- Email: [email protected]
Lithic microwear analysis as a means to infer production of perishable technology: a case from the Great Lakes
Accepted Manuscript Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes G. Logan Miller PII:
S0305-4403(14)00197-6
DOI:
10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.019
Reference:
YJASC 4077
To appear in:
Journal of Archaeological Science
Received Date: 16 December 2013 Revised Date:
2 May 2014
Accepted Date: 9 May 2014
Please cite this article as: Miller, G.L., Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes, Journal of Archaeological Science (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.019. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case
SC
G. Logan Miller
RI PT
from the Great Lakes
Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University
M AN U
4034 Smith Lab, 174 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43026
EP
TE D
[email protected]
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction Fiber technologies such as textiles, ropes, and basketry, represent a major component of the toolkit of ethnographically known hunter-gatherers. These same plant-based items often
RI PT
constitute the most numerous artifact classes at archaeological sites with exceptional
preservation (Adovasio et al. 2001:202). Yet because they rarely survive in the archaeological record, fiber technologies are often ignored when interpreting prehistoric lifeways. This is
SC
perhaps most prevalent in the archaeology of Late Pleistocene North America. Numerous
scholars have criticized Paleoindian studies as lithic-centric (Adovasio et al. 2001; Gero 1993,
M AN U
1995; Hudecek-Cuffe 1998). These critics argue that a focus on lithic materials leads to an overemphasis on hunting and male activities. In response, several Paleoindian studies have explored the use of perishable materials and technologies during the Late Pleistocene (e.g. Bradley et al. 2010; Chilton 2004; Haynes 2002; Hemmings 2004; Redmond and Tankersley
TE D
2005). However, many discussions omit fiber technologies because the archaeological record of Late Pleistocene North America often lacks these materials. Often the only materials recovered from these sites are chipped stone tools and lithic debitage. For example, in Eastern North
EP
America the only recovered example of Late Pleistocene fiber technology exists in the form of a small piece of plated birch bark basketry recovered from level IIa of Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Adovasio et al. 1978, 2001). Thus, despite any potential bias, it remains necessary to interpret
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
most aspects of Late Pleistocene lifeways using lithic materials. Lithic microwear analysis may provide a means to infer the use of fiber technology if the behavioral chains (Schiffer 1995) of chipped stone tools and fiber artifacts intersected during the manufacture or maintenance of the latter by the former. In other words, if stone tools were used in the acquisition or production of fiber artifacts then evidence for fiber production may remain
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
on the stone tools. Lithic microwear analysis is based on the observation that the use of a stone tool in different motions and on different materials results in distinctive patterns on the tool (Keeley 1980). Therefore, if stone tools can be demonstrated to be used on plant materials, in
RI PT
motions that are unique to fiber manufacture, then it is possible to infer the presence of fiber technology within the toolkit as well as aspects of the organization of production of fiber
technology. In the following sections, I present the results of a microwear study from a Clovis
SC
site in the Great Lakes region of North America with an emphasis on fiber—specifically soft plant—processing. Additionally, I present ethnographic and experimental evidence useful for
M AN U
distinguishing plant processing for fiber objects from plant processing for other means. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Paleo Crossing
Specimens for this study come from surface collections and excavations at Paleo
TE D
Crossing, 33ME274 (Figure 1). Paleo Crossing is located in Medina County, Ohio on the southern slope of a glacial kame near several kettle bogs (Brose 1994). Evidence of Clovis occupations at the site consists of four artifact concentrations, three of which appear to be intact
EP
activity areas and one area in which various post-depositional events have redeposited artifacts, spread over about 1 hectare. Excavations revealed sub-plow-zone artifact concentrations and features, including a possible structure outline. Carbon dates place the occupation at 10,980 BP
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
± 75 (Brose 1994:65). Based on the features, as well as the quantity and diversity of lithic artifacts, Paleo Crossing can best be described as a basecamp (Eren et al. 2012; Morrow 1996; Shott 1993; Tankersley 1998). The lithic assemblage from Paleo Crossing has been thoroughly described by numerous previous publications (Eren 2006, 2010; Eren and Redmond 2011; Eren et al. 2004, 2005;
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Morgan et al. 2014; Tankersley and Holland 1994). These studies have highlighted a couple of features that make Paleo Crossing unique among Great Lakes Paleoindian sites. For example, over three quarters of the formal tools are made from Wyandotte flint which outcrops over 600
RI PT
km to the southwest (Tankersley and Holland 1994). While the long distance transport of lithic materials is one of the hallmarks of the Paleoindian period, it is exceedingly rare for the main toolstone source from a site to occur more than a couple hundred kilometers away (Ellis 2011).
SC
In fact, Eren and Redmond (2011:176) argue that ―there is no other published Paleoindian site in North America that displays such a large quantity of a single raw material derived from such a
M AN U
long distance‖. Additionally, Eren and Redmond (2011:Figure 1) demonstrate that Paleo Crossing currently represents the only site in the Great Lakes region in which Clovis blades have been identified (see also Eren 2013:2109). In addition to the 77 blades, two blade cores, and two blade core rejuvenation flakes, Eren and Redmond (2011:188) suggest that a prominant portion
TE D
of the unifacial tools from the site were manufactured on blades (see also Iceland 2013). The vast majority of these unifacial tools (141 of 172) are endscrapers. The retouched tool assemblages of many Eastern North American Paleoindian sites are dominated by endscrapers
EP
(Iceland 2013: Loebel 2013; Morrow 1997). Recent microwear analyses have confirmed the long standing assumption that these endscrapers are hide scraping instruments (Loebel 2013; Seeman et al. 2013) and the present study was inspired by Eren and Redmond‘s (2011:189-190)
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
suggestion that a microwear study be undertaken to test the hypothesis that the Paleo Crossing endscrapers were used to process caribou hides. An initial pilot microwear study of 10 artifacts from Paleo Crossing confirmed the presence of hide working at the site (Miller 2013). However, the most striking aspect of the pilot study was the number, as well as types, of tools used to cut soft plant material. For example,
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
wear from cutting soft plant material was noted on a fluted point, an endscraper, a blade, and a unifacial knife (Miller 2013:Table 2). The stone tools examined in the pilot study were also used to butcher meat, scrape hides, process (via scraping and engraving) bone/antler, and penetrate
RI PT
(via a projectile) hunted game. Based on the pilot study, plant processing was a major activity conducted by the inhabitants of the site, making the site unique among the small but growing number of Paleoindian assemblages subjected to microwear analysis (Miller 2013:106). A
SC
sample of 10, however, may not be representative of the site as the small size is subject to
sampling bias. In order to address this issue, and document additional information on the plant
M AN U
processing activities conducted at the site, 57 additional artifacts were analyzed. I present the results of this analysis here with particular emphasis on the identification of artifacts used to cut plant material. 2.2. Microwear Analysis
TE D
Microwear analysis as pioneered by Semenov (1964), and modified and expanded by Keeley (1980), uses both high and low power incident light magnification to identify polishes, striations, and edge damage caused by utilization. Comparisons of these markings with
EP
experimental tools of known use are used to identify tool function in specific motions on specific materials. Keeley‘s original results have been tested, verified, and expanded by scores of archaeologists working all over the world (Bamforth 1988; Evans 2014; Juel Jensen 1988;
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Keeley 1980; Rots 2010; Van Gijn 1990; Vaughan 1985; Yerkes and Kardulias 1993). Prior to microscopic analysis, artifacts were photographed so that locations of use-wear could be noted. Each artifact was then washed in an ultrasonic cleanser first in a bath of liquid soap then in water in order to remove any soil or finger grease which may mask use traces. The artifacts were then examined with an Olympus model BHM incident light microscope at
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
magnifications of 50 to 500x with photomicrographs taken of significant features. In order to interpret material worked and motion employed, microwear traces on the Paleo Crossing artifacts were compared to wear traces from a reference collection of over 200 tools composed of over a
descriptions of diagnostic wear patterns see Miller (2013:Table 1). 3. Results
SC
3.1. Microwear results
RI PT
dozen flint raw material types from the American Midwest—including Wyandotte flint. For
Of the 57 artifacts analyzed use-wear could not be observed on four artifacts, all from the
M AN U
surface or plow zone, due to extensive patination and post-depositional surface modification due to physical and chemical weathering (i.e., Lev Sala 1996). While this observation confirms that the flint surface can be altered by post-depositional factors, these alterations can be recognized as distinct from use-wear traces (Figure 3b). Loebel (2013) and Seeman et al. 2013) noted similar
TE D
modifications on some surface and plow zone artifacts while still conducting successful microwear studies on Paleoindian period artifacts. Additionally, use-wear beyond that related to hafting could not be identified on eight artifacts, mostly fluted point bases, as the working edges
EP
had broken off (Figure 2). Haft wear usually consisted of hafting bright spots—small patches of bright, flat polish without striations—caused by contact with the haft or grit trapped between the tool and haft (Figure 4) (Rots 2010; Seeman et al. 2013:419). Of the remaining 45 artifacts, 35
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
(77.7%) showed evidence of utilization (Table 1). Many of the unutilized artifacts were broken as well, leaving open the possibility that the utilized portion of the tool remains unexamined. The 35 utilized artifacts were used for nine distinct tasks with scraping fresh hide, butchering meat, and processing soft plant material being most common (Figure 5). Four tools were used for more than one task (Table 1). In addition to the use wear traces residue—in the form of
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
hafting adhesive similar to that identified on a bifacial tool in the pilot study (Miller 2013:Figure 4)—was identified on three tools; a fluted point base (CMNH# 1725A-06-11-41-01), a possible endscraper fragment (CMNH# 1725A-06-27-30-01), and a retouched flake (CMNH# 1725A-06-
RI PT
01-13-01) (Figure 6). The extensive use-wear evidence for hafting (Table 1) is consistent with recent morphometric analyses of unifacial stone tools suggesting that Clovis foragers in the Great Lakes region regularly hafted their lithic implements (Eren 2012).
SC
Endscrapers form the largest formal tool class examined in this study. Microwear
analysis indicates that 18 of 19 endscrapers examined were utilized (Table 1, Figure 7). The lone
M AN U
unutilized specimen (CMNH# 1725A-06-15-35-01) appears to have broken during manufacture. All utilized endscrapers were initially used to scrape some material, usually fresh hide. Fresh hide polish forms during the early stages of hide working in which fat and other soft tissues are being removed resulting in a relatively dull, rough polish with a slightly greasy appearance
TE D
(compare Figure 3c to Figure 8). A scraping motion is inferred because striations in the polish are oriented perpendicular to the working edge, indicating a transverse motion of use. Two endscrapers (CMNH# 1725A-017-08 and 1725A-06-19-34-05) did have secondary uses on plant
EP
material (Figure 10). Plant polish is very bright with a smooth fluid appearance marked by the occurrence of comet-tailed striations. Both endscrapers were also used to scrape hide, which coupled with the occurrence of the plant wear on the lateral margins of the artifacts, indicates
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
that they were used to process plant material after removal from the haft. Since 75% of the tasks in which endscrapers were utilized involved scraping hide it is safe to assume that was their primary function (Figure 5). The preponderance of early stage hide working at Paleo Crossing mirrors the pattern observed at the nearby Nobles Pond site (Seeman et al. 2013). This fits a broad pattern of early stage hide working at several sites across the Eastern Woodlands (Loebel
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2013:Table 13.1). Loebel (2013:327) argues that sites with a high ratio of fresh to dry hide working were occupied in the fall because this is when hides, especially those of caribou, are most suitable for human use. The Paleo Crossing endscrapers are unique in that they were used
RI PT
for scraping materials other than hide while still hafted. For example, Loebel (2013) notes that endscrapers were sometimes used to scrape or saw materials such as bone/antler and wood but only after removal from the haft as evidenced by use-wear on the lateral margins of the tools. In
SC
contrast, the distal end of one endscraper from Paleo Crossing was used to scrape bone/antler (CMNH# 1725A-06-01-13-01)—as indicated by a bright pitted polish confined to the working
M AN U
edge—while another was used to scrape wood (CMNH# 1725A-06-27-30-01)—as indicated by a relatively bright curved polish confined to the high points of the stone topography. The distal end of a third endscraper (CMNH# 1725A-02-CS-00-01) contained stone polish—a bright flat polish—located away from the working edge of the tool but with striations oriented parallel to
TE D
the edge. It seems most likely that the stone polish is the result of retouch or post depositional activity as it occurs off of the working edge and is not associated with any kind or edge rounding or systematic damage.
EP
The pattern of endscraper use differs from that defined in the pilot study in which none of the endscrapers were used to work fresh hide. Instead four endscrapers examined were used to butcher meat, scrape dry hide, scrape bone/antler, and cut soft plants (Miller 2013:Table 1). The
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
addition of these tools into the larger sample does not alter the conclusion that endscrapers were scraping tools mainly utilized to process fresh hides. This discussion does indicate the importance of sample size in microwear analysis, however, as the initial pilot study would not have assigned this tool type to a specialized function.
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Informal tools (i.e. unmodified, notched, or marginally retouched flakes and blades with no evidence of hafting) were used in a much different manner. Fifteen of 23 informal tools (65.2%) were utilized (Table 1). Most informal tools were used to either butcher meat or process
RI PT
soft plant material (Figure 5). Although informal tools were preferred over endscrapers for processing plant material this was far from their only function. Hide working was not observed on any informal tools. Two artifacts that fit this definition of informal tools were analyzed for
SC
the pilot study. A retouched flake was used to engrave bone/antler and a blade was used to cut soft plants (Miller 2013:Table1). The near complete lack of butchering conducted with
M AN U
endscrapers and hide working with flake tools suggests a high degree of functional specialization in the Paleo Crossing toolkit. However a tool‘s function did not remain static throughout its uselife. The pattern of informal tool use on plant material also accounts for the use of endscrapers on plant material as they appear to have been used for this task after completing their original
TE D
function and being de-hafted during the re-tooling process (Keeley 1982). In other words endscrapers moved from formal, hafted tools to informal tools after removal from the haft. Unfortunately the lack of usable cutting edge on the fluted points examined here prevents further
EP
elaboration on their role in the plant processing activities at Paleo Crossing. Based on the limited sample examined from Paleo Crossing and other microwear studies of fluted points, it can be assumed that they served multiple functions related to animal procurement and processing
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
(Kay 1996; Miller 2013; Smallwood 2014). The only other example of a Paleoindian point with evidence of plant wear comes from the Late Paleoindian Allen site in southwestern Nebraska (Bamforth and Becker 2007:173). 4. Discussion and Conclusion 4.1. Microwear Evidence of Fiber Technology
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Polish resulting from harvesting cereal crops was perhaps the first use wear recognized on prehistoric stone tools (e.g. Spurrell 1892). A great deal of subsequent work has focused on defining and documenting this sickle sheen through microscopic analysis (Juel Jensen 1988,
RI PT
1994; Keeley 1980; Van Gijn 1990). However, plant materials can be used for much more than just subsistence needs. In order to fully understand the role of stone tools in fiber manufacturing, Hurcombe (1998, 2000, 2008) initiated a long-term ethnoarchaeological and experimental study.
SC
Based on this research Hurcombe (1998:Table 1) argues that a wide variety of siliceous and nonsiliceous plants were worked in a number of different ways to produce fiber crafts. For example,
M AN U
reeds, grasses, sedges, or weeds many be cut, scraped, split, pounded or shredded in fresh, dry, or rehydrated states. As noted above, the plant working tools from Paleo Crossing were used to cut and scrape plant material hence my discussion will be limited to these actions. Using a stone tool to cut plant material for fiber artifacts can occur in either the
TE D
harvesting process to collect raw material or in the finishing stages to create clean cut edges (Hurcombe 1998). Of course, plant material for subsistence purposes of for thatching would also be harvested in by cutting stems, adding an element of equifinality to the interpretation process.
EP
Both Hurcombe (1998:205) and Juel Jensen (1994) argue that curved tools with a concave working edge are preferred for cutting plants for craft purposes. As no such tools were identified at Paleo Crossing, the microwear evidence of cutting plant material for use in fiber technologies
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
can best be described as ambiguous. Scraping plant material may be done at several stages in the processing of materials for fiber objects (Hurcombe 1998, 2008). Hurcombe (1998:206-208) argues that a stone tool may be used in a scraping motion to flatten stems, separate fibers, and remove pith. Scraping soft plant material has not been identified with any subsistence processing activities in the archaeological
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
record (e.g. Juel Jensen 1994; Van Gijn 1990). A scraping motion is also not expected to be employed in non-subsistence harvesting activities such as collecting thatching for structure roofs. Therefore any examples of scraping soft plant material can confidently be assigned to fiber
RI PT
production. Other aspects of the use wear pattern are characteristic of fiber production. Juel Jensen (1994:61) describes a unique wear pattern on microdenticulates inferred to be used in fiber production. The non-contact tool face, that facing the tool user, forms a ―highly reflective,
SC
vitreous, metallic polish‖ (Juel Jensen 1994:61). The contact face, that facing the worked
material, forms ―a bright smooth, flat band, or facet of polish with a series of perpendicular
M AN U
striations‖ (Juel Jensen 1992:61). These differing patterns on each face of the tool edge suggest the application of differential force such as that which occurs while pushing the tool in a scraping motion away from the body. While Juel Jensen (1994:62) makes a convincing argument that these implements were used to scrape plant material, she was unable to exactly replicate the wear
TE D
patterns through experimentation. More recently, Hurcombe (2008) replicated the wear pattern described by Juel Jensen. Through consultation with a spinner and weaver, Hurcombe (2008:92) used serrated tools ―to lightly scrape harvested nettle stems‖ in order to produce fibers for textile
EP
production.
In the case of Paleo Crossing three artifacts (CMNH #‘s 1725A-06-40-40-01, 1725A017-08, 1725A-06-04-31-01) can confidently be inferred to have been use in fiber production.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Artifact 1725A-06-40-40-01 is a large cortical flake of Wyandotte flint with marginal retouch on the distal and left lateral edges (Figure 9). Bright, smooth polish with striations oriented perpendicular with the working edge occurs on the distal edge of the tool. Artifact 1725A-01708 is an endscraper crafted of Flint Ridge Flint from east-central Ohio (Figure 10). A highly reflective, vitreous polish with striations positioned perpendicular to the working edge is located
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
on the ventral face of the tool extending out onto a small spur (see Eren et al. 2013). Artifact 1725A-06-04-31-01 is a flake with beveled marginal retouch (Figure 11). Numerous striations in the bright, flat plant polish are oriented at an oblique angle to the working edge. This striation
RI PT
pattern is typical of microdenticulate plant scrapers from Europe (Juel Jensen 1994:59). On the opposite face of the plant polish, a dull greasy polish and rounded tool edge usually characteristic of dry hide working was observed. Once again this pattern is typical of European
SC
microdenticulates used for plant fiber processing (Juel-Jensen 1994:61). Additionally, a
retouched flake fragment (CMNH# 1725A-017-02) lacks striations diagnostic of working angle
M AN U
but does exhibit the same alternate bright flat and dull greasy polish as 1725A-06-04-31-01 which is characteristic of scraping plant material (Figure 11). The functional assignment of these tools strengthens the possibility that as least some of the other tools used on plant material were used in fiber production as well.
Further evidence from pollen, phytoliths, or macrobotanical
TE D
remains will shed further light on the types of plants utilized at Paleo Crossing. While not yet identified, the recovery of charred wood remains from features during excavations in the early 1990s (Brose 1994) strongly suggests that these materials may be recovered through future
4.2. Conclusion
EP
investigations.
Chipped stone artifacts represent the bulk of materials recovered at many archaeological
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
sites, especially those of the earliest Americans. These materials only represent a biased view of the past if our theories and methods of data extraction are incomplete. Lithic microwear analysis, coupled with a well-informed experimental program, offers one of many opportunities to extract additional information on other aspects of prehistoric life from lithic dominated sites. Through an example from the Lower Great Lakes region of Eastern North America, this study
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
has presented evidence that can be used to infer the use of fiber technology in the toolkit of Late Pleistocene Clovis foragers. This microwear analysis identified fresh hide and plant processing as the major activities conducted with stone tools at Paleo Crossing. While some functional
RI PT
overlap exists, hafted endscrapers were largely used for hide scraping activities while unhafted flakes and blades were used for plant working. Three artifacts were definitively used for fiber artifacts production, and perhaps many others served this role as well. The wear on these tools
SC
mimics European Neolithic tools used to process nettles for fibers. This suggests that, in
addition to hunting and hide-processing (Loebel 2013:327), Late Pleistocene foragers used
M AN U
population aggregations at base camps as an opportunity to replenish their fiber toolkit. Further information on the role of plants at Paleo Crossing will probably require additional excavation aimed at recovering Late Pleistocene floral remains. However, numerous other extant collections of lithic materials exist throughout the Americas that all have the potential to yield
TE D
similar evidence as that recovered from Paleo Crossing through microwear analysis. That other lines of evidence aside from fiber artifacts themselves can be used to reveal the use of perishable technology in the Clovis archaeological record is an extremely exciting prospect, ultimately
EP
allowing archaeologists to reconstruct more accurate models of the prehistoric toolkits used during the Pleistocene peopling of North America. Acknowledgements
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
The Paleo Crossing artifacts are curated at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Brian Redmond graciously approved the loan of artifacts for this study and provided necessary contextual information. Rick Yerkes provided lab space for the analysis and commented on an earlier version of the manuscript. I benefitted from discussions with Metin Eren, Brad Lepper,
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Brian Redmond, and Rick Yerkes on the site and all things Paleoindian. Lindsey Miller assisted in the transport of the artifacts from Cleveland to Columbus and back. References
RI PT
Adovasio, James M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath 1978 Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: An Overview. American Antiquity 43:632-651.
Adovasio, James M., D.C. Hyland, and O. Soffer 2001 Perishable Technology and Early Human
SC
Populations in the New World. In On Being First: Cultural Innovation and Envrionmental Consequences of First Peopling. Jason Gillespie, Susan Tupakka, and Christy de Mille,
M AN U
eds. Pp. 201–222. Calgary: Chacmool, the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1988. Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11-23.
TE D
Bamforth, Douglas B. and Mark Becker 2007. The Allen Site Lithic Assemblage. In The Allen Site, edited by Douglas B. Samforth, pp. 148-183. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
EP
Bradley, Bruce A., Michael B. Collins, and C. Andrew Hemmings 2010. Clovis Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory: Archaeological Series 17. Ann Arbor. Brose, David S. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo Crossing Site: a Paleoindian
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of America, edited by William S. Dancey, pp. 61-76. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 2004 Beyond ―Big‖: Gender, Age, and Subsistence Diversity in Paleoindian Societies. In The Settlement of the American Continents: A
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, edited by C. Michael Barton, pp. 162-172. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ellis, Christopher 2011. Measuring Paleoindian Range Mobility and Land-Use in the Great
RI PT
Lakes/Northeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:385-401.
Eren, Metin I. 2006. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) Non-Projectile Point Biface Assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 95-97.
SC
Eren, Metin I. 2010. Anvil Reduction at the Early Paleoindian Site of Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Northeast Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27: 75-77.
M AN U
Eren, Metin I. 2012. Were unifacial stone tools regularly hafted by Clovis foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes region? An empirical test of edge class richness and attribute frequency among distal, proximal, and lateral tool-sections. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 2:1-15.
TE D
Eren, Metin I. 2013. The technology of Stone Age colonization: an empirical, regional-scale examination of Clovis unifacial stone tool reduction, allometry, and edge angle from the North American Lower Great Lakes region. Journal of Archaeological Science
EP
40:2101-2112.
Eren, Metin, and Brian Redmond 2011 Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Medina County, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173-194.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Eren, Metin I., Brian Redmond, and Mark Kollecker 2004. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) Fluted Point Assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:38-39. Eren, Metin I., Brian Redmond, and Mark Kollecker 2005. Unifacial Stone Tool Analyses from the Paleo Crossing Site (33-ME-274), Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:4345.
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Eren, Metin I., Anne Chao, Wen-Han Hwang, and Robert K. Colwell 2012. Estimating the Richness of a Population when the Maximum Number of Classes is Fixed: a NonParametric Solution to an Archaeological Problem. PLoS ONE 7(5): e34179.
RI PT
Eren, Metin I., Thomas A. Jennings, and Ashley M. Smallwood. 2013. Were Paleoindian
unifacial stone tool ‗spurs‘ intended accessories or incidental accidents? PLoS ONE 8(11): e78419
studies. Journal of Archaeological Science: In Press.
SC
Evans, Adrian A. 2014. On the importance of blind-testing: the example from lithic functional
M AN U
Gero, Joan M. 1993 The Social World of Prehistoric Facts: Gender and Power in Paleoindian Research. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by H. du Cros and L. Smith pp. 31-40. Occasional Papers in Prehistory No. 23, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies. The Australian National University, Canberra.
TE D
Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hemmings, Christopher Andrew 2004. The organic Clovis: a single continent-wide cultural
EP
adaptation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. Hudecek-Cuffe, Caroline R. 1998 Engendering Northern Plains Paleoindian Archaeology. BAR Internatonal Series No. 699, London.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Hurcombe, Linda 1998. Plant-Working and Craft Activities as a Potential Source of Wear Variation. Helinium 34:201-209. Hurcombe, Linda 2000. Plants as Raw Materials for Crafts. In Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond, edited by A. Fairborn, pp. 155-173. Oxbow/Neolithic Studies Group, Oxford.
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hurcombe, Linda 2008. Organics from Inorganics: Using Experimental Archaeology as a Research Tool for Studying Perishable Material Culture. World Archaeology 40:83-115.
refitting study. North American Archaeologist 34: 237-267.
RI PT
Iceland, Harry 2013. Refining Paleo-Indian lithic technology at Shawnee-Minisink via an artifact
Juel Jensen, Helle 1988. Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by HighPower
Microscopy: A Review of the West European Research. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 5388.
SC
Juel Jensen, Helle 1994. Flint Tools and Plant Working: Hidden Traces of Stone Age Technology. Aarhus University Press, Arhaus, Denmark.
M AN U
Kay, Marvin 1996. Microwear Analysis of Some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 315-344. Plenum, New York.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. A Micro-Wear
TE D
Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982. Hafting and Re-Tooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798-809.
1996
EP
Levi Sala, Irene
A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. BAR Internatonal Series 629, Oxford.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Loebel, Thomas J. 2013 Endscrapers, Use-Wear, and Early Paleoindians in Eastern North America. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A. M. Gingerich, pp. 315-330. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Miller, G. Logan 2013 Illuminating Activities at Paleo Crossing (33ME274) through Microwear Analysis. Lithic Technology 38:97-108.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Morgan, Brooke, Metin I. Eren, Nada Khreisheh, Genevieve Hill, and Bruce Bradley 2014. Clovis bipolar lithic reduction at Paleo Crossing, Ohio: a reinterpretation based on the examination of experimental replications. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New A&M
RI PT
Understanding, edited by Thomas Jennings and Ashley Smallwood. Texas Press, College Station: In Press.
SC
Morrow, Juliet 1996 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the Confluence Area
Washington University, St. Louis.
M AN U
of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Morrow, Juliet 1997 Endscraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70-85. Redmond, Brian G., and Kenneth B. Tankersley 2005. Evidence of early Paleoindian bone
TE D
modification and use at the Sheriden Cave site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70: 503-526.
Rots, Veerle 2010 Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven
EP
University Press, Leuven, Belgium.
Schiffer Michael B. 1995. Behavioral Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization, and the Use of Space. In Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles, by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 55-66.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Seeman, Mark F., Thomas J. Loebel, Aaron Comstock, and Garry L. Summers 2013 Working with Wilmsen: Paleoindian End Scraper Design and Use at Nobles Pond. American Antiquity 78:407-432.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Semenov, Sergei 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M. W. Thompson Barnes and Noble, New York. Shoberg, Marilyn 2010 Functional Analysis of Stone Tools. In Clovis Technology, edited by
Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
RI PT
Bruce Bradley, Michael Collins and Andrew Hemmings, pp. 138-156. Archaeology
Shott, Michael J. 1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central
SC
Michigan. Memoirs of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, No. 25, Ann Arbor.
M AN U
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2014. Building Experimental Use-Wear Analogs for Clovis Biface Functions. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences In press Spurrell, F. 1892 Notes on Early Sickles. Archaeological Journal 49:53-69. Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1998 Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene
TE D
Eastern North America. American Antiquity 63:7-20.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and J.D. Holland. 2004 Lithic Procurement Patterns at the Paleo Crossing Site, Medina County, Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:61-63.
EP
Van Gijn, Anne Louise 1990 The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Microwear Analysis Applied to Dutch Neolithic Assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Vaughan, Patrick 1985 Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Yerkes, Richard W., and P. Nick Kardulias 1993. Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Research 1:89-119.
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Microwear Results from Paleo Crossing.
Unit 6S 74E Unit 6S 54E Unit 38S 30E Unit 2S 72E NE Quad SE 1/4 Unit 34S 20E Unit 54S 30E Ubit 26N 16E Unit 30S
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Fea B3 E1/2 Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac
X
scraping
X
scraping
endscraper
X
scraping
Fluted Point retouched flake endscraper
? X X
Other Notes
soft plant
beveled
fresh hide
most of bit resharpened before dehafting, hafted most of bit resharpened before dehafting, hafted
RI PT
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area B Area C Area
Surfac e 30-33 cm 0-31 cm
SC
1725A-02B3-00-01 1725A-0603-12-01 1725A-0603-22-01 1725A-0619-34-12 1725A-0601-13-01 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0617-39-01 1725A-0627-34-01 1725A-0714-09-01 1725A-06-
Unit 8S 72E Unit 34S 30E Unit 27.01S 24.09E NW Quad
Motion
M AN U
Area B Area B Area B
Used
TE D
1725A-0604-31-01 1725A-0617-34-06 1725A056-01
Artifact Type retouched flake endscraper
fresh hide
possibly hafted, weathered
drilling/scraping
bone/antler
scraping
fresh hide
hafted not hafted, possible manufacturing failure hafted
point basefluted endscraper
no X
scraping
bone/antler
endscraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
uniface
X
cutting
endscraper
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide fresh hide
distal flake
X
cutting
soft plant
uniface
no
flake
X
EP
Context
AC C
Catalog #
Worked Material
broken cutting
meat/fresh
heat damaged
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1725A-0616-11-01 1725A-0615-35-01 1725A-0640-40-01 1725A-0601-18-01 1725A-0620-45-01 1725A039-01 1725A-0701-33-01 1725A-0602-19-01 1725A-06-
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area
32S 76E Transect 15 TU 35 Unit 80S 18E Unit 02S 62E Unit 42S 08E Unit 58S 16 E Unit 00N 64E Unit 04 S 60E Unit 38S
fresh hide
made on cortical blade, hafted
endscraper
X
endscraper
X
engraving/scrapin g
bone/fresh hide
made on flake, probable transport wear
53-55 cm 30-36 cm
endscraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
tool frag
X
sawing
wood
heat damaged
23-38 cm
endscraper (early)
X
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 0-19 cm Surfac e Surfac e 42-44
flake
no
RI PT
Area B
broken
X
SC
1725A-0619-34-05
cutting or scraping? scraping
hide soft plant
uniface
M AN U
Area C Area B
Unit 27.01S 24.09E Unit 28N 38E Unit 26.22S 22.26E Unit 38S 30E
e 16-19 cm Surfac e 0-31 cm
TE D
1725A018-05 1725A050-04
14E Unit 28N 36E NE Quad
cutting/scraping
soft plant/fresh hide broken
endscraper
no
flake
X
scraping
soft plant
stone wear on both aspects
Scraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
blocky debitage possible scraper endscraper
?
extensive patina
?
patina, heat damage
X
scraping
dry hide
hafted
uniface
X
cutting
retouched
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide wood
prehension
EP
B Area C Area B Area B
AC C
15-42-01 1725A017-02 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A056-01
broken during manufacture?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Unit 02S 44E Unit 06E 42E Unit 08S 72E SE 1/4 Unit 10S 86E Unit 12S 28E Unit 22S 30E Unit 22S 16E Unit 36S 92E Unit 36S 32E Unit 52S 48E Unit 38S 26E
hafted
N/A
hafted
RI PT
SE 1/4
N/A
N/A N/A
SC
SE 1/4
flake point basefluted point basefluted point basefluted point basefluted flake
hafted hafted
X
butchering
retouched flake retouched flake endscraper
no
point fragment retouched flake point basefluted point basefluted blade
N/A
M AN U
NW Quad
cm Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 2548cm
X
?
general
backed blade, stone on stone
late stage biface endscraper
X
cutting
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide dry hide
hafted
channel flake
no
X X
TE D
26E NE Quad
EP
B Area B Area B Area C Area C Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B
AC C
19-36-11 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A-02B3-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0601-27-01 1725A-0603-28-01 1725A-0601-13-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0605-06-01 1725A-0606-35-01 1725A-0011-34-01 1725A-0611-41-01 1725A-0618-03-01 1725A-0618-33-01 1725A-0626-25-01 1725A-0619-36-06
X
meat/fresh hide
possibly removed from larger tool during retouch
cutting
dry hide
proximal frag, hafted
?
stone
hafted
butchering
hafted, heat fractured meat/fresh hide
N/A
hafted, heat fractured
no
hafted
hafting bright spots, before removal?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
endscraper frag? endscraper
X
scraping
wood
hafted
X
scraping
retouched flake uniface frag uniface
X
cutting
distal flake
no
endscraper
X
58-60
uniface frag flake
no
43-54 cm 12-21 cm 023cm
uniface frag
bladeproximal
fresh hide
N/A
hafted
soft plant
SC
N/A
RI PT
endscraper
M AN U
Area B
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 30-32 cm 68-87 cm 51 cm
TE D
1725A054-01
Unit 44S 88E Unit 54S 38E Unit 60S 94E Unit 60S 18E Unit 60N 04E Unit 28N 36E Unit 28N36E Unit 28N 36E Unit 28N 38E Unit 82S 20E Unit 26.22S 22.26E Unit 30.14S 31.45E
EP
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area C Area C Area C Area C Area B Area B
AC C
1725A-0622-05-01 1725A-0627-30-01 1725A-0630-02-01 1725A-0630-40-01 1725A-0730-03-01 1725A017-05 1725A017-26F 1725A017-08 1725A018-14 1725A024-07 1725A050-02
patinated-heat? hafted, highly heat fractured
scraping
dry hide/plant
butchering
meat/fresh hide
hafted
no X
no
unifacial retouch
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1. Location of the Paleo Crossing site (33ME274) Figure 2. A sample of fluted point bases from Paleo Crossing
SC
RI PT
Figure 3. Photomcrographs of a) unutilized edge, but note the presence of edge damage, of replicated flake of Wyandotte flint; b) post depositional surface modification on fluted point (CMNH cat. # 1725A-02-B3-00-01) from surface of Paleo Crossing; c) dull, greasy meant/fresh hide polish on experimental flake of Wyandotte flint used to butcher deer—note that scale should read 50 μm; d) bright, fluid plant polish on lateral edge of experimental flake of Wyandotte flint used to cut soft plant material. All magnifications are 187.5×. Figure 4. Hafting bright spot located on the base of a fluted point (CMNH# 1725A-02-C2-0001). Magnification is 125×.
M AN U
Figure 5. Material worked as a percentage of total tasks for Paleo Crossing and two subassemblages [Data from Table 1 and Miller (2013:Table 1)]. Figure 6. Hafting adhesive residue identified on the ventral face of a retouched flake (CMNH# 1725A-06-01-13-01). Magnification is 187.5×. Figure 7. A sample of endscrapers from Paleo Crossing examined by microwear analysis.
TE D
Figure 8. Dull, rough, slightly greasy polish on the distal end of an endscraper (CMNH# 1725A06-19-34-05) formed by scraping fresh hide. Magnification is 125×.
EP
Figure 9. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-06-40-40-01. Polish from scraping plant material is shown in the inset photo at 125× magnification. Microwear photo orientation is rotated 180° from working edge.
AC C
Figure 10. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-017-08. Polish from scraping plant material is shown in inset photo at 125×. Microwear photo orientation is rotated 180° from working edge. Figure 11. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-06-04-13-01. Bright, smooth polish with oblique angled striations from scraping plant material is shown in inset photo A at 125×. Alternate greasy, hide-like polish is shown in inset photo B at 187.5×. Microwear photo orientations are rotated 90° from working edge.
Figure 1
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 2
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 3
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 4
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 5
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 6
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 7
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 8
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 9
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 10
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 11
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S0305-4403(14)00197-6
DOI:
10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.019
Reference:
YJASC 4077
To appear in:
Journal of Archaeological Science
Received Date: 16 December 2013 Revised Date:
2 May 2014
Accepted Date: 9 May 2014
Please cite this article as: Miller, G.L., Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes, Journal of Archaeological Science (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.019. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case
SC
G. Logan Miller
RI PT
from the Great Lakes
Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University
M AN U
4034 Smith Lab, 174 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43026
EP
TE D
[email protected]
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction Fiber technologies such as textiles, ropes, and basketry, represent a major component of the toolkit of ethnographically known hunter-gatherers. These same plant-based items often
RI PT
constitute the most numerous artifact classes at archaeological sites with exceptional
preservation (Adovasio et al. 2001:202). Yet because they rarely survive in the archaeological record, fiber technologies are often ignored when interpreting prehistoric lifeways. This is
SC
perhaps most prevalent in the archaeology of Late Pleistocene North America. Numerous
scholars have criticized Paleoindian studies as lithic-centric (Adovasio et al. 2001; Gero 1993,
M AN U
1995; Hudecek-Cuffe 1998). These critics argue that a focus on lithic materials leads to an overemphasis on hunting and male activities. In response, several Paleoindian studies have explored the use of perishable materials and technologies during the Late Pleistocene (e.g. Bradley et al. 2010; Chilton 2004; Haynes 2002; Hemmings 2004; Redmond and Tankersley
TE D
2005). However, many discussions omit fiber technologies because the archaeological record of Late Pleistocene North America often lacks these materials. Often the only materials recovered from these sites are chipped stone tools and lithic debitage. For example, in Eastern North
EP
America the only recovered example of Late Pleistocene fiber technology exists in the form of a small piece of plated birch bark basketry recovered from level IIa of Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Adovasio et al. 1978, 2001). Thus, despite any potential bias, it remains necessary to interpret
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
most aspects of Late Pleistocene lifeways using lithic materials. Lithic microwear analysis may provide a means to infer the use of fiber technology if the behavioral chains (Schiffer 1995) of chipped stone tools and fiber artifacts intersected during the manufacture or maintenance of the latter by the former. In other words, if stone tools were used in the acquisition or production of fiber artifacts then evidence for fiber production may remain
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
on the stone tools. Lithic microwear analysis is based on the observation that the use of a stone tool in different motions and on different materials results in distinctive patterns on the tool (Keeley 1980). Therefore, if stone tools can be demonstrated to be used on plant materials, in
RI PT
motions that are unique to fiber manufacture, then it is possible to infer the presence of fiber technology within the toolkit as well as aspects of the organization of production of fiber
technology. In the following sections, I present the results of a microwear study from a Clovis
SC
site in the Great Lakes region of North America with an emphasis on fiber—specifically soft plant—processing. Additionally, I present ethnographic and experimental evidence useful for
M AN U
distinguishing plant processing for fiber objects from plant processing for other means. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Paleo Crossing
Specimens for this study come from surface collections and excavations at Paleo
TE D
Crossing, 33ME274 (Figure 1). Paleo Crossing is located in Medina County, Ohio on the southern slope of a glacial kame near several kettle bogs (Brose 1994). Evidence of Clovis occupations at the site consists of four artifact concentrations, three of which appear to be intact
EP
activity areas and one area in which various post-depositional events have redeposited artifacts, spread over about 1 hectare. Excavations revealed sub-plow-zone artifact concentrations and features, including a possible structure outline. Carbon dates place the occupation at 10,980 BP
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
± 75 (Brose 1994:65). Based on the features, as well as the quantity and diversity of lithic artifacts, Paleo Crossing can best be described as a basecamp (Eren et al. 2012; Morrow 1996; Shott 1993; Tankersley 1998). The lithic assemblage from Paleo Crossing has been thoroughly described by numerous previous publications (Eren 2006, 2010; Eren and Redmond 2011; Eren et al. 2004, 2005;
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Morgan et al. 2014; Tankersley and Holland 1994). These studies have highlighted a couple of features that make Paleo Crossing unique among Great Lakes Paleoindian sites. For example, over three quarters of the formal tools are made from Wyandotte flint which outcrops over 600
RI PT
km to the southwest (Tankersley and Holland 1994). While the long distance transport of lithic materials is one of the hallmarks of the Paleoindian period, it is exceedingly rare for the main toolstone source from a site to occur more than a couple hundred kilometers away (Ellis 2011).
SC
In fact, Eren and Redmond (2011:176) argue that ―there is no other published Paleoindian site in North America that displays such a large quantity of a single raw material derived from such a
M AN U
long distance‖. Additionally, Eren and Redmond (2011:Figure 1) demonstrate that Paleo Crossing currently represents the only site in the Great Lakes region in which Clovis blades have been identified (see also Eren 2013:2109). In addition to the 77 blades, two blade cores, and two blade core rejuvenation flakes, Eren and Redmond (2011:188) suggest that a prominant portion
TE D
of the unifacial tools from the site were manufactured on blades (see also Iceland 2013). The vast majority of these unifacial tools (141 of 172) are endscrapers. The retouched tool assemblages of many Eastern North American Paleoindian sites are dominated by endscrapers
EP
(Iceland 2013: Loebel 2013; Morrow 1997). Recent microwear analyses have confirmed the long standing assumption that these endscrapers are hide scraping instruments (Loebel 2013; Seeman et al. 2013) and the present study was inspired by Eren and Redmond‘s (2011:189-190)
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
suggestion that a microwear study be undertaken to test the hypothesis that the Paleo Crossing endscrapers were used to process caribou hides. An initial pilot microwear study of 10 artifacts from Paleo Crossing confirmed the presence of hide working at the site (Miller 2013). However, the most striking aspect of the pilot study was the number, as well as types, of tools used to cut soft plant material. For example,
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
wear from cutting soft plant material was noted on a fluted point, an endscraper, a blade, and a unifacial knife (Miller 2013:Table 2). The stone tools examined in the pilot study were also used to butcher meat, scrape hides, process (via scraping and engraving) bone/antler, and penetrate
RI PT
(via a projectile) hunted game. Based on the pilot study, plant processing was a major activity conducted by the inhabitants of the site, making the site unique among the small but growing number of Paleoindian assemblages subjected to microwear analysis (Miller 2013:106). A
SC
sample of 10, however, may not be representative of the site as the small size is subject to
sampling bias. In order to address this issue, and document additional information on the plant
M AN U
processing activities conducted at the site, 57 additional artifacts were analyzed. I present the results of this analysis here with particular emphasis on the identification of artifacts used to cut plant material. 2.2. Microwear Analysis
TE D
Microwear analysis as pioneered by Semenov (1964), and modified and expanded by Keeley (1980), uses both high and low power incident light magnification to identify polishes, striations, and edge damage caused by utilization. Comparisons of these markings with
EP
experimental tools of known use are used to identify tool function in specific motions on specific materials. Keeley‘s original results have been tested, verified, and expanded by scores of archaeologists working all over the world (Bamforth 1988; Evans 2014; Juel Jensen 1988;
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Keeley 1980; Rots 2010; Van Gijn 1990; Vaughan 1985; Yerkes and Kardulias 1993). Prior to microscopic analysis, artifacts were photographed so that locations of use-wear could be noted. Each artifact was then washed in an ultrasonic cleanser first in a bath of liquid soap then in water in order to remove any soil or finger grease which may mask use traces. The artifacts were then examined with an Olympus model BHM incident light microscope at
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
magnifications of 50 to 500x with photomicrographs taken of significant features. In order to interpret material worked and motion employed, microwear traces on the Paleo Crossing artifacts were compared to wear traces from a reference collection of over 200 tools composed of over a
descriptions of diagnostic wear patterns see Miller (2013:Table 1). 3. Results
SC
3.1. Microwear results
RI PT
dozen flint raw material types from the American Midwest—including Wyandotte flint. For
Of the 57 artifacts analyzed use-wear could not be observed on four artifacts, all from the
M AN U
surface or plow zone, due to extensive patination and post-depositional surface modification due to physical and chemical weathering (i.e., Lev Sala 1996). While this observation confirms that the flint surface can be altered by post-depositional factors, these alterations can be recognized as distinct from use-wear traces (Figure 3b). Loebel (2013) and Seeman et al. 2013) noted similar
TE D
modifications on some surface and plow zone artifacts while still conducting successful microwear studies on Paleoindian period artifacts. Additionally, use-wear beyond that related to hafting could not be identified on eight artifacts, mostly fluted point bases, as the working edges
EP
had broken off (Figure 2). Haft wear usually consisted of hafting bright spots—small patches of bright, flat polish without striations—caused by contact with the haft or grit trapped between the tool and haft (Figure 4) (Rots 2010; Seeman et al. 2013:419). Of the remaining 45 artifacts, 35
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
(77.7%) showed evidence of utilization (Table 1). Many of the unutilized artifacts were broken as well, leaving open the possibility that the utilized portion of the tool remains unexamined. The 35 utilized artifacts were used for nine distinct tasks with scraping fresh hide, butchering meat, and processing soft plant material being most common (Figure 5). Four tools were used for more than one task (Table 1). In addition to the use wear traces residue—in the form of
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
hafting adhesive similar to that identified on a bifacial tool in the pilot study (Miller 2013:Figure 4)—was identified on three tools; a fluted point base (CMNH# 1725A-06-11-41-01), a possible endscraper fragment (CMNH# 1725A-06-27-30-01), and a retouched flake (CMNH# 1725A-06-
RI PT
01-13-01) (Figure 6). The extensive use-wear evidence for hafting (Table 1) is consistent with recent morphometric analyses of unifacial stone tools suggesting that Clovis foragers in the Great Lakes region regularly hafted their lithic implements (Eren 2012).
SC
Endscrapers form the largest formal tool class examined in this study. Microwear
analysis indicates that 18 of 19 endscrapers examined were utilized (Table 1, Figure 7). The lone
M AN U
unutilized specimen (CMNH# 1725A-06-15-35-01) appears to have broken during manufacture. All utilized endscrapers were initially used to scrape some material, usually fresh hide. Fresh hide polish forms during the early stages of hide working in which fat and other soft tissues are being removed resulting in a relatively dull, rough polish with a slightly greasy appearance
TE D
(compare Figure 3c to Figure 8). A scraping motion is inferred because striations in the polish are oriented perpendicular to the working edge, indicating a transverse motion of use. Two endscrapers (CMNH# 1725A-017-08 and 1725A-06-19-34-05) did have secondary uses on plant
EP
material (Figure 10). Plant polish is very bright with a smooth fluid appearance marked by the occurrence of comet-tailed striations. Both endscrapers were also used to scrape hide, which coupled with the occurrence of the plant wear on the lateral margins of the artifacts, indicates
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
that they were used to process plant material after removal from the haft. Since 75% of the tasks in which endscrapers were utilized involved scraping hide it is safe to assume that was their primary function (Figure 5). The preponderance of early stage hide working at Paleo Crossing mirrors the pattern observed at the nearby Nobles Pond site (Seeman et al. 2013). This fits a broad pattern of early stage hide working at several sites across the Eastern Woodlands (Loebel
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2013:Table 13.1). Loebel (2013:327) argues that sites with a high ratio of fresh to dry hide working were occupied in the fall because this is when hides, especially those of caribou, are most suitable for human use. The Paleo Crossing endscrapers are unique in that they were used
RI PT
for scraping materials other than hide while still hafted. For example, Loebel (2013) notes that endscrapers were sometimes used to scrape or saw materials such as bone/antler and wood but only after removal from the haft as evidenced by use-wear on the lateral margins of the tools. In
SC
contrast, the distal end of one endscraper from Paleo Crossing was used to scrape bone/antler (CMNH# 1725A-06-01-13-01)—as indicated by a bright pitted polish confined to the working
M AN U
edge—while another was used to scrape wood (CMNH# 1725A-06-27-30-01)—as indicated by a relatively bright curved polish confined to the high points of the stone topography. The distal end of a third endscraper (CMNH# 1725A-02-CS-00-01) contained stone polish—a bright flat polish—located away from the working edge of the tool but with striations oriented parallel to
TE D
the edge. It seems most likely that the stone polish is the result of retouch or post depositional activity as it occurs off of the working edge and is not associated with any kind or edge rounding or systematic damage.
EP
The pattern of endscraper use differs from that defined in the pilot study in which none of the endscrapers were used to work fresh hide. Instead four endscrapers examined were used to butcher meat, scrape dry hide, scrape bone/antler, and cut soft plants (Miller 2013:Table 1). The
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
addition of these tools into the larger sample does not alter the conclusion that endscrapers were scraping tools mainly utilized to process fresh hides. This discussion does indicate the importance of sample size in microwear analysis, however, as the initial pilot study would not have assigned this tool type to a specialized function.
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Informal tools (i.e. unmodified, notched, or marginally retouched flakes and blades with no evidence of hafting) were used in a much different manner. Fifteen of 23 informal tools (65.2%) were utilized (Table 1). Most informal tools were used to either butcher meat or process
RI PT
soft plant material (Figure 5). Although informal tools were preferred over endscrapers for processing plant material this was far from their only function. Hide working was not observed on any informal tools. Two artifacts that fit this definition of informal tools were analyzed for
SC
the pilot study. A retouched flake was used to engrave bone/antler and a blade was used to cut soft plants (Miller 2013:Table1). The near complete lack of butchering conducted with
M AN U
endscrapers and hide working with flake tools suggests a high degree of functional specialization in the Paleo Crossing toolkit. However a tool‘s function did not remain static throughout its uselife. The pattern of informal tool use on plant material also accounts for the use of endscrapers on plant material as they appear to have been used for this task after completing their original
TE D
function and being de-hafted during the re-tooling process (Keeley 1982). In other words endscrapers moved from formal, hafted tools to informal tools after removal from the haft. Unfortunately the lack of usable cutting edge on the fluted points examined here prevents further
EP
elaboration on their role in the plant processing activities at Paleo Crossing. Based on the limited sample examined from Paleo Crossing and other microwear studies of fluted points, it can be assumed that they served multiple functions related to animal procurement and processing
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
(Kay 1996; Miller 2013; Smallwood 2014). The only other example of a Paleoindian point with evidence of plant wear comes from the Late Paleoindian Allen site in southwestern Nebraska (Bamforth and Becker 2007:173). 4. Discussion and Conclusion 4.1. Microwear Evidence of Fiber Technology
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Polish resulting from harvesting cereal crops was perhaps the first use wear recognized on prehistoric stone tools (e.g. Spurrell 1892). A great deal of subsequent work has focused on defining and documenting this sickle sheen through microscopic analysis (Juel Jensen 1988,
RI PT
1994; Keeley 1980; Van Gijn 1990). However, plant materials can be used for much more than just subsistence needs. In order to fully understand the role of stone tools in fiber manufacturing, Hurcombe (1998, 2000, 2008) initiated a long-term ethnoarchaeological and experimental study.
SC
Based on this research Hurcombe (1998:Table 1) argues that a wide variety of siliceous and nonsiliceous plants were worked in a number of different ways to produce fiber crafts. For example,
M AN U
reeds, grasses, sedges, or weeds many be cut, scraped, split, pounded or shredded in fresh, dry, or rehydrated states. As noted above, the plant working tools from Paleo Crossing were used to cut and scrape plant material hence my discussion will be limited to these actions. Using a stone tool to cut plant material for fiber artifacts can occur in either the
TE D
harvesting process to collect raw material or in the finishing stages to create clean cut edges (Hurcombe 1998). Of course, plant material for subsistence purposes of for thatching would also be harvested in by cutting stems, adding an element of equifinality to the interpretation process.
EP
Both Hurcombe (1998:205) and Juel Jensen (1994) argue that curved tools with a concave working edge are preferred for cutting plants for craft purposes. As no such tools were identified at Paleo Crossing, the microwear evidence of cutting plant material for use in fiber technologies
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
can best be described as ambiguous. Scraping plant material may be done at several stages in the processing of materials for fiber objects (Hurcombe 1998, 2008). Hurcombe (1998:206-208) argues that a stone tool may be used in a scraping motion to flatten stems, separate fibers, and remove pith. Scraping soft plant material has not been identified with any subsistence processing activities in the archaeological
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
record (e.g. Juel Jensen 1994; Van Gijn 1990). A scraping motion is also not expected to be employed in non-subsistence harvesting activities such as collecting thatching for structure roofs. Therefore any examples of scraping soft plant material can confidently be assigned to fiber
RI PT
production. Other aspects of the use wear pattern are characteristic of fiber production. Juel Jensen (1994:61) describes a unique wear pattern on microdenticulates inferred to be used in fiber production. The non-contact tool face, that facing the tool user, forms a ―highly reflective,
SC
vitreous, metallic polish‖ (Juel Jensen 1994:61). The contact face, that facing the worked
material, forms ―a bright smooth, flat band, or facet of polish with a series of perpendicular
M AN U
striations‖ (Juel Jensen 1992:61). These differing patterns on each face of the tool edge suggest the application of differential force such as that which occurs while pushing the tool in a scraping motion away from the body. While Juel Jensen (1994:62) makes a convincing argument that these implements were used to scrape plant material, she was unable to exactly replicate the wear
TE D
patterns through experimentation. More recently, Hurcombe (2008) replicated the wear pattern described by Juel Jensen. Through consultation with a spinner and weaver, Hurcombe (2008:92) used serrated tools ―to lightly scrape harvested nettle stems‖ in order to produce fibers for textile
EP
production.
In the case of Paleo Crossing three artifacts (CMNH #‘s 1725A-06-40-40-01, 1725A017-08, 1725A-06-04-31-01) can confidently be inferred to have been use in fiber production.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Artifact 1725A-06-40-40-01 is a large cortical flake of Wyandotte flint with marginal retouch on the distal and left lateral edges (Figure 9). Bright, smooth polish with striations oriented perpendicular with the working edge occurs on the distal edge of the tool. Artifact 1725A-01708 is an endscraper crafted of Flint Ridge Flint from east-central Ohio (Figure 10). A highly reflective, vitreous polish with striations positioned perpendicular to the working edge is located
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
on the ventral face of the tool extending out onto a small spur (see Eren et al. 2013). Artifact 1725A-06-04-31-01 is a flake with beveled marginal retouch (Figure 11). Numerous striations in the bright, flat plant polish are oriented at an oblique angle to the working edge. This striation
RI PT
pattern is typical of microdenticulate plant scrapers from Europe (Juel Jensen 1994:59). On the opposite face of the plant polish, a dull greasy polish and rounded tool edge usually characteristic of dry hide working was observed. Once again this pattern is typical of European
SC
microdenticulates used for plant fiber processing (Juel-Jensen 1994:61). Additionally, a
retouched flake fragment (CMNH# 1725A-017-02) lacks striations diagnostic of working angle
M AN U
but does exhibit the same alternate bright flat and dull greasy polish as 1725A-06-04-31-01 which is characteristic of scraping plant material (Figure 11). The functional assignment of these tools strengthens the possibility that as least some of the other tools used on plant material were used in fiber production as well.
Further evidence from pollen, phytoliths, or macrobotanical
TE D
remains will shed further light on the types of plants utilized at Paleo Crossing. While not yet identified, the recovery of charred wood remains from features during excavations in the early 1990s (Brose 1994) strongly suggests that these materials may be recovered through future
4.2. Conclusion
EP
investigations.
Chipped stone artifacts represent the bulk of materials recovered at many archaeological
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
sites, especially those of the earliest Americans. These materials only represent a biased view of the past if our theories and methods of data extraction are incomplete. Lithic microwear analysis, coupled with a well-informed experimental program, offers one of many opportunities to extract additional information on other aspects of prehistoric life from lithic dominated sites. Through an example from the Lower Great Lakes region of Eastern North America, this study
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
has presented evidence that can be used to infer the use of fiber technology in the toolkit of Late Pleistocene Clovis foragers. This microwear analysis identified fresh hide and plant processing as the major activities conducted with stone tools at Paleo Crossing. While some functional
RI PT
overlap exists, hafted endscrapers were largely used for hide scraping activities while unhafted flakes and blades were used for plant working. Three artifacts were definitively used for fiber artifacts production, and perhaps many others served this role as well. The wear on these tools
SC
mimics European Neolithic tools used to process nettles for fibers. This suggests that, in
addition to hunting and hide-processing (Loebel 2013:327), Late Pleistocene foragers used
M AN U
population aggregations at base camps as an opportunity to replenish their fiber toolkit. Further information on the role of plants at Paleo Crossing will probably require additional excavation aimed at recovering Late Pleistocene floral remains. However, numerous other extant collections of lithic materials exist throughout the Americas that all have the potential to yield
TE D
similar evidence as that recovered from Paleo Crossing through microwear analysis. That other lines of evidence aside from fiber artifacts themselves can be used to reveal the use of perishable technology in the Clovis archaeological record is an extremely exciting prospect, ultimately
EP
allowing archaeologists to reconstruct more accurate models of the prehistoric toolkits used during the Pleistocene peopling of North America. Acknowledgements
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
The Paleo Crossing artifacts are curated at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Brian Redmond graciously approved the loan of artifacts for this study and provided necessary contextual information. Rick Yerkes provided lab space for the analysis and commented on an earlier version of the manuscript. I benefitted from discussions with Metin Eren, Brad Lepper,
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Brian Redmond, and Rick Yerkes on the site and all things Paleoindian. Lindsey Miller assisted in the transport of the artifacts from Cleveland to Columbus and back. References
RI PT
Adovasio, James M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath 1978 Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: An Overview. American Antiquity 43:632-651.
Adovasio, James M., D.C. Hyland, and O. Soffer 2001 Perishable Technology and Early Human
SC
Populations in the New World. In On Being First: Cultural Innovation and Envrionmental Consequences of First Peopling. Jason Gillespie, Susan Tupakka, and Christy de Mille,
M AN U
eds. Pp. 201–222. Calgary: Chacmool, the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1988. Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11-23.
TE D
Bamforth, Douglas B. and Mark Becker 2007. The Allen Site Lithic Assemblage. In The Allen Site, edited by Douglas B. Samforth, pp. 148-183. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
EP
Bradley, Bruce A., Michael B. Collins, and C. Andrew Hemmings 2010. Clovis Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory: Archaeological Series 17. Ann Arbor. Brose, David S. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo Crossing Site: a Paleoindian
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of America, edited by William S. Dancey, pp. 61-76. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 2004 Beyond ―Big‖: Gender, Age, and Subsistence Diversity in Paleoindian Societies. In The Settlement of the American Continents: A
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, edited by C. Michael Barton, pp. 162-172. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ellis, Christopher 2011. Measuring Paleoindian Range Mobility and Land-Use in the Great
RI PT
Lakes/Northeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:385-401.
Eren, Metin I. 2006. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) Non-Projectile Point Biface Assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 95-97.
SC
Eren, Metin I. 2010. Anvil Reduction at the Early Paleoindian Site of Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Northeast Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27: 75-77.
M AN U
Eren, Metin I. 2012. Were unifacial stone tools regularly hafted by Clovis foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes region? An empirical test of edge class richness and attribute frequency among distal, proximal, and lateral tool-sections. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 2:1-15.
TE D
Eren, Metin I. 2013. The technology of Stone Age colonization: an empirical, regional-scale examination of Clovis unifacial stone tool reduction, allometry, and edge angle from the North American Lower Great Lakes region. Journal of Archaeological Science
EP
40:2101-2112.
Eren, Metin, and Brian Redmond 2011 Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Medina County, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173-194.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Eren, Metin I., Brian Redmond, and Mark Kollecker 2004. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) Fluted Point Assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:38-39. Eren, Metin I., Brian Redmond, and Mark Kollecker 2005. Unifacial Stone Tool Analyses from the Paleo Crossing Site (33-ME-274), Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:4345.
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Eren, Metin I., Anne Chao, Wen-Han Hwang, and Robert K. Colwell 2012. Estimating the Richness of a Population when the Maximum Number of Classes is Fixed: a NonParametric Solution to an Archaeological Problem. PLoS ONE 7(5): e34179.
RI PT
Eren, Metin I., Thomas A. Jennings, and Ashley M. Smallwood. 2013. Were Paleoindian
unifacial stone tool ‗spurs‘ intended accessories or incidental accidents? PLoS ONE 8(11): e78419
studies. Journal of Archaeological Science: In Press.
SC
Evans, Adrian A. 2014. On the importance of blind-testing: the example from lithic functional
M AN U
Gero, Joan M. 1993 The Social World of Prehistoric Facts: Gender and Power in Paleoindian Research. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by H. du Cros and L. Smith pp. 31-40. Occasional Papers in Prehistory No. 23, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies. The Australian National University, Canberra.
TE D
Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hemmings, Christopher Andrew 2004. The organic Clovis: a single continent-wide cultural
EP
adaptation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. Hudecek-Cuffe, Caroline R. 1998 Engendering Northern Plains Paleoindian Archaeology. BAR Internatonal Series No. 699, London.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Hurcombe, Linda 1998. Plant-Working and Craft Activities as a Potential Source of Wear Variation. Helinium 34:201-209. Hurcombe, Linda 2000. Plants as Raw Materials for Crafts. In Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond, edited by A. Fairborn, pp. 155-173. Oxbow/Neolithic Studies Group, Oxford.
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hurcombe, Linda 2008. Organics from Inorganics: Using Experimental Archaeology as a Research Tool for Studying Perishable Material Culture. World Archaeology 40:83-115.
refitting study. North American Archaeologist 34: 237-267.
RI PT
Iceland, Harry 2013. Refining Paleo-Indian lithic technology at Shawnee-Minisink via an artifact
Juel Jensen, Helle 1988. Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by HighPower
Microscopy: A Review of the West European Research. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 5388.
SC
Juel Jensen, Helle 1994. Flint Tools and Plant Working: Hidden Traces of Stone Age Technology. Aarhus University Press, Arhaus, Denmark.
M AN U
Kay, Marvin 1996. Microwear Analysis of Some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 315-344. Plenum, New York.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. A Micro-Wear
TE D
Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982. Hafting and Re-Tooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798-809.
1996
EP
Levi Sala, Irene
A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. BAR Internatonal Series 629, Oxford.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Loebel, Thomas J. 2013 Endscrapers, Use-Wear, and Early Paleoindians in Eastern North America. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by Joseph A. M. Gingerich, pp. 315-330. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Miller, G. Logan 2013 Illuminating Activities at Paleo Crossing (33ME274) through Microwear Analysis. Lithic Technology 38:97-108.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Morgan, Brooke, Metin I. Eren, Nada Khreisheh, Genevieve Hill, and Bruce Bradley 2014. Clovis bipolar lithic reduction at Paleo Crossing, Ohio: a reinterpretation based on the examination of experimental replications. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New A&M
RI PT
Understanding, edited by Thomas Jennings and Ashley Smallwood. Texas Press, College Station: In Press.
SC
Morrow, Juliet 1996 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the Confluence Area
Washington University, St. Louis.
M AN U
of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Morrow, Juliet 1997 Endscraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70-85. Redmond, Brian G., and Kenneth B. Tankersley 2005. Evidence of early Paleoindian bone
TE D
modification and use at the Sheriden Cave site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70: 503-526.
Rots, Veerle 2010 Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven
EP
University Press, Leuven, Belgium.
Schiffer Michael B. 1995. Behavioral Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization, and the Use of Space. In Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles, by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 55-66.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Seeman, Mark F., Thomas J. Loebel, Aaron Comstock, and Garry L. Summers 2013 Working with Wilmsen: Paleoindian End Scraper Design and Use at Nobles Pond. American Antiquity 78:407-432.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Semenov, Sergei 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M. W. Thompson Barnes and Noble, New York. Shoberg, Marilyn 2010 Functional Analysis of Stone Tools. In Clovis Technology, edited by
Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
RI PT
Bruce Bradley, Michael Collins and Andrew Hemmings, pp. 138-156. Archaeology
Shott, Michael J. 1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central
SC
Michigan. Memoirs of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, No. 25, Ann Arbor.
M AN U
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2014. Building Experimental Use-Wear Analogs for Clovis Biface Functions. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences In press Spurrell, F. 1892 Notes on Early Sickles. Archaeological Journal 49:53-69. Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1998 Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene
TE D
Eastern North America. American Antiquity 63:7-20.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and J.D. Holland. 2004 Lithic Procurement Patterns at the Paleo Crossing Site, Medina County, Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:61-63.
EP
Van Gijn, Anne Louise 1990 The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Microwear Analysis Applied to Dutch Neolithic Assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Vaughan, Patrick 1985 Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Yerkes, Richard W., and P. Nick Kardulias 1993. Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Research 1:89-119.
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Microwear Results from Paleo Crossing.
Unit 6S 74E Unit 6S 54E Unit 38S 30E Unit 2S 72E NE Quad SE 1/4 Unit 34S 20E Unit 54S 30E Ubit 26N 16E Unit 30S
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Fea B3 E1/2 Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac
X
scraping
X
scraping
endscraper
X
scraping
Fluted Point retouched flake endscraper
? X X
Other Notes
soft plant
beveled
fresh hide
most of bit resharpened before dehafting, hafted most of bit resharpened before dehafting, hafted
RI PT
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area B Area C Area
Surfac e 30-33 cm 0-31 cm
SC
1725A-02B3-00-01 1725A-0603-12-01 1725A-0603-22-01 1725A-0619-34-12 1725A-0601-13-01 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0617-39-01 1725A-0627-34-01 1725A-0714-09-01 1725A-06-
Unit 8S 72E Unit 34S 30E Unit 27.01S 24.09E NW Quad
Motion
M AN U
Area B Area B Area B
Used
TE D
1725A-0604-31-01 1725A-0617-34-06 1725A056-01
Artifact Type retouched flake endscraper
fresh hide
possibly hafted, weathered
drilling/scraping
bone/antler
scraping
fresh hide
hafted not hafted, possible manufacturing failure hafted
point basefluted endscraper
no X
scraping
bone/antler
endscraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
uniface
X
cutting
endscraper
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide fresh hide
distal flake
X
cutting
soft plant
uniface
no
flake
X
EP
Context
AC C
Catalog #
Worked Material
broken cutting
meat/fresh
heat damaged
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1725A-0616-11-01 1725A-0615-35-01 1725A-0640-40-01 1725A-0601-18-01 1725A-0620-45-01 1725A039-01 1725A-0701-33-01 1725A-0602-19-01 1725A-06-
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area
32S 76E Transect 15 TU 35 Unit 80S 18E Unit 02S 62E Unit 42S 08E Unit 58S 16 E Unit 00N 64E Unit 04 S 60E Unit 38S
fresh hide
made on cortical blade, hafted
endscraper
X
endscraper
X
engraving/scrapin g
bone/fresh hide
made on flake, probable transport wear
53-55 cm 30-36 cm
endscraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
tool frag
X
sawing
wood
heat damaged
23-38 cm
endscraper (early)
X
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 0-19 cm Surfac e Surfac e 42-44
flake
no
RI PT
Area B
broken
X
SC
1725A-0619-34-05
cutting or scraping? scraping
hide soft plant
uniface
M AN U
Area C Area B
Unit 27.01S 24.09E Unit 28N 38E Unit 26.22S 22.26E Unit 38S 30E
e 16-19 cm Surfac e 0-31 cm
TE D
1725A018-05 1725A050-04
14E Unit 28N 36E NE Quad
cutting/scraping
soft plant/fresh hide broken
endscraper
no
flake
X
scraping
soft plant
stone wear on both aspects
Scraper
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
blocky debitage possible scraper endscraper
?
extensive patina
?
patina, heat damage
X
scraping
dry hide
hafted
uniface
X
cutting
retouched
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide wood
prehension
EP
B Area C Area B Area B
AC C
15-42-01 1725A017-02 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A056-01
broken during manufacture?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Unit 02S 44E Unit 06E 42E Unit 08S 72E SE 1/4 Unit 10S 86E Unit 12S 28E Unit 22S 30E Unit 22S 16E Unit 36S 92E Unit 36S 32E Unit 52S 48E Unit 38S 26E
hafted
N/A
hafted
RI PT
SE 1/4
N/A
N/A N/A
SC
SE 1/4
flake point basefluted point basefluted point basefluted point basefluted flake
hafted hafted
X
butchering
retouched flake retouched flake endscraper
no
point fragment retouched flake point basefluted point basefluted blade
N/A
M AN U
NW Quad
cm Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 2548cm
X
?
general
backed blade, stone on stone
late stage biface endscraper
X
cutting
X
scraping
meat/fresh hide dry hide
hafted
channel flake
no
X X
TE D
26E NE Quad
EP
B Area B Area B Area C Area C Area B Area B Area B Area C Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B Area B
AC C
19-36-11 1725A-02B4-00-01 1725A-02B3-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0601-27-01 1725A-0603-28-01 1725A-0601-13-01 1725A-02C2-00-01 1725A-0605-06-01 1725A-0606-35-01 1725A-0011-34-01 1725A-0611-41-01 1725A-0618-03-01 1725A-0618-33-01 1725A-0626-25-01 1725A-0619-36-06
X
meat/fresh hide
possibly removed from larger tool during retouch
cutting
dry hide
proximal frag, hafted
?
stone
hafted
butchering
hafted, heat fractured meat/fresh hide
N/A
hafted, heat fractured
no
hafted
hafting bright spots, before removal?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
X
scraping
fresh hide
hafted
endscraper frag? endscraper
X
scraping
wood
hafted
X
scraping
retouched flake uniface frag uniface
X
cutting
distal flake
no
endscraper
X
58-60
uniface frag flake
no
43-54 cm 12-21 cm 023cm
uniface frag
bladeproximal
fresh hide
N/A
hafted
soft plant
SC
N/A
RI PT
endscraper
M AN U
Area B
Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e Surfac e 30-32 cm 68-87 cm 51 cm
TE D
1725A054-01
Unit 44S 88E Unit 54S 38E Unit 60S 94E Unit 60S 18E Unit 60N 04E Unit 28N 36E Unit 28N36E Unit 28N 36E Unit 28N 38E Unit 82S 20E Unit 26.22S 22.26E Unit 30.14S 31.45E
EP
Area B Area B Area B Area B Area C Area C Area C Area C Area C Area B Area B
AC C
1725A-0622-05-01 1725A-0627-30-01 1725A-0630-02-01 1725A-0630-40-01 1725A-0730-03-01 1725A017-05 1725A017-26F 1725A017-08 1725A018-14 1725A024-07 1725A050-02
patinated-heat? hafted, highly heat fractured
scraping
dry hide/plant
butchering
meat/fresh hide
hafted
no X
no
unifacial retouch
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1. Location of the Paleo Crossing site (33ME274) Figure 2. A sample of fluted point bases from Paleo Crossing
SC
RI PT
Figure 3. Photomcrographs of a) unutilized edge, but note the presence of edge damage, of replicated flake of Wyandotte flint; b) post depositional surface modification on fluted point (CMNH cat. # 1725A-02-B3-00-01) from surface of Paleo Crossing; c) dull, greasy meant/fresh hide polish on experimental flake of Wyandotte flint used to butcher deer—note that scale should read 50 μm; d) bright, fluid plant polish on lateral edge of experimental flake of Wyandotte flint used to cut soft plant material. All magnifications are 187.5×. Figure 4. Hafting bright spot located on the base of a fluted point (CMNH# 1725A-02-C2-0001). Magnification is 125×.
M AN U
Figure 5. Material worked as a percentage of total tasks for Paleo Crossing and two subassemblages [Data from Table 1 and Miller (2013:Table 1)]. Figure 6. Hafting adhesive residue identified on the ventral face of a retouched flake (CMNH# 1725A-06-01-13-01). Magnification is 187.5×. Figure 7. A sample of endscrapers from Paleo Crossing examined by microwear analysis.
TE D
Figure 8. Dull, rough, slightly greasy polish on the distal end of an endscraper (CMNH# 1725A06-19-34-05) formed by scraping fresh hide. Magnification is 125×.
EP
Figure 9. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-06-40-40-01. Polish from scraping plant material is shown in the inset photo at 125× magnification. Microwear photo orientation is rotated 180° from working edge.
AC C
Figure 10. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-017-08. Polish from scraping plant material is shown in inset photo at 125×. Microwear photo orientation is rotated 180° from working edge. Figure 11. Dorsal and ventral views of CMNH# 1725A-06-04-13-01. Bright, smooth polish with oblique angled striations from scraping plant material is shown in inset photo A at 125×. Alternate greasy, hide-like polish is shown in inset photo B at 187.5×. Microwear photo orientations are rotated 90° from working edge.
Figure 1
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 2
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 3
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 4
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 5
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 6
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 7
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 8
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 9
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 10
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 11
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT