Stability with Change: Characterizing Early-to-Late Holocene Lithic Technology at the Richard Beene Site By John E. Dockall Prewitt & Associates, Inc.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects Defining Reading Proficiency for Accessible Large Scale Assessments Principles and Issues Paper American.

Advertisements

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ARCHEOLOGY SITES IN KERR COUNTY?

Paleo (10,000 – 8,000 BC) Housing Food No permanent housing

The Gehring Site: An Analysis of a Middle Woodland Lithic Assemblage in the American Bottom Katie Leslie.

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Ancient Fermilab: The Mier Collection of Native American Artifacts.

1. Paleo Indian Period 2. Archaic Period 3. Late Prehistoric Period 3 Eras of Prehistoric Texas.

Prehistoric Archaeology in Wyoming. Chronology of Prehistoric Archaeology in Wyoming Paleo-Indian (12,000 to 8000 Years B.P.) Early Archaic (8000 to 5000.

Neandertal Tools Neandertals improved previous techniques by inventing a new variation, Mousterian. – They trimmed a flint nodule around the edges to form.

29 N Sudbury 2014 Test pit locations and key to Lithics identified.

Flowing Waters, Passing Time: The Critical Role of Water in Prehistoric and Historic Westchester County New York City Department of Environmental Protection.

Chapter 13 Premodern Humans. The Pleistocene  The Pleistocene, often called the Ice Age, was marked by advances and retreats of massive continental glaciations.

Prehistoric Native Americans August 12, Introduction Long before ___________ ever arrived in North America, Native American tribes lived here The.

Lithic Technology Stone tool technology Simple, but not easy Good example of culture as a “mental template”

Archaeology of North America

Cultural Resources of the Middle Fork of the American River Archaeological and historic studies in support of The PCWA Middle Fork American River Project.

Flaked Stone Ground Stone Cryptocrystalline Obsidian Chert Flint Quartzite Jasper.

Tool making techniques Homo habilis  Percussion flaking  Oldowan Tools.

Major Lithic Cultures from the Old World: The Lower Paleolithic Archaeological Period DateHomininsLocation Oldowan The Oldowan culture is the world’s oldest.

Welcome to the The American Lithic University of Minnesota Duluth Ancient Middle America Tim Roufs ©

Welcome to the The American Archaic University of Minnesota Duluth Ancient Middle America Tim Roufs ©

Class Slides Set 21 Tools and Technologies I.

The Emergence of Homo Sapiens. Introduction u Transition from Homo erectus l areas of agreement l areas of disagreement l fossils with mixed traits u.

Neanderthals & Archaic Homo sapiens I. Early archaic H. Sapiens & later Neandertals II. Middle Pleistocene evolutionary trends III. Middle Pleistocene.

Prehistoric Native American Cultures

Tim Roufs Welcome to the The American Lithic University of Minnesota Duluth.

The Paleolithic Era (or Old Stone Age) is a period of prehistory from about 2.6 million years ago to around years ago. The Neolithic Era(or New.

Chapter 14 The Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans.

LITHic Analysis of stone tools.  System to identify the type of stone tool  Created ~20 years ago by Roger Grace  Programmed using Macintosh’s Hyperstudio.

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings Lesson 3: Prehistoric Peoples Study Presentation.

(AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION).  Paleolithic-  “Old Stone Age.”  Mesolithic-  “Middle Stone Age.”  2,000,000 BC – 10,000 BC-  Hunter-Gatherers-  Searching.

During the last Ice Age, the sea level was much lower than it is today. Scientists believed that a land bridge connected Asia and America across the Bering.

Archaic Indians- “old” Three periods: Early, Middle, and Late Early Archaic Period, 8000 B.C B.C. -began hunting smaller game such as bear, turkey,

Neandertal Tools Neandertals improved previous techniques by inventing a new variation, Mousterian. They trimmed a flint nodule around the edges to form.

Prehistoric Native Americans August 12, Introduction Long before Europeans ever arrived in North America, Native American tribes lived here Long.

Number your next empty page in your notebook as pg. 5 and write today’s EQ at the top How did prehistoric Indians evolve?

The Pine Lake Archaeological Field School: Investigations from the 2003 and 2005 Seasons Renee B. Walker (SUCO) and Cynthia J. Klink (Hartwick College)

Chapter 9 Archaic Homo Sapiens and the Middle Paleolithic.

Stone Age Tools. Why might people in the Stone Age have needed tools and weapons? What would they be used for?

Class Slides Set 21 Tools and Technologies I Introduction: Basic Terms / Basic Types.

Georgia’s Early Native Tribes and Civilizations. Georgia’s Prehistoric Time Periods 1.) Paleo–Indian Period (10,000 – 8,000 B.C.E) B.C.E) 2.) Archaic.

The Mystery of the Guangala Obsidian: A Functional Examination Through Experimental Archaeology.

Humanized Ceramics Firing Clay, Breaking Glass.

Bone Marrow and Bone Grease Exploitation at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village: Human Cultural Adaptive Strategies on the Northern Plains Landon P.

Prehistoric Native American Cultures Terms to know Prehistory Kinship Extended Family Nomads Technology Projectile Points Culture Agriculture Ceramics.

Oldowan Acheulean Mousterian (Levallois technique) Upper Paleolithic

The Peopling of the Americas

Prehistoric Native American Cultures

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Humanized Ceramics Firing Clay, Breaking Glass

TxDOT’s Analytical Protocols

The First Inhabitants of Alabama and the New World

Question one: Do flake attributes differ in morphospace size?

Hominin Evolution: Stone Tools Overview

Prehistoric Georgia Indians

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

N Mount Bures Burnt Stone Flint Core Flake Blade Scraper

The Peopling of the Americas

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Organization of Societies*

STONE AGE TOOLS Ellen Yu, 5th grade..

Georgia’s Early Native Tribes and Civilizations

Native Texans: Prehistoric Cultures

Tools and Technologies I

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Neanderthals and Other Archaic Homo sapiens

Georgia Studies Unit 1: Geography of Georgia/Georgia’s Beginnings

Theories of First People’s Origins

Fig. 3 Gault Assemblage artifacts

Presentation transcript:

Stability with Change: Characterizing Early-to-Late Holocene Lithic Technology at the Richard Beene Site By John E. Dockall Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas Illustrations courtesy of

Site Resources Locally available lithic resources Upland: bison, deer, pronghorn, small game Floodplain: onions, false garlic, prickly pear tunas, other root and nut foods Riverine: fish, shellfish, turtles

Early, Early Archaic Angostura Points  Represented by heavily resharpened and broken specimens.  Angostura preforms absent.  Breakage patterns and resharpening suggest hunting gear was being replaced and repaired.  Alternate beveling common.

Lerma Bifaces  Co-occurred with Angostura points in Upper Perez contexts.  No preforms for Lerma points present in the assemblages.  Use-wear and breakage patterns suggest that Lerma bifaces functioned as hafted knives and projectile points.

Early, Early Archaic Beveled Bifaces  Common in Upper Perez.  Technological affinities with other similar implements such as Clear Fork bifaces and Dalton adzes.  Fracture patterns suggest on site use, discard, and resharpening.  Use-wear damage suggests woodworking.

Early, Early Archaic Cores Types in Upper Perez contexts are discoid, conical, amorphous, and prepared. Indicates a variety of reduction techniques were applied to produce flakes for tools.

Early, Early Archaic Lithic Assemblages  Common to Upper Perez contexts.  Includes gravers, denticulate flake tools, other flake tools, pieces esquilles, and burin spalls and tools.

Middle, Early Archaic Lithic Assemblages  From Elm Creek contexts.  Includes a variety of edge modified tools and cores, bifacial adzes, and a bola stone.

Middle, Early Archaic Lithic Assemblages  Present in Elm Creek contexts.  Massive quartzite cobble tools and sandstone milling stones

Late, Early Archaic Stemmed-Indented Base Points  Common to Lower Medina contexts.  Uvalde, Baker, Martindale, Bandy types.  No preforms present in the lithic assemblages.  Specimens exhibit consistent resharpening and alternate edge- beveling.

Late, Early Archaic Assemblages  From Lower Medina contexts.  Includes amorphous and conical cores, simple flake tools and unifaces, and occasional bifacial adzes.

Middle Archaic Diagnostics  Common to Upper Medina contexts.  Bell/Andice, Desmuke, Uvalde, Travis? types.  No preforms present in the lithic assemblages.  Specimens are broken or heavily resharpened.

Middle Archaic Lithic Assemblages  From Upper Medina contexts.  Includes bifaces, unifaces, large hafted cobble tools, bifacial adzes and simple flake tools.

Early, Late Archaic Diagnostics  Common to Upper Leon Creek contexts.  Includes Ensor, Lange, Marcos, Marshall, Pedernales, and Langtry.  No preforms present in the lithic assemblages.  Whole points with bifacial blade resharpening.

Early, Late Archaic Lithic Assemblages  Common to upper Leon Creek contexts.  Generalized percussion cores.  A variety of retouched flake tools.

Late Prehistoric Lithic Assemblages  From Payaya contexts.  Perdiz arrow points but no arrowpoint preforms.  Small chert drill and expedient flake tools.  Generalized percussion cores.  Small number of plain ceramics.  Toyah phase occupation.

Raw Material Usage

Size Grade Groups by Component

Size Grade Variability by Block

Flake Types by Component

Comparative Ratios Flake/Core Flake/Biface Points/Formal Tools Core/Biface Core/Point Flakes/Formal Tools

Other Comparative Measures Measure of Use Intensity Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index

Selected Ratios by Block

Additional Ratios

Use Intensity (Total Debitage Density per M 2 /total millennia) Use Intensity

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index Assemblage Diversity

Conclusions  Assemblages tend to reflect low diversity and low use intensity  Patterning suggests decreasing group ranges or territories or increasing numbers of smaller groups with restricted territories through time  Similar patterns of use through time but with decreasing frequency of use from Early Archaic to Late Prehistoric  Behaviors reflect a mix of hunting and non- hunting subsistence related activities related to site location within an area of varied resource potential