In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

INTRODUCTION Microdebitage is de¤ned as “particles less than 1.0 mm in maximum dimension resulting from deliberate lithic reduction” (Fladmark 1982:205). There is also debitage that usually falls through a quarter-inch screen but is slightly larger, normally measuring in maximum dimension from 2.0 mm to 50 mm. Called small-sized debitage, this is what I am analyzing here. Only recently have archaeologists become interested in what information these small data can provide. There are two main areas to which micro- and small-sized debitage can contribute : (1) lithic reduction systems, and (2) designation of activity loci. In this study I focus on the former, trying to discern what kind of lithic reduction was dominant on the site. I want to determine if speci¤c types of lithic reduction were being used and what the different lithic reduction techniques can reveal about the activities and the clusters themselves. Ken Shingleton (1991, appendix 10) wrote a thesis that demonstrated differences among Lasley Vore feature clusters on the basis of elements in the pottery clays. He found that these clays had been brought to the site from different regions. He noticed that the disposal of pottery of different clay types fell into a pattern. There were several clusters of features, each with a different clay type, indicating that different peoples may have occupied those clusters. George Odell examined the stone tools from the individual clusters, and his use-wear analysis supports Shingleton’s conclusions that most of the clusters were different from one another (see appendix 5). The largest and most well-de¤ned clusters were 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Accordingly, I chose to focus on the debitage from these ¤ve clusters in order to determine any noticeable differences in lithic reduction activities. Different groups may have gathered and inhabited this site at one time and may have used different lithic technologies. If so, the different activities may be discernable using evidence from small-sized debitage. The principal question to be answered is this: Were people from different areas practicing core reduction or tool retouch? DEFINITIONS Before I studied the samples resulting from ®otation techniques, I did an informal size analysis to determine if the material ¤t the description of microdebitage presented earlier. The pieces were individually too large (though still very small in absolute terms), so I decided to use the term small-sized debitage. I also avoided using the term microdebitage because the name implies a microscope was used for Appendix 11 Small-Sized Debitage Analysis Isabella Muntz analysis. I did not use a microscope but examined the material macroscopically or with a 16 × handheld eyepiece. I divided the debitage from each feature into ¤ve categories: whole ®akes, broken®akes, shatter, heat-treated lithic material, and miscellaneous. The ¤rst three categories follow Baumler and Downum (1989) in their experiment with small-sized debitage . They tried to determine if the differences in the amount of whole ®akes, broken ®akes, and shatter were signi¤cant in determining lithic reduction activities. I used their basic de¤nitions for each category but included additional factors and left others out. My de¤nitions are as follows: complete ®akes are ®akes with an intact bulb of percussion and at least most of the distal end; broken ®akes are ®akes with no bulb of percussion or ®akes with a bulb of percussion but an extremely small portion of the distal end; shatter are lithic pieces that have no discernable interior surface, basically no ®ake characteristics. Because I was looking at archaeological material and not just experimental material , as Baumler and Downum did, I had to create two other categories: heat-altered lithic material and miscellaneous. The heat-altered debitage consisted of either pot lids, pieces that contained pot lids, or evidence of burning on the ventral side of the®ake. If the piece had no ventral side—for example, shatter—then, to be included, it had to have burnt sides or pot lid scars on its surfaces. The miscellaneous category contained all materials, such as bone, wood, shell, and seeds, that did not pertain to the former four categories. METHODOLOGY The majority of features at this site were pits used ultimately for the disposal of waste, such as broken tools, pottery, and lithic debitage. Some features were hearths used as ¤re pits or dumps. There were also several artifact concentrations and some indeterminate features. Flotation samples were originally taken from each feature for analysis of the light fraction organic material. In the...

Share