The Allen Site: A Paleoindian Camp in Southwestern Nebraska

Ch 11: Other Archaeological Evidence

The Allen Site Lithic Assemblage / 183 stages, although the absence of a trend in the frequency of flakes with dorsal cortex is surprising in the face of these patterns. It may be that most cortex was removed at locations closer to rock outcrops, before raw material was brought to the Allen site. A reduction in the extent of core reduction and a parallel increase in the emphasis on biface production are also suggested by the slight reduction in flake size and particularly by the progressive reduction in platform angles. The presence of cores in the assemblage throughout the sequence, though, and the absence of any temporal trends in the core/biface ratios among refitted sequences suggest that this last shift does not represent changes in the relative importance of cores and bifaces in the technology represented at the Allen site. Rather, the simplest interpretation of all of the data taken together is that this technology changed little, if at all, but that cores tended to be less extensively flaked, and hence less frequently discarded, on-site over time. 184 In addition to the large assemblages of flaked stone and animal bone recovered from the Allen site and discussed, respectively, in chapters 10 and 12, the collection includes a variety of other objects, and the site’s excavators recorded fairly detailed information on the hearths they encountered. This chapter thus considers the evidence provided by six categories of remains: hammerstones, groundstone fragments, bone tools, mud dauber nests, human remains, and hearths. Hammerstones and Groundstone Artifacts The Allen site excavations produced a total of 13 hammerstones (one with unknown provenience) and 12 artifacts that were modified by grinding either during use or as part of their manufacture or are made from potentially abrasive varieties of stone (three with unknown provenience). Items were identified as hammerstones if they showed macroscopic battering concentrated on areas likely to have been useful in striking flakes or for other tasks (i.e., on corners or other projections ). Because all stones in the assemblage must have been introduced to the site by human beings, the category of groundstone artifacts includes all items made from sandstone or other potentially abrasive materials, whether or not they show definite evidence of having been ground or of having been used to grind, with the exception of a sandstone cobble that appears to have been battered and therefore is included with the hammerstones. Table 11.1 summarizes the hammerstones, noting stratigraphic provenience, material type, size, completeness , and production modifications (if any). The small sample of artifacts in this class is divided almost evenly between jasper hammers (six), which were often flaked into shape, and hammers of other materials (seven), mainly quartzite but also including granite and, possibly, sandstone (Figure 11.1 illustrates a selection of these). Not surprisingly, most of these (10 of 13) are complete. Most of these were probably used to produce flaked-stone tools (and possibly for other tasks as well). However, one sandstone item shows possible traces of battering, and it is unlikely that this material would have been useful in flaking stone; if this is indeed a hammerstone, it was probably used to batter some other material. Table 11.2 describes the groundstone items, noting stratigraphic provenience, material type, completeness , type, evidence of resharpening (pecking), Chapter 11 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Douglas B. Bamforth Figure 11.1 Hammerstones from the Allen site. Other Archaeological Evidence / 185 and traces of use for purposes other than grinding. The collection includes two grooved stones (one with no provenience), four handstones/manos, three milling slab/metate fragments, two pieces of indeterminate grinding tools, and one piece of sandstone that is too friable to preserve traces of use but that is the right size and shape to serve as a handstone (see Figure 11.2). Handstone and milling slab fragments can be distinguished on the basis of cross section: the former show a convex outline, and the latter show a concave outline. Most of these are fragmentary , including (by definition) all of the fragments of unidentifiable type and all but one of the handstones and milling slabs. Both of the grooved stones are complete. Finding hammerstones associated with extensive evidence for stone tool production, whether or not some of these were also used to batter materials other than stone, is hardly surprising. However, although the sample of groundstone is too small to support Table 11.1: Hammerstones from the Allen Site Catalog...