onondaga, Fossil Hill and Ancaster artifact forms are burned, that is not the case for Kettle Point chert pieces, which are only rarely burned. These data suggest Onondaga and Fossil Hill were the major raw materials used during the Paleoindian occupation, Ancaster was a minor material used during that occupation, and Kettle Point was not used or little used. As discussed more in later chapters, these inferences are confirmed by: (1) the material that can be associated with Features #1 and #2, which is almost exclusively on Onondaga, Collingwood (Fossil Hill), and Ancaster chert; and (2) density plotting of Kettle Point debris, which shows it clusters in areas away from the Paleoindian features in the areas where Glen Meyer pits and post molds cluster. The single definitive Paleoindian Selkirk chert item is burned, includes pieces that were found in the preserved subsoil remnant of Feature #1, and is of a form (a large unrefined biface) identical to several other burned Onondaga, Collingwood, and Ancaster chert items. Hence, its use by Paleoindians at the site, albeit in a minor way, is confirmed and that material, along with the Onondaga and Collingwood cherts, is described here. However, we note that there are also a few other later diagnostics on Selkirk representing use of the site during Middle Archaic and, perhaps, the Middle and Late Woodland. We do not know the component affiliation of the two Ohio chert waste flakes and have not included detailed descriptions of those sources. Onondaga Chert Onondaga chert has been described and characterized in detail in several reports (Fox 1978; Jarvis 1988; Luedtke 1976; Parkins 1977). This Middle Devonian chert originates in various members of the Onondaga formation. Bedrock surface exposures in Ontario extend along or close to the Lake Erie shore from just west of the Grand River to Fort Erie and continue to the east across much of upstate New York (Fig. 1.1). This formation also occurs underlying parts of southwestern Ontario farther west but in those areas it is completely buried under many tens of meters of glacially deposited sediments. Nonetheless, it does occur in tills in those areas and concentrations can be found as pebbles or small cobbles at least as far west as the London vicinity and beyond. Such secondary pieces are common in areas from the Thames River drainage south to the Lake Erie shore (see Kenyon 1980: Fig. 4). However, there is no doubt most, if not all, of the Crowfield Paleoindian material is from bedrock exposures (discussed below). The Onondaga formation in Ontario includes several members but most of the chert is confined to the Clarence member where “chert constitutes 40–70 per cent of the whole rock” and “occurs in bedded, nodular and lenticular masses” (Parkins 1977:17). Today, many chert samples can be collected from limestone

16

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 2.2. Onondaga chert quarry block from outcrop near Grand River. Note irregular contact with surrounding limestone at top and flat exposed weathered “sides.”

Figure 2.3. Schematic diagram showing stylized initial Onondaga chert (A) and Collingwood chert (B) blocks/block cores. For illustrative purposes, the blocks are arbitrarily given four equal sized “sides” and approximately 90° angles between adjacent “sides” and “tops” but in actuality they could vary and have 3 or > 4 “sides” and more obtuse to more acute junctures of the adjacent block surfaces, especially adjacent “side” surfaces.

quarries that would not have been exposed in precontact times. The nearest accessible outcrops to Crowfield are those some 100 km to the southeast on creeks west of the Grand River such as Nanticoke and Sandusk, where these waterways have cut through the Onondaga formation (see Telford and Tarrant 1975; Telford and Hamblin 1980), enabling large, thick (up to 150 mm) blocks weighing in excess of 20 kg to be wedged out (Fig. 2.2). During Late Woodland times, such exposures were heavily exploited at sites such as Slack-Caswell (Fox 1976:172; Jamieson 1984). Onondaga chert beds have a somewhat irregular or wavy juncture with the surrounding limestone matrix (Figs. 2.2, 2.3a). These irregular junctures are emphasized on most archaeologi-

cal samples because the limestone surfaces can become highly eroded from being exposed to acidic soils for thousands of years (Parkins 1977:85–86). Adjacent to eroded limestone surfaces on both archaeological and bedded outcrop material samples, the chert tends to be duller and “brownish” (light yellow brown; 10YR6/4 to 10YR5/4 in the Munsell color coding system) as a reflection of the higher limestone content (Fig. 2.3a). These junctures contrast with the areas away from the limestone chert juncture where, with the exception of very small brown limestone inclusions, the chert is more lustrous and ranges from a dark gray (10YR7/1) to light gray (10YR4/1), with most samples from Crowfield falling in the darker range. However,

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns it should be noted that the Crowfield sample has been heated, and unheated artifacts, as well as outcrop samples, indicate that slightly duller lusters and lighter gray colors are more typical of unheated artifacts (see below). The texture of Onondaga is fine and macro-fossils are rare to nonexistent. The chert does exhibit a distinct mottled and streaked appearance as well as intruded elongated quartz-filled concavities. As indicated above, there is clear evidence the Onondaga chert artifacts from Crowfield were obtained from bedrock rather than from secondary deposits. The best evidence is that original unflaked surfaces of the chert are retained on many items in the assemblage. While the limestone junctures with the chert beds are often eroded due to the acidic soils, many artifacts retain the unflaked, flat, naturally formed surfaces that approximate the exposed vertical faces of the beds when encased in the bedrock matrix and that were formed by natural processes such as frostcracking and in situ erosion. These surfaces lack completely the evidence of battering and weathering of secondary sources produced during transport by glacial and fluvial processes. The best examples are several large tool blanks or flake tools at Crowfield (e.g., Figs. 4.2, 4.4a), struck off the corners or flat faces of large blocks or bed segments. These items have completely flat unflaked surfaces that are not damaged by geological transport processes. Since these are the only “primary” flakes (White 1963:5) or initial flakes removed from cores in the Feature #1 assemblage, these flakes indicate that knappers virtually always started with a block approximating a section of the chert bed such as the squarish one schematically illustrated in Figure 2.3a. Of course, the actual blocks used could have had more than the four sides on this illustration, and the actual block shown here (Fig. 2.2) may represent a better approximation of the initial shape. For descriptive purposes we always refer to the surfaces of the blocks that approximate in orientation the old juncture of the chert bed with surrounding limestone matrix as “top” surfaces, regardless whether they are in actuality the top or bottom of such blocks (Fig. 2.3a). Surfaces of the blocks that approximate in orientation the surface of the chert bed in a vertical bedrock exposure are referred to as “sides” (Fig. 2.3a). Less absolute indicators, but still supportive of the idea of primary Onondaga outcrop use, are the size of pieces and their color. Many of the larger bifaces and flakes at Crowfield retain cortical evidence at both ends indicating they were made on block or bed segments up to 130+ mm thick (e.g., Fig. 4.2a). One can find large thick blocks of Onondaga as secondary deposits but these are exclusively found very near actual outcrops. For example, at several places on the northeastern Lake Erie shore east of the Grand River, relatively large blocks can be found in secondary contexts that had been derived from bedrock surface exposures in the actual edge of the lake. Water freezing and expansion wedges out larger blocks, which end up on the immediately adjacent beaches (Parkins 1977). However, secondary deposits to the west extending from the site vicinity south to Lake Erie consist of much smaller pebbles in deposits we have examined. Secondary pieces beyond 30 or 40 mm thick are rare to

17

nonexistent due to breakage in glacial transport and the fact that glacial cherts include a very high percentage of pieces derived from thin original beds. Secondary deposits are also made up of cherts derived from many different beds of the chert. As such, different pieces are, as a whole, less homogenous in appearance, including both color and texture differences, and­—probably due to the thin nature of many original beds or nodules—they tend to have a quite high limestone content and to have much more mottled brown colors throughout the whole piece in our experience (see Deller and Ellis 1996). While one can get the occasional block from the primary source areas, which is also a completely mottled brown, it is only in those source areas where one can regularly select the finer, more homogenous grayish blocks with less in the way of limestone content or inclusions. When brownish areas do occur on the primary source blocks, they tend to be restricted to areas immediately adjacent to the cortex, as illustrated in Figure 2.3a. The Crowfield assemblage is predominantly made on darker gray cherts with minimal limestone mottling and little overall variation, indicating the selection and use of larger blocks derived from thick beds. Collingwood (Fossil Hill) Chert This material originates in the Fossil Hill formation of the Niagara Escarpment vicinity located at least 200 km northeast of Crowfield (Fig. 1.1). Many studies concerning its source localities and identification are available (e.g., Eley and von Bitter 1989; Sheppard 1977; Storck and von Bitter 1981, 1989; Stott and von Bitter 1999; von Bitter and Eley 1997). Chert occurs in the Fossil Hill formation both on the mainland and on Manitoulin Island to the north in Lake Huron/Georgian Bay. However, the mainland sources, located in the Beaver Valley near Collingwood, Ontario, are easily visually distinguished from the Manitoulin Island sources (Storck and von Bitter 1989:175) so we prefer to call the chert “Collingwood,” indicating it was those sources that were used by the Paleoindians in southwestern Ontario and not the Manitoulin sources. This chert was widely used by Early Paleoindian groups in southwesternmost Ontario and seems to have been used only by those early groups in that area, later groups preferring more local Kettle Point, Onondaga, and undifferentiated till cherts (e.g., Deller 1979:6, 1989; Deller and Ellis 1992a, 1992b; Ellis and Deller 1997). The chert is very distinctive visually, being unlike any other reported cherts in the southern Great Lakes region, and as indicated in Chapter 1, it was identification of the presence of this chert at the site—even as only a few heat-produced blocky fragments—that led to the recognition of the Paleoindian component at Crowfield. Unlike Onondaga chert, Collingwood chert is not reported from secondary deposits in southwestern Ontario. Indeed, the only known secondary deposits are those near the outcrops (Sheppard 1977), probably because: (a) unlike Onondaga, the chert makes up much less of the whole rock and occurs only in thin beds so there is less material transported

18

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

some distance; and (b) glaciation did not move material from the outcrop areas predominantly toward southwestern Ontario. Also, unlike Onondaga, the Fossil Hill formation outcrops are so far from the Crowfield site vicinity that it is unlikely brittle cherts would be transported in any concentration or larger size to the area (see Goldthwait 1971). Therefore, it is clear on this basis alone that the material had to be brought to Crowfield from a considerable distance. In any case, unflaked surfaces are present on several artifacts in the Crowfield assemblage, and as was the case with Onondaga chert, these surfaces do not exhibit the battered and worn surfaces seen on secondary cobbles. Rather, they have the flat planar surfaces characteristic of outcrop samples. At examined outcrops, Collingwood chert occurs in up to three beds that can be as much as 20 cm thick, and blocks of the material approximating a section of that chert bed are easy to obtain (e.g., Fig. 2.4). Blocks from the beds and from the nearby secondary sources often exhibit a dolomitic cortex at the juncture of the chert bed with the surrounding matrix. Unlike Onondaga chert, the juncture is well-defined and abrupt and forms straight, relatively regular margins on both archaeological and source samples. This contrast is illustrated on the schematic diagrams of blocks of the two cherts (Fig. 2.3a, b). The chert ranges in color from a white/light gray (N8; N7) to a very pale

brown/beige (10YR8/3 to 10YR8/2). It is relatively fine-grained, opaque to slightly translucent, and has a medium to high luster, especially on heated items. The chert often appears speckled due to the presence of small pits stained by iron oxides. Most of the ­Collingwood vicinity chert, unlike chert from the Fossil Hill Formation on Manitoulin Island, is banded. This banding is one way and parallels the dolomite/chert juncture (Fig. 2.3b). On artifacts, the orientation of this banding, in combination with the placement of dolomite cortex and weathered surfaces, has allowed us to place each flake or biface back into its original position in a chert block or bed segment and has allowed the construction of quite detailed primary lithic reduction sequence models (Deller and Ellis 1992a; Ellis 1984; Ellis and Deller 2000). As was the case with the Onondaga chert, original primary flakes in the Crowfield assemblage indicate the knappers used outcrop material and began with a block approximating a section of the chert bed as shown on Figure 2.3b. Again, for descriptive purposes we refer to cortical surfaces approximating the old juncture of the beds with the surrounding limestone matrix as top surfaces and those approximating in orientation the old face of the bed exposed in the vertical bedrock section as side surfaces (Fig. 2.3b).

Figure 2.4. Collingwood chert quarry block from outcrop. Note regular limestone juncture at top and one-way banding paralleling that juncture.

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns Ancaster Chert There are several items in the Crowfield assemblage, almost exclusively from or linked to Feature #1, that are on a distinctive dull, opaque, gray to greenish chert that has to be from the same original source. In fact, several of what we will refer to later as “leaf-shaped bifaces” on this material are so similar that it is probable their blanks were all derived from the same original piece of material. We were unable to identify this material so showed the examples to William Fox, a noted expert in Ontario chert identification (e.g., Fox 1978, 2009). Fox suggested the material is what is popularly called Ancaster chert because some of the main known outcrops are located near the town of that name in the Niagara Escarpment area at the west end of Lake Ontario (Fig. 1.1). Because of its relatively low quality, it seems to have been used mainly in the outcrop area—even in later times (e.g., Woodley 1990). Prior to 1999, no research had documented use of this material among Early Paleoindian groups. However, in that year, the Mount Albion West site, associated with an outcrop, was discovered. While that site assemblage is heavily dominated by other non-local materials, it did yield a few fluted point diagnostics, notably several channel flakes from point fluting (Ritscher et al. 2000). One presumes this chert’s use has not been previously documented because of its relatively poor quality and only more expedient use by Paleoindian groups. Ancaster chert originates in the Goat Island member of the Middle Silurian age Lockport Formation; it has also been referred to, in the literature, as either Lockport or Goat Island chert (Eley and von Bitter 1989:19–20; Fox 1978:6; Luedtke 1976:236–38). The items identified here as Ancaster clearly match published descriptions of the chert as well as a limited range of source samples available for comparison. This dull and opaque, medium textured chert is relatively homogenous with abundant microfossils, notably in thin section of acritarchs, tiny white flecks and, often, abundant iron oxide staining. Color of outcrop samples ranges from light to medium gray (N7 to N8) to light brownish gray (10YR6/1 to 10YR7/1). The objects examined here include some in those color ranges but most have been altered by heating such that the original grays are often somewhat darker (10YR5/1; N6 to N5) or have been given a brownish cast (10YR5/2 to 10YR5/3; dark grayish brown to brown). Kettle Point Chert Kettle Point chert originates at the feature of the same name on the southern Lake Huron shore some 55 km northwest of Crowfield (Fig.1.1; Eley and von Bitter 1989:15; Janusas 1984). The chert occurs at the juncture of Kettle Point Formation of Upper Devonian age and the underlying Middle Devonian Hamilton Formation. Today most of the exposures are actually submerged just under the edge of Lake Huron. To our knowledge, no landward outcrops or chert bearing deposits occur beyond this restricted area at the Point (see discussion in Ellis and Deller

19

2000:43–44). The chert also occurs in till and other secondary deposits away from the outcrop area to the south, but it does not seem to occur in quantity in those deposits much beyond the outcrop area. We attribute this restricted distribution to the small extent of the exposed outcrops and the relatively low chert content as well as to the fact that it often has numerous flaws that would lead to excessive fragmentation during glacial transport. It most certainly does not seem to occur in any quantity in deposits around the Crowfield site itself; in fact, we have never seen any pieces resembling this chert in secondary deposits in the Crowfield site area. The chert ranges in color from more reddish tones (weak red [10R5/2] to pinkish/reddish gray [10R6/2, 10R5/1 to 10R4/1; 2.5R5/1]) to gray to very dark gray (N5 to N3; 10YR4/1 to 10YR3/1) to even greenish gray (10G4/1), but most material on archaeological sites, and virtually all that from Crowfield, is of the pinkish to reddish gray varieties. Selkirk Chert This chert, which has been variously referred to as Dundee or Selkirk chert, originates in the Middle Devonian Dundee Formation with outcrops known from near shoreline locations on Lake Erie between Long Point and the Grand River (Fig. 1.1). It can also be found exposed in modern quarries just inland from that lake (see Eley and von Bitter 1989; Fox 1978; Luedtke 1976:225–30). Secondary deposits are also common and nodules of the chert can be found intermixed with Onondaga pieces at many locations on or near the Lake Erie shore west of the outcrop locations such that sites in the vicinity of, and where the inhabitants used, those deposits often have a mixture of the two cherts. A good example is the Nettling Early Archaic site (Ellis et al. 1991). Since only one definitive Paleoindian artifact—a highly reduced biface—was recovered on this chert, it is not possible to state whether or not the material was obtained from outcrops or secondary deposits, but since the actual outcrops are very near those of the Onondaga sources, it could be from an outcrop locality. In contrast to the previously described cherts, Selkirk chert was not widely used in precontact Ontario, perhaps because it is of relatively low quality. Usually the only extensive use is found on sites along the Lake Erie shore near the outcrops and/or secondary deposits. The chert occurs as small nodules or lenses and thin beds under about 5 cm thickness. It is generally dull and relatively lusterless and ranges from a light gray/gray (10YR7/1, 10YR6/1, 10YR6/2) to grayish brown/light grayish brown (10YR6/2 to 10YR4/2) in background color, which is often mottled with white and other gray to brown color variants. It tends to have a high limestone content, a number of voids, and is relatively fossiliferous. Circular crinoid fragments are especially common. In some cases quartz has replaced the fossil fragments. These general characteristics are the ones that make it of relatively poor quality for flintknapping.

20

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Artifact Fracture Patterns

As indicated above, the vast majority of the Paleoindian artifacts from the site have been fragmented by heat exposure. The kinds of damage produced by burning cherts have been discussed in detail by investigators such as Purdy (1975). Evidence of heat exposure in the assemblage includes: (1) Large numbers of circular to oval potlid scars on artifact surfaces and the recovery of many of the distinctive popout or potlid flakes detached in producing these scars (e.g., Fig. 2.5). Typically the popout flakes have bulbous or convex undersides in profile. In plan outline they tend to be circular although there can be some irregularities in outline where the flake encompassed a surface artifact ridge. Unlike flakes produced by knapping, or even by site plowing or cultivation, these popout flakes do not have bulbs of force, striking platforms, or other fracture features such as ripples or undulations (Whittaker 1994:74). They also tend to be relatively small, rarely exceeding 8 mm across. (2) A high degree of fragmentation (Fig. 2.6). Not all heated items in the assemblage are highly fragmented and, in fact, a very few items, which have other definitive evidence of heating such as potlidding and color/texture changes, actually appear relatively complete (e.g., Figs. 4. 1d, 4.9j–k, 4.10b). Nonetheless, most items have been fragmented with individual items being composed of as many as thirteen separate major pieces. As an example, Table 2.2 provides the breakdown of artifacts by the number of reconstituted fragments we can associate with Feature #1 at the site. This table includes only items that have been completely reconstructed or where, based on morphological grounds, we can estimate that only one or two other pieces are missing and include them in the counts. These counts are undoubtedly underestimated as we suspect some items were so fragmented by burning that they were literally destroyed. In any case, Table 2.2 shows the number of pieces per artifact from two other Paleoindian occupation sites we have examined: Parkhill and Thedford II. The Feature #1 assemblage is significantly more fragmentary than the occupation site assemblages with each artifact being composed of over twice as many fragments on average than those at the other sites, and with almost a third of the artifacts being made up of five or more pieces as opposed to under three per cent at the other two sites (Ellis 2009). Moreover, it is worth noting that the few items with a large number of pieces at the Thedford II site are almost exclusively heat-fractured items as well. The Parkhill site has several artifacts from surface collection or from less intensively investigated areas and therefore it is less likely that one would recover conjoinable fragments that would allow one to reconstruct whole artifacts made up of several pieces; so, there is a bias to lower totals or complete artifacts on the reported table. Nonetheless, the areas at that site that were fully excavated have no artifacts made up of more than three pieces. The only way besides heating that one can get highly fragmented overall assemblages is where items have been purposefully broken, as at the Caradoc site, data from which are also included on Table 2.2 (Deller and Ellis 2001; Ellis and Deller 2002). However,

even the most fragmentary examples at that site (e.g., made up of eight pieces) have heat fracturing in addition to the purposeful breakage, hence overemphasizing the degree of fragmentation. One suspects that the burned Crowfield items that are less fragmented may have been less directly exposed to heat or were placed peripherally to the more completely fractured items when they were incinerated. Regardless, such fragmentation indicates the material literally exploded. In experiments, Purdy (1975:136–37) was able to induce such explosions by exposing chert artifacts to temperatures rapidly increased to levels in excess of 400° C or by rapidly cooling items exposed to higher temperatures in excess of 350° C. However, potlids resulted only when temperatures were rapidly increased. Given the extensive potlidding, this experimental evidence strongly suggests the Crowfield artifacts were burned by a rapid temperature rise rather than by being roasted by gradual exposure to higher and higher temperatures or by rapid cooling. In other words, they had to have been exposed to heat by means such as directly dropping them into a blazing fire or by placing the items among or around a pile of wood, which was then set ablaze and allowed to naturally and slowly die down. (3) Curved/wavy fracture outlines in plan view (e.g., Figs. 5.7d, 5.8g, etc.). The curved fracture outlines are definitive of heat exposure as they simply do not result from breaks induced by actual blows, whether or not the items broke in flintknapping or were purposefully destroyed (e.g., Deller and Ellis 2001; Ellis and Deller 2002; Purdy 1975). (4) Fracture profiles that lack lips or lip grooves or cone initiation remnants on the matching surfaces. Heating of the artifacts has often resulted in fragments with blocky or angular outlines as opposed to the curved to wavy outlines (e.g., Fitting et al. 1966:35–36). Blockier to more angular appearing fragments also can result from breakage blows (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2002). However, when the fracture edges of fragments produced by heat are examined, it is quite clear that they are not a product of being struck directly or by pressure application (for example, not due to what we will call here “mechanical breakage”). Objects struck directly on their surfaces to produce bend/snap or radial breaks (see Bonnichsen 1977; Crabtree 1977; Root et al. 1999) often, although not always, have cone initiations where the breakage blow was struck or slight lips where the snap fracture terminated on meeting one face of the object (Ellis and Deller 2002; Whittaker 1994: Fig. 7.40). Such cone initiations are totally absent on heat-produced fracture surfaces and in profile, the fracture surfaces meeting the faces lack the lip or matching “negative lip” or groove. (5) Angle of fracture in profile. Mechanical forms of breakage such as snaps and radial breaks appear in profile at relatively right angles to the object’s original ventral and dorsal surfaces. In contrast, heat fractures can occur in any direction. They can even parallel the longitudinal axis of an object in profile such that the derived fragments appear “slab-like” (e.g., the item appears to have split longitudinally—see, for example, Figs. 5.8c, 5.10). (6) Smoothness of fracture surfaces. Mechanical forms of breakage produce smooth, relatively flat, fracture surfaces. It is

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns

21

Figure 2.5. Crowfield artifacts showing “potlid” scars from heating.

Table 2.2. Number of fragments per artifact.* Number of Fragments

Feature #1, Crowfield

Parkhill

Thedford II

Caradoc

1

6 (5.1%)

80 (77.7%)

50 (56.2%)

4 (9.3%)

2

20 (16.9%)

17 (16.5%)

21 (23.6%)

9 (20.9%)

3

26 (22.0%)

6 (5.8%)

12 (13.5%)

7 (16.3%)

4

26 (22.0%)

–

4 (4.5%)

11 (25.6%)

5

14 (11.9%)

–

–

5 (11.6%)

6

9 (7.6%)

–

1 (1.1%)

2 (4.7%)

7

5 (4.2%)

–

–

3 (7.0%)

8

5 (4.2%)

–

–

2 (4.7%)

>8

7 (5.9%)

–

1 (1.1%)

–

totals

118

103

89

43

mean

4.3 fragments/artifact

1.3 fragments/artifact

1.8 fragments/artifact

3.7 fragments/artifact

*Based only on relatively complete artifacts and excludes minor fragment such as popouts/potlids. The two items from Thedford II made up of 6 and > 8 fragments respectively are actually due to heat shattering. Treating the number of fragments as an ordinal scale and counting > 8 = 9 fragments, a One Way Anova yields a p < .001. A Tukey Post-Hoc HSD test of the Anova results indicates that Caradoc and Crowfield have essentially the same high degree of fragmentation and are significantly more fragmentary than either Parkhill or Thedford II. Treating the number of fragments as nominal categories, a chi-square test and a G-test indicate a p < .001 confirming the Anova results.

22 true that heat-produced fracture surfaces usually also have smooth surfaces. However, in several cases they have produced quite irregular, pitted or granular/sugary appearing surfaces, and many of the Collingwood chert items at Crowfield seem especially granular or coarse. (7) Changes in color and luster. As hinted previously, heating of the cherts in the assemblage, particularly those on Onondaga, has resulted in color changes. The most noticeable difference—especially evident on a few Onondaga items that have matching unheated and heated fragments (see Chap. 4)—is a darkening of color, which, in some cases, represents a magnitude of at least two to three “value” or “chroma” grades in the Munsell color system. The artifacts also appear generally more lustrous than those that are unheated, although there are some apparently unheated artifacts that also appear rather lustrous, notably some unrefined biface fragments. It is possible, however, that the lustrous nature of those artifacts could reflect other processes, such as purposeful thermal treatment of chert preforms to improve flaking qualities. Suggestive evidence of such purposeful heat treatment has been reported from other Ontario Paleoindian sites such as Parkhill (Pavlish and Sheppard 1983). The heating of most Collingwood items is less obvious in terms of luster and especially color changes although a few items have areas of blackening that we suspect results from direct heat exposure. Aside from the obvious heat damage, since the site’s first discovery we have been impressed by the fact that the Paleoindian artifacts all appear to be slightly polished/rounded or, at the very least, to have rounded flake scar apexes and edges that are visible even macroscopically. At first we thought this dulling might be due to heating but since it also occurred on what appear to be unheated artifacts, this seemed unlikely. We then thought it might be due to factors such as transport and rubbing in a container such as a leather bag. However, since such wear is not evident on many other assemblages we examined that also must have been transported, we believe this interpretation is also unlikely or at least questionable. Moreover, while this dulling is evident on several unheated Paleoindian artifacts in the assemblage, making them stand out or easy to recognize, it is not evident on those made—sometimes on the same materials—by later Archaic and Woodland users of the site. When we discovered the nearby Caradoc site cache in 1997 (Deller and Ellis 2001), we noticed a similar dulling on those artifacts. Although unsubstantiated, since both sites are on the Caradoc Sand Plain, in similar soil regimes, and of comparable ages, we believe it is possible that this apparent “wear” is due to chemical or

Crowfield (AfHj-31) perhaps mechanical weathering processes like wind abrasion (see Holmes et al. 2008:787). Wind abrasion, however, might also seem unlikely as that might have destroyed the spatial integrity of the pieces recovered in situ in Feature #1. Perhaps abrasion in soil contexts associated with freezing/ thawing or wetting/drying can account for these alterations. Regardless, dulling also occurs at the juncture of artifact faces and heat-produced fracture surfaces, implicating post-depositional processes as the cause. As a final consideration, the highly fragmentary nature of the assemblage has obvious implications for estimating the number of artifacts present, especially since all or parts of some artifacts seem to have been damaged to the extent that they really could not be easily reconstructed. In estimating the frequency of items in a particular type, there were often many completely or almost completely reconstructed items, and these certainly provide a minimum estimate of the number of items present of a certain type or class. In addition, there could be several more incompletely reconstructed items. In these cases we began estimating their number by

Figure 2.6. Examples of heat fragments from Crowfield site.

Diagnostics, Lithic Raw Materials and Fracture Patterns the most common artifact fragment present in the same way that faunal specialists estimate the minimum number of individual animals (or MNI; White 1953) present in an assemblage. For example, for bifaces with recognizable tip and base ends, the number of objects was considered to be the most common number of these fragments present. If there were six bases and four tips of a particular class or type, one would estimate that there are in fact at least six such bifaces represented beyond the number of complete items. This technique of estimation is what Portnoy (1993) called the “minimum number of intact tools” (or MNIT), although since many of our objects are not tools but preforms, perhaps minimum number of intact “artifacts” would be a better term. Even these totals could be misleading since they assume the recovered tips were from the same objects as the bases when they may not be. This problem was first recognized as potentially

23

meaningful in faunal MNI estimation by Flannery (1967:157), who sought to minimize it by matching the various elements using age estimates of the animals and other criteria. We employed a similar strategy here wherever possible. That is, we compared the various different potential fragments such as bases and tips that could be used in estimating object frequency using criteria such as raw material type, chert banding orientation, idiosyncrasies of artifact morphology, and variability in artifact size. In a few cases it became clear that some of the tips, for example, could not possibly be from the same bifaces as the bases and appropriately, the number of artifacts assigned to a type or class was increased to accommodate such information. We are confident that the artifact total estimates are the most accurate one can achieve in an assemblage such as Crowfield in the absence of complete reconstruction of all individual items.

— Chapter 3 —

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

Having outlined the various diagnostic artifacts and siliceous raw materials found at the site, and described the artifact breakage patterns, it is now possible to combine that information with a consideration of the spatial distribution of materials and features in order to: (1) isolate the Paleoindian assemblage, (2) recognize the heated Paleoindian artifacts associated with Feature #1 and Feature #2 (or more minimally, to recognize those heated items that are not associated with Feature #1), and (3) examine the distribution of unheated Paleoindian artifacts.

margin, two definite or probable non-Paleoindian objects. One, on Kettle Point chert, is the base of the lobate stemmed point noted earlier (Fig. 2.1f). The second is a poorly made biface or preform on a lower quality Onondaga chert probably obtained from a secondary deposit. Nonetheless, all the remaining items are most likely Paleoindian. They total more than 200 pieces including tools, fragments, and waste flakes, and are on high quality, undoubtedly outcrop derived Onondaga and Collingwood chert. Most of this Feature #2 material was concentrated at the north end of two-meter square 406N/398E (i.e., in the NW and NE one-meter subunits) and the south edge of the square immediately to the north (408N/398E-SW and SE), but there was a sprinkling of Collingwood and Onondaga debris in the subsoil of the surrounding units, especially to the northeast. Much of the subsoil debris was heated but there are several exceptions, as described in Chapters 9 and 10. Aside from the suggested Paleoindian features, a number of other precontact subsoil cultural features, all with visibly darker fills and well-defined outlines, were encountered at the site. These were concentrated especially in the southwest part of the excavation unit, just to the southwest of Feature #1 (Fig. 1.4). They included 37 post molds and four pit features. With the exception of 2 isolated post molds somewhat removed to the north, these features were largely found in the 1980 field season and have been discussed by Williamson (1985:262). The 35 post molds in the southwest had diameters of 7 to 19 cm with a mean of 10 cm. These post molds do not form any discernible pattern. The two largest pits (labeled as Features #3 and #4 on Fig. 1.4), located in the center of the southwest feature/post mold cluster, contained several small ceramic fragments indicating a clear affiliation with the Late Woodland, Glen Meyer component at the site. Calcined

Location of Features The definite and possible Paleoindian features are described in more detail in later sections. They consist solely of subsoil concentrations of lithic debris (e.g., with no visible outlines) and are located in the center (Feature #1) and northwest corner (Feature #2) respectively of the excavated area (Fig. 1.4). Included in both are diagnostics such as fluted points, channel flakes, large concave side scrapers, and so on, and except for one object from the Feature #2 concentration, definitive later diagnostics are lacking. Feature #1 included almost exclusively heated debris on Onondaga and Collingwood chert and was found, as noted earlier, straddling the juncture of two 2-by-2-meter units: 402N/404E and 404N/404E. Unheated subsoil materials were restricted to a few small waste flakes, including one on Kettle Point chert, which could easily be intrusive. A few pieces of calcined bone were also present but again (as discussed below), we believe this material to be intrusive to Feature #1 and due to post-occupation disturbances. The subsoil material associated with Feature #2 is more ephemeral and it included, in close proximity at its southwestern 25

26

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

bone and a few pieces of Kettle Point chert debris were also present in Feature #4. One presumes the other pit features and posts are also of Late Woodland age given their clustering in the same site area as the definitive features, their “recent” appearance, and the fact that they are concentrated in the same areas as Late Woodland diagnostics, as described below. Distribution of Diagnostics Figures 3.1 through 3.4 show the plowzone distribution (e.g., excluding subsoil material in cultural features) of the main diagnostics at the site. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the most diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts including fluted bifaces and channel flakes, all of which are on Collingwood, Onondaga, or, in a few cases (three fluted bifaces), Ancaster chert. These clearly cluster mainly in the Feature #1 area but extend to the northwest toward Feature #2. Although there are a few fluted biface and channel flake fragments to the southwest of Feature #1 in the area of the pits and post molds, it is notable that all these fragments are from heat-fractured items and can be physically refit to finds in Feature #1 itself. As further discussed below, they were most likely dragged to the southwest by plowing. The seven bifaces assigned to the Late Woodland component include five on Kettle Point chert and two on Onondaga. These were all recovered in the same areas as the features in the southwestern part of the excavated area and support the idea that such features are associated primarily with that component (Fig. 3.2). The plotted surface finds of Late Woodland points included one item on Kettle Point found just 4 m to the northwest of the excavated area and one on Onondaga recovered 40 m to the east. The ceramics from the site also cluster in the same areas as the pits and Late Woodland lithics (Fig. 3.3), reinforcing the idea that the features in that area are also Late Woodland. The Archaic lithic diagnostics are located primarily in the eastern half of the excavated units in areas with few potential post-Paleoindian features other than two post molds (Fig. 3.4). The four Stanly/Neville-like points include two on Kettle Point located just north of Feature #1 and two, including one on Onondaga and one on Selkirk, just to the south of that same feature. The single corner-notched Middle/Late Archaic point on Onondaga is also situated just south of Feature #1. The two large triangular preforms on Kettle Point and Selkirk chert were also recovered in the vicinity of all these Archaic finds south of Feature #1 (Fig. 3.4) and so may be associated with such occupations as well. As noted above, the Early Woodland

Figure 3.1. Distribution of Early Paleoindian heated diagnostics (fluted bifaces and channel flakes), Crowfield site.

Figure 3.2. Distribution of Late Woodland points and preform, Crowfield site. Closed triangles, Kettle Point chert points; open triangles, Onondaga chert points; square, small Kettle Point chert triangular preform.

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

27

lobate stemmed point base on Kettle Point chert was recovered from the subsoil in the northwestern part of the excavated area and in one of the squares containing Paleoindian Feature #2 (406N/398E). The possible preform for a similar biface on Selkirk chert was recovered from the plowzone just to the east, suggesting this northwestern area was the main locus of activity during the Early Woodland (Fig. 3.4). Finally, the single side-notched Middle Woodland scraper on Onondaga chert was recovered from the single isolated square (394N/390E) excavated to the southwest (Fig. 3.4), suggesting activities associated with that occupation may be largely peripheral to the excavated area. Distribution of Non-Diagnostic Material Figure 3.3. Distribution of Late Woodland pottery, Crowfield site.

Figure 3.4. Distribution of Archaic, Early and Middle Woodland lithics, Crowfield site. Closed triangles, Stanly/Neville-like stemmed points; open triangles, large triangular preforms; star, Middle or Late Archaic corner-notched point; open square, lobate stemmed point; closed circle, side-notched end scraper.

Turning to the less diagnostic material, Figures 3.5 and 3.6 plot the distribution of heat-fractured Onondaga and Collingwood chert debris, excluding the subsoil material associated with Features #1 and #2. This material clearly concentrates in the northern part of the excavated area. The greatest concentrations by far (up to 216 pieces per two-meter unit for Collingwood and 207 for Onondaga) correspond to the Feature #1 subsoil concentration, with lesser amounts of such material, especially for the Onondaga, extending to the northwest from that feature in the direction of Feature #2. As shown when the refits are examined (see below), plowing has largely moved material to the southwest and northeast of Feature #1 so the higher densities toward Feature #2 are probably not a product of this post-depositional process but instead result primarily from activities in the Feature #2 area. Besides the Onondaga and Collingwood material, the subsoil Feature #1 concentration includes some heat-fractured items on Selkirk and Ancaster cherts. Plotting of the Ancaster and Selkirk heated debris shows it also concentrates in the Feature #1 area with lesser amounts toward the north and northwest of that feature (Fig. 3.7). Not surprisingly, the densities of all combined Collingwood, Onondaga, Selkirk and Ancaster heated debris also concentrate in the Feature #1 and Feature #2 vicinities (Fig. 3.8). The coincidence of such debris with the subsoil debris concentrations and Paleoindian diagnostics suggests most, if not all, of this kind of material is associated with events at each of these loci. In direct contrast, plotting the density of plowzone finds of calcined bone (Fig. 3.9) shows that these items have their greatest concentrations in the same areas as the pits and post molds, suggesting a predominant affiliation with the Glen Meyer occupation.

28

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 3.5. Distribution of Onondaga heated debris in plowzone, Crowfield site.

Figure 3.6. Distribution of Collingwood heated debris in plowzone, Crowfield site.

Figure 3.7. Distribution of Ancaster and Selkirk heated debris in plowzone, Crowfield site.

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

Figure 3.8. Overall distribution of heated Onondaga, Collingwood, Ancaster and Selkirk debris in plowzone, Crowfield site.

Figure 3.9. Distribution of calcined bone in plowzone, Crowfield site.

Figure 3.10. Distribution of Kettle Point waste flakes, Crowfield site.

29

30

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 3.11. Distribution of non-diagnostic Kettle Point and Selkirk chert tools and preforms. Diamonds, small well made Kettle Point chert scrapers; circles, Kettle Point chert retouched flakes; open squares, Selkirk chert bifaces; triangle, Kettle Point chert drill; plus sign, Kettle Point chert biface fragment.

Figure 3.12. Distribution of diagnostic, unheated Paleoindian tools and preforms.

Figure 3.13. Distribution of unheated, nondiagnostic Collingwood tools and preforms.

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

Figure 3.14. Distribution of unheated, nondiagnostic Onondaga tools and preforms.

Figure 3.15. Distribution of Collingwood waste flakes in the plowzone.

Figure 3.16. Distribution of Onondaga waste flakes in the plowzone.

31

32

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

An examination of the flaking debris distributions shows Kettle Point flaking debris also has its greatest concentration in the southwest part of the excavated area, again suggesting a predominant association with the Glen Meyer component (Fig. 3.10). There is a lesser concentration of Kettle Point debris more northwesterly located in the excavated area that falls between the two Paleoindian features and extends into the Feature #2 area. The Feature #2 area is also notable in that it contains no fewer than eight Kettle Point chert scrapers or fragments thereof, including three small end scrapers (Fig. 3.11). The notable concentration in the area of the feature might also suggest there was some use of Kettle Point chert by Paleoindians. However, the scrapers do not morphologically resemble Paleoindian forms we have examined, and, yet, seem very similar in size, morphology and workmanship to those associated with late Early Woodland Adena/Middlesex (e.g., Parker 1997: Fig. 7), or the subsequent Middle Woodland (e.g., Finlayson 1977: Plates 9, 34), assemblages. Also, as noted earlier, some of the non-Glen Meyer lithic items were on Kettle Point chert, including two of the Stanly/Neville-like points and the base of the lobate stemmed point. The lobate stemmed base was actually found in the same one-meter unit as four of the Kettle Point scraper fragments (compare Figs. 3.4 and 3.11), and one Late Woodland surface find of a Kettle Point projectile tip was found just 4 m to the northwest of the Feature #2 area. In sum, the Kettle Point debris in the Feature #2 area could just as easily be associated with a later site component as well, and most likely the Early Woodland component. Given this possibility, as well as a lack of heated Kettle Point debris in either Paleoindian subsoil concentration and the total absence of any diagnostic Paleoindian artifact form on that material or even anything resembling the less diagnostic other Paleoindian artifacts from the site (described in subsequent chapters), at most, Kettle Point chert was used only expediently by Paleoindian peoples at the site. A number of unheated Collingwood and Onondaga tools and preforms, or fragments thereof, were recovered in the excavated area. Plotting of unheated, diagnostic, Paleoindian materials in the plowzone (Fig. 3.12)—materials that include two fragments of a fluted preform, and three snapped edged denticulates or “cutters” (see below and Gramly 1982)—indicates they are found predominantly in the northwest part of the excavations and concentrated in the areas around and between Features #1 and #2. The unheated Collingwood material as a whole can be safely assumed to be totally or almost solely associated with Paleoindian site use and it concentrates in the same area, especially around Feature #2 (Fig. 3.13). The non-diagnostic unheated Onondaga tools and preforms could have been used by later occupants, as it is a major material used throughout southwestern Ontario during the Archaic and Woodland. Moreover, there are some later diagnostics at the site on Onondaga chert, as noted earlier. However, plotting of the density of the non-diagnostic Onondaga (Fig. 3.14) material indicates it has almost the same distribution as the Collingwood unheated items (Fig. 3.13), suggesting most, if not all, of the unheated Onondaga tools and preforms are also Paleoindian associated. The more complete items (e.g., excluding

smaller fragments) also appear Paleoindian in terms of quality of manufacture, flaking, morphology, and a preference for a higher grade of Onondaga chert that, when unflaked surfaces are still present, clearly was derived from bedrock sources, reinforcing the Paleoindian association suggested by the spatial data. Waste flakes on Collingwood chert are quite rare at the site. Nonetheless, excluding material in Feature #2 itself, these items are found predominantly in the northern end of the excavated area (Fig. 3.15) peripheral to the concentrations of Kettle Point debris, calcined bone and ceramics associated with the denser Glen Meyer component to the south. The greatest concentration of Collingwood flaking debris by far (nine flakes in a two-meter unit) coincides with the Paleoindian Feature #2 concentration in square 406N/398E (Fig. 3.15). Onondaga chert waste flakes are also rare at the site and excluding subsoil feature materials, only four units yielded twelve or more such flakes. In contrast to the distribution of heated and unheated Onondaga chert preforms/tools, and the Collingwood chert preforms/tools and waste, the Onondaga waste flakes have a somewhat different distribution. There are relatively more such flakes in the Feature #2 area, but the main concentration is just south of the Paleoindian feature areas, specifically, due south of Feature #1 (Fig. 3.16). There is even a relatively high concentration of this material in areas near the southwestern boundary of the excavations into the areas of the densest materials associated with the Glen Meyer component. As discussed in Chapter 9, and with the notable exception of a few large decortation flakes from an Onondaga chert secondary source and a few other flakes and fragments, all of the Onondaga waste flakes are quite small and probably derive from tool finishing and resharpening, especially of bifaces. As such, this material represents a typical flaking debris assemblage from Paleoindian sites located some distance from the lithic sources where block core reduction is generally absent (see, for example, Deller and Ellis 1992a:89–92). Nonetheless, since Kettle Point seems to have been the main material used by the Glen Meyer occupants, it is possible they also used other lithic materials such as Onondaga, which is represented only by final stage or resharpening debris. In fact, two Late Woodland points or fragments thereof on Onondaga were recovered (Fig. 3.2). Onondaga artifacts are also associated with other later components, notably the Archaic ones. As described above, three Middle/Late Archaic points, including two on Onondaga, were recovered south of Feature #1 (Fig. 3.4). Examination of Figure 3.16 actually indicates that most of the Onondaga flaking debris is concentrated in the same area, suggesting an association with these later components. On the other hand, included in that concentration is definitive Paleoindian debris in the form of a channel flake derived from point fluting, suggesting some of such debris might be Paleoindian associated. However, since that channel flake is heated, and definitive channel flakes are in Feature #1 (described below), it is possible that the channel flake originated in the feature and was moved to the south by post-depositional processes.

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns The Selkirk debris included only six flakes that were widely distributed (single examples were found in squares 398N/404E-NE, 398N/406E-NE, 402N/400-NW, 404N/400ENW, 406N/400E-SW, 408N/402E-NW) so plotting provides little information on association. There are no Ancaster items other than the heated artifact fragments and all of these occur in Feature #1 or the immediately surrounding plowzone so they all seem to be Paleoindian, a conclusion in line with the fact noted above that the only diagnostics recovered on that material are fluted bifaces. Artifact Refits Since the first discovery of the Crowfield site, extensive attempts have been made to refit the heat-fractured artifact fragments. The material was initially sorted to exclude potlid flakes and those mainly very small fragments that were too incomplete to tell if the original items from which they were derived were bifaces or unifaces/flakes. As a whole, we refer to these popouts and unidentifiable fragments as “miscellaneous fragments” in this report. It was felt that the considerable effort needed to refit these almost exclusively very tiny fragments would not be very informative. The remaining fragments were then sorted by raw material, if known, and by the biface and uniface/flake dichotomy to facilitate attempts at refitting. Initially, items that were mechanically, instead of heat, fractured were excluded. However, once it was realized somewhat fortuitously that there were a few unheated fragments that fit onto heat-produced ones, extensive efforts were made to see if any other of these unheated fragments reconjoined with the heat-shattered artifacts. If there are any biases in the patterns of refitted items and estimates of the number of artifacts present, one would expect it would be that more conjoined pieces would be found among the Collingwood chert artifacts as those artifacts are more variable in original color and have features, such as one-way banding, that facilitate the matching of pieces. However, this bias may be more apparent than real and if anything, the number of ­Collingwood chert items is probably underestimated. The reason for this bias is that Collingwood chert seems to react differently to heating, being much more fragmentary and consisting more of smaller pieces. For example (described in Chap. 4 in detail), the heat-fractured assemblage associated with Feature #1 includes a number of fragments of what we call “large and small unrefined bifaces.” These seem to be preforms that were transported around to be made into more refined, finished tools as needed. At least 31 of these items are on Onondaga chert. After such refitting there are only 25 miscellaneous unrefined biface fragments that we cannot conjoin to those items or a ratio of 0.8 fragments per each unrefined biface. At least 13 of the same kinds of bifaces on Collingwood chert are present. Nonetheless, in direct contrast to the Onondaga bifaces of this form, there are still a large number of unrefined biface fragments on Collingwood (n = 103) such that the ratio of unassociated fragments to relatively complete items is almost 10 times higher than is the case for Onondaga

33

or 7.9 to 1. Many Collingwood chert items seem to have been largely destroyed in the heating process. Moreover, since they are so fragmentary, the estimates of the number of fragments making up individual artifacts for the site as a whole (Table 2.2) are probably grossly underestimating the degree of fragmentation. Regardless, we were able to construct 204 separate “refit sets” among the heated assemblage (Table 3.1). In two cases, both involving large unrefined bifaces associated with Feature #1, the sets also included one (n = 1) or two (n = 1) unheated fragments as well as heated fragments (see Fig. 5.11). We treat the unheated refits in these two cases as part of the same heated data set for purposes of plotting. We note that none of the three unheated pieces were found in situ in the subsoil at Feature #1 whereas some of the heated fragments in both cases did occur in the subsoil. Of the reconjoined unheated to heated fragments, in one refit set the two unheated fragments were found in the plowzone of one square above the feature (402N/404E-NE) and in the plowzone of a square (400N/402E-SE) just to the southwest of the subsoil concentration. In the second instance, the single unheated fragment was recovered from the back dirt of the vandalized area so it also could be a plowzone find, albeit from above the feature. In short, although recovered in the Feature #1 area, there is no evidence to document that the unheated fragments were ever in the pit itself; they could easily have been left on the ground beside it. The total number of refit sets should not be equated with the total number of tool or blank types recovered (described in detail in subsequent chapters). For one thing, some items included in the tool/blank totals were composed only of a single fragment or although heated, were not fractured. Also, several of reconjoined sets made up artifacts that are still so incomplete that they cannot be assigned to a specific artifact or blank type and, often, consist only of one or two small refit pieces. In five other cases the refit sets consisted of only two fragments with one fragment in each set having no exact provenance, being recorded only as surface finds, so they could not be plotted (Table 3.1). Therefore, a total of 199 of the 204 refit sets could be plotted. Of these plotted items, in 103 cases (51.8%) all the fragments were in either Feature #1, the vandalized area immediately above/across the center of Feature #1, or the plowzone of the four one-meter squares in which Feature #1 was located (402N/404E-NW; 402N/404E-NE; 404N/404E-SW; 404N/404E-SE; see Table 3.1). It seems safe to assume these artifacts were all associated with the events at Feature #1. In an additional 63 artifact refit sets (31.7%), fragments were found in and above Feature #1 but there were also one or more pieces in each set found in surrounding excavation units (Table 3.1). Since in some cases the 63 sets had more than one piece outside the feature units, some 123 fragments can be plotted that link up to the feature finds. The distribution of these refitted segments, ignoring links between fragments outside the feature area itself for clarity of presentation, is shown on Figure 3.17. This distribution is notable in three respects. First, most reconjoined fragments are in close proximity to the Feature #1 location itself (that is, in immediately adjacent

34

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 3.1. Data on refitted fragment sets. Reconjoined Sets

n

%

heated, all found in Feature #1 excavation units

103

48.6%

heated, associated with Feature #1 but at least one fragment outside Feature #1 excavation units

63

29.7%

heated, but no matches in Feature #1 excavation units

33

15.6%

heated, but no specific provenance

5

2.4%

unheated matches totals

two-meter squares). This evidence strongly suggests that these items are also associated with that feature event(s). Second, the vast majority of the refitted fragments are to the northeast and southwest of Feature #1. In short, they mainly parallel the direction in which the site was plowed. A pattern of refitted fragments following the orientation of site cultivation is clearly dominant at all other Paleoindian sites we have investigated—such as Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a:101), Bolton (Deller and Ellis 1996:31), Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000:171) and Caradoc (Ellis and Deller 2002:110). Such patterns confirm the results of experimental studies, which have also indicated that cultivation tends to move objects in the direction of plowing (Odell and Cowan 1987:469–73). As a result, we can suggest that most of the objects outside the feature with these refits were associated with Feature #1, and also argue that they had been spread from the Feature #1 area mainly by plowing. Finally, interestingly, there are very few refit fragments from the Feature #1 area that link it to the Feature #2 vicinity. In fact, as Figure 3.17 shows, there are really only four fragments that are somewhat in the Feature #2 area and we note that two of these, located to the east of Feature #2, are from the same object. In all cases the fragments near Feature #2 come from artifact sets that also have fragments in the Feature #1 subsoil concentration and, therefore, are most definitely associated with Feature #1. Although these reconjoined fragments do create somewhat of a link between the two Paleoindian feature areas, the number of refits is so small as to suggest it is fortuitous and due to post-depositional movement of pieces by processes such as cultivation, especially since other evidence (discussed more fully in following chapters) indicates the in situ Feature #1 items were burned where found. The remaining 33 refit sets (16.6%) of plotted heated fragments are those with no pieces either in Feature #1 or in the plowzone above it (Table 3.1). The distribution of these pieces is shown on Figure 3.18. There are no convincing refits between the immediate area of Features #1 and #2, which, as with the plots discussed above, suggests the two features cannot be directly associated. Although there are 5 sets of two items whose specific feature association is unclear, as a whole these sets tend to form two denser clusters, one associated with or immediately surrounding Feature #1 (12 sets) and one associated with or immediately

8

3.8%

212

100.0%

surrounding Feature #2 (16 sets) and it is relatively easy to assign such sets to either one or the other for purposes of analysis. Those 5 sets that cannot be easily assigned to either feature are indicated on Figure 3.18 as triangles and were simply excluded from further analysis, although they are described in detail at the end of Chapter 9. As a whole, the sets that lack a matchup in Feature #1, or in the plowzone directly above Feature #1, are made up exclusively of small numbers of fragments. Most (30/33 or 90.9%) are composed of only two refitted fragments and the remaining 3 are composed of three fragments each. In the case of the 12 refit sets around Feature #1, one presumes that the lack of a fragment linking it to the feature or to the plowzone above that feature is simply due to the small number of reconjoined fragments we have been able to make in each set. In other words, if one were to make additional conjoins to those sets, chances are one would find other pieces that were in or above the feature. In addition to the heated refit sets, 8 refit sets were found composed exclusively of unheated Onondaga and Collingwood chert fragments. Six of these were each composed of only two fragments while the remaining two had four pieces each. We discuss the nature of the unheated artifact assemblage in detail in Chapter 9 but we note here that the two items—an unrefined biface and a uniface tool—that are each made up of four pieces, as well as some of the two-item pieces, seem to have been purposefully broken in antiquity. The distribution of these unheated refit fragments is shown on Figure 3.19. They are almost all plowzone finds that were found mainly in the area of Feature #2. In three cases, one of the fragments in each set was actually found in the main subsoil Feature #2 concentration at the north end of 406N/398E or south end of adjacent square 408N/398E to the north. These three mends suggest they are mainly associated with the activities at that feature. Summary To summarize, there are at least five precontact components in the area investigated at the Crowfield site. The largest and most intense occupations seem to have been those during Paleoindian and Late Woodland times but these are largely spatially separate,

Spatial Distributions and Artifact Refit Patterns

Figure 3.17. Refitted fragments tied to Feature #1. Many plots are approximate within a one-meter square. For clarity of presentation all cross-matches between the fragments outside the feature location have been omitted.

Figure 3.18. Refitted sets of heated fragments with no cross-mends in or above Feature #1. Many plots are approximate within a onemeter square. Triangles denote refitted sets that cannot be clearly associated with either Feature #1 or Feature #2.

with the Late Woodland activities focused in the southwestern part of the excavated area and the Paleoindian in the northwestern to northcentral part of the area. Given an apparently small spatial extent to the Glen Meyer component, site locational data, and the recovery of several projectile points and preforms, Williamson (1985:263, 330) suggests the Glen Meyer component probably

35

Figure 3.19. Refitted sets of unheated Paleoindian fragments. Many plots are approximate within a one-meter square.

represents a fall hunting camp. One presumes it was used by occupants of one of the many nearby Glen Meyer villages located on the Caradoc Sand Plain, the nearest known of which occurs about 2 km to the west of Crowfield. The remaining site components are much more ephemeral but some, such as the Middle Archaic and Early Woodland components, overlap more spatially with the Paleoindian occupation. Nonetheless, it is possible to sort out most of the materials associated with each occupation. An examination of the distribution of diagnostics, lithic raw materials, and associated features indicates the Kettle Point debris can be associated largely, if not exclusively, with postPaleoindian components at the site and need not be considered in this report. The Collingwood chert debris, by contrast, is solely Paleoindian associated. The heated Onondaga material is also undoubtedly associated primarily with the Paleoindian component based on densities and artifact refit patterns. Within this material, most of the artifacts, and certainly the vast majority of those that have been reassembled by refitting, can be directly associated with either the Feature #1 or #2 activities, the only exception being five refit sets composed of two fragments each. Assigning isolated heat fragments that have no reconjoined fragments to one feature event or the other is a bit more problematical. The density of debris (Fig. 3.8) and the direction and distance patterns among the refits (Figs. 3.17, 3.18) do suggest that those items in the two-meter squares containing the two features and the immediately surrounding two-meter units can probably be associated with their respective features, so we assume the isolated fragments in those squares are respectively associated with each feature. We also assume any heat-produced Onondaga/Collingwood fragments to the south, east, and northeast of Feature #1 are associated with that feature. Based on these assumptions

36

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 3.20. Square feature assignments of isolated heat-produced fragments.

and the overall pattern of heated and unheated Paleoindian debris densities and refits to the northeast and southwest of Feature #1, we assigned all the heated material from two-meter excavation units to the Feature #1 and non-Feature #1 assemblages as indicated on Figure 3.20. The only exceptions were items made up of several refitted pieces where the overall pattern indicated an assignment that did not conform to the somewhat arbitrary square assignments. For pragmatic reasons we will call the heated material not associated with Feature #1 the “Feature #2 assemblage” although we fully realize that some of this material may not be directly associated with Feature #2 and could in fact have been created by post-depositional burning, such as due to grassfires or land clearing. Using simply square location to assign isolated, single, heated fragments to Feature #1 or #2 will undoubtedly create a few errors. It is worth stressing, however, that these errors in assignment would occur almost exclusively among miscellaneous biface or uniface fragments, small unidentifiable fragments, and popout flakes. The reason is that almost all artifacts that can be assigned to a more specific type or class are composed of more than one, and usually several, reconjoined fragments. Therefore, they are all very likely to have one or more of their constituent fragments directly in, and/or over, one or the other of the features and there is no or minimal ambiguity in their associations. Assignment of the unheated Onondaga artifacts to the constituent site assemblages might seem the most problematical. Most of the tools and preforms on Onondaga seem to be associated with the Paleoindian component, given their clustering in the same areas as the Collingwood unheated artifacts between the two Paleoindian features and the concentration of artifact refits in the same areas. Moreover, as noted earlier, even the unheated Onondaga chert items stand out because they appear polished or

weathered, or are on very high quality, bedrock block-derived, parent materials, which suggests they are Paleoindian associated. So we include all such non-diagnostic Onondaga pieces in our detailed Paleoindian descriptions, noting where applicable if such an assignment seems doubtful to us based on morphological, technological, or raw material criteria. The Onondaga flaking debris seems to represent a real mixture of various occupations including Paleoindian, Archaic and Late Woodland. Moreover, most pieces are so small that it is difficult to unambiguously delimit the weathering evident on larger artifacts and fragments. Since some of this material could be Paleoindian associated, we describe it all in this monograph with the caveat that the association of particular pieces is ambiguous at best outside of, of course, the channel flakes from point fluting. As for Selkirk chert artifacts, there is very little identifiable Selkirk flaking debris at the site (n = 6 including four biface reduction flakes, a small platform bearing flake, and a tiny flake fragment). Also, all of the unheated Selkirk tools or diagnostics recovered, with the exception of a crude biface whose affiliation is unknown, are actually diagnostic of post-Paleoindian occupations. Therefore, we need not consider them further in this report. As noted earlier, there are two small pieces of biface reduction debris, one each on Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge, Ohio, cherts. These may be Paleoindian but we cannot be certain, especially since those Ohio materials were often used in the Middle Woodland on the Caradoc Sand Plain and there is evidence of Middle Woodland use of the site. Thus, we exclude the two Ohio items from additional consideration here. Finally, there is no Ancaster flaking debris at the site. Also, all items at the site on that material are heated, the only diagnostics are Paleoindian, and they cluster strongly in the Feature #1 vicinity. Therefore, it seems safe to assign all that material to the Paleoindian component.

PART II

Feature #1

— Chapter 4 —

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts Tool Blanks and Unifaces

The bulk of the Paleoindian lithic artifacts recovered from the Crowfield artifact assemblage have been damaged by heat exposure. As discussed in Chapter 3, these heated items can be predominantly associated with Feature #1 at the site; we discuss the nature of Feature #1 itself in Chapter 7. However, for purposes of description we refer to this assemblage as a “cache.” There are some who would restrict the term “cache” to “utilitarian” assemblages; that is, they use the term exclusively to refer to foodstuffs, tools, equipment and raw material supplies left behind, or at least partially hidden, in anticipation of future use (e.g., Binford 1979:262; Kornfeld et al. 1990). In general, we have no theoretical problems with such a definition. However, it does create more practical problems in that it leaves us with no easily employed term to refer to groupings of items that may have been left behind or entered the archaeological record for reasons other than utilitarian ones, such as due to ritual activities. “Offerings” might be one alternative but in certain situations it might be difficult to determine, or there might be some degree of ambiguity, whether or not the materials represent such offerings or were simply materials left behind in anticipation of future use but never retrieved (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:99–100; Gramly 1999; Walthall and Holley 1997). Hence, we prefer to use the term “cache” herein in the broader sense of Schiffer (1987:79–80) to refer to a grouping of artifacts that have been deliberately placed into the archaeological record before having outlived their usefulness in utilitarian terms or which, in some cases, were never intended to be employed in utilitarian tasks (for instance, they included material that is not “refuse” in Schiffer’s [1976:30] terms). Within the general cache category defined in this way, one can make a distinction between, or sometimes recognize, “utilitarian or secular caches” deliberately left behind in anticipation of future use in various day-to-day domestic activities and

“ritual or sacred caches” where the items were deliberately left behind with no anticipation of future use—except perhaps in a more metaphorical sense such as for planned future use in some version of the “after-life.” In fact, Thomas (1985:35–36) called these “afterlife” caches. In all, we assign 4131 lithic pieces produced by heat exposure to Feature #1. As noted previously, there are also 3 unheated fragments of what we call large unrefined bifaces that were broken by mechanical breaks, which conjoin with heated Feature #1 objects. As discussed, these unheated pieces were found by the feature and were not recovered in situ in the subsoil. The distribution of the heated debris by raw material type and general provenance (plowzone, Feature #1 in situ, and so on) is shown on Table 4.1. After refitting of fragments, this total can be reduced somewhat but there are still a large number of smaller fragments (> 3500 pieces; see Table 4.2) that cannot be assigned to all but the grossest of categories such as refined biface fragments. We note, however, that most of those items (3124 pieces) are small popout/potlid flakes or fragments that cannot even be determined to be from bifaces or unifaces, so the large number of fragments does not mean we are grossly underestimating the number of lithic items that were included in the feature to begin with. By our best estimates, a minimum of 180 siliceous artifacts (Table 4.2), plus 2 tools on granitic rocks, were in the feature. In this chapter we describe the unmodified tool blanks and unifaces associated with Feature #1. We begin by describing the unifacial assemblage and do so from two perspectives: (1) as tool blanks useful in providing insights into core reduction procedures and blank production strategies; and (2) as tools per se. We then, in Chapter 5, discuss the bifacial assemblage from the site and, for the sake of completeness, the 2 tools recovered on coarser grained rocks. In Chapter 6 we present the contextual 39

40

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Table 4.1. Distribution of Feature #1 heated materials. Provenance

Onondaga Fragments/Popouts

Collingwood Fragments/Popouts

Other Stone*

Bone Fragments

Total (lithic items only)

subsoil feature area

1461

511

20

11

1992

vandalized area

313

94

4

–

411

plowzone and other subsoil

798

847

83

–

1728

totals

2572

1452

107

11

4131

*Includes 3 non-siliceous, granitic rock, fragments.

Table 4.2. Artifact totals after refitting, Feature #1. Artifact Class/Type

Onondaga

Fossil Hill

Selkirk

Ancaster

Total

fluted points

8

8

–

1

17

shouldered fluted points

4

1

–

2

7

fluted preforms

2

2

–

–

4

shouldered fluted preform

1

–

–

–

1

fluted bifaces

1

–

–

–

1

large unrefined bifaces

27

7

1

1

36

small unrefined bifaces

4

6

–

3

13

alternately beveled bifaces

3

–

–

–

3

normal backed bifaces

9

3

–

–

12

backed biface on fluted preform

1

–

–

–

1

leaf-shaped bifaces

1

–

–

6

7

rod-like bifaces

3

–

–

–

3

other bifaces

3

–

–

–

3

flake blanks

34

1

–

–

35

side scrapers

18

–

–

–

18

retouched flakes

13

–

–

–

13

other unifaces

5

1

–

–

6

137 (76.1%)

29 (16.1%)

1 (0.6%)

13 (7.2%)

180

30 (1 snap)

14

–

3

47

unrefined biface fragments

25

103

–

4

132

blank/uniface fragments

131

43

–

–

174

33

8

–

–

41

1933

1178

–

13

3124

totals refined biface fragments

refined uniface fragments miscellaneous fragments including popouts

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces evidence for the Feature #1 assemblage. In Chapters 7 and 8 we discuss the possible nature of that assemblage and the behaviors that may have produced it, and some more general implications of Feature #1 for Paleoindian studies. Blank Types and Core Production Procedures In the absence of debris from the early stages of manufacture on investigated southwestern Ontario Paleoindian sites, we have relied heavily on the blanks used for tools to infer aspects of those stages, especially on the core forms employed to produce tool blanks (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:13–24; Ellis 1984; Ellis and Deller 2000:45–66, 2002). These analyses have recognized the products of both blocky tabular and biface core forms. Largely because they were made on one-way banded Collingwood chert, which allowed us to conceptualize where almost all blanks would have been relatively placed in the original blocks of material, it was possible to provide quite detailed reconstructions of core reduction sequences and the use of certain specific core forms. For example, more ovate or elongated, instead of circular/discshaped, bifaces were implied at sites such as Thedford II and Parkhill and the subsequent recovery of actual large biface cores with such characteristics at the Late Paleoindian Caradoc site (Ellis and Deller 2002) confirmed that inference. Similarly, at some of the Early Paleoindian sites, Ellis (1984:126) was able to suggest that the knappers used more conical forms of unidirectionally worked block cores from which a number of large and somewhat elongated “blade-flakes” (see Callahan 1979:53) were produced. Again, subsequent research in other areas of the Northeast on comparable assemblages produced definitive evidence of the use of such cores. Although the core itself was missing, Payne (1987) was able to refit a whole series of such flakes from the Windy City site in Maine that left no doubt as to the use of these forms of block cores. Although formal prismatic blades do occur in northeastern fluted point assemblages, as at the Shoop site in Pennsylvania (Cox 1986:137), it is not known if they are also technologically blades: that is, blades removed from specialized cores designed for this purpose. Given the rarity of formal blades at sites such as Shoop, one might suggest that rather than being from true blade cores, the examples recovered actually might be simply one end of a continuum of the “bladeflakes” produced from conical cores. They are simply the most elongated and narrow examples occasionally produced from such cores and which just happen to be more parallel-sided and over twice as long as wide. Regardless, there is no evidence for the use of technological blade cores on Ontario fluted point sites. The Crowfield cache is relatively unique among fluted point sites in that it contains a number (n = 35; see Table 4.2) of predominantly large (n = 29), unmodified flakes that were undoubtedly intended to be tool blanks. There may even be more such blanks as we have assigned some objects to the minimally modified “retouched flake” category and we freely admit that distinguishing between purposefully retouched and unmodified

41

flakes is sometimes more an art than science. Elsewhere we have discussed why the apparently unmodified/unused Feature #1 flakes should be regarded as tool blanks rather than simply debris (Deller and Ellis 1984:47; Deller et al. 2009:385–86). Notably, they include only flakes of virtually identical size and morphology as those made into tools, such as large flakes with wedge-shaped transverse sections detached from the corner of original quarry blocks of the chert and flakes from large biface cores. For example, Figure 4.1a–b shows an example of a large unmodified corner flake alongside a side scraper on a flake of exactly the same form. Similarly, Figure 4.1c–d shows a large flake from a biface core and a side scraper made on a comparable flake. For now, we will assume they are tool blanks rather than waste but we fully justify this interpretation in detail in Chapter 8. As unretouched items, the Feature #1 flakes could be seen as more representative of what Paleoindian tool blanks were like when first struck off the core or prior to any secondary retouch and alterations. Moreover, most of the unifacial tools themselves (n = 37) are only minimally retouched so the blanks in general are probably more representative of pristine forms. However, this apparent advantage in studying the early stages of manufacture at Crowfield is diminished by two considerations. First, the range of unifacial tools present is somewhat restricted, with side scrapers and simple retouched flakes predominating, and one presumes the tool blanks may have been largely used for such items. As such, the sample may not be representative of the range and kinds of flake blanks produced. In fact, at sites such as Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a), even taking into account variation due to retouch or resharpening, there seems to be much more variation in the morphology and kinds of flake blanks selected and used. Second, most of the tool blanks and unifaces are made on Onondaga chert, with very few made on the Collingwood chert with its distinctive raw material characteristics such as one-way banding. Onondaga does exhibit some characteristics that allow certain blanks to be oriented in comparison to the original blocks of chert used, such as cortex placement or a tendency of more brownish areas with higher limestone content to be adjacent to cortical areas. However, these are less specific and useful than the banding, as well as cortex, seen on the Collingwood items. The overall effect is a restricted understanding of the details of core reduction procedures. Regardless, and as in other Paleoindian collections (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a; Lothrop 1988, 1989; MacDonald 1968; Wright and Roosa 1966), a primary distinction can be made between flakes derived from more acute-edged, bifacially worked, cores and those from blocky forms with more right-angled platforms. Within these general categories a series of blank types are recognized. Of the 72 unifacial tools and blanks associated with Feature #1, 62 items can be assigned to these types (Table 4.3). The remaining 10 items, consisting solely of tools, are too fragmentary or too reduced to assign to a specific type. Summaries of the characteristics of each blank type are found in Tables 4.4 to 4.23. Appendix A provides individual measurements/data for all tool blanks including those made into unifaces.

42

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.1. Large flake blanks derived from corners of initial quarry blocks (A, B) and flakes from large biface cores (C, D). B and D have been subsequently retouched into side scrapers.

Flakes from Block Core Reduction It is probable that the block core flakes represent detachments from both the initial trimming of raw material blocks intended eventually to be made into biface cores as well as forms used throughout their use-lives as blocky cores. Positive attribution to either of those sources is difficult. It is possible, however, to recognize different flake forms from block cores removed relatively early or late in the reduction of specific blocks, or at least from certain original faces or corners of specific blocks, by the presence of original unflaked surfaces on the derived flakes. Hence, within the general category of flakes from blocky masses, and following a simplified version of the scheme presented by Andrefsky (1998:103–4), we make a major distinction between primary flakes with completely unflaked dorsal surfaces, secondary flakes with partially unflaked remnants exceeding 25% of the dorsal surface, and tertiary flakes, which have vestigial (< 25% and in all examples, actually much less) or no unflaked dorsal facets. As indicated in the description of the cherts in Chapter 2, the initial form of the raw material used was squarish to rectangular

blocks from both Onondaga and Collingwood bedrock outcrops that approximated a section of the chert bed while still in its bedrock matrix. As noted earlier, to assist in describing core reduction strategies, we borrow terminology we have used in other industrial analyses (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:13) and refer to the juncture of such blocks with the cortical surface (for example, the old contact of the chert bed with the surrounding limestone matrix), or to any surface approximating that surface in orientation even if the cortex has been removed, as the “top” of the block or block core (Fig. 2.3). Obviously, any block or section of the chert bed actually will have two “top” surfaces as it contacted the limestone matrix at the top and bottom. Surfaces approximating in orientation the original face of the block exposed in a vertical section (for example, at right angles to a top) will be referred to as “sides.” There could have been three or more of such surfaces on any block depending on its overall shape even though to simplify things, on our diagrams we use four-sided blocks that have faces meeting each other at 90° angles.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

43

Table 4.3. Distribution of blank types by artifact form, Feature #1. Blank Type

Flake Blanks

n

Side Scrapers

Retouched Flakes

Other Unifacial Tools

primary corner

5

2

2

1

0

secondary corner

7

4

2

1

0

face

2

1

0

0

1

secondary face

2

2

0

0

0

unidirectional

9

6

2

1

0

bidirectional

9

5

2

2

0

normal biface core

17

7

5

5

0

end biface core

2

2

0

0

0

normal biface thinning flake

3

1

0

1

1

channel flake

6

5

0

0

1

unknown

10

0

5

2

3

totals

72

35

18

13

6

Table 4.4. Length, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner secondary corner

3

93.7

24.050

66.2–110.8

4

77.83

10.097

63.0–84.7

face

1

48.2

–

–

secondary face

2

54.6

–

50.3–58.9

unidirectional

4

63.88

19.807

44.0–83.9

bidirectional

4

60.93

11.104

50.0–72.9

normal biface core

7

64.09

13.195

46.4–78.5

end biface core

2

82.55

–

78.8–86.3

normal biface thinning flake

1

27.1

–

–

channel flake

1

28.4

–

–

Std. Dev.

Range

*Measurements in mm.

Table 4.5. Width, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

primary corner

3

29.48

7.747

66.2–110.8

secondary corner

6

38.93

11.641

20.9–50.5

face

1

36.3

–

–

secondary face

2

54.55

–

47.7–61.4

unidirectional

8

38.06

11.750

19.5–57.6

bidirectional

8

39.44

8.694

24.6–49.6

normal biface core

14

40.88

10.980

23.4–62.7

end biface core

2

43.25

–

26.7–59.8

normal biface thinning flake

2

18.70

–

16.4–21.0

channel flake

4

11.05

2.956

8.9–15.4

*Measurements in mm.

44

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 4.6. Thickness, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

5

14.20

5.259

10.2–23.2

secondary corner

7

11.87

0.535

11.4–12.9

face

2

5.90

–

4.6–7.1

secondary face

2

9.70

–

7.4–12.0

unidirectional

9

8.96

3.319

4.9–12.8

bidirectional

9

8.57

3.130

3.8–12.5

normal biface core

17

6.79

1.742

3.6–9.9

end biface core

2

12.50

–

11.2–13.8

normal biface thinning flake

2

2.80

–

2.2–3.4

channel flake

4

1.93

0.222

1.7–2.2

*Measurements in mm.

Table 4.7. Weight, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

3

43.25

35.670

13.95–83.01

secondary corner

2

31.62

–

22.09–41.14

face

1

9.11

–

–

secondary face

2

24.34

–

15.4–33.14

unidirectional

3

19.44

22.165

3.53–44.76

bidirectional

4

16.87

5.323

9.79–21.14

normal biface core

5

12.90

4.504

6.29–18.22

end biface core

2

33.89

–

23.86–43.92

normal biface thinning flake

1

0.93

–

–

channel flake

0

–

–

–

*Measurements in grams.

Table 4.8. Platform length, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

2

7.35

–

4.2–10.5

secondary corner

2

9.80

–

7.4–12.2

face

0

–

–

–

secondary face

2

17.60

–

10.2–25.0

unidirectional

6

9.27

0.703

8.3–10.1

bidirectional

5

9.26

2.657

5.2–11.6

normal biface core

10

11.99

5.683

7.1–26.2

end biface core

2

14.20

–

13.4–15.0

normal biface thinning flake

2

4.95

–

4.7–5.2

channel flake

0

–

–

–

*Measurements in mm; measurement taken from lateral to lateral flake edge following ­Wilmsen (1970:15).

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

45

Table 4.9. Platform width, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

2

4.40

–

3.1–5.7

secondary corner

2

2.95

–

2.7–3.2

face

–

–

–

–

secondary face

2

6.75

–

2.9–10.6

unidirectional

6

3.50

0.817

2.8–5.1

bidirectional

5

4.00

1.300

3.1–6.3

normal biface core

11

3.63

1.944

1.6–8.7

end biface core

2

3.00

–

2.8–3.2

normal biface thinning flake

2

2.00

–

1.3–2.7

channel flake

–

–

–

–

*Measurements in mm; measurement taken from dorsal to ventral surface following Wilmsen (1970:15).

Table 4.10. Platform angle, unifacial tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

2

82.50

–

77.5–87.5

secondary corner

2

55.00

–

47.5–62.5

face

1

82.5

–

–

secondary face

2

77.50

–

67.5–87.5

unidirectional

6

77.83

11.691

52.5–82.5

bidirectional

5

76.50

8.944

62.5–87.5

normal biface core

11

55.22

12.117

37.5–77.5

end biface core

2

57.5

–

–

normal biface thinning flake

2

57.5

–

47.5–67.5

channel flake

–

–

–

–

*Measurements in degrees; measurements were only taken to the nearest 5° increment so for purposes of data summary the median point of the 5° increment was used.

Table 4.11. Overall frequency of platform preparation types, Feature #1.* Type

n

Cortex

Plain

Reduced

Faceted

Ground

Isolated

primary corner

3

1 (33.3%)

2 (66.7%)

2 (66.7%)

–

–

–

secondary corner

5

3 (60%)

–

4 (80%)

2 (40%)

2 (40%)

–

face

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

–

–

–

–

secondary face

2

–

2 (100%)

1 (50%)

–

–

–

unidirectional

6

–

4 (66.7%)

6 (100.0%)

2 (33.3%)

6 (100%)

–

bidirectional

5

–

4 (80%)

3 (60%)

1 (20.0%)

3 (60%)

–

normal biface core

11

–

–

3 (25%)

11 (100%)

11 (100%)

–

end biface core

2

–

–

–

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

–

normal biface thinning flake

2

–

–

1 (50%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (50%)

channel flake

1

–

–

–

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

*Percentage represents number of blanks in type with specific preparation. Some blanks have multiple forms of preparation; plain platforms include both weathered surfaces and flat flaked surfaces lacking scars/faceting.

46

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Table 4.12. Platform preparation per blank, Feature #1.* Type

n

Cortex

Cortex & Reduced

Plain

Plain & Reduced

Plain & Ground

primary corner

3

1 (33.3%)

–

–

2 (66.7%)

–

Plain, Faceted Ground, & Reduced –

Faceted & Faceted, Isolated, Ground Reduced, Faceted, & Ground & Ground

–

–

–

–

secondary corner

5

–

3 (60%)

–

–

–

–

–

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

–

face

2

1 (50%)

–

1 (50%)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

secondary face

2

–

–

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

–

–

–

–

–

–

unidirectional

6

–

–

–

–

–

4 (66.7%)

–

–

2 (33.3%)

–

bidirectional

5

–

–

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

–

–

1 (20.0%)

–

normal biface core

11

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

8 (72.7%)

3 (27.3%)

–

end biface core

2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2 (100%)

–

–

normal biface thinning flake

2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1 (50%)

–

1 (50%)

channel flake

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1 (100%)

*Plain platforms include both weathered surfaces and flat flaked surfaces lacking scars.

Table 4.13. Bulb of force, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Diffuse

Moderate

Pronounced

primary corner

1

0

1 (100%)

0

secondary corner

6

0

4 (66.67%)

2 (33.3%)

face

2

0

0

2 (100%)

secondary face

2

0

0

2 (100%)

unidirectional

8

2 (25%)

6 (75%)

0

bidirectional

6

3 (50%)

3 (50%)

0

normal biface core

13

6 (46.2%)

6 (46.2%)

1 (7.7%)

end biface core

2

2 (100%)

0

0

normal biface thinning flake

1

1 (100%)

0

0

channel flake

1

1 (100%)

0

0

Table 4.14. Cortex and placement, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Absent

Platform

Platform & Distal

Lateral

primary corner

5

2 (40%)

2 (40%)

1 (20%)

0

secondary corner

5

0

2 (40%)

1 (20%)

2 (40%)

face

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

0

0

secondary face

2

2 (100%)

0

0

0

unidirectional

6

6 (100%)

0

0

0

bidirectional

5

5 (100%)

0

0

0

normal biface core

17

16 (94.1%)

0

0

1 (5.9%)

end biface core

2

2 (100%)

0

0

0

normal biface thinning flake

1

1 (100%)

0

0

0

channel flake

1

1 (100%)

0

0

0

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

47

Table 4.15. Unflaked surface and placement, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Absent

All-Over

Proximal Dorsal

Lateral

Other

primary corner

5

0

5 (100%)

0

0

0

secondary corner

7

0

0

1 (14.3%)

6 (85.7%)

0

face

2

0

2 (100%)

0

0

0

secondary face

2

0

0

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

0

unidirectional

4

3 (75%)

0

0

0

1 (25%)

bidirectional

8

7 (87.5%)

0

0

0

1 (12.5%)

normal biface core

17

15 (88.2%)

0

0

1 (5.9%)

1 (5.9%)

end biface core

2

2 (100%)

0

0

0

0

normal biface thinning flake

2

2 (100%)

0

0

0

0

channel flake

1

1 (100%)

0

0

0

0

Table 4.16. Lateral edge orientation, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Parallel

Contracting

Expanding

Irregular

primary corner

5

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

3 (60%)

–

secondary corner

7

2 (28.6%)

–

5 (71.4%)

–

face

1

–

1 (100%)

–

–

secondary face

2

–

–

2 (100%)

–

unidirectional

9

1 (11.1%)

–

8 (88.9%)

–

bidirectional

9

1 (11.1%)

–

7 (77.8%)

1 (11.1%)

normal biface core

17

–

–

17 (100%)

–

end biface core

2

–

–

2 (100%)

–

normal biface thinning flake

3

–

–

3 (100%)

–

channel flake

4

2 (50%)

–

2 (50%)

–

Table 4.17. Lateral edge orientation, unifacial tool blanks with expanding lateral edges, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

2

17.5

–

7.5–27.5

secondary corner

5

43.5

16.355

27.5–67.5

face

0

–

–

–

secondary face

2

80.0

–

62.5–97.5

unidirectional

8

34.38

16.677

12.5–67.5

bidirectional

7

40.36

19.117

17.5–72.5

normal biface core

12

47.08

13.727

27.5–72.5

end biface core

2

40.0

–

37.5–42.5

normal biface thinning flake

1

22.5

–

–

end biface thinning flake

0

–

–

–

channel flake

0

–

–

–

*Measurements in degrees; measurements were only taken to the nearest 5° increment so for purposes of data summary the median point of the 5° increment was used.

48

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Table 4.18. Scar orientation, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

None

Unidirectional- Bidirectional- BidirectionalParallel Parallel Convergent

Complex

Transverse

Other

primary corner

5

5 (100%)

–

–

–

–

–

–

secondary corner

7

–

3 (42.9%)

face

2

2 (100%)

–

3 (42.9%)

–

–

–

1 (14.3%)

–

–

–

–

–

secondary face

2

–

unidirectional

9

–

1 (50%)

–

–

–

–

1 (50%)

9 (100%)

–

–

–

–

–

bidirectional

8

–

–

3 (37.5%)

5 (62.5%)

–

–

–

normal biface core

17

–

–

3 (17.6%)

11 (64.7%)

3 (17.6%)

–

–

end biface core

2

–

–

–

–

–

2 (100%)

–

normal biface thinning flake

2

–

–

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

–

–

–

channel flake

4

–

3 (75%)

–

–

–

1 (25%)

–

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

Table 4.19. Core facet angle, tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

primary corner

5

83.50

10.840

77.5–102.5

secondary corner

5

106.00

18.507

82.5–132.5

face

0

–

–

–

secondary face

0

–

–

–

unidirectional

8

144.38

13.611

117.5–157.5

bidirectional

5

135.50

19.558

112.5–157.5

normal biface core

9

147.50

10.606

132.5–162.5

end biface core

1

102.50

–

–

normal biface thinning flake

0

–

–

–

channel flake

0

–

–

–

*Angle in degrees between major dorsal facets on items with single dorsal ridge (e.g., triangular, offset triangular or wedge-shaped transverse sections) measured after Judge (1973:146– 48). The higher the core facet angle, the flatter the flake in profile. Measurements were only taken to the nearest 5° increment so for purposes of data summary the median point of the 5° increment was used.

Table 4.20. Curvature, tool blanks, Feature #1.* Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner secondary corner

5

14

2.240

10–15

7

12.29

2.290

9–15

face

1

15

–

–

secondary face

2

13.5

–

12–15

unidirectional

9

12.9

2.205

9–15

bidirectional

9

12.9

1.960

10–15

normal biface core

17

9.65

1.320

7–12

end biface core

2

10

1.410

9–11

normal biface thinning flake

1

13

–

–

channel flake

4

15

–

–

*Based on matching curvature of flake in profile to a series of circles at one-cm diameters. 15 cm is essentially flat and no curvature.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

49

Table 4.21. Curvature placement, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

None

Symmetrical

Distal

primary corner

5

4 (80%)

0

1 (20%)

secondary corner

7

3 (42.9%)

3 (42.9%)

1 (14.3%)

face

2

2 (100%)

0

0

secondary face

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

0

unidirectional

9

4 (44.4%)

4 (44.4%)

1 (11.1%)

bidirectional

9

4 (44.4%)

4 (44.4%)

1 (11.1%)

normal biface core

17

0

17 (100%)

0

end biface core

2

0

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

normal biface thinning flake

2

0

2 (100%)

0

channel flake

4

4 (100%)

0

0

Table 4.22. Transverse section, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Wedge

Triangular

Offset Triangular

Trapezoidal

ConvexPlano*

PlanoConvex**

Other

primary corner

5

4 (80%)

1 (20%)

–

–

–

–

–

secondary corner

7

1 (14.3%)

2 (28.6%)

4 (57.1%)

–

–

–

–

face

2

–

–

–

–

2 (100%)

–

–

secondary face

2

–

–

–

–

2 (100%)

–

–

unidirectional

9

–

7 (77.8%)

1 (11.1%)

1 (11.1%)

–

–

–

bidirectional

9

–

5 (55.6%)

–

1 (11.1%)

–

–

3 (33.3%)

normal biface core

17

–

8 (47.1%)

1 (5.9%)

–

–

7 (41.2%)

1 (5.9%)

end biface core

2

–

1 (50%)

–

–

–

1 (50%)

–

normal biface thinning flake

3

–

1 (33.3%)

–

–

–

2 (66.7%)

–

end biface thinning flake

1

–

–

–

–

–

1 (100%)

–

channel flake

4

–

1 (25%)

–

2 (50%)

–

1 (25%)

–

*Convex-plano: the dorsal surface is flat or planar and the ventral or underside convex in transverse section. **Plano-convex: the dorsal surface is convex and the ventral or underside is flat or planar.

Table 4.23. Number of dorsal scars, tool blanks, Feature #1. Type

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

primary corner

5

0

–

–

secondary corner

6

3.17

1.330

1–5

face

2

0

–

–

secondary face

2

1.5

–

1–2

unidirectional

9

2.89

0.928

2–4

bidirectional

8

4.88

1.130

4–7

normal biface core

16

5.44

1.459

3–9

end biface core

2

8.50

–

6–11

normal biface thinning flake

2

5.50

–

5–6

channel flake

3

2.67

0.580

2–3

50

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.2. Primary corner blanks, Feature #1.

Primary Flakes Primary Corner Blanks. There are 5 blanks assignable to this type (Figs. 4.1a–b, 4.2), 3 of which have been retouched into tools (2 side scrapers and a retouched flake; Table 4.3). In addition, one example (Fig. 4.2a) that lacks any evidence of regular edge retouch has had some other secondary modification. Specifically, the thickened bulbar area has been trimmed off on the underside. A similar treatment is present on one of the side scrapers on this form of blank (Fig. 4.2c). In all cases, the dorsal surfaces are completely unflaked although they are not cortical. Rather, the dorsal surfaces are flat, weathered, unbattered side surfaces, probably formed by frost fracturing or other natural processes while still in their bedrock matrix. As the type name implies, these items represent initial removals from a relatively right-angled corner of a large quarry block of the chert. As a product of such removals, they exhibit a single pronounced dorsal ridge separating two facets, which represent a corner and two adjacent side faces of the original block (e.g., Fig. 4.3a–b, e). The right-angled nature of the corner is evident in core-facet angle measurements of between 77.5° and 102.5° (Table 4.19). In one case (Fig. 4.2d), the ridge is well-centered such that the item has a triangular transverse section and was derived as on Figure 4.3a. However, in the other four cases the ridge is off to one side such that the transverse sections are wedge-shaped (e.g., Figs. 4.2a–c, e; see Fig. 4.3b). Eroded limestone cortex remnants are present and occur either at the platform end alone (two examples: Fig. 4.2b–c) or at both

the proximal and distal ends of the blank (one example: Fig. 4.2a). These items were clearly removed from a block where the platform was a “top” surface as defined earlier (e.g., approximating in orientation the juncture of the chert bed with the surrounding bedrock matrix) and as schematically shown on Figure 4.3a–b. The other two items have both plain and reduced platforms and lack cortex, but one (Fig. 4.2e) does have a “brownish” distal end. As these browner areas with more limestone tend to be adjacent to the cortex or juncture with the surrounding bedrock on Onondaga items (Fig. 2.3a), this placement suggests that the flake end was near an old cortical surface. Therefore, as with the other examples described above, and as seems to be the most common orientation by far on primary/secondary block core removals, the flake probably was removed using a surface approximating a “top” surface as a striking platform (e.g., as on Fig. 4.3a–b). That same item also has a facet at the distal end at right angles to the flake’s longitudinal axis that represents a remnant of the old “bottom” of the specific core employed, indicating the flake removal traveled completely across the block surface along the corner. Since the flake has a platform and a bottom core remnant, its length (66.2 mm) suggests it was removed from a relatively short block. On the other hand, the one item with a cortical top and bottom also clearly traveled the full block height during detachment (Fig. 4.2a). It is 110.8 mm long, suggesting it was removed from a much larger block, as do other obviously longer blanks in the assemblage with cortical or brownish platform areas.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

51

wide, cortical platform is present on this item, indicating that a surface approximating a top was used to detach the flake (as on Fig. 4.3c-1). The platform on the Collingwood item (Figure. 4.4b) is plain and unprepared and is at relatively right angles to the flake body. On this item the lateral edges actually expand slightly from the platform. Since this item has longitudinal chert banding, it was clearly struck off on one “side” of a Collingwood chert block and the flake body came off an adjacent “side,” as this is the only way to get such banding (see Fig. 2.3b), as illustrated on Figure 4.3c-2. Secondary Flakes

Figure 4.3. Schematic diagram showing blank removals from initial blocks.

Primary Face Blanks. There are 2 artifacts of this type, 1 of which is a simple blank on Onondaga chert and 1 of which, on Collingwood chert, is made into a raclette (Fig. 4.4). As the type name implies, these items are removed from flat faces rather than angular corners of original blocks (Fig. 4.3c). By definition, they have unflaked dorsal surfaces, and approximate similar blanks found on other sites (Ellis and Deller 2000:50–52). Because they were removed from flat surfaces of a block lacking dorsal scars, they tend to have flat dorsal and more convex ventral surfaces (e.g., a convex-plano transverse section; Table 4.22), and show pronounced bulbs of force (Table 4.13). Typically, such flakes also tend to: (1) be relatively wide in relation to length (see Whittaker 1994: Fig. 6.24), (2) be relatively flat (Table 4.20), and (3) have markedly expanding lateral edges. The Collingwood example here probably had these characteristics but it is too incomplete and fragmentary to be sure, except to say it definitely had the flat longitudinal section with little curvature. The Onondaga item also has little curvature. However, on removals from flat surfaces occasionally, especially when a platform is struck much back from the platform/core face juncture, an abnormally short flake is produced that has a large, especially wide, platform and contracting lateral edges. The Onondaga item has such characteristics (Fig. 4.4a). A

Secondary Corner Flakes. Seven blanks are assigned to this type (Fig. 4.5), 3 of which have been made into tools (Table 4.3). They represent removals down the fairly right-angled corners of a blocky core and as such are similar to the primary corner flakes described above, including: moderate to pronounced bulbs (Table 4.13); a single pronounced dorsal ridge; a wedge-shaped to somewhat triangular transverse section (Table 4.22); little curvature (Table 4.20); and a relatively right-angled core facet angle (Table 4.19). They differ from the primary flakes in that they tend to have the ridge more offset to one edge so often exhibit offset triangular as opposed to simple triangular sections (Table 4.22). Of course, as secondary flakes they also do not exhibit completely unflaked dorsal surfaces by definition. Rather, with but one exception, one of the dorsal facets originating at the proximal end is a flake scar representing the previous removal of at least one other flake from a block corner using the same platform. The one exception exhibits completely unflaked dorsal facets at the proximal end. However, it is a secondary flake because it exhibits dorsal flake scars located, and originating, at the distal end. This exception indicates previous removals along the block corner from an opposing platform. That these blanks are also removed predominantly early in the reduction of quarry blocks is suggested by the frequent presence of cortex (5 of 5 examples where this trait can be determined). In 3 cases, the platform is cortical, indicating a “top” surface was used as the striking platform (Fig. 4.5a, e), and the dorsal scars suggest such removals followed primary flakes removed using the same platform as in the sequence from Figure 4.3a to 4.3d. In one of these cases, cortex is also present at the distal flake end (Fig. 4.5a). Use of a similar “top” platform is also suggested by the 2 blanks lacking cortex, both of which have “brownish” areas with a higher lime-

52

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.4. Primary face blanks, Feature #1.

Figure 4.5. Secondary corner flakes, Feature #1. Arrows show location of eroded limestone cortical sections.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

53

Figure 4.6. Secondary face blanks, Feature #1.

stone content at their distal ends. However, the other 2 items with cortex have it located along a lateral edge (Fig. 4.5b–c), indicating these flakes were actually removed along a corner of a block approximating a juncture of a top surface and a side surface using another “side” as a striking platform (as on Fig. 4.3f). They resemble what we have called secondary side-corner blanks in previous analyses (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:20). The dorsal scars on these flakes actually indicate that primary corner flakes were also removed along the juncture of a core “top” and “side” using an adjacent side as a striking platform (as on Fig. 4.3e) even though no primary corner flakes of this nature occur in the Crowfield assemblage. One of these 2 secondary side-corner flakes is the blank with only distal scars suggesting a bidirectional working of that particular block (Fig. 4.5b). However, the other item (Fig. 4.5c) has not only distal scars indicating use of an opposing platform but a scar indicating previous removals from near the same corner using the same platform (as in the sequence illustrated in Fig. 4.3e–f). In any case, the only examples of corner blanks removed along a top/side juncture are from bidirectionally worked cores. However, 2 of the 5 other blanks struck down a corner using a top surface as a striking platform have scars originating at the distal end, indicating they are also from bidirectionally worked cores (Fig. 4.5a, e), albeit ones where the orientation of the opposing platforms varied versus the original block orientation. Secondary Face Blanks. This type includes 2 Onondaga examples (Fig. 4.6). Both examples are simple tool blanks lacking any evidence of retouch or use. They represent removals from the flat face of a core early in the alteration of a particular core face. As such, the items still have extensive unflaked dorsal facets

but unlike the primary face blanks described above, dorsal scars indicating previous removals from the core face are present. On one example (Fig. 4.6b) with a simple flat platform, aside from a single narrow flake scar along the right lateral edge, the whole dorsal face is a weathered surface. On the other secondary face flake example (Fig. 4.6a), all of the surface adjacent to a plain and reduced striking platform at the proximal end is a flat, unflaked surface. This indicates that this flake was the first removal using that particular platform. However, the distal end exhibits two large converging flake scars. These scars had to originate from at least one other core platform positioned distally relative to the flake itself, so they are from a block worked bidirectionally. The flake has a “brownish” area of higher limestone content along a lateral edge, which suggests both the proximal platform on the blank and the platform used to remove the distally oriented flakes were “sides” of the original block used. The other Onondaga blank also has brownish areas with a high limestone content along one lateral edge, suggesting a “side” surface rather than a “top” was used as a platform. As noted above, flakes struck into quite flat core surfaces generally tend to have relatively flat longitudinal sections, pronounced bulbs and markedly expanding lateral edges, and these 2 flakes both exhibit those characteristics (see Tables 4.20, 4.13, 4.17). Tertiary Flakes Unidirectional Blanks. There are 9 items assignable to this type (Fig. 4.7), which have completely, or predominantly (1 item has a small unflaked dorsal facet near the distal end [Fig. 4.7b]), flaked dorsal surfaces. Three of the blanks have been made into or were used as tools (2 side scrapers and a retouched

54

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.7. Unidirectional blanks, Feature #1.

flake; see Table 4.3). As the type name implies, these blanks have dorsal scars that were removed from the same platform as the flake under examination so they apparently derived from, at least at the time of the flake removal, unidirectionally worked cores with a single platform. Among the blanks from block cores, the unidirectional blanks seem to have relatively large amounts of platform preparation with 100% having both reduced and ground platforms (Table 4.12). At other sites the general category of tertiary unidirectional blanks includes the larger elongated “blade-flakes” (alluded to earlier) that seem to be produced from roughly conical and somewhat standardized cores (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:17–18). Although there is the

odd item here that one might see, except for a relatively small size, as morphologically one of these blade-flakes, there is no consistent suggestion of this relatively standardized form among the Crowfield unifacial blanks and tools. Bidirectional Blanks. There are 9 flakes, including 4 made into tools, assigned to this type (Table 4.3; Fig. 4.8). These blanks are also from relatively blocky cores as indicated by the rightangled (Table 4.10) and often flat/plain (Table 4.11) platforms. All these flakes have completely flaked dorsal surfaces with the exception of one example with a very small unflaked weathered surface near the juncture of one lateral edge and the distal end.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

55

Figure 4.8. Bidirectional blanks, Feature #1.

The main distinction between these flakes and those assigned to the previous type is the presence of bidirectional, as opposed to unidirectional, dorsal scars. In other words, in addition to the scars from previous removals at the proximal end, there are distal scars indicating previous removals from an additional platform located relatively opposite that of the one used to detach the blank itself. In some cases (n = 3) the dorsal scars parallel the longitudinal axis of the flake (bidirectional-parallel) whereas in others (n = 4; one item is indeterminate) they are somewhat convergent toward the flake’s midline (bidirectional-convergent), suggesting some differences in the exact orientation of the platform surfaces used (see Table 4.18). As a result of the bidirectional scars,

these items have higher flake scar counts (mean = 4.88) than the unidirectional items (mean = 2.89; see Table 4.23). Other than this difference, however, which is statistically significant using a Mann-Whitney U-test (p = .003), a series of comparisons of continuous variables failed to reveal any significant differences from the unidirectional blanks. Given the presence of bidirectional dorsal scars, it is probable that many of these blanks represent removals from trimming blocky masses into forms suitable for use as biface cores, which by definition also have opposing platforms and complex, usually bidirectional, scar patterns. In other words, they could be from early stages of trimming a mass intended to be a biface prior to

56

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

the creation of a typical acute-angled biface striking platform/core margin. However, bidirectional scarring can be produced in several other ways. For example, they can result from trimming the bottom of a unidirectional block core to remove excessive hinge or step fractures and allow continued removals from the main platform surface (see, for example, Whittaker 1994:109). Alternatively, they can be produced during initial trimming of a blocky mass to set up its platforms and faces for removals. Therefore, some of these flakes are probably from other kinds of cores in addition to resulting from the early stages of roughing out bifacial forms. Flakes from Biface Reduction A number of flake blanks in the Crowfield assemblage represent the reduction of bifaces. At least three forms of bifaces were the sources of these flakes. In addition to the presence of channel flakes derived from fluted bifaces, the collection includes flakes from relatively large bifaces, which we prefer to call biface cores, and those from smaller bifaces that approximate unfluted biface/ point preforms in size and that we call biface thinning flakes. None of the unrefined/unfinished bifaces in the Crowfield cache are large enough to have yielded the biface core flakes in the assemblage. However, there are several unfinished bifaces in the assemblage, which approximate in size those whose reduction yielded the biface thinning flakes. These items are described in the next chapter as “unrefined bifaces.” The larger biface cores apparently included at least some forms that had recognizable ends and lateral edges rather than simply all being circular or “disc” outlines with no well-defined sides and ends. The evidence for these well-defined margins is the presence of flakes with dorsal scar patterns indicating removals using areas at the ends as striking platforms. These are referred to as end biface core flakes as opposed to the flakes from lateral margins of such cores that are referred to as “normal.” The biface flakes in general were recognized based on a combination of characteristics, particularly characteristics indicating use of bifacially worked edges. These distinctive biface flake features include: relatively acute platform angles (Table 4.10); high numbers of bidirectional to more complex dorsal scar patterns, indicating use of at least two opposing platforms (Table 4.23); symmetrical curvature on normal flake removals (Table 4.21); thin, flat, transverse cross sections that generally lack pronounced dorsal ridges and tend to be more plano-convex than triangular (Tables 4.6, 4.22); extensive evidence of platform preparation (Tables 4.11, 4.12) such as faceting and grinding and trimming of the platform/flake body juncture (“reduced” platforms); and some faceting, which is not strictly due to platform preparation but instead is also a product of the fact that the retained platform surface is a segment of the opposite flaked biface surface. Biface Core Flakes Normal Biface Core Flakes. This type represents the most common form of flake blank in the Crowfield cache with 17

examples being present, 10 of which have been made into, and/ or used as, side scrapers or retouched flakes (Table 4.3; Fig. 4.9). They were clearly derived from quite large bifaces. For example, they average over 61 mm long indicating, since none are overshot flakes, that bifaces at least that wide were reduced. In fact, the distal scars on these flakes, indicating removals from an opposite platform, do not usually extend closer than about 20–40 mm toward the flake’s platform end. If we were to assume that removals tended to terminate about that distance from the opposite biface edge, this evidence would suggest the bifaces were about 80–100 mm across. Usually, biface core flakes have diffuse to moderate bulbs. There is 1 blank with a more pronounced bulb in the cache (Table 4.13; Fig. 4.9a), but this seems to be due to a material flaw or error in knapping. The normal biface core flakes are most similar to the bidirectional as opposed to other blank forms described above. As noted in that description, it is possible that many bidirectional blanks are from earlier stages of biface reduction. On average, and in comparison to the bidirectional blanks from block cores, the normal biface core blanks: (a) expand more from the platform (Table 4.17); (b) are thinner (Table 4.6); (c) have higher core facet angles (Table 4.19) and, often, plano-convex cross sections (Table 4.22) indicating less pronounced dorsal ridges; (d) show more curvature (Table 4.20); (e) tend to have longer and narrower platforms (Tables 4.8, 4.9); and (f) exhibit more acute platform angles (Table 4.10). These differences are typical of contrasts between the two that we have seen at other sites (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2002:27–29). However, a series of statistical tests suggests only the more acute platform angles (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = .004; t-test, t = 3.715, df = 15, p = .002) and curvature (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = .000; t-test, t = 5.143, df = 25, p = .000) differences are consistently significant at the .05 level. A t-test of platform length/width (t = -2.194, df = 14, p = .046) also suggested the biface flakes have longer and narrower platforms but given the small sample size, the Mann-Whitney U-test result (p = .115) suggesting no difference is probably more reliable. The presence of large flakes with transverse dorsal scars indicating removals from a biface end (see below) suggests that at least some of the normal flakes from biface cores are from large bifaces with recognizable lateral edges as opposed to simple circular forms. Biface cores lacking circular outlines are certainly the norm at other Ontario Paleoindian sites. Several large ovate bifaces were actually recovered from the Late Paleoindian Caradoc site (Deller and Ellis 2001; Ellis and Deller 2002), and at sites where Collingwood chert was the main raw material employed, consistency in raw material banding also suggested the use of noncircular forms (Deller and Ellis 1992a:21; Ellis and Deller 2000:60–61). At Crowfield, the dominance of bidirectional dorsal scar patterns (14/17 or 82.3), 3 of which have scars oriented parallel to the longitudinal flake axis (e.g., bidirectional-parallel scars; see Table 4.18), also suggests the use of noncircular forms. However, in the absence of actual cores, it is possible that some of the Crowfield flake examples could be from more circular (“discoidal”) bifaces such as the 3

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

57

Figure 4.9. Normal biface core flakes, Feature #1.

examples with more complex, almost centripetal, dorsal scar patterns (e.g., Fig. 4.9i). Both kinds of biface cores have been reported from other Paleoindian sites such as Clovis ones (e.g., Bradley et al. 2010:57). End Biface Core Flakes. This type includes only 2 examples (Fig. 4.10), neither of which have been made into, or used as, a tool. In contrast to the previously described flakes, these seem to have been detached from the end, as opposed to lateral edges, of a biface core. Such end removals would be rare in comparison to lateral removals and this probably accounts for their rarity in the Crowfield cache. Both flakes have “brownish” proximal ends, indicating the biface core end was probably near a “top”

oriented surface of the original block. Given their removal from the ends of a biface, these blanks differ in several ways from the presumably mainly lateral removals represented by the normal biface core flakes. For one thing, they are relatively long (see Table 4.4), as expected if the bifaces were longer than they were wide. Second, because they were removed from the end of a biface, they tend to be a little flatter on average than the normal removals, although there is considerable overlap in this trait between the two types (Table 4.20). Moreover, the one more curved example (curvature measured as “9”) actually is quite flat throughout its length as it apparently has distal curvature only where the distal end begins to approach the opposite end of the biface during detachment (Table 4.21). Finally, and most

58

Crowfield (AfHj-31) flakes used as tool blanks in the assemblage we can associate with Feature #1, but we note for the record here that there is a multiple graver/piercer from the site (see Chap. 9, Fig. 9.8c), which has the classic transverse dorsal scar pattern characteristic of these flakes. This item, in 2 pieces, is unfortunately one of those few refitted artifacts that we cannot associate definitively with either Feature #1 or #2 (see Fig. 3.18).

Figure 4.10. End biface core flakes, Feature #1.

importantly, the dorsal scars on end removals are transverse to the longitudinal flake axis (Table 4.18), the reason being most of the flakes from the bifaces represented by these scars would be lateral (that is, normal) removals. End removal, along with large flake size, also account for the higher dorsal scar counts on these items (Table 4.23). Both of these flakes are quite thick. One (Fig. 4.10a) is especially thick between the mid-point and distal end due partially to some hinge-terminated lateral removals that did not carry across the biface. It is possible, therefore, that this flake was detached from the end to remove this point of thickness. The other flake is also quite thick and has a triangular section with a somewhat pronounced dorsal ridge formed by intersecting distal ends of lateral removals (Fig. 4.10b). It is plausible also that the flake was detached from the end along, and in order to remove, the ridge. Normal Biface Thinning Flakes. There are 3 of these blanks represented in the assemblage (Fig. 4.11a–b), 2 of which were converted into simple tools (Table 4.3). They are very similar to the normal biface core flakes except that they are much smaller (Tables 4.4­–4.6), all examples apparently weighing under 1 g. As noted above, their size, especially length estimates, indicates removal from bifaces similar in size to the large and small unrefined bifaces included in the assemblage (see Chap. 5). Use of comparable flakes for small simple tools such as gravers/micro-piercers is widespread on Paleoindian sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:70). There are no definitive end biface thinning

Channel Flakes. There are at least 6 of these items, most of which are very fragmentary, in the assemblage (Fig. 4.11c–g). One has unifacial retouch along both lateral edges (Fig. 4.11f) but the others are unmodified. Since they were removed from the end of a point preform during fluting, at most sites they have transverse scar patterns. However, only 1 item here (Fig. 4.11e) has such a pattern, the rest having one or two parallel dorsal scars (see Table 4.18) such that they resemble small “bladelets.” This contrast with most other sites has been attributed to the fact that the points from which they were derived were often multiply fluted (Deller and Ellis 1984:47), an explanation consistent with the channel flake and point assemblages at other Crowfield Phase sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1996:29; Stewart 1984:69; Timmins 1994:179). Other than the scar differences, however, these flakes closely resemble those from other Paleoindian sites, notably in being completely flat in longitudinal section (Table 4.20) and in being parallel-sided or only slightly expanding (Table 4.16). Unifacial Tools There are 37 unifacial tools associated with Feature #1 (Table 4.2). In contrast to the bifaces (described below), and in line with the unifacial tool blanks (described above), these tools are almost exclusively on Onondaga chert (36 of 37 or 97.3%) and there are no Selkirk or Ancaster unifaces. We have sorted the tools from the site into a series of types and classes to facilitate description based on morphological and technological criteria and not based on extensive studies of use-wear. Nonetheless, as we discuss in more detail at the end of Chapter 6, many of the unifacial and bifacial types we recognize seem to match Paleoindian conceptions of what are different tool categories (for example, they were sorted spatially into most of the various categories within the feature) and, thus, are gross measures of functional variation in the assemblage.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

59

Figure 4.11. Biface thinning (A–B) and channel flake (C–G) flake blanks, Feature #1. All are on Onondaga chert.

Side Scrapers The most common unifacial tools are side scrapers, of which a minimum of 18 were recovered (Tables 4.2; Figs. 4.12–4.14). These items are defined by the presence of continuous marginal unifacial retouch on one or both lateral flake edges, which extends along the edge for at least 15 mm and invades onto the tool edge for at least 2.5 mm. Seven of the items are “single” side scrapers in that the retouch is confined to one margin while the remaining 11 are “double” forms with bilateral retouch. Based on this attribute, along with the shape of the edge in plan (for instance, straight, concave, and so on), it is possible to recognize several varieties of side scrapers analogous to those recognized in Old World Paleolithic industries by Bordes (1961) and others (Table 4.24). Two of the tools are more complex forms, 1 being a convergent form, incomplete due to heat breakage, where the laterally retouched edges converge such that they just intersect at the thin distal end (Fig. 4.14b). This distal end does not appear to be a pointed working edge or employable unit. The other complex form is a single alternate side scraper with normal unifacial retouch on the dorsal surface along one half of one edge and inverse unifacial retouch on the ventral or underside for the remainder of the edge (Fig. 4.14c). This last named tool is 1 of only 2 side scrapers where the edge retouch is not “normal”; that is, the retouch is not exclusively on the dorsal surface but also occurs on the underside. One of the single concave forms (Fig. 4.12i) is notable as it is highly polished and rounded at the narrow (12.5 mm), thin (3.3 mm), quite convex, proximal end, suggesting use in some distinctive manner. Also of note is that 2 of the double concave-convex forms have large spurs or borers. In 1 case (Fig. 4.13a), the single spur present is near the distal end just beyond the concave right working edge. This tool also exhibits a relatively convex distal end with a narrow (13.5 mm), thin (1.3 mm), acute-angled (40–55°) continuously retouched working edge. This distal edge is, as with the single concave form, highly polished and rounded, suggesting a specialized use. The second tool exhibits 2 large

spurs or borers in close juxtaposition on the left margin, again at the distal end of the tool just beyond a retouched concave margin (Fig. 4.13b). In addition, there is a third spur on the right margin just beyond the convex working edge. Although laterally placed, the convex edge is relatively pronounced in plan and short (15.6 mm) with a relatively acute edge angle (40–55°) and is very much like the narrow convex edge at the distal end of the other spurred side scraper and that on the polished single concave side scraper proximal end described above (Fig. 4.12i). There is 1 additional scraper, only partially reconstructed, which also had a definitive spur near a distal corner just beyond a concave working edge. However, since the item is incomplete, we cannot tell if this is a single or double scraper and if double, the form of the working edge opposite the concave margin. Therefore, we do not include it in the side scraper totals but it is illustrated in Figure 4.13c. There are also at least 3 small fragments with spurs, which again are very incomplete so cannot be included in the totals. Given their morphology and size, as well as small retained fragments of edges with “scraper retouch,” we strongly suspect these items are from concave scrapers too, rather than being fragments of distinct micro-piercers or gravers. The presence of definitive spurs on concave side scrapers is a pattern repeated at several other sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:67–68; Storck 1979: Plate 7i) and as suggested elsewhere (Ellis and Deller 2000:128), this provides strong evidence that the tool forms are of probable use-significance and that these two edge forms were consistently put together as they were used in the same task. The fact that 3 concave-edged tools, 2 of which are spurred, also exhibit thin, narrow/short, convex, retouched and/or polished margins suggests that working edges were placed together for convenience in the carrying out of some task that required a range of use edges. In several respects, including the emphasis on normal retouch, the rarity of straight tool edges and complex edge forms, and the co-occurrence of spurs with tools having concave working edges, the Feature #1 side scraper assemblage is much the same as that reported from other sites we have examined directly. The main

60

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.12. Concave side scrapers, Feature #1. All are on Onondaga chert. A–C, double concave-convex side scrapers; D–E, double concave side scrapers; F, double concave-convex side scraper; G–I, single concave side scrapers; J, concave side scraper fragment.

Figure 4.13. Concave side scrapers (A–B) and fragment (C) with spurs, Feature #1. Arrows show spur locations. All are on Onondaga chert. A and B are double concave-convex forms.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

61

Figure 4.14. Miscellaneous side scrapers, Feature #1. A, single convex side scraper; B, distal end of convergent scraper; C, single alternate side scraper; D, double convex side scraper; E, single straight side scraper; F, double convex side scraper.

Table 4.24. Distribution of side scrapers by type, Feature #1. Blank Type

n

%

single convex

1

5.56

single straight

1

5.56

single concave

4

22.22

single alternate

1

5.56

double convex

2

11.11

double concave

2

11.11

double concave-convex

6

33.33

convergent

1

5.56

totals

18

100.01

62

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

suggested difference is the relatively high frequency of concave edges with 12 of 18 (or 66.6%) tools incorporating at least one concave margin (Table 4.24) and almost half the represented total working edges (48.3%) being of that form (Table 4.25). At other sites such as Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a) and Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000), only 26.7% and 22.2 % of the tools incorporate concave edges and 21.1% or less of the total edges are concave. A chi-square test comparing solely the most common (e.g., concave and convex) edge forms by the three sites indicates the difference between the sites is significant (χ2 = 6.420, df = 2, p = 0.04). This difference will deserve some discussion in a later section (see Chap. 8). Side scrapers are often viewed as tools that were not designed or “made” as such. One can argue that they are simply tools that began life with edges lacking any purposeful retouch. The edges became dulled in use and then needed to be resharpened. In sum, the edge retouch is due solely to resharpening. This scenario can be applied to the convex and straight edged tools in this class and to argue that the simpler “retouched/used flakes” (described below) include items intended to be side scrapers that had not been resharpened. As discussed more in Chapter 8, it is not as easy to make such arguments for thick, concave-edged forms. Unlike thin convex edges, thick concave edges, which can be useful in many tasks (witness the modern spokeshave), are rarely found naturally on flakes. Therefore, if one needs to have a thick concave edge for a certain task it usually must be made as such. One presumes that is the case for the items found at Crowfield and the fact that spurs correlate with this general class of side scraper would also argue for purposeful production. Retouched/Used Flakes The term retouched flake is used here as a “grab-bag” category for flake tools with lateral retouch that, for various reasons, cannot be easily classified as side scrapers. Contrasts with side scrapers include: (a) edge retouch tending to be of variable length along an edge; (b) short edge retouch that does not much invade the tool’s surface and consequently thin, more acute-angled working edges and relatively low reduction indices; (c) a tendency for discontinuous retouch and where continuous retouch is present it is restricted to only a short (< 20–25 mm) segment along an edge; and (d) an often bifacial as opposed to strictly unifacial or an alternate retouch. The fine and predominantly discontinuous nature of the retouch may result here largely from use but it is often difficult to distinguish use retouch from spontaneous retouch that occurs during removal of the flake blank from a core, or from retouch that results from damage in transport or perhaps even during the placing of material into Feature #1. The heavily heat-damaged and weathered nature of the assemblage also makes it difficult to distinguish use damage from those other sources. We have tried to be conservative, however, in assigning items to this category, including only items we are quite sure had their edges modified through use as flake tools.

Table 4.25. Distribution of side scraper edges by plan outline, Crowfield Feature #1 and other sites. Blank Type

Crowfield

Parkhill

Thedford II

convex

11 (37.9%)

16 (66.7%)

12 (63.2%)

straight

2 (6.9%)

1 (4.2%)

2 (10.5%)

concave

14 (48.3%)

5 (20.8%)

4 (21.1%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (8.3%)

1 (5.3%)

29

24

19

other/unknown totals

In all, 13 items are assigned to this tool class (Figs. 4.15, 4.16). These occur on a wide range of blank forms but biface core flakes are the single most chosen blank (5 or 38.5% of those assignable to specific blank types; see Table 4.3). Data on individual working edge characteristics are given in Tables 4.26 and 4.27. As a whole, concave (31.8%) and irregular (31.8%) edge outlines dominate the assemblage with lesser amounts of straight and convex edges (18.2% each). By definition, discontinuous retouch is most common with 16/23 or 69.6% of the working edges having this form. Marginal bifacial retouch, both continuous and discontinuous, is also quite common (60.8%). One suspects that at least some of these tools are unresharpened “side scrapers” that had only been briefly used prior to being included in Feature #1. As implied earlier and elsewhere (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:67; Ellis 1984:460; Ellis and Deller 2002:48), it is plausible that side scrapers were not deliberately made as such but rather started out as simple large flakes that, when the edges became dulled, were resharpened, turning them into side scrapers. This explanation probably has some merit, but the high frequency of retouched flakes with bifacial retouch, a characteristic also seen at the Late Paleoindian Caradoc ritual cache (Ellis and Deller 2002:48), is not something seen on side scrapers. An alternative explanation is that flakes with unmodified (e.g., unretouched edges) are sharpest and make better cutting tools (e.g., Hayden 1977:179–82; Walker 1978:713–14). Therefore, it is possible that large flakes could be used as cutting tools, the result being a larger percentage with bifacial retouch, prior to being converted, or recycled in a sense, into side scraper tools. Still another possibility is that a more pristine flake, which has not become more steeply beveled due to purposeful edge rejuvenation retouch, can be used more easily to scrape (for instance, employ the tool’s edge transversely to the surface being worked) in both directions, the result being flake removals from both faces (e.g., Lawrence 1979:118). One retouched flake on a thick primary corner flake with a wedge shaped cross section is of note (Fig. 4.16g). This item has a fine discontinuous bifacial retouch along the sharp (edge angle of 25–30°) edge of the wedge. However, it also has more extensive retouch at the distal flake end. About 20 mm of that end has been thinned extensively on the ventral surface by flake

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

Figure 4.15. Retouched flakes, Feature #1. All are on Onondaga chert.

Figure 4.16. Other retouched flakes, Feature #1. All are on Onondaga chert.

63

64

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 4.26. Retouched flake, left lateral edge characteristics.* Catalog Number

Retouched?

Edge Shape

Retouch Type

Retouched Retouched Edge Thickness Edge Length

129+**

yes

concave

continuous bifacial

4.0

Retouched Edge Angle

Reduction Index

4.6

67.5

3.23

888+

yes

convex

discontinuous bifacial

1.1

1.3

32.5

4.45

107a+

yes

concave

discontinuous normal

2.7

3.5

47.5

4.19

399+

yes

irregular

discontinuous normal

1.6

1.9

47.5

4.31

639+

yes

straight

continuous bifacial

1.1

1.3

30.0

7.55

208+

yes

irregular

discontinuous bifacial

1.6

1.9

27.5

5.31

828

yes

?

continuous bifacial

151+

yes

convex

continuous normal

2.7

4.2

27.5

2.81

585+

yes

convex

continuous bifacial

2.1

2.8

27.5

4.86

510+

yes

concave

continuous bifacial

1.6

2.0

27.5

6.19

483+

yes

straight

discontinuous normal

1.0

1.9

27.5

5.40

411

yes

irregular

discontinuous bifacial

292+

yes

concave

discontinuous normal

*Thickness and length in mm; angles in degrees. **Most items are made up of several conjoined pieces, each with separately assigned, different, catalog numbers. Only the lowest assigned catalog number is given, along with a “+,” to indicate other catalog numbers were also assigned to that artifact.

Table 4.27. Retouched flake, right lateral edge characteristics.* Catalog Number

Retouched?

Edge Shape

Retouch Type

Retouched Edge Angle

Reduction Index

129+**

yes

concave

discontinuous bifacial

2.5

888+

yes

concave

discontinuous bifacial

1.1

3.2

55.0

5.16

2.0

35.0

4.45

107a+

yes

convex

discontinuous normal

399+

yes

irregular

discontinuous inverse

3.1

3.8

57.5

3.65

1.3

1.2

55.0

5.31

639+

yes

irregular

208+

yes

straight

continuous bifacial

2.0

2.3

47.5

4.15

discontinuous bifacial

2.0

2.4

37.5

4.25

concave

discontinuous bifacial

1.4

1.9

27.5

5.42

1.2

1.5

27.5

4.50

828

?

151+

yes

585+

no

510+

no

483+

yes

straight

discontinuous normal

411

yes

irregular

discontinuous bifacial

292+

yes

Retouched Retouched Edge Thickness Edge Length

*Thickness and length in mm; angles in degrees. **Most items are made up of several conjoined pieces, each with separately assigned, different, catalog numbers. Only the lowest assigned catalog number is given, along with a “+,” to indicate other catalog numbers were also assigned to that artifact.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Tool Blanks and Unifaces

65

Table 4.28. Other tools.* Type

Figure

Blank Type

Length

Width

Thickness

beak

4.17a

unknown

43.6

22.3

4.2

perforator

4.17b

unknown

–

27.6

7.1

narrow end scraper

4.17c

unknown

–

26.3

7.4

raclette

4.4b

face

52.1

–

13.2

denticulate

4.11a

biface thinning flake

33.9

20.8

3.4

backed “bladelet”

4.11f

channel flake

–

6.4

1.9

*Measurements in mm.

removals from both lateral edges, resulting in about a 2-mm thinning versus the rest of the tool. This modification could be to thin the tool for hafting and, as noted above, another flake blank from the site (Fig. 4.2a), which lacks any lateral retouch and is also made on a primary corner flake, also had extensive thinning of one end. It is possible, however, to conceive of other reasons for this modification. The corner blank may have had an abruptly curved distal end where it encountered the bottom of the core. The ventral retouch reported here would remove that curvature. Therefore, it is possible the user required a straight rather than curved working edge profile. The ventral trimming at one end would have produced a straighter overall working edge in profile. Such curvature may have been undesirable on a tool that the bifacial edge retouch suggests was used in a back and forth cutting motion. Other Unifaces There are 6 other tools that do not fit readily into the previously described unifacial categories. Since all are relatively unique, they are each discussed in turn here and their major characteristics are listed individually in Table 4.28. The first 3 tools all might be classified as beaks or beaked scrapers by some. However, although all are pointed in plan view, they have such different working edges that we believe this classification may be misleading and believe each merits description as a separate tool form. One tool is classified as a unifacial perforator (Fig. 4.17b). It is represented only by a distal tool segment that has been deliberately narrowed by steep (70–85°) bilateral retouch to produce a 27.3-mm-long pointed projection. In side profile, the tip of the tool is thin and sharp and not a steeply retouched “beak-like” projection. Hence, it is classified here as a perforator. A second tool, which is complete, also has a rather massive pointed working edge, but it is classified here as a true beak (Fig. 4.17a). The working tip is blunter than the item just described in both profile and plan. In profile it is more beak-like with a thick

(4 mm) and steep (80–85°) tip apex. In plan, the beak is placed such that the tool resembles a “dihedral burin” in outline even though the steep lateral edges of the pointed working edge were not produced by burin blows. The beak is at what would have been the proximal end of the original flake. The right lateral edge of the original blank (left edge of the beak in plan) has a steep scraper retouch extending right to the beak apex. That retouch is more convex away from the beak but straightens toward the beak tip, giving the working tip a straight left margin of about 12 mm long. The left lateral flake margin (right edge of the beak) also has a steep retouch along part of the edge but toward the beak end, and forming the beak margin, this edge is a snapped surface rather than a retouched surface. Hence, the beak apex is formed by the juncture of a steeply retouched edge and a snap. The manufacture of thick working edges at the juncture of snaps and retouched edges is reported at other sites, albeit in other categories of tools with pointed working edges such as micro-piercers or gravers (see, for example, Deller and Ellis 1992a:70). Superimposed on the snap are very fine retouch scars, presumably resulting from use, and the tip of the beak appears highly polished. In addition to the retouch described above, this tool has a fine discontinuous retouch at the relatively straight end opposite the beak (distal end of the original flake blank). A third item, represented only by the distal tool end (Fig. 4.17c), also has a narrowed (9.7 mm wide) working end but unlike the 2 previously described tools it does not have a sharp pointed tip in plan. Rather, the working edge is convex in plan outline. In profile, it is steeply retouched (70–75°) with a thick (7.3 mm) bit. These are common tools at other Paleoindian sites we have examined and we have called them narrowed or nosed end scrapers (grattoirs à museau) following the usage in the Old World literature (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:60–63; Ellis and Deller 1988:117–19). Another miscellaneous uniface is classified here as a raclette (Fig. 4.4b). By definition, a raclette is a tool with finely and continuously flaked, well-executed, apparently purposeful as opposed to use-induced, retouch. This particular item is one of the

66

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 4.17. Pointed tools, Feature #1. A, beak; B, unifacial perforator; C, narrow/nosed end scraper. All are on Onondaga chert.

few unifaces in the Feature #1 assemblage made on ­Collingwood chert. The platform and dorsal surfaces are completely weathered and unflaked and meet each other at right angles, clearly indicating that the blank used was struck off the face of a quarry block of that chert. In other words, the source of the chert was a bedrock deposit. The tool has a wedge-shaped transverse section and the retouched edge is the thin edge of the wedge or left margin of the flake. That edge is 45.7 mm long by 1.2 mm thick and has an edge angle of about 75°. There is also 1 small denticulate in the assemblage that is of a particularly diagnostic form first recognized by Gramly (1982:41), and which he called a variant of a “cutter” (Fig. 4.11a). A serrated edge is formed along the right margin of a normal biface thinning flake by serially snapping a series of small, adjacent, unifacially removed, semicircular segments. The projections between each snap provide the projecting teeth of the tool and the thick edge produced this way would have been especially durable. The serrated edge is somewhat damaged on this item and a segment of one end is missing, but at least parts of five such semicircular snaps are retained, forming a 26+ mmlong by 2-mm-maximum-thickness working edge. Very similar tools have been seen by us in several Ontario Early Paleoindian site collections such as Culloden Acres (Ellis 2002: Fig. 7j), Parkhill (Ellis and Deller 2000:129), and Murphy (Jackson 1996: Fig. 9e)—they seem to be a simple but nonetheless diagnostic Paleoindian tool form. The final tool is the modified channel flake segment (Fig. 4.11f) alluded to in earlier discussions. Broken at both ends by heat fractures, the 15.3-mm-long remaining portion has a 1.2- to

1.4-mm-thick, continuously and steeply retouched edge along both margins. On one margin the retained retouch is quite smooth and straight in plan outline while the opposite margin is a bit more irregular and, one can argue, finely serrated. It is plausible to suggest that the straight retouched margin is a backing to hold or, more likely, given its size, to haft the tool whereas the serrated margin is the actual working or cutting edge. In other words, the tool is the equivalent of a backed bladelet. Miscellaneous Fragments As stressed above, the totals given here for all tool types and classes are minimum ones as there are a large number of unconjoined fragments. At least 215 of these (see Table 4.2) can confidently be said to be either definitively from unifacial tools or from either such tools or tool blanks. These fragments also mirror the tools and blanks themselves where Onondaga chert predominates and, indeed, only 2 definitive Collingwood chert unifaces/ blanks were recovered. However, as is the case with bifaces (as noted earlier and as discussed in more detail in Chap. 5), it is notable that unreconjoinable fragments on Collingwood seem much more common than those of Onondaga. For example, the ratio of these fragments to actual items among the Collingwood assemblage is 26 to 1 whereas among the Onondaga items the ratio is a much lower 2.3 to 1. Again we would suggest that this difference is due to the fact that the Collingwood chert fractures more heavily due to heating, and the greater fragmentation into smaller, more heavily damaged pieces makes it much more difficult to reconstruct them into tools and blanks.

— Chapter 5 —

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts Bifaces and Tools on Granitic Rocks

Fluted Bifaces

Moreover, we have learned from experience that small fragments, which appear “fluted,” can turn out upon refitting to be from unfluted tools. The fluted points have refined edge finishing retouch, ground lateral basal edges (and with one exception, light basal concavity grinding as well), and evidence of tip resharpening, suggesting they are finished hafted tools. In fact, with one exception (Figs. 5.1j, 5.2b), all the items’ retaining tips have distinct changes in thickness, outline and flaking toward that end that strongly suggest they have been resharpened. In all cases, the resharpening has been evenly applied to both fore-section edges resulting in a symmetrical fore-section plan shape. In at least 5 instances (Fig. 5.1a, d, i, k–l), the tip resharpening has produced relatively straight to slightly convex fore-section edges and somewhat of an abrupt break in outline. The result is these items have an overall pentagonal or “pumpkin-seed” shape (cf. Kraft 1973: Fig. 6). These points are so distinctive in appearance that we have referred them elsewhere to a formally designated Crowfield point type (Deller and Ellis 1984). We have discussed in detail how these points contrast with those in other named Great Lakes fluted point types such as Gainey and Barnes (see Deller and Ellis 1992a:34–48; Ellis et al. 2003) and forego a detailed comparative discussion here except for some reference to characteristics that have not been previously commented upon. The most distinctive aspects of the Crowfield type are: (1) a marked expansion of the lateral edges (such that they have a face-angle averaging just over 102°) to a point of maximum width at (55.6%) or beyond (44.4%) mid-point; (2) very flat, biconvex (76.5%; n = 13) to slightly planoconvex (23.5%; n = 4) cross sections averaging under 5 mm thick;

A total of 30 fluted bifaces can be associated with Feature #1 (Table 4.2). This total excludes a single item, a fluted preform, which broke in manufacture and was recycled into another tool form, a backed biface. That recycled tool will be described in a later section. Excluding another multiple fluted biface foresection segment that cannot be placed into a more specific category, the remaining 29 fluted bifaces can be placed into four types: fluted points, shouldered fluted points, fluted preforms, and shouldered fluted preforms. Data on individual fluted points and other bifaces are provided in Appendices B and C. We also describe another type of unfluted artifact in this section, large unrefined bifaces, as it seems most likely these bifaces were earlier stage preforms predominantly intended to be fluted items. Following description of each type, we synthesize information on fluted biface production evident in the assemblage. Fluted Points Seventeen items are assignable to this type—evenly split between Onondaga and Collingwood with one item on Ancaster (Tables 4.2, 5.1; Figs. 5.1, 5.2a–b). Ten of these bifaces have been almost completely reconstructed whereas the remaining 7 have been estimated from basal ends that represent mainly (6 cases) from one-half to three-quarters of a biface. There are some other fragments, including at least 3 tip ends, which probably include fore-section segments of the bases. We simply lump them here into a refined biface fragment category (Table 4.2) since they lack flute segments, cannot be conjoined, or could be fragments of other kinds of fluted bifaces or other unfluted biface tools. 67

68

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 5.1. Fluted point variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

C.V.

weight length

5

8.10

2.684

4.10–11.10

33.14

5

57.02

9.501

41.1–63.7

16.66

width

13

30.54

3.996

22.3–35.6

13.08

thickness

15

4.83

0.656

3.7–6.2

13.58

flute thickness

15

4.11

0.576

3.2–5.3

14.01

width/thickness ratio

13

6.43

1.349

4.3–8.5

20.98

basal width

9

17.64

2.460

13.1–20.5

13.94

basal concavity depth

11

2.09

1.269

0.4–4.2

60.71

flute length

21

31.09

7.669

17.3–48.9

24.67

flute width

23

13.84

4.230

6.7–25.1

30.56

total flute width

24

17.60

5.026

8.4–28.1

28.56

grinding length

15

19.90

3.768

11.9–24.3

18.94

face-angle

13

102.87

3.265

97.5–110.75

3.17

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams and face-angle in degrees.

(3) extremely high width to thickness ratios ranging as high as 8.5 to 1 and averaging over 6 to 1; (4) shallow basal concavities under 5 mm deep and, as a result, basal ears that are small and pointed; (5) a lack of fishtails at the base (in fact, several examples have the reverse or purposefully in-rounded basal corners; e.g., Fig. 5.1c, e, j, m); and (6) a tendency for multiple flutes (10/15 or 66.7% have at least two flutes on one face; Table 5.2) and the relatively frequent presence of three flutes on at least one face (4/15 or 26.7%). Flute length and overall length also appear to be distinctive. It is difficult to estimate these features in most assemblages as, among other things, extensive tip resharpening reduces length and encroaches on and removes flute scar tips. One would expect, however, that a “cache” assemblage such as Crowfield would be less exhausted or resharpened so the average overall length of 57.02 (s = 9.501), and flute length of 31.09 mm (s = 7.669), are probably representative. Moreover, it is worth noting that with one exception (Fig. 5.2a) the flute scar ends or terminations are visible on all points and they have not been obscured or removed. The short preforms with relatively short fluting (see Table 5.3), although they may not be typical for reasons discussed in a later section, also suggest the point length may be a good representation of overall length and flute length. The Crowfield flute and overall length can be compared to caches representing other point types including unresharpened examples of Barnes type points from a cache at the Thedford II site, Ontario (Deller and Ellis 1992a:26), and what we regard as Gainey type points from the Lamb site cache in New York (Gramly 1999). Although sample sizes are very small, plotting of the 95% confidence intervals for the mean for these samples

clearly emphasizes the overall short nature and short fluting of the Crowfield points (Fig. 5.3). We note, however, that we do not know if these caches are typical. For example, based on a large series of preforms, Storck (1983:85) estimates a typical overall length of 45 to 80 mm for unresharpened Barnes points at the Fisher site in Ontario, which is somewhat shorter than the Barnes examples from Thedford II. On 7 of 15 Crowfield examples (46.7%), there are asymmetrical numbers of flutes per face (Table 5.2). On many points, it is possible to determine the face that was fluted first (Roosa 1968:14). Even on parallel-sided flutes, the scars still expand from the platform to the point of maximum flute width near the base. Alternatively, if the flutes are expanding rather than parallel-sided throughout their length, they still expand more markedly in the basal area. During preparation such as beveling of the basal platform to flute the second face, the bases of the previously removed flutes on the opposite face are removed or truncated. Therefore, the base of the flute scar(s) is more parallel-sided or there is not an abrupt change in the degree of expansion on the first face fluted compared to the second face. In all 5 cases where it can be determined, the greater number of flutes occurs on the face that was fluted second. Many of the flutes on the points are quite expanding from the base as opposed to parallel-sided. In some cases, it is quite clear that this expansion has been created, or at least emphasized, by post-fluting retouch involved in markedly tapering the basal edges. Nonetheless, ignoring these cases, in the other 30 visible cases, some 17 (56.7%) seem to have expanding outlines throughout their length. On wider flutes there would be a distinct danger of the expanding flute edge encountering the lateral edge of the biface during detachment. Although obscured somewhat by subsequent

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

Figure 5.1. Fluted points, Feature #1. A–H, Onondaga chert; I–O, Collingwood chert; P, Ancaster chert.

69

70

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.2. Fluted bifaces, Feature #1. A–B, fluted points; C–D, single shouldered fluted points.

Table 5.2. Number of flutes per face, fluted bifaces, Feature #1. Biface Type

n

1–1

fluted point

15

5

shouldered fluted point

5

1

1–2

1–3

2–0

2–2

2–3

2

3

1

3

1

1

2

0

0

1

fluted preform

4

0

2

0

0

1

1

shouldered fluted preform

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

totals

25

6

5

5

2

4

3

Table 5.3. Fluted preform variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight length

3

5.60

2.816

3.68–8.83

4

47.80

6.351

41.3–56.3

width

2

23.45

1.485

22.4–24.5

thickness

4

4.43

0.814

3.7–5.5

flute thickness

4

3.50

0.997

2.4–4.5

width/thickness ratio

2

5.30

1.131

4.5–6.1

flute length

6

35.60

7.018

22.5–41.3

flute width

5

10.66

1.011

9.4–12.1

total flute width

6

15.13

2.535

11.0–17.8

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

Figure 5.3. Overall length (A) and flute length (B), Lamb, Thedford II and Crowfield caches. Length is in mm.

edge retouch, the distal morphology of one flute on one face of an Onondaga biface does seem to have run off the edge toward the distal end (Fig. 5.2a). Two of the Crowfield points, both of which are on Collingwood chert, stand out as unusual in that they retain unflaked flat ventral surfaces of the flake blanks on which they were made. In one case (Figs. 5.1j, 5.2b), almost the whole face is unflaked except for minimal edge retouch and two subsequently removed flutes. In the other case, represented by a base (Fig. 5.1n), the flat surface is located distally. These also include 2 of the 4 points in the assemblage with plano-convex cross sections. It seems clear these 2 items were made on small thin flakes only slightly

71

larger than the finished product such that they still retain the blank cross section and original surfaces. The other items with just plano-convex cross sections, also on Collingwood chert, may represent 2 additional examples although the evidence is not as clear-cut. The 2 definitive examples (Fig. 5.1j, n) also stand out as unusual in other respects. They are 2 of the 3 narrowest points overall in the sample (27.5 and 25.7 mm). The basal segment (Fig. 5.1n) has the narrowest base (13.1 mm) by far, has the second shallowest basal concavity (0.6 mm), and is the only item to lack a flute on one face. Moreover, even the single flute on the other face (shown) is the shortest (17.2 mm), and almost the narrowest (8.4 mm), in the sample. With its plano-convex cross section, poor fluting on one face only and narrow overall width, this point superficially resembles those from the Holcombe site in Michigan (Fitting et al. 1966). The more complete example (Fig. 5.2b) happens to be the one item in the assemblage with no evidence of tip resharpening. It is also unusual in that it has a less refined edge flaking than all other points, and retains a small point of thickness, a stack or plateau in Whittaker’s (1994:109) terms, from an unintended step terminated flake removal near one lateral edge at the base—this error could have been removed or corrected by subsequent flaking but it was left along the edge. One suspects that most of the unusual characteristics of both these points is due to the fact that they were made differently than the other points in the assemblage (that is, on small flakes not much bigger than the finished product as opposed to larger blanks used for the other examples). For example, the small blank sizes used imposed limitations on width and basal width. The small size also prohibited extensive edge retouch on one item as extensive retouch would make the point too small to be useful. That same item retains the plateau or stack because to remove it would require reducing the basal width considerably. It was easier to leave the stack in place. Similarly, and as is found on the item represented only by a basal segment, if the blank was thin to begin with, little or no fluting may have been necessary. Four of the Onondaga fluted points have brownish areas near one end and, assuming the platforms of the original tool blanks were also at an end of the biface, one would have to conclude at least these items were made on blanks removed from surfaces approximating the “sides” of original chert blocks and with the platform approximating a “top” (Fig. 2.3a). There is one other item with the brownish areas along a lateral edge and, again, if platforms were at the ends of the point blanks, this item was removed using a platform at right angles to the cortical surface orientation. The Collingwood chert items exhibit the banding plane edges as parallel lines in plan, also suggesting that the body of the blank used to make the tools was removed from a surface approximating a “side” (Fig. 2.3b). However, the orientation of this banding in comparison to the longitudinal flake axis varies somewhat (Fig. 5.4). If the platform was at one end of the blank, then the striking platform used to produce such blanks varied in placement in relation to the original block. This possibility will deserve additional discussion in a later section.

72

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.4. Banding orientation, Feature #1 Collingwood chert fluted points. Measured on a 90° scale with 0–5° at right angles to longitudinal point axis and 85–90° parallel to longitudinal axis.

Shouldered Fluted Points The main distinguishing feature of these bifaces is a distinct shoulder, which protrudes 1.4–4.5 mm from one basal lateral margin (Figs. 5.2c–d, 5.5; Table 5.4). There are 7 artifacts in the type including 2 on Ancaster chert (Fig. 5.5b, e). Four are relatively complete; 2 are fore-sections missing only part of the base below the shoulder; and 1 is a base that also encompasses the shoulder (Fig. 5.5d), so cannot be from the same biface as the 2 fore-section ends. As with the fluted points described above, these shouldered examples have lateral basal edge grinding, refined edge flaking and evidence of resharpening in the form of changes in flaking, thickness and outline near the tip, indicating they are finished tools that were actually used. Transverse sections are uniformly biconvex and, as with the unshouldered examples, most items have multiple flutes on at least one face (4/5 or 80% where visible) and there are often asymmetrical numbers of flutes per face (4/5 or 80%; see Table 5.2). On 2 of 3 examples where it can be determined, the greater number of flutes occurs on the second face fluted. As on the unshouldered points, several of the flutes seem to have had expanding edges throughout their length (5/15 or 33.3%). A series of t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests revealed no significant differences at the .05 level between the shouldered and unshouldered points in terms of continuous variables. Besides the

shoulder they seem to differ only in the nature of the tip resharpening. The unshouldered examples have equivalent resharpening on both lateral edges, the result being a symmetrical fore-section. In direct contrast, the resharpening on the shouldered examples extends farther down and is more extensive on the shouldered edge. As a result, the fore-section appears more reduced on the shouldered edge and asymmetrical in overall outline (e.g., Figs. 5.2c–d, 5.5a, c, f–g), much in the manner of most western Late Paleoindian “Cody knives” (see, for example, Bradley and Frison 1987:220–23; Wormington 1957:128–29). There is some resharpening on the unshouldered edge but it only extends slightly down that edge or far enough to maintain a tip apex that is narrower, more pointed and better centered on the biface midline. The resharpening retouch on the unshouldered edge can end abruptly, producing almost a notch on that edge where rejuvenation was stopped (e.g., Figs. 5.2d, 5.5g). Of course, the restriction of resharpening to the very tip end on the unshouldered edge suggests that a sharp pointed and centered apex was essential to the tool’s continuing use. However, the focus on edge as opposed to tip resharpening, and on one edge at that, leads to a suspicion that these shouldered examples were intended for use as hafted knives, and even the sharp tip was probably necessary for knife as opposed to projectile use. Indeed, one suspects that abrupt changes in outline on the unshouldered edge, as on Figure 5.2d, due to only tip apex resharpening, would hinder the penetration qualities of these items if they tipped projectiles. We believe that the shouldering was used to move the basal area encompassing the binding away from the lateral working edge. On unnotched or unstemmed bifaces the binding would protrude from the lateral edge and interfere with the use of that edge in the back and forth motion used in cutting tasks. Shouldering, by widening fore-section edges versus the base, also allows more extensive resharpening and reduction of that edge without exposing the binding to possible contact material. In fact, one of us (Ellis 2004) has argued that the appearance of notching on Great Lakes area points at the beginning of the Early Archaic reflects a shift to the purposeful multi-use design of points as both projectile tips and hafted cutting tools as, among other things, it allows lateral symmetrical resharpening of both edges of the tool without exposing the binding. Regardless, at the time of the Crowfield site discovery, such shouldering on fluted bifaces had been reported only from the Reagen site in Vermont on bifaces that were very similar in size and outline (for example, wide, thin, very shallow basal concavities, no fishtails, marked expansion of the lateral edges from the base) to the Crowfield site examples (Ritchie 1953:254, Fig. 89-6, 89-7, 1957: Plate 15I). Subsequently, a shouldered fluted biface, albeit a preform, was recovered from the Crowfield Phase Bolton site in Ontario, confirming such items are a regular component of Crowfield Phase tool kits (Deller and Ellis 1996:22). One of the Onondaga bifaces has a brownish end. The single Collingwood chert item has parallel banding edges in plan but the orientation of that banding is somewhat diagonal (30–35°) to the point’s longitudinal axis.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

73

Figure 5.5. Shouldered fluted points, Feature #1. Arrows show shoulder locations. A, C–D, F, Onondaga chert; B, E, Ancaster chert; G, Collingwood chert.

Table 5.4. Shouldered fluted point variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight length

1

7.20

–

–

1

45.40

–

–

width

5

31.82

2.022

30.1–34.7

thickness

7

4.46

0.803

3.2–5.3

flute thickness

7

3.93

0.804

2.5–4.8

width/thickness ratio

5

7.13

1.309

6.2–9.4

basal width

3

18.58

3.654

16.4–22.8

basal concavity depth

3

1.83

0.764

1.0–2.5

flute length

7

29.03

9.280

18.4–42.0

flute width

9

13.22

4.908

6.2–20.2

total flute width

9

18.13

5.525

9.5–23.8

grinding length

8

14.76

5.086

5.8–21.8

face-angle

5

101.10

6.227

97.0–112.0

stem length

5

17.02

3.354

5.0–22.9

stem width

4

25.68

4.625

22.3–32.1

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams and face-angle in degrees.

74

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Fluted Preforms

There are 4 simple fluted preforms associated with Feature #1 and all are relatively complete (Table 5.3; Fig. 5.6b–e). They can be easily recognized as preforms by the lack of lateral grinding and fine edge retouch; preserved remnants of the prepared platforms used for facial lateral flaking; absence of a basal concavity; presence of remnants of the platform used for fluting; and rather blunt tips. As Crabtree (1966) discussed in Folsom contexts, grinding of the lateral edges, finishing of the concavity and pointing of tips are seemingly the last steps in manufacture prior to hafting, and what information is available from Ontario occupation sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:32–34; Storck 1997:63) confirms such inferences. The preforms also retain beveled platforms at basal ends that were used for the latest series of flute removals and from the morphology it is quite clear that a slightly isolated or pointed platform was used or created in the beveled platforms to increase the chances of successful flute removal (see especially Fig. 5.6c). These beveled areas formed platforms with an angle of 55–65° between the platform surface and the face to be fluted. The blunt tips in 2 cases (Fig. 5.6c, e) are due to plunging or outrepassé flutes; that is, the flute carried almost completely to the tip before plunging down through and removing the tip apex. On the other 2 examples, the blunt, more convex tip has been produced by edge flaking. What is unusual about both these latter examples is that they have flutes originating at the tip end, something not seen on any other fluted biface in the assemblage. In 1 case on Onondaga chert (Fig. 5.6b), there are two basally removed flutes on one face and two basally removed flutes on the other. However, one face also has the distal remnant of another and previous flute originating at the opposite biface end, which has been subsequently obscured or reduced in length by the purposeful flaking of the convex tip. The other example, on Collingwood, had at least one flute removed from the tip on one face, subsequent to which two flutes were removed from the base of the same face (Fig. 5.6d). Then, the tip end was blunted to produce a platform that was used to remove a single flute down the center of the opposite face. Aside from the tip fluting, these bifaces seem to be not much different from the unshouldered finished points. A series of t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests did not reveal any significant differences in continuous variables at the .05 level. We note, however, that width could be measured only on 2 of the preforms and that those 2 examples (22.4 and 24.5 mm wide respectively) were narrower than all the fluted points save 1 example. Indeed, the preforms here seem to vary greatly from preforms at other sites actually discarded in manufacture, such as 2 nearly complete examples from the Bolton, Ontario, site that are 40.1 and 33.3 mm wide (Deller and Ellis 1996: Fig. 14). Even the 2 incomplete Feature #1 items seem to have been quite narrow (< ca. 28 mm). So sample size could be affecting the statistical results at Crowfield and the preforms may be somewhat narrower, which is not what one would expect given that they are preforms for

the points (for example, they should be larger/wider before being reduced to the finished product). We raise this suggestion because it may explain why the preforms have tip fluting. If a biface is highly reduced, attempts to further thin it by lateral removals would result in too much width reduction. End thinning avoids this problem and if one thins from the tip as well as base, one is ensured of thinning the biface along all its length. Of course, this idea does not explain why the preforms in the assemblage should be narrower to begin with, a question returned to in Chapter 8 when discussing the management by Paleoindians of their tool inventories. Shouldered Fluted Preform A single complete example on Onondaga chert is placed in this type (Fig. 5.6a). It measures 78.8 by 35.5 by 6.3 mm. As with the regular fluted preforms, this item exhibits a somewhat blunt tip, which is actually slightly thickened, lacks lateral and basal edge grinding, and has an irregular edge in plan and profile that lacks fine edge regularization retouch and retains segments of beveled and ground platforms. The preform is fluted by two short (28.4 mm) and narrow (< 12.6 mm) removals on the first face fluted. The base of that face retains the subsequently created beveled surface (angle of 55–60° to the longitudinal axis of the point) used as the striking platform for a single, 21.1 mm by 7.9 mm, flute removal from the opposite face. As with the unshouldered preforms, the morphology of this end and resulting flute scar suggests that a slightly isolated platform was created to focus force more precisely during flute removal. The main distinction between this biface and the previous ones is—as the type name implies—a shoulder on one edge located some 21.4 mm from the base. The stem has a maximum width of 30.0 mm just below the 4-mm protruding shoulder. The presence of such a stem on a preform confirms the evidence of the Bolton site preform (Deller and Ellis 1996:22) that these shoulders are a product of initial design and not a product of recycling finished points to other uses or simply trying to repair bases for rehafting. Moreover, and as was the case with the Bolton site item, the tip end on the Crowfield site specimen is quite long and symmetrical in shape along its margins. This reinforces the idea noted above that the asymmetrical fore-sections on the finished shouldered fluted points is a deliberate product of the resharpening process. Large Unrefined Bifaces There are at least 36 examples of these items in the assemblage, most of which are on Onondaga chert (Tables 4.3, 5.5; Figs. 5.7–5.11). Twenty-four are relatively complete whereas most of the remaining 12 are estimated from unconjoined ends. There are also a large number of additional unconjoined fragments that are lumped here in a general category of unrefined biface fragments (see Table 4.3) as some of these may be from other biface forms described below. Nonetheless, most of those fragments are probably from these large unrefined bifaces as they

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

75

Figure 5.6. Fluted preforms, Feature #1. A–C, Onondaga chert; D–E, Collingwood chert.

predominate in the identifiable assemblage. The majority of the unassigned fragments are on Collingwood because, as discussed in earlier chapters, Collingwood chert seems to react differently to heating such that it breaks up into many more, smaller pieces that are much more difficult to conjoin. In fact, only 2 (28.6%) of the Collingwood large unrefined bifaces are relatively complete (Fig. 5.8e–f) as opposed to 5 (71.4%) estimated from end fragments. By way of contrast, the Onondaga totals include a comparatively high 21 (77.8%) that are complete or nearly so, as opposed to only 6 (22.2%) represented by end fragments.

These bifaces resemble the smaller variety of ovate bifaces recovered from a cache of purposefully broken items at the nearby Late Paleoindian Caradoc site (Deller and Ellis 2001:276; Ellis and Deller 2002:32–37). They differ in that the Crowfield bifaces do not have a clearly recognizable wider base and narrower, more pointed, tip end. Rather, except where original blank form seems to have influenced shape (such as a narrower blank platform end; e.g., Fig. 5.7k), both ends are relatively broad and curved in outline. In longitudinal profile the artifacts are quite straight and in transverse section, most (19/24 or 79.2%) are

76

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 5.5. Large unrefined biface variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight

8

39.55

11.212

17.72–47.40

length

11

86.47

9.762

65.0–99.4

width

21

49.51

5.182

40.0–58.2

thickness

23

11.68

1.455

9.1–14.7

width/thickness ratio

20

4.28

0.944

3.1–7.2

end thinning length

6

42.77

5.755

32.7–48.4

mid-point thickness

15

8.97

1.132

6.7–11.1

width/mid-point thickness ratio

14

5.71

1.023

4.4–7.5

end thinning width

5

17.1

5.320

12.2–26.0

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

plano-convex instead of biconvex. In fact, in previous reports we referred to these items as “plano-convex bifaces” (Deller and Ellis 1984:45; Ellis 1984:295–98). However, additional reconjoining has revealed that 5 examples have biconvex sections, making that appellation a misnomer. Lateral edges are generally convex in outline, and excepting beveled edge platform remnants (see below), have edge angles of 30–60°. Edges in general are sinuous in plan and profile and lack fine marginal retouch, suggesting these items are preforms rather than tools. In fact, all items still retain remnants, some quite extensive, of prepared, ground and beveled platforms that were used to remove large, broad (up to 45 mm wide in extreme examples) thinning flakes. On relatively complete examples, from 16 to 25 thinning flake scars are present. These tend to travel from one-half to two-thirds of the distance across the biface. There is the odd thinning flake removal that traveled almost the complete distance of the biface width from one lateral edge to another but these seem to represent isolated removals designed to remove certain problematical aspects of the particular biface’s morphology such as flake hinge/step terminations. There is no evidence of the deliberate thinning by removing a minimal number of large, broad flakes that extend across much of the face from one margin to another (sometimes including deliberate overshot flaking) first reported from western Clovis and Goshen assemblages (Bradley 1982:203–8; Bradley et al. 2010; Frison and Bradley 1999:65) and, more recently, from some mid-western fluted point assemblages (e.g., Morrow 1995:173). Four items also have one or two extensive end thinning flake removals (see Table 5.5) that were detached from a steeply beveled platform created at that end. In all cases these flakes were removed from the convex faces of plano-convex bifaces and seem to represent attempts to produce a more symmetrical (e.g., more biconvex), as well as thinner, transverse section. While some of the large unrefined bifaces may have been made on core blanks, there is no positive evidence for such an interpretation. On the other hand, there is evidence many were made on flake blanks. One line of evidence is the retained plano-convex cross sections of most of the original flake blanks,

characteristic of bifaces little reduced from the original flake blank form. In addition, many (16/19 or 84.2%) have a distinct thickening at one end in profile (e.g., Figs. 5.8d, 5.9b) that clearly represents a remnant of swelling from the pronounced bulb on the original flake blank. Indeed, in section much of an individual biface is quite thin but these thickened bulbar areas mean the reported statistics inflate thickness measurements and width to thickness ratios for this type. Thickness measured at mid-point is 2–3 mm thinner than overall thickness on average while width/ thickness ratios calculated using mid-point thickness increase from 4.28 to 5.71 on average (see Table 5.5). If this end thickening is due to bulb swelling, we should expect this thickening to usually be on the plano surface approximating the underside of the flake blank. This association is evidenced on 9/11 or 81.8% of these items with plano-convex cross sections. Examination of the 2 exceptions leads us to suggest that the swelling is on the plano side because the blanks used were removed from a flatter surface, usually characteristic of a little reduced blocky core. As we have noted elsewhere (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2000:57), and as discussed in dealing with the primary/secondary face blanks in the previous chapter, the large flakes removed earlier or initially from these flat surfaces tend to have a cross section that is the reverse of that on subsequently removed flakes (for instance, a flatter back and a more convex underside). In fact, it may indicate that all the blanks used were derived relatively early in the sequence of core reduction as these flatter faces tend to produce flatter flakes in profile that are easier to make into tools such as bifaces where a straight longitudinal section is the desired norm. Most bifaces also retain at or near one end (15/17 or 86.2%) what clearly seems to be a remnant of a platform surface used to detach the flake blank (e.g., Fig. 5.7d at bottom edge) and often the result is a blunter, thicker end in profile (e.g., Figs. 5.9, 5.10). These thick blunt ends appear to be remnants of the platform surface of the original flake blank upon which the biface was made. On one face, the blunt end meets the face of the biface in profile at less than 90° (averages around 70° and ranging from about 55° to 80°) and apparently represents the former location

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

77

Figure 5.7. Large unrefined Onondaga chert bifaces, Feature #1. Arrows on biface A show location of mechanical snap break incurred prior to heating of that particular biface.

of the platform’s juncture with the old dorsal surface of the original flake blank. As noted above, the thickening of biface ends probably represents the probable location of a pronounced bulb on the blank. It is notable that, as expected, this thickening is on the opposite face or ventral side of the original flake blank at the same biface end, and adjacent to, the probable platform remnants. The relatively right-angle juncture of these platform

surface remnants versus the longitudinal axis of the biface indicates that a relatively blocky core form was used to produce the flake blanks, and not forms with more acute edges such as large biface cores. Besides, these bifaces are too large to have been made from biface core flakes and the curvature of flakes derived from biface cores is not the most suitable for producing a straight biface longitudinal profile.

78

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.8. Large unrefined Onondaga, Collingwood, Selkirk and Ancaster bifaces, Feature #1. A–D, Onondaga chert; E–F, Collingwood chert; G, Selkirk chert; H, Ancaster chert.

In almost all cases, the probable blank platform remnant is right at the biface end and is oriented in a manner to suggest that the flake blank used was quite elongated and that the lateral edges of the flake blank became the lateral edges of the biface. However, in the case of 2 bifaces on Onondaga, the platform remnant is adjacent to, rather than right at, the very end of the biface and is oriented slightly diagonally to the biface’s longitudinal axis. This orientation suggests the use of a blank that was somewhat broad in relation to length, as diagrammed on Figure 5.12, or the use of a very large blank that allowed some flexibility in the orientation of the biface longitudinal axis in comparison to the flake blank’s longitudinal axis (see below). In addition to the platform remnants, these bifaces exhibit some other unflaked surfaces of the original blanks. Several items (6/14 or 42.9%) have an unflaked surface at one end, that is, at relatively right angles to the bifaces’ longitudinal axis. When present, these are always at the opposite end of the biface from the platform and/or bulb thickening and, thus, seem to represent an original surface of the blank, specifically a surface representing the flat bottom end of the core opposite the platform end. Seven of 17 bifaces (41.2%) exhibit other unflaked surface

remnants of the original artifact blank. In 3 cases these are flat surfaces on the planar or flatter face and undoubtedly represent the original flat interior or ventral surface of the original flake blank. In the remaining 4 cases these surfaces occur along part of a lateral edge and are at right angles to the bifaces’ dorsal/ventral faces. These unflaked surfaces represent an original surface of the core. Comparison of their orientation and placement versus evidence for overall flake orientation from bulb swelling and blank platform remnants suggests in 3 cases that these lateral flat surfaces occurred along the lateral edge of the original flake. In these instances the flake used as the biface blank must have encompassed an area near a right-angled corner of the core as illustrated on Figure 5.13. We do not know from this information alone if the right-angled corners represented two sides or a surface approximating in orientation the juncture of a side and a top of the core, but the absence of cortex on these lateral surfaces suggests they do represent a “side” of the core. The remaining instance includes 1 of the bifaces with a platform remnant oriented somewhat diagonally to the longitudinal biface axis, and the placement of this unflaked surface indicates it represents a remnant of the original core’s flat bottom rather than a side.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

79

Figure 5.9. Large unrefined bifaces, Feature #1. Both on Onondaga chert. Note probable right-angled platform remnants and, although partially flaked away by biface thinning, that on B there is a probable adjacent bulb thickening remnant of the original flake blank.

It is possible to examine certain features of the blanks, specifically raw material characteristics, to more precisely determine the orientation of the original blanks to original blocks of the raw materials used. In the case of the Onondaga items, cortex remnants, although eroded by exposure to acidic soil, are present on 7 of 15 items. In 6 cases, these remnants occur at one end of the biface (e.g., Fig. 5.9b, bottom end). Of these, 2 are at the end that seems to have been the platform whereas in the other 4 they represent the end opposite the probable platform end and, therefore, represent additional examples of core bottom remnants. These cortical examples indicate the original core was oriented such that the platform approximated in orientation an original top or bottom of a section of the chert bed. The other cortical

example has this feature along a lateral edge at right angles to the platform end, indicating the platform approximated in orientation the side or exposed face of a material block when encased in the original site matrix. The predominant use of platforms oriented approximating the old cortical juncture of original blocks of chert is also suggested by the position of “brownish areas” in the chert with higher limestone cortex, which tends to occur near cortical surfaces in raw material blocks. Five Onondaga items lacking cortex have such brownish areas and, in addition, can be oriented versus blank platform location, which is always at one end of the biface in these examples. Of these, in 3 cases these brownish areas occur at one (n = 2) or both (n = 1) ends or the same location where the platform was located. In another example

80

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.10. Large unrefined biface, Feature #1. Item is on Onondaga chert. Note probable right-angled platform remnant and, although partially flaked away by biface thinning, the probable adjacent bulb thickening remnant of the original flake blank.

Figure 5.11. Large unrefined bifaces, Feature #1, with matching unheated pieces. Arrows show unheated fragments.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools the brownish area is slightly diagonal to the biface axis but does encompass one end. Since the areas of higher limestone cortex do have regular boundaries or are more “wavy” in comparison to the actual cortical surface, the platform of the core also probably approximated in orientation the old chert/limestone juncture surface of the original block segment. Only in the 1 remaining case, where the brownish area runs laterally, does the platform seem to have approximated in orientation a surface at right angles to the cortex/chert juncture. The Collingwood items also suggest a predominant orientation of original platforms to a surface approximating the old cortical top of the block. One of the 2 completely reconstructed bifaces on that material (Fig. 5.8e) as well as 1 end fragment, both of which have evidence that platforms were located at the end of the biface, have cortex at one end. Moreover, the banding in the chert on these items is at right angles to the bifaces’ longitudinal axis, as is expected on a blank removed using a “top” surface as a platform (see Fig. 2.3b, 4.3c-1). Of the remaining Collingwood artifacts, only 2 end fragments can be oriented versus the original flake blank and in both cases the banding is again at right angles to the bifaces’ longitudinal axis. However, we note that there are at least 4 Collingwood bifaces, represented by 3 ends and 1 relatively complete example, where the banding is oriented more diagonally than longitudinally. If these had platforms at their ends as on most other bifaces of this type, then a differently oriented block core surface had to have been used as a striking platform for blank production. In summary, the large unrefined bifaces seem to have been made mainly on large flakes rather than on core blanks or nodules as indicated by flake features still evident on the bifaces, such as platform remnants, “bulbar thickening” and the planoconvex transverse cross sections. These blanks seem to have been removed from blocky cores with more right-angled platforms. Usually the proximal and distal ends of the blanks became the ends of the bifaces although on occasion the longitudinal axis of the bifaces can be oriented somewhat diagonally to the proximaldistal axis of the original flakes. Perhaps not surprisingly, cortex remnants and other features suggest that in most cases the platforms on the blocky cores used to detach the flakes approximated in orientation a top surface of the original quarry block with the flakes’ bodies detaching off a surface approximating a side surface of the block. Sometimes a flake lateral edge expanded enough to encompass along its edge a right-angled corner of those original blocks, remnants of which can be preserved on these bifaces along a lateral biface edge. A side surface of the block also could be used as a platform with the flake blank body detached from an adjacent side surface, but these seem quite rare. A final aspect of interest about this biface type is the presence of 3 items with fractures that are not heat induced. In 1 case (Fig. 5.7a), one end was snapped off but subsequent to this event both halves of the snap were burned and separately refractured/damaged. The original break could be from manufacture but it could also be due to accident, such as being dropped. In the other 2 cases, pieces are included that have not been heated at all. One

81

Figure 5.12. Schematic diagram showing biface orientation in comparison to original flake blank orientation.

item had a small (19.9 mm long by 7.7 mm deep) semicircular segment detached from one edge of the biface; this small segment was not subsequently exposed to heat (Fig. 5.11a). This break approximates an “edge bite” error in flintknapping where a small segment of the edge breaks off due to improper platform preparation (e.g., Whittaker 1994:189–90). However, such breaks can also be caused by simply dropping an object on its edge or even by knocking two artifacts together, so the break could have easily resulted from accidental damage as in transport. Given its small size, it might easily be missed in a container or bag in which the material was transported (see Chap. 7). As previously noted, this unheated fragment was recovered from the vandalized area and not definitively from the feature itself. The second fracture with unheated matching fragments is more complex (Fig. 5.11b). A biface was struck in the center of one face, which broke it into 2 end segments and a small wedge-shaped segment of a lateral edge. Of these fragments only 1 end was subsequently burned. As with the previous item, the 2 unburned segments were recovered in the immediate Feature #1 vicinity. Both were definite plowzone finds. Such a break is referred to as a radial fracture as three or more fracture paths radiate out toward the edges of the artifact from the point of impact (see Bonnichsen 1977; Frison and Bradley 1980:44). Some radial breaks (about 30% based on experiments) can have cone initiations resulting from the breakage blow (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2002:73) but this feature is not evident on the Crowfield example. Regardless, to produce such fractures requires that force be applied to a face some distance from the artifact’s edges and this force application is much less likely to occur in manufacture.

82

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.13. Schematic diagram showing biface blank derivation from near the corner of the initial quarry block.

These breaks could occur accidentally but they are more difficult to produce by simple means, such as dropping the artifact on a hard surface, as they require the application of relatively focused force at a specific point. Often these breaks are purposeful—either to create useable thick, pointed working edges (e.g., Frison and Bradley 1980:44) or simply to deliberately break artifacts as in sacred ritual (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2002). It seems unlikely that the Crowfield biface was broken to use the broken edges as employable use edges and that the pieces would subsequently be carried around to use as needed. There is no need to break flakes or bifaces in advance to produce radial break tools; rather, they could be easily made on the spot as needed. Also, there is no need to break/waste what appears to be a perfectly useable, and highly specialized, blank/preform in this manner when there are plenty of flakes and such present that could be more easily used as simple bend break tools. In fact, there are good examples of such bend break tools on unifaces being made on site in the Feature #2 assemblage (see Chap. 9). Another possibility is that it was accidentally broken in transport and somehow 2 of the pieces were missed when the item was burned. Unlike the previously described example of an unheated break segment, the larger size of at least 1 of the unheated segments, essentially half a biface as opposed to a tiny edge segment, perhaps makes it more unlikely that these unheated items were missed when putting material into the feature. Therefore, it may be that this single artifact was purposefully mechanically destroyed, perhaps as a symbolic act. If one accepts that interpretation then it seems most likely that the artifacts at Crowfield were burned where found. One presumes the artifacts would not be broken in place while unheated, taken elsewhere for burning, leaving behind the unburned pieces, and then returned to the feature area for burial. In fact, there is other good evidence indicating the Crowfield Feature #1 material was burned where found, as we discuss below. Nonetheless, while it is possible this item represents symbolic breakage, we think it more likely the

item was broken in transport by, for example, two items being knocked together (see Deller et al. 2009:389 and Chap. 7 below). Comments on Fluted Point Manufacture As discussed above, the large unrefined bifaces clearly seem to be unfinished artifacts or preforms. The various technical/ morphological characteristics discussed earlier clearly support such a proposition. Moreover, comparable bifaces are rare to nonexistent on most Paleoindian sites outside of obvious quarries or “caches” and the few that do occur are fragmentary or were discarded because of obvious production or material flaws. The reason they are rare is that usually such bifaces are reduced and finished into biface tools prior to discard—they are most likely preforms of some kind. The large unrefined bifaces could have been made into several biface tool types but we would suggest that most were intended to be reduced eventually to fluted bifaces. We cannot conclusively demonstrate that they were mainly intended as fluted biface preforms but there are reasons to believe this is the case. We can show that the items are not suitable to be made into certain other non-fluted biface tool forms (described below). They lack certain specialized features, such as a flat back along one edge, which would allow them to be made into backed biface tools (see below for description). We can also show that they are too small to be made into some of the other definitive biface tool types (described later), such as the large alternately beveled bifaces, but they are larger in all respects than the fluted bifaces (see Fig. 5.14; Appendices A and B provide the measurements for each individual biface in the Crowfield Feature #1 assemblage). Given such considerations, they could be made only into tool types such as fluted forms, or leaf-shaped bifaces or hafted bifacial perforators. Yet, in contrast to the fluted points, whether shouldered or unshouldered, those other tool forms are especially rare and given the number of large unrefined bifaces, it makes some sense that

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

83

Figure 5.14. Box-plot comparison of continuous variables for various biface types. Length (A), width (B) and thickness (C) in mm are shown, as is the width to mid-point thickness ratio (D). The box represents the lower (25th) through upper (75th) percentiles (Tukey’s hinges) and is crossed by a line representing the median. Outliers or cases that fall > 1.5 box-lengths beyond the 25th and 75th percentiles are individually indicated by a square encompassing their catalog numbers. The lines extending from the boxes (whiskers) show the range of values that are not outliers.

they would largely be made into the more common fluted forms. Moreover, ignoring bulb swelling by using the measurements of mid-point thickness, these bifaces are relatively wide and thick such that they have relatively high width to thickness ratios that overlap with the finished points (Fig. 5.14d) and suggest that they would be more ideal for manufacture into those tools as opposed to items such as the leaf-shaped forms. Of course, we have some finished fluted bifaces that were definitely made directly on very small thin flakes or by the procedure of “direct thin flake manufacture” (Knudson 1973) as opposed to gradual reduction of a much larger blank, such as a large refined biface, to the finished product or “serial biface

reduction” (Knudson 1973). However, very broadly defining the presence of a plano-convex transverse section as characteristic of this production strategy, those points produced by thin flake manufacture are rare with, at most, only 4 examples (17.4%) among the 23 observable shouldered or unshouldered finished points. Moreover, as we took pains to emphasize when the 2 best examples were described above, those points made on thin flakes deviate in many respects from the normal size and shape of points found in the assemblage. In sum, the use of such small flakes to produce the most acceptable forms is difficult, especially to produce the very wide and yet thin points apparently desired by the knapper(s) at the site. Moreover—although 1 example made

84

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

on a thin flake clearly shows it was possible for the Crowfield knapper(s) (Figs. 5.1, 5.2b)—fluting a flat unflaked surface would be extremely difficult and probably susceptible to a higher than normal rate of failure. These thin flake examples, as is the case at other fluted point sites (e.g., Roosa and Ellis 2000:83–84), seem to be expediently produced alternatives rather than the norm. In this regard, it is notable that all possible examples of thin flake manufacture are on Collingwood chert rather than the Onondaga chert that dominates among the large unrefined bifaces. Given the relative rarity of Collingwood chert in the overall assemblage, one could argue that the supplies of that chert are leavings that were simply expediently used as point blanks in the absence of more suitable forms or as supplies became exhausted. This explanation is similar to one that Hofman (1992:200–201) has used to argue for thin flake use in Folsom point production. Examination of the large unrefined bifaces has suggested some consistency in the production of blanks used for their manufacture. In particular, using the location of retained platform/bulb remnants, most seem to have been made such that the old platform was at an end of the biface. Moreover, when made on Onondaga chert, the location of cortical remnants and brownish areas suggests that most of the blanks were produced by striking a surface approximating an old top of the original block of material. As discussed earlier, 10/12 or 83.3% had platforms that approximated “tops.” We note, however, that since bifaces are more reduced at the sides, there is probably less chance of brownish areas or cortex being retained in those areas as opposed to ends. In terms of the Collingwood items, 4/4 examples that can be oriented also had been detached by using a surface approximating in orientation the old top or cortical surface of the block, although based on banding orientation, more fragmentary examples suggest that other surfaces also may have been employed. If the finished points were made from the large unrefined bifaces, and assuming they had platforms near old ends of point, we should probably expect them to also show biases toward a similar orientation versus original blocks. Such consistency would not rule out manufacture into other bifaces since they also have such a bias, as we describe below. Nonetheless, if they were not consistent, one could argue against the unrefined bifaces as point preforms. No cortex is present on the Onondaga finished points and preforms but brownish areas occur mainly at ends (5/7) as expected. In the remaining 2 cases, the brownish areas occur somewhat diagonally and along one lateral edge respectively. On 9 bifaces the banding on the Collingwood chert items can be measured to orient them in comparison to the original block characteristics. These actually vary considerably (Fig. 5.15) with several examples having longitudinal banding. However, what is notable is that the 4 items with more longitudinal banding (> 35°) include the only 3 examples with measurable banding that also have plano-convex cross sections. In other words, they seem to have been made on thin flakes, which, as noted above, probably represent a more expedient method of manufacture. On those items that have no evidence of thin flake manufacture and thus were more likely made on larger blanks such as the

Figure 5.15. Banding orientation, Feature #1, all Collingwood chert fluted bifaces. Measured on a 90° scale with 0–5° at right angles to longitudinal point axis and 85–90° parallel to longitudinal axis.

large unrefined bifaces, 5 of 6 have banding that is more at right angles to the longitudinal flake axis. This placement is consistent with production on large unrefined bifaces where such banding orientation predominates. As an aside, a dominance of right-angle banding and, thus, use of platforms approximating an old top of the block to derive flake blanks, has been noted in fluted point assemblages from other Ontario sites, notably those with Barnes points diagnostic of the Parkhill Phase. At the Thedford II site (Deller and Ellis 1992a: Fig. 41), all 15 points had banding orientations < 45° and in 12/15 (80%) the banding was exactly at right angles to the longitudinal axis (e.g., 0–5°). At the Parkhill site (Roosa and Ellis 2000: Fig. 5.10), 43/48 points had a banding of < 45° and of those 35/43 had a banding of 0–5°. At those sites, it was suggested that the preference for using platforms approximating tops was because most original blocks from quarries were much longer from top to bottom than side surface to side surface. Therefore, original cores oriented in that manner could be used to produce longer flakes. There was some suggestion that the Barnes point knappers wished to produce as long a point as possible, so this accounted for consistency in preform orientation. One could suggest a similar explanation for the apparent blank orientation at Crowfield for at least the Collingwood items, and perhaps in the case of Onondaga as well, as most blocks we have seen of that material also tend to be longer from top to bottom than wider. Since Crowfield points are shorter (as discussed above), this explanation seems to have less merit for this point type but there may be mitigating conditions (as discussed below).

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools Even though the banding is at approximately right angles to the longitudinal axis at Crowfield, unlike the Barnes points examples, there is more variation in exact placement with fewer being exactly at 0–5°. It is possible to suggest that this difference is due to differences in the desired finished form (Ellis 1984:209–11). Barnes points are narrow, thick and apparently longer whereas Crowfield points are wider, thinner and apparently shorter. Therefore, it may be that Barnes knappers deliberately produced or used flake blanks that were narrower, thicker and perhaps longer than Crowfield knappers who used wider, thinner and perhaps shorter blanks. As illustrated on Figure 5.16, it is possible to vary the finished point orientation more from the longitudinal blank axis on a larger/wider blank (more so given that Crowfield points are apparently shorter on average than Barnes points), which would lead to more variation in the exact banding orientation. These factors could explain the greater banding variation seen on the Crowfield examples. Regardless of exactly how blanks were initially produced and selected, the knapper(s) at Crowfield were able to produce very flat, wide and thin preforms even prior to fluting. It is possible that extensive end thinning was carried out prior to the actual flute removals (for example, the longitudinal scars originating from the base left on the finished point) to achieve such high standards of thinning and flat sections. We have little direct evidence, though, for such work as all more refined preforms have been fluted. As noted above, the fluted unshouldered preforms include 2 items that had actually been fluted from the tip. This procedure might be better seen as end thinning since it is unique to those items. It might be representative of earlier stages of reduction where extensive thinning from each end was carried out, which would be obscured by subsequent lateral and basal flake removals.

85

Heavy reliance on end thinning, which would require extensive and repeated platform preparation at the biface ends, would lead to more length reduction, and this process could account for why the finished points and preforms are all relatively short. In other words, they may have actually started out with a long blank and this original form would explain why the blanks were oriented versus the original blocks to the consistently longest axis. However, as discussed above, the fluted preforms recovered seem abnormally narrow so they may have had more end thinning simply to maintain width; the knapper(s) were forced to use end thinning as it would not narrow the preform even more. In any case, there is no evidence of such end thinning prior to the final fluting on any of the other preforms or finished points, all of those items having well-executed lateral thinning/retouch scars detached before fluting. These are most extensively observable on the long, but short-fluted, shouldered preform (Fig. 5.6a) that has been well-thinned despite the presence of several material flaws and inclusions. Indeed, it is difficult to express verbally the amount of skill needed to produce these points and we believe favorable comparisons to western Folsom examples, which are often regarded as the outstanding examples of fluted point art, are warranted. As in Folsom, or all fluted point industries we have directly examined for that matter, a carefully prepared isolated platform chipped in a beveled base was used for flute removals. We have no evidence that a much thickened tip was used to support the biface in fluting as found in other industries including Folsom but this absence may be simply a product of sampling error (for instance, we do not have any bifaces at the appropriate stage in manufacture). The Crowfield points tend to be slightly thicker (by about 1 mm on average) than Folsom points, which average

Figure 5.16. Variation in banding depending on orientation of point versus preform. Production of long, thick, points on narrower blanks may have limited variation in banding orientation on Barnes points whereas production of short, thin points on larger/wider flakes would allow for more variation.

86

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

under 4 mm thick (e.g., Judge 1973: Table 6; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978: Table 43), and of course, Crowfield points are often multiple fluted whereas Folsom points are not. We also expect that the fluting on Crowfield points may be shorter than Folsom although that suspicion is difficult to substantiate. Nonetheless, it is extremely difficult to flute the thin Crowfield preforms, especially since there does not seem to be the kinds of facial preparation on Crowfield points seen on Folsom examples or, for that matter, other fluted point forms. Three general kinds of facial preparation for fluting have been used in Paleoindian industries. In many other industries, such as Gainey and Barnes/Parkhill in the Great Lakes area, the knappers used lateral flaking such that the flake removals from each edge terminated precisely along the midline to form a centrally located ridge (e.g., Storck 1983). The central ridge served as a guide for the basal flute and allowed the removal of long, well-centered channel flakes with more parallel-sided outlines. Second, in manufacturing many point forms such as Barnes and Cumberland style points, the preforms have a narrow, thick, somewhat biconvex cross section. Provided one can remove a channel flake precisely paralleling the longitudinal axis of the point, or phrased another way, a flute of uniform depth, then the more marked biconvex section will produce a quite parallel-sided flute outline. Even on very thin Folsom points, some degree of facial convexity, no matter how slight, is necessary to try and isolate the flute edges from the edge of the preform (Crabtree 1966:18). Moreover, even in Folsom where the desired finished form is thin and has a relatively flat as opposed to a marked biconvex section, the Folsom knappers removed lateral flakes that left pronounced bulbs adjacent to the platforms lining the edges. The overall effect of these lined up negative bulbar scars in plan is a slight continuous depression (“hollow ground effect”) lining the relatively parallel-sided edges (Frison and Bradley 1980:47). The depression lining the edges isolated the flute margins or kept the flutes from expanding through the lateral margins—in other words, they also constrained flute width and shape, resulting in more parallel-sided, well-centered flutes. In contrast to Great Lakes fluted point types such as Gainey and Barnes, there is no evidence the Crowfield knapper(s) attempted to produce a central ridge by consistent lateral flake terminations. Indeed, there is no real consistency to such lateral terminations in visible areas beyond extant flute scars on the Crowfield bifaces. In addition, even though the points and preforms had a flat or only slightly convex transverse cross section, in contrast to comparable forms such as Folsom there is no evidence of the production of lateral retouch with deep bulbs lining the edge in order to isolate the flute scar from the lateral edges of the preform and keep the flute centered. The lack of both forms of preparation on bifaces with thin, flat cross sections makes the successful removal of the flute scar itself a much more difficult task and the fact that Crowfield point knappers were able to apparently flute successfully thin preforms on a regular basis is evidence of extreme skill.

Of course, the lack of the surface preparation seen in Folsom and elsewhere accounts for several other differences between Crowfield and other point forms. For example, it accounts for why the flute scars on Crowfield points are often expanding as they do not have the well-defined ridge to carry the flute distally and produce a more parallel-sided shape (of course, it is possible the knappers wanted flute edges that expand and mimic the basal lateral outline of the points themselves). Nor do they have either relatively convex faces, which would allow one to produce more parallel-sided flutes seen on types such as Gainey and Barnes, or the concave edges formed by negative bulbar scars seen in Folsom, which served to isolate the flute scar from the biface edge and help predetermine flute outline shape. In addition, in the absence of any well-defined medial ridge to center the flute removals, or the concave edge to control width, one would often expect that the flutes would be off center. To correct for this problem and provide a fluted surface well-centered on the biface, multiple flutes were necessary to correct for initial offcenter flutes. This factor may also account in part for why there are often more flutes on the second face fluted on the Crowfield bifaces. One would expect a need to make sure the flutes on each face coincided in placement. In the absence of an ability to rigidly control flute width and lateral placement, once one face was fluted, and in order to center the flutes on the second face and match the thinned areas up on both faces, often it would be necessary to remove more flutes on the second face. A lack of facial preparation, and the flat transverse cross sections, may also account for the shorter flutes on Crowfield points in apparent comparison to Folsom and in definite contrast to other Great Lakes point types such as Gainey and Barnes where a central medial ridge was preformed by matching lateral edge terminations or where a more marked biconvex preform surface was used. In the absence of such a ridge or marked surface convexity, it would be difficult to consistently carry the flutes as far. Since the flutes are often expanding, it may be that the Crowfield knapper(s) wanted to limit flute length anyway since longer expanding flutes would eventually encounter the lateral biface edge. Such encounters would often lead to preform breakage including plunging flutes that would remove parts of distal ends and adjacent lateral edges. Plunging flutes may have been quite common on Crowfield points due to flute expansion and simply the thinness of the preforms. As in Folsom (Tunnell 1977), the distal plunging of flutes would not prohibit the production of a shorter point on the surviving shorter basal segment, and the presence of 2 fluted preforms with distally plunging flute terminations in the Crowfield cache (Fig. 5.6c, e) does suggest such preforms were retained to be made into finished, albeit shorter, points. A higher frequency of plunging flutes may partially account for the short nature of many finished Crowfield points and could suggest that prior to fluting, longer preforms were the norm, as in the case of the shouldered fluted perform (Fig. 5.6a).

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools Other Bifaces Small Unrefined Bifaces There are 7 relatively complete items assigned to this category (Fig. 5.17a–b, f–j). An additional 6 items are represented by 2 tips, 1 mid-section, 2 bases, and 1 example that is missing an estimated third of its length at one end (e.g., Fig. 5.17c–e). This last named item, on Onondaga, is unusual in that the fracture at the broken end is not a heat break but instead is a mechanical break, specifically, a snap or bend break (Fig. 5.17e). Raw material and morphological variation indicate the fragmentary examples are from separate specimens rather than fragments of the same original items. Three of the incomplete items are on Ancaster chert. Data on continuous variables are presented in Table 5.6. These items exhibit preform characteristics, including irregular edges in plan and profile, a lack of fine edge retouch and retained evidence of platform preparation for facial flaking. They differ, as the type name implies, in being smaller than the large unrefined bifaces (see Fig. 5.14). Figure 5.18 shows a plot of length by width and illustrates the distinctiveness of the two categories. Most of the smaller bifaces are shorter, and all are much narrower, than the larger items. Another major distinction is that most of the smaller items generally have a recognizable, narrower, somewhat more pointed tip end and a wider, more

87

convex base (2 Onondaga items [Fig. 5.17a–b] are somewhat of an exception). It is tempting to see these bifaces as simply more reduced and refined versions of the large unrefined bifaces and, hence, as intermediate forms between the large unrefined forms and finished tools such as fluted bifaces. While it is possible that some do represent such a sequence, there is evidence to suggest that perhaps not all of them represent an intermediate form. In particular (as listed on Table 5.7), all of the 7 relatively complete items exhibit one or more of several characteristics that suggest manufacture on small, most likely flake blanks, not much larger than the finished product, including plano-convex transverse sections, original unflaked surfaces of the original flake blanks on one face, apparent platform remnants or old “bottoms” of the original flake blanks at one end, and thickening near one end that seems to be a remnant of the blanks’ original thickened bulbar areas. One would expect most of these characteristics to be removed if these were simply reduced from the larger sizes. It is possible, therefore, that some of these smaller items represent more expedient use of smaller blanks upon which to manufacture certain biface tools or it may even be that these bifaces were intended to be made into different bifaces than the larger forms. In this regard, at least 3 of these smaller bifaces, including 1 complete item (Fig. 5.17h) and 2 basal ends, tend to have more tapered bases with more pointed rather than convex

Figure 5.17. Small unrefined bifaces, Feature #1. A–E, Onondaga chert; F–J, Fossil Hill chert. Arrow shows location of mechanical snap break.

88

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.18. Scatter plot of length by width, unrefined bifaces. Size in mm.

Table 5.6. Small unrefined biface variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight

2

21.12

–

19–23.23

length

4

64.35

7.268

56.4–72.2

width

11

34.40

1.607

32.0–37.6

thickness

11

8.60

1.182

7.5–10.9

width/thickness ratio

11

4.05

0.472

3.2–4.5

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

Table 5.7. Flake blank characteristics on small unrefined bifaces, Feature #1. FC #

Raw Material

Bulbar Thickening

Plano-Convex Section

Blank Platform Remnant

Core Bottom Remnant or Cortex End

Original Blank Surface

324+*

Onondaga

–

+

–

–

–

444+

Onondaga

–

+

–

+

+

59+

Collingwood

+

+

–

–

+

38+

Collingwood

–

–

–

+

–

66+

Collingwood

–

–

–

+

–

55+

Collingwood

–

+

–

–

+

233+

Ancaster

+

+

+

–

–

*Most items are made up of several conjoined pieces, each with separately assigned, different, catalog numbers. Only the lowest assigned catalog number is given, along with a “+,” to indicate other catalog numbers were also assigned to that artifact.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools or straight lateral margins, the result being a somewhat diamondshaped outline. These 3 items also have plano-convex sections and 2 of them, as well as a mid-section fragment, are on the Ancaster chert. In outline, cross section and a preference for the Ancaster chert, these items are similar to the leaf-shaped biface tools described below. It is possible therefore that the small unrefined bifaces include at least some preforms for the leaf-shaped bifaces whereas, as argued above, the larger unrefined bifaces may have been intended largely for forms other than leaf-shaped bifaces, such as fluted bifaces. The 2 most complete Onondaga bifaces (Fig. 5.17a–b) may be exceptions and these do stand out as unusual. They have planoconvex cross sections and are distinct in that they exhibit large hinge or step terminated flake scars on the markedly convex face. In 1 case, two major abrupt terminations are present at each end of the biface resulting from apparently unsuccessful attempts at end thinning (Fig. 5.17a). On the other biface, one of these features is present (Fig. 5.17b). This latter item also exhibits an eroded cortex at one end and has one excessively thick (6.5 mm) rightangled edge, which is a weathered surface remnant. As previously implied, these items also differ from the other small examples in that they do not have easily recognizable tip versus basal ends, although in 1 case, one end does appear slightly narrower. These Onondaga bifaces may have originally been intended as fluted biface preforms. They could have become too thick and narrow to allow a normal thinning sequence (e.g., lateral flake removals) to obtain a width to thickness ratio suitable for a fluted biface. Thus, attempts were made at end thinning that would allow one to maintain the width of the biface and these also failed due to hinge or step terminations. These terminations would tend to prohibit additional end thinning as subsequent end thinning flakes would stop at the abrupt terminations resulting from the previous attempts. One other Onondaga item (Fig. 5.17e) mentioned earlier also seems unlikely as a preform as it has a snap across one end and is

89

short and incomplete. If they were unsuitable as preforms for fluted bifaces, these items could have been retained in a probable cache because they were suitable for other uses such as manufacture into a bifacial perforator. In this regard it is notable that 1 of the more complete bifaces has a steep, continuous, unifacial retouch along all of one side margin, which has been applied so as to produce a grossly denticulated edge (Fig. 5.17a). This modification does not appear to be due to simple manufacturing processes or platform preparation and it has been suggested it represents modification of the edge to use it as a tool (Ellis 1984:320). Leaf-shaped Bifaces There are 5 relatively complete items plus 2 bases (n = 7; Figs. 5.19, 5.20c; Table 5.8), which, for lack of a better term, we have called leaf-shaped bifaces (Deller and Ellis 1984:46). Of note, 6 of these tools are on Ancaster and, as we demonstrate in later sections, all of the items found in situ in Feature #1 were found tightly clustered spatially. The raw material is so similar on these items that they could have been produced on blanks from the same one or two original chert cores. These bifaces have a point of maximum width about mid-point with relatively straight edges that contract from mid-point toward each end, the overall result being a roughly diamond-shaped outline. Although both ends are somewhat rounded, one end is always blunter and wider than the other. In 1 case this blunter end appears to be a relatively right-angled platform remnant of the flake blank upon which the item was made whereas in the others it is a steep unifacial bevel. In transverse cross section the items are largely plano-convex (6 of 7 or 85.7%) while in longitudinal section they are decidedly thicker toward the blunter end. The platform remnant on 1 item and the transverse sections suggest manufacture on flake blanks and the 1 item on Onondaga (Fig. 5.19e) has a flat unflaked remnant of the original ventral blank surface on its underside.

Figure 5.19. Leaf-shaped bifaces, Feature #1. A–D, Ancaster chert; E, Onondaga chert.

90

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.20. Distinctive Feature #1 biface tools. A–B, backed bifaces; C, leaf-shaped biface; D, bifacial perforator.

Table 5.8. Leaf-shaped biface variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight

2

9.11

2.270

7.50–10.71

length

3

66.40

1.992

65.2–68.7

width

5

31.34

2.475

29.2–35.2

thickness

5

7.38

0.680

6.6–8.4

width/thickness ratio

5

4.28

0.534

3.6–5.0

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools These items have a very fine edge and surface retouch, lack evidence of edge platform preparation remnants and, overall, have regularized edges, all of which suggest they are some kind of specialized finished tool. The beveled thicker end on 2 items has a heavy to light grinding and 1 item in particular (Figs. 5.19a, 5.20c) has grinding and polishing at that end and on adjacent lateral edges and surfaces. It is very possible that they were actually parts of composite tools whose thicker ground ends were inserted/wedged into a handle of some kind. Large Alternately Beveled Bifaces There are 2 relatively complete items of this type, as well as most of a third missing only a portion of the tip apex, in the Crowfield Feature #1 assemblage (Table 5.9; Figs. 5.21–5.23). We originally classified the incomplete item as a simple large unrefined biface (Deller and Ellis 1984: Fig. 15c) but additional refits have shown that to be in error. We cannot be certain due to incompleteness but it may be that at least part of the distal break on this item may be due to a mechanical break or snap rather than heat fracturing. There is also a very wide and thin unbeveled snapped off biface tip section in the assemblage. Assuming that edge beveling is due to resharpening (see section below), it is possible this tip also was originally intended for a beveled biface tool but had not yet been resharpened; it is discussed in the miscellaneous biface section below. Large bifaces resharpened by unifacial beveling have been recognized in Paleoindian industries since at least the 1930s (e.g., Roberts 1935:24–25). At some sites the tools have a bevel only on one edge (Frison and Bradley 1980: Fig. 21) whereas on others, unifacial beveling occurs on both edges on opposite faces (e.g., alternate edge beveling; Jodry 1998:95). In Folsom these bifaces are often exceptionally thin and, indeed, are referred to as “ultrathin bifaces” (Jodry 1998; Root et al. 1999; William et al. 1997). They are even thinner toward the midline of the tool, as they have biconcave cross sections produced by lateral thinning flake detachments that “dip” in the middle of the biface. Large alternately beveled biface tools were first recognized in Ontario, or for that matter Great Lakes, Paleoindian assemblages at the Parkhill site by Deller (1980). Several examples were also recovered from the Thedford II site (Deller and Ellis

91

1992a:48–50) and these and other examples were described by Ellis and Deller (1988). The examples recovered from those sites are fragmentary ones consisting of miscellaneous tips, bases or mid-sections. The 3 examples from Crowfield represent the only largely complete examples of this form we have ever seen in southwestern Ontario. These bifaces have a somewhat oval shape with maximum width located just below mid-point. In longitudinal section the 2 most complete items are uniformly straight and flat with no evidence of bulbar thickening and in transverse section are biconvex in unbeveled areas near the base (see Figs. 5.22, 5.23). The other item, missing the tip, has a slight thickening near the base, which may be a bulbar remnant, and is plano-convex in unbeveled areas (Fig. 5.21c). Toward the tip end on this same item, two or more large thinning flakes were removed from one edge on the plano face that dipped somewhat into the center of the biface such that the surface is somewhat concave. In this respect, it is reminiscent of the Folsom ultrathins. In any case, the possible bulbar thickening and plano-convex section suggest this item was made on a very large, yet thin, flake. As noted above, this item also has what may be a remnant of a small mechanical snap break at what would have been the tip end, although we cannot be certain about this due to incompleteness. The fore-sections have the alternate beveling produced by continuous, well-executed, unifacial retouch that, when viewed in plan with the tip to the top, always occurs on the visible face on the left edge. This bevel edge placement also seems to hold on almost all examples from other sites as well (there is only 1 exception in the 10 known examples including the Crowfield items; see Ellis and Deller 1988:113) and could reflect the handedness of the user (for example, they were used mainly by right-handed individuals who unifacially resharpened them in the haft holding the item with the tip pointing away from the knapper when detaching flakes). The bevels range from 35° to 50° and, using the mid-point between the largest and smallest angle along the beveled edge, average about 43°. In plan the beveled edges are relatively straight. The beveled edges extend for about 60–65% of tool length, or to just above the point of maximum width, on the 2 measurable items. Of these 2 items, 1 has a more rounded tip and is wider overall while the other is more pointed at the tip and narrower overall. One presumes that the beveling retouch represents unifacial resharpening of working edges. That being

Table 5.9. Large alternately beveled biface variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight

2

44.19

–

29.35–59.02

length

2

121.00

–

109.0–133.0

width

3

50.70

5.859

45.6–57.1

thickness

3

7.83

1.193

6.5–8.8

width/thickness ratio

3

6.55

1.022

5.6–7.6

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

92

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.21. Large alternately beveled bifaces, Feature #1. Arrows on biface C show location of unflaked flat surface remnant of the original flake blank employed. All items are on Onondaga chert.

Figure 5.22. Large alternately beveled biface.

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

93

Figure 5.23. Diamond-shaped large alternately beveled biface, Feature #1.

the case, and given that there seems to be a deliberate attempt to keep the edges straight in plan, it is probable that the more an item is resharpened the more the lateral edges will converge at the tip. As a result, the narrower more pointed example may be simply a more resharpened version of the wider item with a more rounded tip. The stems themselves below the beveled edges are of a fairly consistent length, ranging from 42.5 to 48.5 mm long with an average of 45.1 mm for the 3 examples. The 2 complete examples also have very light grinding of the lower parts of the stem edges and this feature, along with the consistency in stem length, suggests that the tools were placed in handles. The largest biface (Figs. 5.21a, 5.22) has a cortical remnant at the tip and base (and adjacent brownish areas), suggesting the blank on which it was made spanned the complete length of a block from top to bottom and was oriented at right angles to the “tops” of the original block of chert. The other 2 bifaces have “brownish” bases, suggesting their blanks were oriented in much the same way versus the original blocks used. On one lateral edge the item missing the tip has a small area (16.5 mm long) of an unflaked flat surface at right angles to the plane of the biface from lateral to lateral edge (Fig. 5.21c). This feature is a remnant of the original blank used to make the tool and suggests that the flake used to manufacture it may have expanded during detach-

ment from one face of the block to encompass part of another face at right angles to the first, similar to some large unrefined bifaces described above. In other words, the blank seems to have been detached down a right-angled corner of a block that had an adjacent unflaked core margin in a manner comparable to that illustrated on Figure 5.13. Backed Bifaces There are 13 items in this type, 1 of which is made by recycling a fluted preform (Fig. 5.25e). The other 12 items or “normal/typical” backed bifaces (Table 5.10; Figs. 5.20a–b, 5.24, 5.25a–d) are described separately first. Three of the normal backed bifaces are missing parts of the tip ends while another 4 are missing parts of the basal ends. They are distinguished, as the term implies, by the presence of a flat back along a lateral edge, the surface of which is at relatively right angles to the rest of the biface in transverse section. In plan, this back is offset toward one end (the base) of the biface. The overall result is a somewhat wedge-shaped transverse outline toward the base as opposed to a biconvex (n = 5) or plano-convex (n = 7) section formed by bilateral bifacial flaking toward the tip. The angle between the back and the main

94

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

transverse axis of the tools viewed end on is always more acute on one edge (averaging approximately 66°) and more obtuse on the other (averaging approximately 116°)—in other words, the back is always slightly canted in transverse profile toward one face on these examples. Viewed tip on with the back to the top, the more acute edge is mainly (10/13) on the right side although why this should be the case, other than a vague guess at handedness, is not clear. The flat backs can be formed in several ways. In 1 case, which is somewhat atypical in that the biface is quite large, being very elongated and thick (Figs. 5.20b, 5.24a), the back was actually formed by a purposeful retouch/thinning from one lateral edge. In all the remaining cases, the back surface is an unflaked one, which represents an original surface of the flake blank upon which the item was made. These unflaked surfaces are formed in two ways. Most commonly (10/11) the back is simply a weathered unflaked surface of the raw material. In several of these cases that are complete enough to observe (4 of 6), there is also an unflaked surface remnant at the basal apex that is clearly a remnant of the platform used to detach the flake. These remnants are oriented longitudinally or slightly diagonally to the flake’s longitudinal axis. These characteristics, along with the plano-convex sections noted above and thickening at one end, which may be a bulbar remnant (7 of 8 observable), suggest most, if not all, were produced on flakes. Given the overall somewhat wedge-shaped cross section, position of the unflaked surface and platform orientation, it is quite clear that all of the tools with platform remnants were made on large flakes with wedgeshaped cross sections removed from near an original more-acute corner of large blocks of Onondaga (n = 2) or Collingwood (n = 2) chert. Such blanks were probably similar to the large corner flakes found in the Feature #1 assemblage described earlier as “primary top-corner struck” flakes (e.g., Fig. 4.2), although the corner struck flake blanks themselves at Crowfield seem too small or of the wrong morphology to serve as blanks for this tool form. An additional 2 Onondaga items lacking platform remnants, or which are incomplete at the proximal ends, probably were also made on such corner flakes. Both of the complete Collingwood chert items (Fig. 5.25a–b), probably made on corner flakes, have banding at right angles to the longitudinal flake axis and cortex at one or both ends. Therefore, they were made on flakes struck off the corner of a block using a “top” surface as a striking platform. However, 1 incomplete item on Collingwood has somewhat diagonal banding suggesting a different kind of blank derivation. Of the Onondaga items, if present, cortex (n = 1) and brownish areas (n = 2) are at ends clearly indicating these flakes were also removed using the tops of blocks as striking platforms and removing the

Table 5.10. Normal backed biface variables, Feature #1.* Variable

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

Range

weight

5

29.29

17.24

17.13–57.89

length

5

79.98

25.62

58.2–117.1

width

11

39.27

8.18

31.9–58.8

thickness

12

11.23

1.744

8.2–14.6

width/thickness ratio

11

3.59

0.740

2.6–5.2

back length

8

47.61

9.789

33.3–59.3

back width

10

11.36

2.343

7.3–13.9

back angle 1

11

66.59

–

55–80

back angle 2

11

115.91

–

100–140

*All measurements in mm except weight in grams and back angles in degrees. Back angles were measured only to as small as a 5° increment and mid-points of the recorded ranges per tool were used to calculate the average angle.

flake body down the corner or two side junctures of a block. It is probable that the long linear item with a flaked back surface (Figs. 5.20b, 5.24a) was also made on a flake approximating a “top” struck one in orientation given the presence of cortex at both ends but there is no positive evidence of platform orientation on this item or, for that matter, that it was made on a flake as opposed to core blank. On the 1 item without an unflaked surface for a back (Figs. 5.20a, 5.24c), the flat back surface seems to represent a wide remnant of a large striking platform surface of the original blank. If so, the flake used was atypical of flakes in general in that it was very broad and yet short. Since the tip of this Onondaga item is brownish, the platform orientation suggests a surface approximating in orientation a side of the original block was used as the striking platform surface, which also contrasts with the other Onondaga items. Overall, the knapper(s) simply started with a wedge-shaped blank with a flat surface along one edge, and these are most easily produced by striking a primary or secondary flake off down a corner of a block with a juncture of the block faces at about a 60–80° angle. Once a blank was obtained, the item was thinned and bifacially flaked all along the lateral edge intended to be opposite the back, around the tip, and partially up the lateral edge adjacent to the back. It would have been easy on all examples in the assemblage to continue this bifacial flaking along the area where the back edge is located and remove all remnants of the original blank surface/back itself. However, the knappers chose to leave the back intact and to thin that area of the biface only on one face, using the back surface itself as a striking platform. This procedure is clear evidence the back was intentional. Flaking from the back was carried out only on the face, which met the back at an acute edge angle for the obvious reason that thinning the tool on the opposite face was prohibited by the obtuse nature of the potential platform. However, in those cases some thinning was done adjacent to the back at the more obtuse juncture by removing somewhat linear flakes from either (or both) the basal end or the bifacial edge adjacent to the back toward the tip end (4 of 6).

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

95

Figure 5.24. Onondaga normal backed bifaces, Feature #1. Locations of backs are indicated by horizontal lines.

The attempts to thin the biface adjacent to the back seem to be deliberate attempts to control the width of the back and we suggest such thinning and shaping was necessary so that that area of the tool was of the proper thickness to be mounted in a handle. The thickness would be of no concern if the items were used simply hand held. Given the morphology of the tools with the back offset toward the base, one suspects they may have been wedged in a slot along one side at the end of a handle such that the tip and the bifacial part of the lateral edge adjacent to the back would be exposed for use. However, at least 5 of the 7

items with completely intact bases have a somewhat narrowed and pointed basal end with a thickened edge at the base (e.g., Figs. 5.20a, 5.24c–d, 5.25a–b, d). These thick pointed ends could have been inserted in a socketed handle. One item that lacks this sort of pointed base has other basal modifications that make it stand out as unusual (Fig. 5.24b). Although the base is incomplete due to a heat break, it is quite clear that it had a steeply retouched, somewhat convex working edge, formed by steep, unifacially applied, retouch at the base. Such retouch has clearly truncated the origins of thinning flakes

96

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.25. Onondaga (C–E) and Fossil Hill (A–B) backed bifaces, Feature #1. Locations of backs are indicated by horizontal lines. E has been made on an aborted fluted point preform.

on the underside and was clearly removed after the tool was fully finished as a biface. In overall outline this may have produced a large, somewhat “end scraper-like” bit. This working edge indicates the tool was not hafted, at least in the later stages of its use-life, and probably was recycled to serve other uses. Interestingly, as we describe in a later section, a heat-fractured biface base of almost identical morphology, including the convex, steeply retouched, basal, scraper edge, was recovered from the surface of the site. It has no exact provenance so we cannot associate it with Feature #1. It also is on a red, very high quality, banded material of unknown origin that is otherwise not represented at Crowfield. However, given the quality of workmanship and its resemblance to the Feature #1 backed biface base, we believe this item may be associated with the Paleoindian component at the site. Moreover, at the Bolton site, a Crowfield Phase occupation site located 6 km east of the Crowfield site itself, definitive Paleoindian artifacts (channel flakes from fluting) on a comparable, if not the same, unidentified reddish material were also found (Deller and Ellis 1996:11–13). The edge finish on the backed bifaces varies considerably. On 7 of 12, the bifacially flaked lateral and tip ends have continuous to discontinuous (selective), fine, edge regularization retouch.

These edges range from 35° to 55° and, using the mid-point of the range per tool, average 44.6°. They exhibit some edge rounding and short, deeply hinged out, flake detachments, which seem best interpreted as a product of use of those edges. The remaining 5 items (e.g., Figs. 5.20a, 5.24c–d, 5.25a–b), including 3 on Onondaga and 2 on Collingwood, have little or no edge regularization retouch and, as a result, have sinuous edges in plan and profile. These items also have some areas of prepared platform remnants in the form of grinding and edge beveling and tend to have more obtuse edge angles ranging from 35° to 65° with a mean of 49.4°. We suspect therefore that these latter items are unfinished tools or “final stage” performs for these tools. The single remaining backed biface was made by recycling a fluted preform (Fig. 5.25e; Table 5.11) and is complete except for a tiny missing piece at the tip and a basal corner. The back along one lateral edge is a break surface, probably produced by a split during a fluting attempt, which removed a segment along the one lateral basal edge. The resulting flat back surface meets the faces of the biface at about 85–90° on both sides. After the break, small, short (< 3 mm) discontinuous flakes were removed transversely from both faces of the biface that originated at the break surface. The opposite edge has a fine edge retouch and

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

97

Table 5.11. Miscellaneous biface variables, Feature #1.* Type

Weight

Length

Width

Thickness

Width/Thickness Ratio

backed biface on fluted preform

12.10

–

31.1

5.4

5.76

biface with “handle”

26.45

105.0

26.8

11.3

2.37

–

–

36.6

7.2

5.08

small thin biface with twisted cross section *All measurements in mm except weight in grams.

some suggestions of edge rounding and several short, deep hinged out flake removals not seen on other fluted bifaces, which are probably indicative of use. Bifaces with flat backs along part of one edge, a pointed tip and blunt base have been reported from other Ontario sites besides Crowfield, although these are rare and usually consist of only one or two examples from even the largest sites. Notable here are examples from some Parkhill Phase sites like Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992a:50) and F. Wight (Deller and Ellis 1992b:31). In contrast to the Crowfield forms, these examples tend to have narrower, uncanted backs and often a concavity or notch at the base (Ellis and Deller 1988:114–15). Comparable items are also known to occur on Late Paleoindian sites (e.g., Ellis and Deller 1982:11). Bifacial Perforators In earlier reports (Deller and Ellis 1984:46; Ellis 1984:329) we referred to these items as “rod-like” bifaces because the reconstructed examples were too incomplete to tell us much about them except that the fore-sections were narrow and elongated with a cylindrical to diamond-shaped transverse cross section. We could not tell if they were the blunt bitted “twist” drills as have been reported from Early Paleoindian sites east of the Great Lakes (e.g., Byers 1954:349, 1956; Gramly 1998: Fig. 12; Grimes 1979: Fig. 3; MacDonald 1968:81–85) or had the more pointed “perforator-like” tips seen in some assemblages (e.g., Gramly 1982: Plates 14F, 15F, M, R). Neither did we have bases that could tell us if the items were stemmed, cylindrical or expanding at the base, and whether or not they were fluted. All these varieties of bases are known on “drills” from New England/Maritimes sites. Some additional refits now allow us to say more about these items. At least 3 such tools, represented by 4 separate fragments, are in the Feature #1 assemblage (Figs. 5.20d, 5.26). Two of these are quite fragmentary. Originally we had placed the fragments into two types. One type included 3 rod-like segments, all midsections missing tips and bases, which range from 20 to 41.4 mm long and 5.2 to 6.3 mm thick. The second type included 2 small bifaces with somewhat oval to rectangular outlines, plano-convex sections and mainly marginal retouch; that is, refined flaking is

confined to the edges of the items with unmodified surfaces of the original flake blanks on most surfaces. We noted that these second kinds of bifaces had breaks at one end and began to wonder if these in fact may be fragments of another tool form, especially since 2 other very similar bifaces with broken ends were also in the collections, 1 among the unprovenienced surface material and 1 from the Feature #2 area. Subsequently, we discovered more of the basal area of 1 rod-like fore-section (Fig. 5.26b), which, although still very incomplete, clearly indicated that the stem was wider than the fore-section (for instance, the items were not narrower or cylindrical), had only marginal retouch but otherwise exhibited unmodified flake blank surfaces, and had a plano-convex cross section. Since the small bifaces exhibited the same characteristics, we suspected they may be the bases of the rod-like mid-sections or similar sorts of tools. This supposition has now been confirmed in the case of 1 of the 2 small bifacial fragments from Feature #1 by refitting it to the longest mid-section segment (Figs. 5.20d, 5.26a). We assume the other base from Feature #1 (Fig. 5.26d) is from the same kind of tool even though it cannot be physically refit to either of the remaining 2 fore-sections. It is also plausible that the 1 potential base from the unprovenienced surface collection is part of the same or third mid-section from Feature #1. In addition to matching 1 of the bases to a mid-section, we have also now been able to find the tip of that same item (Figs. 5.20d, 5.26a). The reconstituted tip end does not resemble that of a twist drill as it is sharp and pointed rather than wide and blunt and lacks the “s-shaped” twist drill tip when viewed end on. Thus, the term “perforator” seems more apt than “drill” for these tools. The base that can be refit on this same specimen has, as implied above, mainly marginal retouch. It has cortex at the base, which represents an unmodified original blank surface, and has a 25.5-mm-long by 8.5-mm-wide thinning flake removed from the dorsal or convex face that originated at the cortical base. Lateral retouch on the same face is short and continuous along one edge and longer, but restricted to near the narrowed foresection end, on the other edge. The opposite flat, interior face has a short discontinuous marginal retouch along one margin and a continuous but again marginal retouch along the other margin, the overall effect being that most of the face is simply the unmodified flat ventral surface of the original flake upon which the tool

98

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 5.26. Bifacial perforators, Feature #1. A, relatively complete; B–C, mid-sections; D, probable basal segment.

was made and that most stem edges, save the basal extremity, are bifacially edged. Overall, this tool measures 89.2 mm long by 15.4 mm wide. It has a base and fore-section thickness of 5.3 and 6.3 mm respectively and a stem and fore-section length of 39.2 and 50 mm respectively. The second basal segment has a single 19.8- by 4.9-mm-wide end thinning flake removed from the base along a preserved longitudinal dorsal ridge of the original flake blank. Lateral retouch is restricted to a few intermittent removals along one edge and a short continuous marginal retouch along the opposite edge. The plano underside surface has been completely, as opposed to marginally, flaked by very well executed retouch from both lateral edges and the base. This base measures 17.2 mm wide by 5.2 mm thick. The end removals on these bases (and the 2 other comparable items from the site not assignable to Feature #1), and careful shaping of the outline by retouch to form relatively straight lateral margins, seems to be best interpreted as modifications for hafting in some sort of socket. To our knowledge only one tool even generally resembling the Crowfield feature examples has been reported from other fluted point sites in the Great Lakes region. The only definite exception is a fluted point base from the Udora site in south-

central Ontario, which has had its fore-section reworked or recycled into an elongated rod-like fore-section with a pointed, perforator-like, tip (Storck and Spiess 1994: Fig. 4a). Roosa (1977b: Fig. 4, bottom row) also reported an expanding stemmed bifacial perforator surface collected adjacent to the Parkhill site. However, as discussed elsewhere in detail (Roosa and Ellis 2000:90–91), the association of that particular item with the Paleoindian component at Parkhill is doubtful. Outside the Great Lakes we know of no comparable examples from fluted point sites. However, very similar examples, perhaps even identical, are known from Late Paleoindian sites, especially those associated with the distinctive Sainte Anne points in southern Quebec and adjacent New England (e.g., Benmouyal 1987: Plate 31g, i–j; Pintal 2002: Photo 4, left). Miscellaneous Bifaces There are 3 other unique bifaces associated with Feature #1. One item (Fig. 5.27a; Table 5.11) is what we have called a “biface with grip or handle” (Deller and Ellis 1984:46). The biface is long, linear and thick and has a roughly 30-mm-long constricted segment at a point near one end produced by three deliberate, deep, lateral, semicircular flake removals. These removals sepa-

Feature #1 Lithic Artifacts: Bifaces and Tools

99

Figure 5.27. Miscellaneous bifaces, Feature #1. A, biface with grip or handle; B, tip of large biface tool (arrows show location of mechanical snap/bend break); C, small biface with markedly twisted cross section.

rated the biface into 2 segments of unequal length. The longest segment, or basal half, is about 55 mm long. It is roughly, and in some areas only unifacially, chipped and exhibits some surfaces representing the original flake blank upon which it was made. This longer segment appears to be the grip used to hold the tool while the other shorter end or tip segment is the working end. This working end is about 33 mm long and is bifacially flaked. It exhibits a steep bevel (70–80°) formed by continuous retouch along one relatively straight lateral edge while the opposite margin is more convex and thin with an acute edge angle of 30–40°. The actual tip end is rather blunt and appears to be a remnant of the platform surface used to detach the flake blank. The opposite end is cortical, suggesting the blank was detached down the side of an original block using a surface approximating in orientation the “top” of a block as a platform. A second biface (Fig. 5.27b) is represented by an end fragment with a rounded apex. It is very wide (61.5 mm) and relatively thin (6.4 mm) such that it has an exceptionally high width to thickness ratio of 9.6 to 1. It has a slight plano-convex cross section and fine edge retouch and quite acute (20–30°) working edges. This item has been broken transversely by a mechanical snap break. There is edge rounding and a fine, almost continuous, retouch along the snap surface at its juncture with a face of the

biface, suggesting the snap was used. Such bend break tools are actually relatively common in Paleoindian industries in the Great Lakes (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a:69) and elsewhere (Frison and Bradley 1980:91–97). On the basis of width, width to thickness ratio and a fine surface retouch and finish, Ellis (1984:321–22) was of the opinion that this biface was the tip of an implement originally intended to be an alternately beveled biface. Indeed, one can easily see it as such a tool that broke during use or by accident before it could be much resharpened. As a result, it lacks the beveled edges and pointed tip of the more resharpened beveled bifaces. Because of breakage the biface was then used as a bend break tool and retained for still other uses. The final biface (Fig. 5.27c; Table 5.11) is a thin form with a plano-convex cross section that is missing part of one end. In outline the retained segment resembles the large unrefined bifaces but this biface is much narrower, thinner and apparently shorter than those bifaces. Moreover, enough of the damaged end is retained to suggest that that end was twisted in comparison to the rest of the biface (for example, the orientation of the end from lateral edge to lateral edge was on a different plane to that of the base of the biface), which is unlike any of the larger forms. It is possible that this item could also be the base of another tool form such as the bifacial perforators. However, there are features

100

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

that suggest it may be a preform, such as somewhat sinuous edges in plan, a lack of fine edge retouch, and remnants of edge platform preparation. Cortex is present at the base of the biface and since the cross section suggests manufacture on a thin flake, this placement is consistent with detachment from a block using a striking platform approximating a “top” surface. Biface Fragments Refined Biface Fragments The remaining bifacial artifacts associated with Feature #1 are simply fragments. Of these at least 51 are from thinner bifaces with refined or edge regularization retouch, most of which are on Onondaga chert (Table 4.2). These are undoubtedly fragments of tool forms such as fluted points, shouldered points, leaf-shaped bifaces, alternately beveled bifaces and backed bifaces. Most of these fragments are quite small as evidenced by an average weight of only 0.91 g. One Onondaga fragment is notable in that it has what is clearly a remnant of a snap break across one end.

Figure 5.28. Tools on granitic rocks, Feature #1.

Unrefined Biface Fragments The final category includes 132 fragments from less refined bifaces (Table 4.2). These items are relatively thick and have somewhat irregular edges with unrefined flaking that still preserve remnants of platform preparation for flake removals. It is quite clear that these are from bifaces approximating the large and small unrefined bifaces described above. These fragments tend to be larger than those placed in the refined biface fragment category, the average weight per fragment being 2.85 g. Of note is the fact that a relatively high percentage of these items (103/132 or 78%) are on Collingwood chert. In fact, only 26 fragments are on Onondaga. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is a much higher ratio of unassigned fragments to the number of unrefined biface estimates among the Collingwood (7.9 to 1) than Onondaga (0.8 to 1) items; this discrepancy seems to be due to a greater degree of fragmentation and damage to the former items in comparison to the latter. We attribute this contrast to properties of the two raw materials such that they react differently when heated. Tools on Granitic Rocks The 2 final artifacts from Feature #1 are both made on coarsegrained, granitic rocks. The Caradoc Sand Plain around the site is stone free so these items had to be transported into the site from some distance, perhaps 20 km or more.

One item is small (35.09 g; 49.5 by 31.0 by 19.4 mm) and oval in plan outline (Fig. 5.28a). Heating has made the item very delicate and, since it was found in the plowzone right above the feature, except for a small area on the center of one face most of the original surface has crumbled away. The small retained original surface seems to suggest that one face was slightly concave in profile. Its highly damaged condition means any suggestions as to use are speculative but it could be a small hammerstone. The second and larger item (Fig. 5.28b) weighs 310.5 g and measures 107.2 by 68.0 by 28.5 mm. It was recovered in situ in the feature so has not been as damaged as the first item and, although rendered somewhat friable by heating, it is relatively intact. The back surface of the tool (shown on Fig. 5.28b) is convex in profile and represents largely the weathered surface of the original rock. In contrast, all the edges and underside have been flaked away either intentionally or as a byproduct of use. In plan it has a roughly semicircular outline. The somewhat straight lateral edge seems to represent a single original break or snap whereas the other, convex lateral margin has had at least nine substantial flakes removed, all of which seem to have originated at the underside. Some of the junctures of the flaked edge surfaces with the faces seem to have been rounded or eroded, perhaps due to use. It could have been used as a hammerstone or scraper or both or even as a scoop to excavate the feature but, again, any suggestions as to use are totally speculative.

— Chapter 6 —

Feature #1 Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions Christopher J. Ellis, James R. Keron, D. Brian Deller, and Roger King

Having described the lithic assemblage we can associate with Feature #1, it is now practical to examine the feature itself. We begin by examining the overall distribution of artifacts in the subsoil and what it can tell us about the size and shape of the feature. We then turn to examining the distribution within the feature of the recognized individual artifact categories. Overall Artifact Distribution, Feature Size and Feature Shape As noted, the upper portion of the feature had been plow truncated, but a large number of pieces (n = 2010) were found in the subsoil centered at the north end of one two-meter unit (402N/404E) and the south end of the adjacent unit to the north (404N/404E; see Fig. 6.1), almost exactly transected into equal portions of four one-meter units (402N/404E-NW; 402N/404ENE; 404N/404E-SW; 404N/404E-SE). The distribution of the 1462, heat-damaged, chert pieces that were piece-plotted is shown on Figure 6.1 in plan view. Figure 6.2 superimposes upon that map several aspects of interest, notably the horizontal extent at interface of the vandalized area, the location of soil samples taken in the immediate feature area, four plotted unheated stone waste flake locations, eight locations of plotted calcined bone fragments and the four one-meter unit boundaries. Another aspect of note was a large root/tree disturbance clearly visible at the plowzone-subsoil interface cutting across the southwest edge of the feature. As indicated in plan plotting of its extent at interface and at 20 cm into the subsoil on Figure 6.2, this root expanded in areal extent with depth, especially to the south. Also, it extended down below the feature itself, as is discussed

more below. Finally, a clearly visible disturbance was a large rodent burrow that contained several artifacts, but it seems to have been largely outside, being just to the west of, the actual feature concentration itself. Figure 6.3 shows a density map of the feature materials, also with the vandalized area superimposed; clearly a considerable amount of material was removed on a west to east axis across the feature by this event such that the plotted material appears to contain two almost discrete north and south concentrations. The material removed from this area affects not only the density contours within the vandalized area proper but also reduces those within 5 cm of the boundary of the vandalized area as the density function used to develop these contours measures the density within 5 cm (that is, counts all points within a 10-cm diameter circle). It seems very probable that the feature would have been subjected to several other natural disturbances during the 12,000+ sidereal years that are not clearly visible today, or are difficult to discern, especially given the obvious fact that the outline of the Crowfield pit itself was not visible to the naked eye. In fact, one expects that there would have been an even larger number of the small vertical worm burrows than were visually evident during the 1981–1982 excavations. These could easily lead to vertical displacement of small items in the past, just as we have seen at other sites (Ellis and Deller 2002:14). As well, it is probable that certain individual artifacts or fragments could have been moved selectively by the penetration of roots. Ellis’ (2005) work at an “undisturbed” southwestern Ontario Terminal Archaic site in a woodlot demonstrates this very well. At that site there are several fire-cracked rock clusters that had been penetrated by large extant roots. These root penetrations had clearly pushed

101

102

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 6.1. Plan distribution of fragments/popouts by raw material types, Feature #1. Outline of the four one-meter units encompassing the feature are shown. Cherts other than Onondaga and Fossil Hill are highlighted by surrounding circular enclosures. Inverted triangles, Onondaga chert; circles without enclosures, Collingwood chert; circles with surrounding circular enclosure, Ancaster chert; squares with surrounding enclosure, Selkirk chert; triangles with surrounding circular enclosure, unknown cherts.

Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions

103

Figure 6.2. Plan map of Feature #1 showing location of disturbances, soil samples, calcined bone fragments and unheated flakes. Outline of one-meter units encompassing feature area are shown. Hatched area shows maximum horizontal extent of tree/root disturbance at 20 cm below interface with cross-hatched segment showing extent at the interface itself as first exposed. Solid circles, location of soil samples taken at 20 and 40 cm below interface; inverted triangles, location of calcined bone fragments; squares, location of small unheated waste flakes.

104

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 6.3. Density map of Feature #1 fragments and popouts. Shaded section represents vandalized segment. Contours created by counting all items within 10 cm of each pixel.

individual rocks aside and in the process left linear gaps in the clusters themselves. It is difficult to believe that comparable processes would not have occurred in the past at Crowfield but were of such antiquity that the old root outline had largely or totally disappeared. In fact, there was some definite evidence of root disturbance, which was ephemeral and difficult to map precisely, in the feature area other than the main one shown on Figure 6.2. Notable here was evidence of such disturbance on its northeast margin. We believe this process accounts for a slight

spread of material to the northeast in plan, and consequently a less abrupt, more ambiguous margin than the rather abrupt boundary in the undisturbed northwest of the feature (see Fig. 6.1). It is possible also that tree throws could displace and even drag artifacts as they tumbled over, the amount of disturbance depending on the proximity and size of the tree and its root systems. One would expect that rodent activity could also have been a significant force leading to the movement of individual artifacts. Based on experience at other sites with discernible

Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions rodent burrow outlines, items can fall down or be moved along these disturbances quite easily. These processes may in fact account for evidence that some artifacts or fragments could have been moved some distance. If exposed long enough to these kinds of disturbances, an artifact cluster could be significantly altered or even destroyed. Nonetheless, as discussed later, there is clear evidence of differential distribution of different artifact classes within the Crowfield feature, indicating it has not been totally mixed up despite 12,000 plus calendar years since its formation. A minimal amount of disturbance is also suggested by artifact refits. There are 40 separate sets of reconjoinable pieces in the feature but some of these have more than two refitted pieces. In analyzing the distances between refits, the distance between every pair of fragments that belong to the same artifact was calculated. Thus, if only two pieces were identified as coming from the same artifact then only one reading was obtained. If three pieces were from the same artifact then there would be three measurements recorded, one for each combination of two. For example, given pieces A, B and C from the same artifact, one distance measure would be recorded for A to B, one for B to C, and a third for A to C. In a similar fashion, four refits would lead to six measurements and so on. As a result, there were 111 pairs of refits with measurable distances among the 40 in situ artifact cross-mend sets. Distances in these pairs ranged from as small as 1.4 cm to as large as 149.2 cm but the average was only 40.5 cm and the median was 28.5 cm, indicating that most were separated by relatively small amounts. In fact, plotting the refits in 20-cm intervals reveals that 62% of the refits were within 40 cm of each other and 80% were within 60 cm (see Fig. 6.4a) with only a few outliers or instances per increment beyond those distances. Also, in refit sets composed of three or more pieces (n = 21), often all the pieces are in a small area (< 50 cm between any refit in a set) or in close juxtaposition (13/21 or 62%). Even when not all are close together, usually there is only a single outlier (6/8 or 75%) some distance away. If the close juxtaposition of the majority of pieces in a conjoined set can be taken as an accurate measure of an artifact’s original depositional location (cf. Ellis and Deller 2002:125–26), and believing it unlikely the occasional piece was moved these distances when the material shattered by heating, it is easy to interpret these outliers as a product of subsequent disturbance although we discuss other possible interpretations below. To some extent, the resulting distribution (Fig. 6.4) is skewed a bit to the higher ranges if an artifact with multiple refits had one member removed a good difference from the rest. For example, as shown below, there was a fluted point with four fragments in close proximity in the northwest quadrant and one in the southwest (see Fig. 6.7). In this case four separate readings of around 100 cm would be recorded to account for this single outlier. So the actual separation of the artifact fragments may be in reality less than that calculated with this particular analysis. While these cross-mended segments intuitively seem to be close together, we need to test the idea that the distribution is non-random. We need to generate what a random deposition

105

would look like and compare that to what was actually found. A simple strategy would be to generate two random points within the four quadrants encompassing the feature and then measure the difference. However, the pieces are not at all randomly deposited either within the four grid squares or the feature boundary itself. Our hypothesized random distribution must still generate a density pattern identical to the actual overall distributions. To accommodate this requirement, we took the locations of all the piece-plotted fragments in the square and then randomly selected 111 pairs of these and measured the distance between them and charted the results (Fig. 6.4b) into the same intervals (0–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and so on). This distribution is decidedly different from that observed for the actual cross-mends, conforming more to a normal distribution. To determine whether or not the difference between the randomly selected sample of 111 pairs and the actual set was statistically significant, the mean distance and the 99% confidence interval of the randomly selected set were calculated. These numbers were then compared with the mean distance of the actual set of refits (Table 6.1). It is readily apparent that the average of the actual refits lies well outside the confidence interval of the random refits, confirming the hypothesis that the refitted fragments are close together and non-random in their distribution. Since each randomly selected set of refits generates a different average and confidence interval, this procedure was redone 100 times with the same result. To further refine the mean distance of randomly selected set of pairs, 5000 pairs were selected (the statistics are also presented in Table 6.1); again, they are significantly different from what was actually found. Overall, we can say with some certainty that individual artifacts were not distributed randomly within the structure of the feature and that fragments from the same piece are most often found in close proximity to each other. This result enables several significant conclusions. First, while some outlying fragments may have been impacted by post-depositional processes, there is still a great deal of spatial integrity within the feature since postdepositional processes would not have been selective by artifact type but would result in an increasing randomization of the mix of fragments. Secondly, the most parsimonious explanation of the close proximity of the fragments is that they were deposited whole into the feature and subsequently fragmented in the ensuing fire. If the artifacts were burned elsewhere and fractured, and then moved to Feature #1, one would expect a much more random distribution of the fragments. Third, it clearly argues against the issue raised by Kelly (1996:236) that Feature #1 is a simple garbage pit. Again, we would expect a more random distribution if that were the case. As noted earlier, a few pieces of calcined bone and some tiny (< 0.03 g each) unheated chert waste flakes were recovered in Feature #1 (see Fig. 6.2 for the location of piece-plotted items). Five of the calcined bone fragments were found close together in the area of that northeast ephemeral root disturbance mentioned above. We believe that material is intrusive, especially given its shallow depth in the subsoil (< 5 cm). The other calcined bone fragments are probably also intrusive: 1 was found in the south-

106

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 6.4. Comparison of refit distances between actual and random distributions.

Table 6.1. Comparison of cross-mended distributions between actual measurements and randomly generated distributions, Feature #1.*

mean

Actual Distributions

111 Random Distributions

5000 Random Distributions

40.5

61.5

59.3

99% confidence interval

N/A

8.23

1.15

standard deviation

36.8

33.7

31.6

median

28.3

54.6

55.1

minimum

1.4

5.0

0

maximum

149.2

163.2

217.2

*All measurements are in cm.

Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions west root disturbance and the other 2 were recovered outside the lithic scatter just to the north. Three pieces of calcined bone that were not piece-plotted were also outside the lithic cluster to the north and northeast. The piece-plotted unheated waste flakes, all on Onondaga, are probably also intrusive as 2 were definitely in the southwest root disturbance and a third was in very close juxtaposition to that disturbance (Fig. 6.2). The fourth was in the northeast feature quadrant in an area with no evidence of extensive disturbance but, as noted above, it would be very easy for small items of this nature to be intruded in the subsoil by processes such as earthworm activities. There were also 4 unheated waste flakes recovered from the subsoil in the feature area that were not piece-plotted. However, 1, on Kettle Point and hence, probably not Paleoindian associated, was noted to have been in the same area as the small cluster of calcined bone in the northeast of the feature. The other 3, all on Onondaga, were found in the root disturbance to the southwest. We note that no heated examples of such small waste flakes were recovered in the feature subsoil area and this also leads us to believe the unheated items are intrusive rather than simply something that was missed in the initial heating. Even with evidence of some disturbance as outlined above, the piece-plotted, heated stone material forms a relatively regular plan outline suggesting that the original pit was relatively circular and about 1.5 m across. The density diagram (Fig. 6.3) also suggests that most of the feature material was around the south, west and north margins of the overall distribution as there is comparatively little material in the southeast quadrant. The lack/lower density of material to the southeast is somewhat emphasized by the vandalized area. However, even in undisturbed areas immediately to the north and south of the vandalized area in the eastern periphery, there is little material compared to the areas adjacent to the western end of the vandalized area despite the fact that west to east profile views (see below and Fig. 6.5b) suggest a regular basin-shaped profile in that area. We infer, based on this distribution, that prior to the disturbance, the stone material had a somewhat semicircular-shaped area of maximum density with the more open end of the semicircle facing to the east-southeast. We are willing to speculate that the lithic materials may have been stacked or placed around some other, perhaps now decayed, material in that area, such as a stack of wood used to burn the items. Given the presence of so many lithic items, it is also possible the feature once contained organic artifacts that were carefully placed in that area or perhaps even human remains. Figure 6.5a shows the in situ material by depth and by west to east location along an axis paralleling the west to east excavation grid orientation. In other words, it approximates a view of the feature in profile as seen by looking at it from grid south by ignoring the south-north distance of the individual plots from the viewer. Some researchers call these “back plots” (e.g., Kornfeld et al. 2001). Another profile, here equivalent to viewing the feature from the east in profile, is also provided (Fig. 6.5b), constructed by plotting the material by depth and south-north position paralleling the excavation grid and ignoring the west-east distance

107

from the viewer. The south to north profile plot (Fig. 6.5b) clearly shows the centralized vandalized area in profile cutting across the feature’s center. The plots also are much more irregular, with a few outliers only at shallower depths toward the north end. We attribute this fact largely to the ephemeral evidence of root activity in the northeast area. The plotted pieces also are more scattered, and extend more deeply, toward the south end in the south-north profile and west end in the west-east profile plot. The obvious reason for this irregularity is the large root disturbance in that area, which cut across diagonally and underneath the feature in the southwest feature quadrant. This event resulted in material from the overlying feature collapsing or falling down into the disturbance. However, in the other feature areas the bottom extent of the plotted material exhibits a distribution strongly suggesting that the pit originally had a quite regular basin-shaped profile and that it extended some 20 cm deep into the subsoil. To visualize this root effect more clearly, and position the plotted items in relation to the edge of the root disturbance, we provide on Figure 6.6 a view of the artifact distributions on a south to north profile restricted to those plotted items located in a 24-cm-wide swath (that is, from the 405E to 405.24E line) across the very center of the feature. Given that the overlying plowzone in the feature area is about 24.25 cm deep on average, and assuming the soft sandy site surface has not been deflated, the original feature must have been about 45 cm deep, and a potential profile outline extrapolating from the subsoil distribution is superimposed on Figure 6.6. Soil Analyses The upper part of the site matrix had been destroyed by plowing. Underlying the plowzone there was little evidence of a soil profile and a discernible “B” horizon was absent, which means the site soil could be classified within the Regosolic soil order and group and orthic subgroup in the Canadian System of Soil Classification. The sub-plowzone matrix was a fine sand to silt and was acidic. A number of soil samples were taken across the feature, the analysis of which it was hoped would help to delineate its extent, its possible content beyond the obvious lithic items, and whether or not the lithic items recovered were burned in situ or elsewhere. As indicated earlier, soil samples were taken at 20 cm and 40 cm deep in the subsoil at intervals along the east-west (404N) and north-south (405E) grid lines that very neatly transected the center of the subsoil artifact concentration. This sampling was continued for a distance beyond the feature artifact concentration in all directions, essentially to the edges of all two-meter units completely removed of plowzone in 1981. Across the feature itself, the samples taken at 20-cm intervals (from 403.3 to 404.7N along the 405E grid line and from 403.1 to 405.9E along the 404N grid line) while beyond the feature location spacing was expanded to 40-cm and eventually 80-cm intervals. In retrospect it would have been more suitable to take more samples in a grid pattern across the whole feature area as one

108

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

Figure 6.5. West to east (A) and south to north (B) profile views of fragment/popout plots, Feature #1. The west to east is shown as if the feature was being viewed from the south and the south to north as if the viewer was looking west.

Figure 6.6. South to north profile view in area where root disturbance undercuts southwest corner of feature. Only artifacts located from 405E to 405.24E line are plotted.

Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions

109

Distributions of Different Artifact Forms

could have done density plots, across the complete feature, of various rare earth elements, and so on, to search for more complex patterns. However, our thinking at the time was more modest in scope: we simply hoped that plotting the results on north-south and east-west transects would help isolate the feature itself and how it contrasted with surrounding areas, although it should be noted that given the age of the site, we were not optimistic about the potential for getting significant results. The 20-cm-deep samples were taken because at that depth they went through the feature fill itself and we thought they might provide clues as to how the fill differed from surrounding horizontal as well as underlying areas. The 40-cm-deep samples were taken as they were below the feature but believed to be in the zone where material leeched from the overlying feature might accumulate due to the operation of normal soil forming processes. Two matching sets of samples were taken but only one was subjected to analysis, the other set being retained for possible future analyses. One sample from the first set (403.1N on the 405E line at 20-cm depth) was inadvertently misplaced and so remains unanalyzed. Under the supervision of Roger King, each sample was subjected to numerous analyses including pH and OC (Organic Carbon). In addition, the concentrations of a wide range of elements ranging from Au (Gold) to Yb (Ytterbium) were measured. In both the 20-cm or 40-cm-deep samples, plotting of the concentrations of these various measures N-S and E-W across the feature did not result in any evident patterning corresponding to the feature or its surrounding matrix for soil pH and the measured elements. Moreover, while there might be evidence of slightly elevated concentrations of a very few elements in some 20-cm-deep samples that corresponded to the feature pit side wall horizontal locations, these were inconsistent in that they were seen only in west-east samples but not the north-south ones or vice versa, rendering interpretation difficult, or comparable concentrations could be found outside the feature. There were certainly no concentrations in elements like iron, which might indicate burning in place. Overall, the results were disappointing but perhaps not unexpected given the age of the site.

In this section we examine the distribution of various artifact forms within Feature #1. We have summarized some of the main conclusions of our distributional analyses elsewhere (Deller et al. 2009:381–83) but here discuss these distributions in detail. During excavation it was our impression that not all of the in situ heated material recovered was distributed evenly across the feature by raw material or by artifact type/class. For example, it seemed that most of the items on Collingwood chert were more toward the southeast edge of Feature #1 and that fluted bifaces were predominantly in the south half of the feature. Plotting of the heat-fractured items by toolstone type clearly suggests that our initial impressions were of some merit. For example, simple visual examination suggests there is little in the way of Collingwood chert items in the northwest one-meter quadrant encompassing the feature, whereas that material predominates to the south, especially the southeast (Fig. 6.1). Similarly, almost all the Ancaster items are in the northeast quadrant (Fig. 6.1) and, in fact, are in a small area within that quadrant. A GIS methodology (described below) was run against this using the four quadrants as four analytical zones. The results, given in Table 6.2, confirm the impression of the excavators with regard to the raw material distributions. Briefly, the southwest and northeast quadrants are similar with respect to Collingwood and Onondaga chert frequencies, while the northwest and southeast are very different from each other and the other two quadrants, and the differences are statistically significant. However, as previous discussion has indicated, the various raw materials represented are not evenly distributed by tool type or class. Collingwood chert, for example, is overrepresented among the fluted bifaces and rare in all other categories. Ancaster chert, excepting a few fluted bifaces, is found almost exclusively among the small, leaf-shaped bifaces. Perhaps the determinant of the distribution of the raw material types is due to their differential distribution among the various artifact forms themselves. We test this possibility below.

Table 6.2. Distribution of Feature #1 fragments by quadrant. Quadrant

Total Frags.

Collingwood

Onondaga

Ancaster

Other

%

Confidence Interval*

%

Confidence Interval*

%

Confidence Interval*

%

Confidence Interval*

southwest

484

25

3.9

74.6

3.9

0.4

0.6

0

-

northwest

320

10.6

3.4

89.1

3.4

0.3

0.6

0

-

southeast

255

50.2

6.1

49.4

6.1

0.4

0.8

0

-

northeast

405

20.5

3.9

74.8

4.2

2.7

1.6

2

1.4

*95% confidence interval.

110

Crowfield (AfHj-31)

To investigate the distributions, we plotted all the major artifact types and classes in the feature using the GIS program. We then attempted to determine if these distributions were statistically significant, although given the low sample sizes for some tool types, one is forced to rely simply on visual examination in certain cases. Nonetheless, the distribution patterns of several of these rarer classes are so tightly clustered that we believe the visual data alone are convincing. Be that as it may, for the artifact classes with larger samples we conducted statistical analysis to validate that the clustering of the artifact class was statistically significant and not the result of a random deposition into the feature. It is worth stressing that whereas most artifact categories are clearly distinguishable, some are more difficult to recognize and classify unambiguously. For example, heavily shaped and distinctive forms such as fluted bifaces, alternately beveled bifaces, backed bifaces, bifacial perforators, leaf-shaped bifaces and side scrapers are relatively easy to recognize and classify correctly but simple flake blanks and retouched/used flakes are often difficult to distinguish very readily. As previous discussions have indicated, it is often difficult to distinguish edge damage caused by use from that resulting either from transportation or as simply a byproduct of manufacture (e.g., spontaneous retouch; Newcomer 1976). This difficulty is exacerbated in an assemblage such as Crowfield where everything has been heat damaged and where many items are somewhat incomplete. For example, even a small missing section on an artifact could have encompassed an area of use, or even deliberate retouch. Also, incompleteness alone has resulted in the assignment of many fragments to grosser categories such as “refined bifaces” or “unrefined bifaces” and those categories may include a range of different items used for, or intended to be used for, different purposes. Finally, it should be clear that a gross category like “retouched/used flake” is much more likely to include items used for different purposes and not be a tight functional category. Unlike the fluted bifaces, leaf-shaped bifaces, bifacial perforators, and so on, the retouched/used flakes category includes items with very few decisions involved in their manufacture or use, making it unlikely that they were made for a very specific use context (see below and Ellis 1993:604–5; Ellis and Deller 1988:126–27). Retouched flakes could include simple cutting/scraping tools or unresharpened side scrapers or even, in rare instances, spontaneous retouch. We see them as more of a descriptive device and one would really not expect them to cluster spatially. Indeed, as we discuss in more detail at the end of this chapter, the fact that a certain type or class clusters spatially is an independent confirmation that the category recognized had not only significance to the archaeologists doing the classification but also to the Paleoindian(s) who placed the contents in the feature in a deliberate order. In terms of the statistical analyses, the spatial segregation of the various artifact types/classes was examined on a north/south feature split. The division between north and south is defined as the line along 404N with any artifact located exactly on the line designated as belonging to the north half. This line was arbitrarily

selected not because it was a “nice number” from the perspective of the site grid but because there are several other factors that make it a useful delineation point. First, it divides the feature along what appears visually to be the north-south centerline of the feature. Indeed, when the number of individual heated fragments is counted, this line is very close to an even split (738 to the south and 724 to the north of the 404 north line). Second, when examining the loci of the various artifact concentrations, most of the major artifact types plotted in situ tend to be centered or almost exclusively either north or south of this line. Third, as it divides the space into only two areas, it leaves the actual counts of artifacts per division as large as possible for statistical calculations. Using the four quadrants or some smaller subdivision would further reduce the counts in each quadrant. Our primary goal here is to show that there are significant patterns in the artifact spatial data; we are less concerned with the more specific distributions of each type although we will not refrain entirely from suggesting some more limited distributions for some tool types or ones that are more restricted than what simply a northsouth split would indicate. A critical issue in the analyses was to determine the artifact units to be employed in the statistical analysis. While the occurrence of over 1400 separate fragments looked enticing from the perspective of determining statistical significance, it quickly became evident that for the statistical techniques to be validly used, it was necessary in most cases that they be applied to single artifacts and not to all of the fragments of each artifact since use of fragments improperly inflates the counts of artifacts per unit. For example, suppose 4 bifaces were found in the south half and 2 in the north half. In that case the count is small enough that the differences are clearly not statistically significant, without even running any statistical tests. Suppose that our hypothetical set of bifaces were burned and each one fragmented into exactly 10 pieces, giving a count of 40 fragments in the south and 20 in the north. Now the differences are statistically significant assuming an expected 50/50 split. To be exact, the differences in this hypothetical example are significant at the .012 level of significance using a chi-square test. Clearly then the statistical analysis usually needs to be performed using single artifacts and not the sum of all the fragments. The only exceptions where fragment counts can be used is when statements are being made about the fragments as a whole as in, for example, the validation of the excavators’ observation (discussed above) that there seemed to be more fragments of Collingwood chert in the south than in the north. In that case, the fragment is the proper unit of analysis. Consequently, it was necessary to manipulate the table of piece-plotted fragments employed in statistical analyses so as to reduce the fragments making up a single object to a single point and to deal only with categories of some validity. The first stage of this manipulation involved eliminating analytical categories that could not be reduced to a single count, such as “popouts and fragments,” and in most cases, as these could be from a very wide variety of tool forms, it would be useless to examine their spatial distributions for patterning. The other category eliminated

Feature #1: Size, Shape and Internal Spatial Distributions for the same reason was “refined biface fragments” since, as the discussion in earlier chapters indicates, these cannot be tied to any single artifact type. Second, the problem of multiple spatially separate fragments of the same artifact, or cross-mends, must be considered. These cross-mends are close together as noted above, and they auto-correlate. If counted as separate artifacts they would artificially inflate totals and be biased to certain locations. In this case, the single spatial location of the artifact was determined by averaging the coordinates of all the fragments in a cross-mended set. For example, given 2 fragments from the same artifact, the location used for plotting purposes would be halfway between them. The result of this kind of counting creates a table of single artifacts as shown in Table 6.3. Of course, the exact location of each single “artifact” location is also known and was used for one of the statistical tests. In total, four separate statistical tests were used to examine the significance of the difference in counts between the north and the south halves of the feature. In all cases the intent was to demonstrate that the observed differences were not random and, consequently, were statistically significant. For one of the tests the confidence intervals were calculated for the most common (n > 10) artifacts, specifically fluted bifaces, large unrefined bifaces, and blanks, based on the relative percentage of these items out of all artifacts in each half of the feature. The methodology used the GIS system to count the relative percentages and the confidence intervals (see Keron 2003 for methodological details). For the other test the table was reduced, taking only those artifact types with 5 or more instances into the calculations. This reduction in the data yielded a total count of 54 items in the north half and 35 items in the south half. That data subset is shown in Table 6.4. Tests were run on each type/class individually using the 54/35 split as the expected frequency. Thus, the question being posed would be, for example: is the 17/1 split for fluted bifaces versus the expected 54/35 split statistically significant and at what level of significance? Tests conducted included the G-test (Sokal and Rohlf 1969:559), the chi-square test (Shennan 1997:104), and the calculation of binomial probabilities (Sokal and Rohlf 1969:71–81). The values of these tests are shown in Table 6.5. In addition to these tests, both G-test and chi-square tests were run on Table 6.4 as a whole using a technique that Wonnacott and Wonnacott (1990:555) call a contingency table. This analysis took the entire Table 6.4 and calculated the chi-square (χ2) at 38.577 and the G-test at 44.933, both obviously highly significant (df = 6; p < .001). Stated in other words, this distribution is not the one that would occur if the artifacts were randomly tossed into the feature. This same method was also used in determining the significance of some other distributions beyond the simple dichotomy between the in situ north half and south half items. In particular, as discussed more below, preliminary data inspection suggested there may be significant differences between the distribution of items in the feature versus those in the plowzone, and between those in the vandalized area and those in other locations, so these other distributions also needed to be examined statistically.

111

Table 6.3. Distribution of types/classes by north-south division of Feature #1. Artifact Type/Class

South

North

Total

fluted biface

17

1

18

unrefined biface fragment (large)

19

5

24

unrefined biface fragment (small)

3

4

7

alternately beveled biface fragment

3

0

3

bifacial perforator fragment

0

3

3

backed biface fragment

3

2

5

leaf-shaped biface fragment

0

5

5

very thin biface tool

0

1

1

small thin biface fragment

1

0

1

narrow/nosed scraper fragment

0

1

1

refined uniface fragment

4

3

7

side scraper fragment

5

0

5

cobble

1

0

1

burned pebble

1

0

1

biface thinning flake fragment

0

1

1

raclette fragment

1

0

1

retouched flake fragment

2

2

4

blank fragment

3

12

15

channel flake fragment

0

3

3

totals

63

43

106

South

North

Total

fluted bifaces

17

1

18

large unrefined bifaces

19

5

24

small unrefined bifaces

3

4

7

backed bifaces

3

2

5

leaf-shaped bifaces

0

5

5

refined uniface fragment

4

3

7

side scrapers

5

0

5

blanks*

3

15

18

totals

54

35

89

Table 6.4. Counts for statistical calculations. Artifact Type/Class

*Includes 3 channel flakes and 1 biface thinning flake.

112

Crowfield (AfHj-31) Table 6.5. Statistical tests on single artifact types. Artifact Type/Class

Chi Square

G-Test

Binomial

Value

Probability

Value

Probability

Probability

fluted bifaces

8.60320

0.00336

11.13063