From Quarry to Inquiry:
An Analysis of Variability within the Berry Site
Lithic Assemblage
Kathryn May Kipfer
Sociology/Anthropology/Archaeology
Warren Wilson College
Spring 2012
Advisors:
Dr. David Moore
Dr. Laura Vance
Dr. Siti Kusujiarti
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES……………………………………………………...3
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….4
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..………………..5-6
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………..…..…7-20
METHODS……………………………………………..…………………..…...……20-23
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS….………………………………..24-37
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH……………………………………………………………….…………38-39
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS……………………………………..…….39-41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………...……………………………...………….………42
REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………...………...……..43-45
APPENDIX A: ANNOTATED ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT………….....….....…..46-50
APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS AND CHI SQUARE TESTS…...51-54
2
List of Figures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Berry Site Map……………………………………………………………………8
Generalized Reduction Trajectory……………………………………………….13
Flake Diagram Indicating Measurements Taken…………………………….......21
Cortex Measurement Tool……………………………………………………….22
Berry Site Map Indicating Locations of Features……………………………......25
Debitage Stages Determined for Experimental Replication with Quartz……......35
Debitage Stages Determined for Experimental Replication with Chalcedony......36
Debitage Stages Determined for Experimental Replication with Chert…………37
List of Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Frequencies of Lithic Artifacts From Each Analyzed Feature…………………..26
Raw Material Frequencies at the Berry Site……………………………………..29
Raw Material and Cortex% Crosstabulation……………………………………..30
Raw Material and Weight………………………………………………………..32
Cortex% and Platform Width…………………………………………………….33
3
Abstract
The lithic assemblage from an archaeological site includes all stone
materials associated with the use or creation of stone tools that took place on the site.
Lithics provide some of the most abundant evidence of past human behaviors available to
archaeologists studying prehistoric sites. Finished stone tools are rarely found in isolation
within the archaeological record; instead, they are recovered along with the waste
material, or debitage, associated with their manufacture. The tools, along with the
debitage, provide physical evidence for a range of human activity. This paper presents the
findings of an analysis of the lithics from the Berry Site (31BK22), a Burke phase
settlement in the Western Piedmont of North Carolina.
A quantitative analysis was performed on lithic tools and debitage with a focus on
reduction stage typologies in order to answer questions regarding the acquisition and use
of raw materials and stone tool technology present at the site. An evaluation of the size,
raw material, and form of lithic artifacts was made in order to identify information most
relevant to an analysis of the Berry site lithics. This analysis was then compared with the
results of a replicative experiment performed with the intention of generating a more sitespecific typological analysis while exploring the significance of middle-range theory in
archaeology. Middle-range theory, derived from Merton’s sociological application of the
concept, employs experimental and ethnographic research in order to link artifacts with
human behaviors.
Information generated in the course of this research serves to promote ongoing
inquiries into the economic and technological aspects of human behavior at the site, while
providing a more comprehensive perspective on the lithic artifacts associated with the
western Piedmont region of North Carolina.
4
Introduction
Wisps of smoke, short peals of laughter, and a steady rhythmic knocking sound
wafted through the trees at the edge of the village. Beyond the hard-packed dirt of the
main village where children ran amongst the houses and fire pits, a man sat and studied
the block of chert in his hand. He struck its edges with a black river cobble, a well-worn
hammerstone, and knocked sharp bits of chert off of the larger piece and onto the ground
at his feet. He separated the larger flakes that could be shaped into tools from the pile of
smaller pieces of rock that was collecting on the red clay earth in front of him. In a few
moments, the piece of chert was flat and triangular, and the craftsman set down the
hammerstone and picked up a short length of deer antler. He pressed the antler’s point
against the rough edges of the triangular piece of chert and flaked off tiny bits of stone as
he shaped and sharpened the tool into a small triangular point. He held the projectile
point up to the sun to admire its sharp evenness, set it in a leather bag at his feet, and
selected another block of chert from the pile beside him.
***
Lithic materials provide some of the most abundant evidence of human behavior
available to archaeologists studying prehistoric sites, and stone artifacts serve as silent
witnesses to past human activity (Andrefsky 1998; Cahen 1979). Finished stone tools are
rarely found in isolation within the archaeological record; instead, they are recovered
from sites along with the waste materials, or “debitage,” that is generated during the
production process (Odell 2004). Because lithic assemblages represent a range of
activities which have taken place on a particular site, debitage analysis can provide
insight into human behaviors, spatial concentrations of activity, applied technologies, and
5
raw material availability by revealing the byproducts produced at all stages of lithic tool
manufacture (Cahen 1979). This research employs the application of attribute analysis
and experimental archaeological research to the lithics recovered from the Berry Site
(31BK22), a Burke phase mixed-occupation prehistoric and protohistoric site
representing the native town of Joara and the Spanish settlement of Fort San Juan (Moore
2002). The Berry Site is located on an alluvial bottomland along Upper Creek in
Morganton, North Carolina. Lithics on the site are found in various concentrations in all
excavated soil zones, features, and structures. Because the site has been heavily plowed
during its history as an agricultural site, artifacts in situ are found primarily in pit
features, structures, and lower soil zones. For the purpose of this research, only artifacts
recovered from features were examined. This ensures that analysis is performed primarily
on artifacts that were found as close to their original contexts as possible, and such an
approach offers a wide perspective on the lithic variability present at the site.
This research combines quantitative analysis with experimental archaeology in
order to link the lithics recovered from the Berry site (31BK22) with the human
behaviors that resulted in their creation
A quantitative analysis serves to answer inquiries about the types of lithics
recovered from the site, while an experimental approach explores the suitability of the
applied typology and the significance of middle-range theory in archaeology. Middlerange theory, an approach to archaeology derived from Robert K. Merton’s sociological
application of the concept, attempts to link past human contextual behavior with the
material remains of non-living societies (Goodyear 1984:256).
.
6
Research Framework
The Berry Site
The Berry site represents the site of the Native American town of Joara
and the site of the Spanish fort of San Juan, established in 1567 under the command of
Juan Pardo.
The native Mississippian town of Joara represents one of the largest native towns
in the western Piedmont of North Carolina at the time of Spanish contact in the sixteenth
century. Archaeological evidence and historic accounts suggest that the relationship
between Native Americans and Spanish occupiers of the fort was mutually beneficial at
the start, but quickly degraded and ultimately resulted in the destruction of the Spanish
settlement and the deaths of all but one of the twenty-five Spanish soldiers stationed in
Joara. The forts were burned to the ground by 1568, within 18 months of their
construction (Beck, Moore, and Rodning 2004).
The Berry site covers approximately 13 acres of alluvial bottomland along Upper
Creek in Burke County, North Carolina (Beck, Moore, and Rodning 2004). Occupation
of the Berry site can be divided into three distinct settlement areas (See Figure 1). The
Spanish fort is located at the northern end of the site, and the fort is known to include at
least five structures. The northern portion of the site has been excavated more extensively
than any other portion of the site, and the evidence examined in this research focuses
exclusively on evidence recovered from this area. Upper Creek runs to the east of the
Spanish fort. Just south of the Spanish fort are the remains of a large mound that was
destroyed by agricultural activities in the early 20th century, and which now appears as a
slight rise between the northern and southern ends of the site.
7
Spanish Fort San Juan
Mississippian Period Mound
Native American Town of Joara
Figure 1: Berry Site Map
Courtesy of the Warren Wilson College Archaeology Lab
Because excavations to the north, south, and west of the Spanish fort have not
been extensively conducted, the extent and location of the Native American occupation
of Joara is unknown (Beck, Moore, and Rodning 2004).
Conversations on Classification
8
A lithic assemblage is composed of lithic artifacts characterized by certain
attributes, and these attributes form its assemblage variability (Odell 2004:6). Diagnostic
traits of lithic artifacts range from broad (raw lithic material) to very specific
(microscopic use-wear), and any variables within this range can be considered as traits
used to characterize a given assemblage (Odell 2004).
Classifications provide the means for comparative analysis within and between
lithic assemblages in the form of generalized, meaningful “ranges of variation.” These
ranges of variation are determined on the basis of certain characteristics of lithic artifacts
and the questions that a researcher wishes to answer by examining the assemblage.
Bradbury and Carr (1998) note that “inferences derived from any approach are only as
reliable as the method of classification” (Bradbury and Carr 1998:105).
Because there is an infinite degree of variability among lithic artifacts, standards
of classification must be applied to lithic assemblages in order to facilitate comparative
studies and analysis. Regardless of which theoretical approach one takes to apply to the
analysis of a lithic assemblage, the importance of defining and standardizing terms in
order to facilitate comparisons and replications is vital.
The most common method of characterizing assemblages is through the
recognition of morphological (macroscopic form or appearance) characteristics.
Complete assemblages are analyzed, and tools or debitage possessing similar attributes
are “lumped” together into types to allow for comparisons within and between
assemblages classified into similarly derived “types” (Odell 2004:6). Typological
classifications offer generalizations of variables in the form of types, or mutually
exclusive categories of meaning that are expressed in ranges of variation (Krieger 1964;
9
Andrefsky 2005). Variables are selected for analysis based upon the data a researcher
wishes to derive from an assemblage, and in this way, typologies are constructed in terms
of an individual researcher’s goals (Read 663).
Odell (2004) notes that, though all aspects of a lithic assemblage provide valuable
information to the researcher, there are some attributes of lithic analysis that are most
useful for answering certain questions. For example, a researcher studying the function of
tools might select traits that are indicative of how a tool was used; these might include
patterns of wear or remains of residue on the tool.
“Vectors of variability” within lithic assemblages include aspects of lithics that
are indicative of technological or functional factors that influence the manufacture or use
of stone tools (Odell 2004:89). Variability within each vector may be discrete or
continuous, depending on the variables examined and the information a researcher wishes
to derive from the data. Developing a complete perspective on any given assemblage
requires the researcher to take all vectors of variability into account, and Odell (2004)
notes that the variability inherent within these “vectors” should discourage the use of a
single system of classification or analysis, including a “comprehensive” typological
approach. Instead, all vectors of information should be considered as “separate categories
of information that can be related to one another at higher levels of integration” (Odell
2004: 89). Because this research is primarily concerned with the technology associated
with stone tool production, however, traits indicative of reduction sequences were used as
a basis for determining the analytical model best suited for analysis of the Berry site lithic
assemblage.
10
Typological approaches to lithic assemblages are based on the assumption that
certain characteristics of lithic artifacts can be used to classify them within a temporal,
technological, spatial, or behavioral scale that links the material data to the human
behaviors that created them (Read 1996:663).
For example, a reduction stage typology defines ranges of variation based on
ranges typically observed at the various stages of stone tool production (Sullivan and
Rozen 1989; Andrefsky 2005). The goal of a reduction stage typology is to place artifacts
within discrete types that form a continuum that relates to the reduction stages associated
with tool manufacture. Such a typology is based on the assumption that certain
characteristics of lithic artifacts can be used as categories of meaning to determine stages
of reduction. Shott and Ballenger (2007) note that “from original cobble to finished tool
and beyond, size change occurs in only one direction,” and that “what once were
considered distinct “types” can be arbitrary subdivisions of reduction continua” (154).
The manufacture of lithics is always a subtractive process; the size of the stone is
gradually reduced, through manufacture or use. Other technologies, including ceramics
and textile making, are additive processes.
According to Odell (2004), the most basic and useful analysis of technology
within an assemblage involves determining the relationships that exist between the core
and the pieces that are removed from it. The term “core” refers to the piece of raw
material from which flakes are removed in order to create stone tools. The term
“trajectory” refers to the “specific production system pursued by toolmakers of a
particular cultural group,” and a flake trajectory refers to the intentions of the toolmaker
in flaking off bits of the core in order to create usable tools (Odell 2004:91).
11
Bifacial tools are lithic tools that show intentional flaking of two opposing
surfaces, and these are the product of a specific reduction continuum. Researchers are
encouraged to experiment with the technology of bifacial manufacture in order to become
familiar with the transitional blank, preform, and debitage stages of bifacial tool
manufacture.
Reduction trajectory modeling incorporates the complete reduction sequence from
core to tool (See Figure 2) (Odell 2004:98). The three general reduction stages of a biface
are as follows:
Stage 1= initial edging, in which relatively widely spaced scars produce a
sinuous outline in lateral view. Biface itself is relatively thick
(width:thickness=2:1).
Stage 2= primary thinning, in which major projections and irregularities
are eliminated as the edge becomes more centered and less sinuous in
lateral section. Blows usually do not travel past the center of the piece, but
thinning has restricted edge angles to the 40-60 [degree] range, and the
width:thickness ratio to 3:1 or 4:1.
Stage 3= secondary thinning, continuing the trends of the previous stage.
Manufacture scars are close together, the edge is straight, and the edge
angles are consistently in the 25-45 degree range. The piece is
characteristically thin, the width:thickness ratio usually exceeding 4:1.
Shaping flakes frequently travel past the center and undercut previously
produced flake scars from the opposite margin. (Odell 2004:100)
12
Figure 2: Generalized Lithic Reduction Sequence: Odell, 2004.
These reduction stages are useful for determining the reduction trajectories of
projectile points, bifacial knives, or drills (Odell 2004:98). However, this generalized
model must be examined and modified to accommodate the variability observed within a
13
specific lithic assemblage, and the traits a researcher chooses to examine must reflect the
type of information the researcher wishes to derive from the lithics.
Variability and Typological Classification
The debate surrounding assemblage variability and the application of typologies is
decades old, and the arguments at its core have influenced theory at the base of
archaeological thought (Odell 2004: 6). Most aspects of the debate center on concerns of
the ambiguity, generalizability, and validity of applying typological assessments to lithic
assemblages. The Bordes-Binford debates of the 1970s centered around the origins of
variability; in this case, the question was whether variability was caused by differences in
tool use or differences in tool manufacture (Binford 1962; Bordes 1961; Bordes and deSonneville Bordes 1970). Both Binford and Bordes worked with Mousterian tools, and
each researcher worked to construct a typology that would facilitate the accurate
representation of assemblages while providing a basis for accurate comparisons between
assemblages. Bordes adamantly asserted that variability originated in ethnic differences
among tool-making groups, while Binford’s oppositional stance was that assemblage
differences could be attributed to the ways that prehistoric peoples used stone tools
(Odell 2004: 7).
The debate between Albert Spaulding and James Ford in the 1950s centered on
the question of whether “types” were inherent in the artifacts themselves, or whether
types were constructed by the researcher in order to answer specific questions of a lithic
assemblage (Odell 2004:6-7).
14
The archaeological jury on typologies and assemblage variability is still out. No
standard means of classification and comparison have been established, and the
effectiveness of measuring certain variables of lithic artifacts in order to answer specific
research directives is still in question. Concerns of ambiguity, arbitrariness, and
generalizability complicate the construction and application of typologies.
Although standardization of analytical procedures reduces the ambiguity of
utilizing stage typologies to group artifacts into attribute-based categories, generalization
of ambiguities at the measurement level can often reduce the applicability and reliability
of the analysis drawn from the data. Standardization on a large-scale seems to be nearly
impossible, since all assemblages are unique and the same classifications may not be
comparable between assemblages. For example, a reduction stage typology is constructed
with a reduction trajectory in mind. Debitage is classified according to “type” based upon
its theoretical relationship to a core, and the point at which it was removed from the core.
Classification involves imposing limitations in order to create discrete “stages” within the
continuum of reduction for the purpose of delineating one group of lithics from another.
In order to create an assemblage-specific typology, the reduction sequence occurring on a
particular site must be studied and understood.
Stone tool typologies are used to classify artifacts, and morphological reduction
stage typologies are used to classify artifacts by the stage of reduction at which they were
created. Certain attributes of tools, cores, and debitage are assumed to be indicative of
certain stages of reduction (Andrefsky 2005; Dibble et al. 2005). However, the variability
observed within classifications applied by existing typologies often creates ambiguities
and inaccuracies. Artifacts could be classified differently by other researchers applying
15
similar typologies to a different assemblage, and the need for an “objective” form of
lithic analysis was recognized (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:179-182; Shott and Ballenger
2007:725-728). Middle range theory is employed to critique approaches to lithic analysis
that rely on creating distinctive technological assemblages of artifacts defined by
reduction stage typologies instead of identifying key attributes of individual artifacts
(Sullivan and Rozen 1989). Attribute analysis does not support an approach to lithic
analysis that depends on "making technological inferences at the artifact level”; instead, it
proposes an alternative method that employs attribute analysis and variable cross
tabulation in order to facilitate comparative analysis (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). This
approach supports a view of lithic artifacts in the form of a "continuum rather than as a
set of distinct technological events" (Sullivan and Rozen 1985).
A stage typology approach applies to debitage produced by core reduction. The
three basic categories of debitage within this typology (primary, secondary, and tertiary
flakes) are general and simplified, and may create erroneous distinctions that can not be
directly correlated to actual reduction stages (Clay 1976; Shott 2000; Shott and Ballenger
2007; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). In this specific typological approach, categories
represent a specific sequence of flake removal that is characterized by the progressively
decreasing amounts of cortex that distinguish them. Primary flakes, it is argued, reveal
the largest percentage of cortex and are the first flakes to be removed from a core.
Sullivan and Rozen cite the unquestioned acceptance of these categories and imply that
the lack of definition of attributes encompassed by these categories can lead to
ambiguous analysis since debitage attribute variability is dependent upon many factors.
These factors include raw material type and availability, core (or nodule) size, intensity
16
of reduction, local raw material economies, and "stylistic and functional factors" that
could be attributed to the individual toolmaker (Clay 1976; Odell 2004; Shott 2000; Shott
and Ballenger 2007; Sullivan and Rozen 1985).
Recognizing the potential for ambiguous classification and a lack of
accommodation for variation within typological classification, lithicists have recently
begun to implement attribute analyses (Clay 1976; Shott 2000; Shott and Ballenger
2007). This approach relies on the recognition of multiple dimensions of variability
within broad tool classes. Attribute analysis does not support attributing "stage
typologies" to individual artifacts, as such a system is ambiguous. Instead, it proposes an
"interpretation free" analysis that relies on recorded data to group artifacts into types that
are representative of the process of reduction used to create stone tools. Lithic
assemblages must be viewed within a continuum (Clay 1976; Shott and Ballenger 2007),
rather than in discrete classes that distinguish one “type” of artifact from another.
The attributes represented within this continuum are dependent on technological,
cultural, and environmental factors acting on each assemblage. Due to the nature of lithic
technologies, it is always a continuum of reduction (Clay 1976; Shott and Ballenger
2007). These attributes are measured, recorded, and cross tabulated with other
dimensions of variability in order to facilitate analysis and discussion (Clay 1976). Thus,
analysis is not dependent upon the goals or biases of any researcher; the assemblage itself
is represented accurately and interpretation free. Interpretations can then be drawn from
the cross tabulation of dimensions of variability within an assemblage. Attributes would
not be measured and initially assigned to an ordinal scale; instead, the “true”
measurements are recorded and compared in order to identify concurrent variables (Clay
17
1976; Shott 2000; Shott and Ballenger 2007). Variables to be examined include flake
length, width, weight, platform size, provenience, cortical content, material, directionality
of cores, ratio between flake length and width, and flake termination type.
As Odell notes, “the jury is still out on several debitage variables, as accounts of
their discriminatory success vary with different researchers and research problems”
(Odell 2004). This research selectively examines the relative effectiveness of measuring
certain variables and determining the relatedness of certain traits (such as raw material
and size or platform width and percentage of cortex) for the purpose of recognizing
variables most useful for modeling reduction trajectories within the Berry site
assemblage.
Experimental Archaeology and Middle-Range Theory
The history of experimental flintknapping for the purpose of gaining firsthand
knowledge in the field of lithic analysis began in 1868, when Sven Nilsson began to
collect stones "which had evidently been fashioned by the hand of man for some special
purpose, and which showed distinct traces of strokes or knocks" (Johnson et al.
1978:337). Nilsson recognized the similarities between these marked stones and the flints
he chipped for his rifle. Although there is no evidence that Nilsson made any attempt to
replicate the stone tools he examined, he made a connection between human activity and
the alteration of ancient rocks that had previously been mythicized or misunderstood.
This connection helped to lay the foundations for modern experiments in knapping. The
contributions of Sir John Evans, Francois Bordes, Don E. Crabtree, Mark Newcomer, and
other experimental flintknappers have helped shape modern approaches to lithic analysis
by illustrating the technological processes and resulting debris of the production of stone
18
tools (Johnson et al. 1978). Lithic experiments have also revealed the ambiguities
associated with reduction stage typologies and typological classifications in lithics in
general (Cowan 1999; Shelley 1990; Stahle 1982; Whittaker 2004).
Bradbury and Carr (1998) address the misclassification of artifacts within stage
typologies through experimental archaeology. They assert the importance of identifying
useful attributes for classification and analysis, and conducted a series of experiments in
which flakes removed from cores were numbered as they were removed in order to create
a continuum model for lithic debitage. Their findings represent a range of variation
within “stages” that results from the desired trajectory of the flintknapper: attributes of
debitage created during core reduction occasionally differed from attributes of debitage
produced during tool manufacture. Additionally, the overlap in production techniques
(hard hammer or soft hammer percussion; pressure flaking), the occurrence of core
reduction and tool production on most sites, and the lack of a standardized scale reduces
the applicability of their experimental models to other assemblages (Bradbury and Carr
1998:110). They propose that a microscopic fracture mechanics study would provide a
researcher with data about the type of percussion technique used during reduction, which
would then separate the assemblage into core reduction and tool production in order to
facilitate typological analysis within each of these two separate data sets.
Because an attribute analysis emphasizing reduction stages was employed for the
purpose of this research, the goal of this analysis is similar to the goal of flintknapping
experiments. Both forms of inquiry seek to relate sources of variability in lithic
assemblages to the technology used to create stone tools and debitage (Bradbury and
Carr, 2010; Johnson et al. 1978).
19
A quantitative analysis serves to answer inquiries about the types of lithics
recovered from the site, while an experimental approach explores the suitability of the
applied typology and the significance of middle-range theory in archaeology. Middlerange theory, an approach to archaeology derived from Robert K. Merton’s sociological
application of the concept, attempts to link past human contextual behavior with the
material remains of non-living societies (Goodyear 1984:256).
Middle-range theory, along with ethnographic research and experimental archaeology,
provides a theoretical “bridge” between the material data recovered from an
archaeological site and the human activities that created those data. The experimental
aspect of this research serves to highlight the significance of middle-range theory in
archaeology and to further explore the debate surrounding the applicability of generalized
typologies to specific lithic assemblages.
Methods
The purpose of this research is primarily to document variability within the Berry
site assemblage while simultaneously examining and evaluating the roles of typological
analysis and experimental archaeology in lithic analysis.
In an attempt to represent artifacts in situ and, due to the high volume of lithic
artifacts recovered from the site, four features containing lithic artifacts were randomly
selected from a sample that included all features on the site. All debitage from each
sampled feature was analyzed, and tools (including projectile points, bifaces, and drills)
were randomly sampled from within each feature. Features 25, 71, 92, and 112 were
analyzed, which resulted in a total sample size of 559 lithic artifacts.
20
All lithic materials were measured using an instrument (see appendix A) that
allowed for the recognition and measurement of major lithic “forms” (such as cores,
projectile points, and flakes) and open-ended attribute measurements taken in grams and
millimeters. The attributes chosen to characterize flakes were selectively drawn from
Odell’s Lithic Analysis (2004) based on their relevance to the Berry site lithics and their
suitability for determining an individual flake’s position within the reduction trajectory.
These attributes included: loci (feature number), raw material, form, portion (complete,
broken, unfinished, or not evident), weight, cortical percentage, platform width,
maximum length, maximum width, and maximum thickness. Figure 3, below, illustrates
the locations on each flake where measurements were taken. The ventral surface of the
flake is the interior side of the flake. The dorsal flake surface is the exterior side of the
flake. In Figure 3, the dorsal surface displays 90% cortex.
Figure 3: Dorsal and Ventral Surface of Flake with Measurements Indicated
21
The measurement of a flake’s cortex was simplified by the use of a transparent
dot grid that was overlaid on each flake displaying any amount of cortex (See figure 4).
Figure 4: Transparent Grid Overlaying a Flake with 88% Dorsal Cortex
The flake in figure 4 displays 88% cortex. The total number of dots taken up by
the flake was counted, and the number of dots that were on top of cortex was divided by
the total area of the flake. In the case of the flake in figure 4, the entire area of the flake
was 25 dots. 22 of those dots were on top of cortex, and 22/25 is equal to 0.88, or 88%.
These quantified variables were coded according to existing reduction stage
typologies modeled after those proposed by Bradbury and Carr (1998), Callahan (1979),
and Odell (2004). A scale of variability was applied in order to separate the continuous
metric data into more discreet categories, which was then analyzed using SPSS software.
22
Cross tabulation was employed to discover multivariate frequency distributions for the
purpose of recognizing patterns in the occurrence of certain variables.
Although the divisions in measurement used in this research were loosely based
on existing typological delineations, they were also drawn from observations of the
artifacts analyzed in this research. The measurements were taken “as is” and later coded
in order to facilitate analysis using SPSS, and the coding was intentionally done to allow
for many categories and as little ambiguity as possible. However, because the creation of
categories for the sake of classification must involve a level of generalizability, the
lumping of artifacts into groups reduces the representation of variability within the
assemblage.
In order to develop a more site-specific reduction stage typology for the Berry
Site lithics, experimental archaeology was employed to provide a comparison with data
derived using SPSS and reduction stage typologies. Materials commonly associated with
the Berry Site were knapped with traditional tools by experienced flintknapper William
Huntsman, who specializes in the replication of Native American stone tool technologies.
Examples of finished tools found at the Berry Site were provided to the
flintknapper, who then recreated them and collected the debitage associated with each
tool. The flintknapper determined stages of production by comparing the flakes produced
during each “stage” with the descriptions of stages outlined in the reduction trajectory
outlined by George H. Odell (2004). The lithics recovered from the Berry site were
compared to the projectile points and debitage produced by Mr. Huntsman, and the stages
determined by Mr. Huntsman were compared with existing typologies and the
classifications constructed through coding and analysis.
23
Research Findings and Conclusions
Feature Size, Sample Size, and Artifact Distribution
The lithics analyzed in this research project were recovered from four
features. Features selected for analysis were randomly chosen from a sample that
included all excavated features on the site. Due to the extent of the excavations carried
out at the northern end of the site, all lithic materials analyzed were excavated from
features north of the mound. All debitage from each sampled feature was analyzed, and
tools (including projectile points) were randomly sampled from within each feature.
Features 25, 71, 92, and 112 were analyzed, which resulted in a total sample size of 558
lithic artifacts. One of the central questions driving this research was whether different
stages of lithic manufacture were taking place in different areas on the site. This question
is best answered by 1) determining the concentrations of lithics contained within each
feature; 2) analyzing the locations of features in relation to structures and other features,
and 3) determining the stages of reduction represented by the artifacts recovered from
each feature.
Figure 5 is a map of the Berry site that includes all units excavated to the north of
the Mississippian period mound. The features analyzed for the purpose of this research
are outlined in red.
Interestingly, three of the features analyzed are located in close proximity to each
other on the site. Feature 92 is located within Structure 5, and Features 71 and 112 are
located just outside of the structure. The fourth examined feature, Feature 25, is located
between Structure 5 and Structure 2 and it is farther from a structure than the other three.
24
Figure 5: Map of the Berry Site Indicating the Locations of Analyzed Features
Courtesy of the Warren Wilson College Archaeology Lab
In the process of excavating a feature, all soil within that feature is removed. The
soil is screened for artifacts and soil samples are taken. The volume of soil removed
from a feature is documented in order to record the size of the feature.
In order to calculate the concentration of lithics contained within each feature
analyzed, the number of lithic artifacts from each feature was divided by the volume of
soil removed from each feature. Table 1 represents the relative frequencies of lithic
artifacts within each feature.
25
Features and Lithic Frequencies
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Feature 25
236
42.3
42.3
42.3
Feature 71
12
2.2
2.2
44.4
Feature 92
151
27.1
27.1
71.5
Feature 112
159
28.5
28.5
100.0
Total
558
100.0
100.0
Table 1: Frequencies of Lithic Artifacts from Each Analyzed Feature
Feature 25 contained 236 lithic artifacts, which is the highest total number of
lithic artifacts contained within any of the analyzed features. 1556.5L of soil was
removed from Feature 25. The lithic concentration of Feature 25 is approximately 0.15
artifacts per liter of soil.
Feature 71 contains only 12 lithic artifacts, and a total of 666L was removed from
Feature 71. Thus, the lithic concentration of this feature is approximately 0.01 artifacts
per liter.
A total of 151 lithics were recovered from Feature 92, and the total volume of soil
removed from Feature 92 was 1174L. Thus, the concentration of lithics in Feature 92 is
approximately 0.12 artifacts per liter of soil.
During the excavation of Feature 112, 2134 liters of soil were removed and
processed. Because Feature 112 contained 159 lithics, the concentration of lithics within
Feature 112 is 0.07 lithics per liter.
26
Lithic concentrations can be misleading, because the contents of a feature are
never uniform or consistent. Some sections of the feature may be comprised solely of
dark, rich soil; other sections can display high artifact concentrations.
Interestingly, however, the concentration of lithics within a feature seems to
correlate with the frequencies of lithics within a feature.
Lithics from Feature 25 represent 42.3 percent of the total sample size. Feature 25
also had the highest concentration of lithics, with 0.15 artifacts per liter. Significantly, of
the four features analyzed, Feature 25 was located the farthest from any domestic
structure. Lithic debitage is often extremely sharp, and it seems likely that prehistoric
flintknappers working at the site would have avoided depositing their debitage in areas
with high foot traffic or levels of domestic activity.
However, analysis of Feature 92 does not support the theory that prehistoric
flintknappers avoided depositing debitage near structures. Feature 92 contained the
second highest concentration of lithic materials of any feature analyzed, but had the thirdhighest frequency. Feature 92 is located in the southwest corner of Structure 5 and is
entirely contained within the structure.
Feature 71 was the smallest feature, and it displayed the lowest frequency and
concentration of lithics of any feature examined in this research.
The relationship between the concentration and frequency of lithics within each
feature suggests that some features were intentionally used as places to discard debitage.
Further studies on the lithic contents of features would serve to determine whether some
features had extremely high frequencies and concentrations of lithic artifacts, and
27
determining the locations of highly concentrated features would contribute to ongoing
inquiries into the spatial organization of activity on the site.
Raw Material Availability and Use
Determining the form in which raw material is found at the site is important to
understanding the reduction stages that are observed at the site. The type and form of raw
material alters the way it is worked and used, and some types of stone are more valuable
for flintknapping than others are. The best stones for flintknapping include flint, chert,
jasper, obsidian, and quartzite. These stones are fairly brittle and have a fine-grained,
uniform texture that is free of cracks, fissures, fractures, and other attributes that reduce
the uniformity of the stone (Knight 2012: 1).
Although the sourcing of raw materials was outside of the scope of this research,
basic regional distinctions can be made regarding the availability and acquisition of stone
materials in relation to the Berry site.
The material seen with the highest frequency at the site is quartz (see Table 2),
and the material with the second highest frequency is quartzite. These materials, which
respectively make up 29.2 and 24.2% of the total assemblage, can be acquired on-site in
the form of river cobbles (Dr. David Moore, personal communication; Personal
observations at the Berry site, 2011). The convenience of obtaining quartz and quartzite
likely accounts for the fact that the assemblage is cumulatively composed of 53.4% of
quartz and quartzite. The higher frequency of quartz compared to quartzite may be
attributed to the properties of quartz that make it a superior knapping material.
28
Raw Material Frequency
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Light Grey Chert
46
8.2
8.2
8.2
Dark Grey Chert
78
14.0
14.0
22.2
Black Chert
30
5.4
5.4
27.6
White Chert
1
.2
.2
27.8
135
24.2
24.2
52.0
Milky Quartz
53
9.5
9.5
61.5
Chalcedony
5
.9
.9
62.4
Sandstone
2
.4
.4
62.7
29
5.2
5.2
67.9
163
29.2
29.2
97.1
16
2.9
2.9
100.0
558
100.0
100.0
Quartzite
Crystal Quartz
Quartz
Unknown
Total
Table 2: Raw Material Frequency at the Berry site
Cumulatively, cherts make up 27.8% of the raw materials observed within the
sample. Dark grey chert alone comprises 14.0% of the raw materials recorded in this
research, which makes it the third most frequently observed raw material after quartz and
quartzite. The cherts found at the Berry site are primarily Knox chert and can be sourced
to the Tennessee River Valley (Dr. David Moore, personal communication).
After determining the types of raw material found at the site, the next step was to
attempt to answer one of the central questions addressed by this research: in what form
were various types of raw materials brought to the site? Various attributes of lithic
artifacts that are believed to be related to the original form and size of worked material
include size, weight, and cortical content. Table 3 depicts the association between raw
material type and the percentage of cortex present on each artifact.
29
Raw Material * Cortex % Crosstabulation
Count
Cortex %
0 to 20
Raw Material
40.1 to 60
60.1 to 80
80.1 to 100
Total
Light Grey Chert
38
3
0
1
4
46
Dark Grey Chert
62
5
1
3
7
78
Black Chert
26
1
0
1
2
30
White Chert
1
0
0
0
0
1
Quartzite
81
7
7
8
32
135
Milky Quartz
42
7
1
1
2
53
Chalcedony
3
1
1
0
0
5
Sandstone
1
1
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
0
0
29
141
5
3
3
11
163
14
0
1
0
1
16
438
30
14
17
59
558
Crystal Quartz
Quartz
Unknown
Total
20.1 to 40
Table 3: Raw Material and Cortex % Crosstabulation
Quartz and quartzite are the only locally available materials found at the site, and
can be found in the form of river cobbles in Upper Creek, which runs parallel to the site.
Approximately 86 percent of the quartz artifacts displayed a cortical content of 020 percent, while only 6 percent of quartz artifacts displayed 80-100 percent cortex.
Approximately 60 percent of the quartzite flakes displayed 0-20 percent cortex,
and 23 percent of the quartzite artifacts had 80-100 percent cortex.
More extensive research involving stone sourcing and analysis would help to
address the disparity between the cortical content of quartz and quartzite.
Interestingly, all of the cherts (light grey, dark grey, black, and white) displayed
similar frequencies for cortical percentages. Light grey chert displayed 0-20 percent
cortex approximately 82% of the time; dark grey chert displayed 0-20 percent cortex 79
30
percent of the time; black chert displayed 0-20 percent cortex 86% of the time. Because
only one flake was classified as “white chert”, the fact that it displayed 0-20 percent
cortex 100 percent of the time does not provide a valid basis for comparison.
The similarities in cortical content for all of the chert artifacts suggests that chert
was brought to the site in a similar way each time it was acquired. Because most of the
chert recovered from the Berry site is believed to be Knox chert from the Tennessee
Valley, I argue that it is likely that most of the process of cortex removal occurred at the
quarry site in Tennessee (David Moore, personal communication: 2011). This would be
much more efficient than transporting the desired chert and the unworkable rough outer
coating: the weight of the stone would be reduced, more stone could be transported, and
the amount of debitage deposited at the Berry site would be greatly decreased.
Chalcedony, sandstone, and crystal quartz all displayed 60 percent cortical content or less
and, like the cherts, the distance required to transport these materials likely contributed to
the form in which they began to be worked at the Berry site.
Reduction Stage Typologies
Because the primary goal of this research was to attempt to develop a reduction
stage typology specific to the Berry site lithic assemblage, attribute measurements of the
lithics were classified into many small and mutually exclusive categories in order to
identify three size concentrations that may have indicated three reduction stages.
However, despite extensive research into the subject of ambiguity within typological
classifications, I fell into the very trap I was attempting to avoid. Table 4 illustrates the
weight (in grams) of all lithics analyzed during this research.
31
Table 4: Raw Material and Weight
The overwhelmingly high concentration of lithics in the 0-2 gram weight category
indicates that further distinctions must be drawn within this category in order to provide a
more accurate representation of the Berry site lithic assemblage.
Of all the raw materials examined, only quartz and quartzite were represented in
most of the categories, which range from 0->25 grams. This may be indicative of the
larger average size of quartz and quartzite specimens, which may also mean that only
quartz and quartzite will comprise all 3 of Callahan and Odell’s (2004) reduction stages
at the site. The experimental component of this research indicates that the initial form of
the raw material used to create stone tools will affect the reduction stages represented by
the debitage. It is possible that exotic materials, such as chalcedony and sandstone, will
display only one or two of the three reduction stages examined in this research.
Table 5 (see below) illustrates the relationship between cortical content and
platform width.
32
Cortex % * Platform Width Crosstabulation
Platform Width (in millimeters)
Not
0 - 4.0
Cortex % 0 to 20
Total
4.1 to 8.0 8.1 to 12.0 12.1 to 16.0
Greater than
evident/Not
16.0
applicable
Total
71
184
43
10
3
127
438
20.1 to 40
3
14
6
1
1
5
30
40.1 to 60
1
6
2
0
0
5
14
60.1 to 80
1
10
2
1
0
3
17
80.1 to 100
3
26
13
6
2
9
59
79
240
66
18
6
149
558
Table 5: Cortex% and Platform Width Crosstabulation
Because the theoretical three stage model posits that primary flakes will be the
largest flakes removed from the core and that primary flakes will also display the highest
percentage of cortex, determining the relationship between these two variables was vital
to evaluating the appropriateness of the attributes measured and the classifications drawn
within ranges of measurement.
There is a very high concentration of lithics with platform widths in the 4.1-8.0
mm category, and it is likely that further distinctions must be drawn in order to identify
accurate concentrations of measurements that will indicate reduction stages. However,
there are definite trends in cortex %. There are very high concentrations of cortex in the
0-20% category. This may suggest that all cortex was removed during the primary stage
of reduction, which may have taken place at the quarry site rather than at the Berry site.
33
The second highest concentration was in the 80-100% category, and very low
concentrations were observed in the 20.1-80% classifications. This may indicate a trend
towards removing all cortex during the primary stage of reduction.
Chi square tests for this statistical relationship are included in Appendix B, and
they indicate a strong relationship between cortical content and platform width.
Experimental Archaeology
Middle-range theory, along with ethnographic research and experimental
archaeology, provides a theoretical “bridge” between the material data recovered from an
archaeological site and the human activities that created those data (Goodyear 1984:256).
For the purpose of this research, William Huntsman knapped four projectile
points from four different materials. These materials included chalcedony, crystal quartz,
light grey Burlington chert, and quartz. The points created by Mr. Huntsman were
identical in size to the points found at the Berry site. Mr. Huntsman was provided with
the three stage trajectory model (see p.12) presented by George Odell (2004). Mr.
Huntsman also used tools that are appropriate for the replication of Native American
artifacts dating to the Mississippian period: hammerstones and large antlers were used for
the hard-hammer percussive flaking, while smaller antler times were used for the more
detailed process of pressure flaking.
Interestingly, the classifications determined by the flintknapper differed from the
three stage model. All of the materials Mr. Huntsman worked with were classified into
two stages, with the exception of crystal quartz. The process of creating a projectile point
from crystal quartz was divided into three stages, and Mr. Huntsman attributed this to the
34
quality of the material: he noted that “quartz requires more work as it splinters on a
plane” (Huntsman personal communication: 2012).
As exemplified by the Binford-Bordes debates, the sources of variability within a
lithic assemblage are important factors that influence the attributes chosen to represent an
assemblage. Mr. Huntsman’s classifications indicate that variability can be traced to raw
material type and form. Further experimental research would indicate whether the
individual techniques of a flintknapper create significant variability within an
assemblage.
Figure 6: Quartz Projectile Point Replication with Debitage Classified into
Three Stages of Reduction
Three of the four replicated projectile points (chalcedony, quartzite, and
Burlington chert) were produced from a large flake. Mr. Huntsman classified the process
35
of creating all three of these points into two stages. The removal of the flakes that were
worked into projectile points would likely have been considered to be “stage 1” in the
reduction process from core to projectile point.
Figure 7: Chalcedony Projectile Point Replication with Debitage Classified
into Two Stages of Reduction
The division of chalcedony into two reduction stages introduces an interesting
possibility: because chalcedony is considered an exotic material within the Berry site
assemblage, it is reasonable to consider the idea that debitage made of chalcedony might
be representative of only one or two stages of reduction at the Berry site.
The debitage that resulted from the experimental creation of the Burlington chert
point was also classified into two stages, and the Burlington chert was also created from a
large flake.
36
Figure 8: Burlington Chert Debitage Separated into Two Stages
The experimental component of this research is significant because it illustrates
the importance of understanding the relationship between raw material type, form, and
the reduction stages represented by the debitage. This experiment begins to explore the
origins of variability within the Berry site assemblage. Further experimental research
would strengthen future attempts to construct a reduction stage model for the Berry site
lithics.
37
Significance of Study and Opportunities for Continuing Research
This study combines a number of research techniques in order to create a
comprehensive theoretical perspective on the Berry site lithics and reduction stage
typologies.
Through the analysis of the lithics contained within this assemblage, a more
comprehensive perspective of the Berry site lithics was achieved and a basis for further
lithic analysis was determined.
Additionally, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue concerning
typologies and begins to propose a specific reduction stage typology for the Berry site
lithics. Despite the need for increased accuracy in the typology attempted here, this
research offers a perspective on the need for further distinctions in size classifications.
Future research is needed to determine the sources of variability within the assemblage
and to divide ambiguous classifications into more specific and appropriate categories.
Additionally, this research also establishes a precedent for ongoing experimental
research for the purpose of gaining a more comprehensive perspective on the Berry site
lithics, origins of variability, and attributes that must be examined further in order to
create a more accurate representation of the lithics using a reduction stage typology.
In order to gain a more comprehensive perspective on variability within the Berry
Site lithic assemblage, microscopic use-wear analysis, raw material sourcing, further
archaeological experiments, and residual analysis should be employed to a greater range
of artifacts from the site. As this study demonstrates, no single form of analysis will
38
provide a complete picture of the context and variability of the Berry Site lithic
assemblage.
A consideration of ethnographic accounts of flintknapping, debitage disposal, and
raw material acquisition would greatly increase our understanding of the nature of lithicrelated activities that took place on the Berry site in the sixteenth century.
Because the work of only one experimental flintknapper is included in this study,
attempts to identify sources of variability within the assemblage are inconclusive. A
wider body of experimental knowledge is required in order to determine the degree of
influence that raw material, initial material form, knapping tools, and individual
techniques have on the variability within a lithic assemblage.
The sourcing of raw materials utilized at the site would, potentially, provide
insight into trade routes and travel within, and outside of, the western Piedmont region of
North Carolina.
Additionally, spatial mapping of concentrations of lithics at the site would
potentially reveal concentrated areas of activity and might provide indications for the
allocation of space within the site.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Among the major objectives of this research was to provide a reduction trajectory
that is specific to the Berry site assemblage in order to facilitate comparisons to other
assemblages. Due to the specificity of such a typology, it is possible that the results will
39
not be comparable to assemblages outside of the western Piedmont region, the
Mississippian period, or groups that are significantly different from the inhabitants of the
sixteenth-century town of Joara. However, the sample taken from within the Berry site
will be considered to be generally applicable to the Berry Site in its entirety. Data
gathered during this analysis is contextualized within the framework of ongoing debates
surrounding typological analysis. Thus, this research acts as a case study for the
applicability of typological analysis to variables observed within a specific lithic
assemblage.
Delimitations
This research applies macroscopic analysis to the collection of lithics
recovered from the Berry site. The purpose of this study is to determine variability within
the lithic assemblage of the Berry site, which is best accommodated by a macroscopic
attribute analysis. Although forms of microscopic analysis provide insight into raw
material sourcing, technological behavior such as use-wear, and precise characteristics of
manufacture, microscopic analysis will not be employed in this study due to time
constraints, resource availability, and the relevance of macroscopic data to the research
question. This study does not intend to take all aspects of lithic artifacts into account;
however, it does provide an analysis of relevant macroscopic variables in an attempt to
provide answers to questions concerning human behavior and the distribution of lithic
materials on the site.
40
This study provides new information regarding the applicability of production
stage typologies to the Berry Site assemblage while increasing the available knowledge
of the content and variability of the assemblage.
41
Acknowledgements
As with any great undertaking, the completion of this paper represents the
accumulated efforts of many individuals. Throughout this process, the support of the
following people was vital to the facilitation of the research and writing of this project.
I owe my sincerest gratitude to:
Dr. David Moore, advisor and supervisor, for listening and teaching as I learned
to “dig” archaeology while holding me to the high standards I have learned to expect
from myself;
Dr. Laura Vance, for expecting nothing less than great and for investing as much
time and care into her students’ projects as they do;
Dr. Siti Kusujiarti, for her unerring guidance and ability to bring individual
researchers to a common ground and common understanding;
Mae and Don Kipfer, for endless eye-opening excursions through museums and
for the gift of appreciation for the stories held within objects;
Anne and Dave Kipfer, for allowing me the freedom to come to recognize myself
and my potential;
Ryan Meeker, for his endless patience and willingness to listen;
and Hannah Joseph, who did great things while aspiring to greater.
Thank you.
42
References Cited
Andrefsky, William
1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American
Antiquity (59)1: 21-34.
2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: University Press.
Cahen, Daniel.
1979 Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory. Current
Anthropology 20(4): 661-683
Carr, Philip J. and Andrew P. Bradbury
1998 Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An
Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science (26): 105-116
2010 Flake Debris and Flintknapping Experimentation: Designing experimental
research in archaeology. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Clay, R. Berle
1976 Typological Classification, Attribute Analysis, and Lithic Variability.
Journal of Field Archaeology 3 (3): 303-311
Cowan, Frank L.
1999 Making Sense of Flake Scatters: Lithic Technological Strategies and
Mobility. American Antiquity 64(4): 593-607.
Dibble, Harold L. et al.
2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in Lithic Assemblages.
American Antiquity 70 (3)
43
Johnson, L. Lewis and Don E. Crabtree and Francois Bordes and Daniel Cahen
1978 A History of Flint-Knapping Experimentation, 1838-1976 [and Comments
and Reply]. Current Anthropology 19(2): 337-372
Knight, Jason.
2012 Making Arrowheads: The Art of Flint Knapping. Anderleaf Wilderness
College. (http://www.wildernesscollege.com/making-arrowheads.html)
Krieger, Alex D.
1964 New World Lithic Typology Project: Part II. American Antiquity 29 (4):
489-493
Moore, David
2002 Catawba Valley Mississippian: Ceramics, Chronology, and Catawba
Indians. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Odell, George H.
2004 Lithic Analysis. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Read, Dwight W and Glenn Russell.
1996 A Method for Taxonomic Typology Construction and an Example. American
Antiquity 61(4): 663-684
Shelley, Phillip H.
1990 Variation in Lithic Assemblages: An Experiment. Journal of Field
Archaeology 17(2): 187-193.
Shott, Michael J.
2000 The Quantification Problem in Stone Tool Assemblages. American
Antiquity 65 (4): 725-738
44
Shott, Michael J. and Jesse A. M. Ballenger
2007 Biface Reduction and the Measurement of Dalton Curation. American
Antiquity 72 (1): 153-175
Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn.
1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from
the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14(1): 84-97.
Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen
1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity
50(4): 755-779.
Whittaker, John C
1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
45
Appendix A: Annotated Research Instrument
Note: Length, width, platform width, and thickness were all measured using calipers. The
weight of each lithic was taken with a digital gram scale. Not all attributes could me
measured for each lithic: only certain measurements, such as weight and raw material,
could be taken for cores or unfinished and incomplete tools.
Feature #
1=Feature 25
2=Feature 71
3=Feature 92
4=Feature 112
Material
1=Light Grey Chert
2=Dark Grey Chert
3=Black Chert
4=White Chert
5=Quartzite
6=Milky Quartz
7=Red Jasper
8=Rhyolite
9=Chalcedony
10=Sandstone
46
11=Crystal Quartz
12=Quartz
13=Unknown
Form
1=Flake
2=Core
3=Biface
4=Drill
5=Worked Flake
6=Microdebitage
7=Chunk
8=Projectile Point
Portion
1=Whole/Complete
2=Broken
3=Unfinished
4=Not Evident/Not Applicable
Weight
1=0-2g
2=2.1-4g
47
3=4.1-6g
4=6.1-8g
5=8.1-10g
6=10.1-12g
7=12.1-14g
8=14.1-16g
9=16.1-18g
10=18.1-20g
11=20.1-22g
12=22.1-24g
13=24.1-26g
Cortex (Taken by using transparent grid overlay: area displaying cortex was
divided by the area of the whole lithic.)
1=0-20%
2=20.1-40%
3=40.1-60%
4=60.1-80%
5=80.1-100%
Platform (Striking platform width: measurements taken only on flakes with visible
striking platforms.)
1=0-4.0 mm
48
2=4.1-8 mm
3=8.1-12 mm
4=12.1-16 mm
5=Greater than 16 mm
6=Not Evident/Not Applicable
Length (Maximum length of a flake or artifact, from top to tip.)
1=0-6 mm
2=6.1-12 mm
3=12.1-18 mm
4=18.1-24 mm
5=24.1-30 mm
6=30.1-36 mm
7=36.1-42 mm
8=Greater than 42 mm
9=Not Evident/Not Applicable
Width (Maximum width.)
1=0-3 mm
2=3.1-6 mm
3=6.1-9 mm
4=9.1-12 mm
5=12.1-15 mm
49
6=15.1-18 mm
7=18.1-21 mm
8=21.1-24 mm
9=24.1-27 mm
10=27.1-30 mm
11=Greater than 30 mm
Thickness (Maximum thickness.)
1=0-1.5 mm
2=1.6-3 mm
3=3.1-4.5 mm
4=4.6-6 mm
5=6.1-7.5 mm
6=7.6-9 mm
7=9.1-10.5 mm
8=10.6-12.0 mm
9=12.1-13.5 mm
10=13.6-15 mm
11=Greater than 15 mm
12=Not Evident/Not Applicable
50
Appendix B: Statistical Evaluations and Chi Square Tests
Feature--Lithic Contents
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Feature 25
236
42.3
42.3
42.3
Feature 71
12
2.2
2.2
44.4
Feature 92
151
27.1
27.1
71.5
Feature 112
159
28.5
28.5
100.0
Total
558
100.0
100.0
Feature and Lithic Contents: Page 27
Raw Material Frequency
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Light Grey Chert
46
8.2
8.2
8.2
Dark Grey Chert
78
14.0
14.0
22.2
Black Chert
30
5.4
5.4
27.6
White Chert
1
.2
.2
27.8
135
24.2
24.2
52.0
Milky Quartz
53
9.5
9.5
61.5
Chalcedony
5
.9
.9
62.4
Sandstone
2
.4
.4
62.7
29
5.2
5.2
67.9
163
29.2
29.2
97.1
16
2.9
2.9
100.0
558
100.0
100.0
Quartzite
Crystal Quartz
Quartz
Unknown
Total
Raw Material Frequency at the Berry site: Page 30
51
Raw Material * Cortex % Crosstabulation
Raw Material * Cortex% Crosstabulation
Cortex %
0 to 20
Raw Material
20.1 to 40
40.1 to 60
60.1 to 80
80.1 to 100
Total
Light Grey Chert
38
3
0
1
4
46
Dark Grey Chert
62
5
1
3
7
78
Black Chert
26
1
0
1
2
30
White Chert
1
0
0
0
0
1
Quartzite
81
7
7
8
32
135
Milky Quartz
42
7
1
1
2
53
Chalcedony
3
1
1
0
0
5
Sandstone
1
1
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
0
0
29
141
5
3
3
11
163
14
0
1
0
1
16
438
30
14
17
59
558
Crystal Quartz
Quartz
Unknown
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
df
sided)
82.517a
40
.000
76.672
40
.000
7.501
1
.006
558
Chi-Square Test Illustrating Strong Relationship Between Raw Material
and Cortex %
Raw Material and Cortex Crosstabulation: Page 31
52
Raw Material * Weight in grams Crosstabulation
Count
Weight in grams
0-2g
Raw
Light Grey
Material
Chert
2.1-
4.1-
6.1-
8.1-
10.1-
14.1-
18.1-
20.1-
24.1-
Above
4g
6g
8g
10g
12g
16g
20g
22g
25g
25
Total
45
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
76
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
27
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Quartzite
84
15
9
5
3
7
0
1
1
1
9
135
Milky
44
5
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
53
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
27
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
138
8
4
4
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
163
15
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
16
464
36
15
9
5
9
3
4
1
2
10
558
Dark Grey
Chert
Black
Chert
White
Chert
Quartz
Chalcedon
y
Sandstone
Crystal
Quartz
Quartz
Unknown
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
df
sided)
104.596a
100
.357
113.814
100
.163
Linear-by-Linear Association
.026
1
.871
N of Valid Cases
558
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Raw Material and Weight Crosstabulation: Page 33
53
Cortex % * Platform Width Crosstabulation
Count
Platform Width
Not
0 - 4.0
Cortex %
Greater than
evident/Not
16.0
applicable
4.1 to 8.0
8.1 to 12.0
12.1 to 16.0
71
184
43
10
3
127
438
20.1 to 40
3
14
6
1
1
5
30
40.1 to 60
1
6
2
0
0
5
14
60.1 to 80
1
10
2
1
0
3
17
80.1 to 100
3
26
13
6
2
9
59
79
240
66
18
6
149
558
0 to 20
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
df
sided)
38.069a
20
.009
34.989
20
.020
Linear-by-Linear Association
.155
1
.693
N of Valid Cases
558
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Cortex and Platform Width Crosstabulation: Page 34
54
Total