Knapping quality of local versus exotic Upper Mercer chert (Ohio, USA) during the Holocene

Abstract

Stone that fractured conchoidally was an important resource for prehistoric huntergatherers. In recent years, archaeologists have come to realize that rather than defining stone "quality" simply and implicitly as "high" or "low," a stone's quality can be best defined in several different explicit and often quantitative ways involving production, function, or social benefits. Here, we examine the stone quality-defined as "fracture predictability"-of Upper Mercer chert when it is locally versus nonlocally acquired by prehistoric people in Ohio, USA. By quantitatively assessing silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ) content and loss on ignition, we compared stone tools from a site at the Upper Mercer outcrop (n = 42) to those found at archaeological sites over 100 km north of it (n = 126). Our results showed that the former on average were of significantly higher quality than the latter. We conclude with a consideration of factors that could cause this difference in quality, suggesting that the lower quality of Upper Mercer chert in northern Ohio might be explained by northern people's decreased familiarity with it during the Archaic period and by their decreased access to it during the Woodland and Late Precontact periods.

Experimental assessment of obsidian versus chert lanceolate projectile point durability and robusticity: Semi‐static fracture strength and dynamic impact

“…Perhaps other tool types—such as knives or scrapers—were more important in certain circumstances, and toolstone selection was dictated by a rock’s cutting or scraping properties. In this latter scenario, projectile points would have been incidentally made on a stone raw material that was ultimately selected for another purpose entirely (Lewis et al, 2022). Or perhaps stone materials were exchanged, and tools were made from whatever toolstones they acquired from other groups (Speth et al, 2013).…”

“…What raw materials were available to past people (Beck & Jones, 1990)? How difficult was a raw material to knap relative to a knapper’s skill level, time constraints or other factors (Eren et al, 2014; Lewis et al, 2022)? Did particular stone raw materials possess traits that enhanced projectile penetration performance, such as increased sharpness (Cheshier & Kelly, 2006: 356; Ellis, 1997; Frison, 2004; Hughes, 1998; Loendorf et al, 2018; Odell & Cowan, 1986), or edge durability (Braun et al, 2009)?…”

Using visible derivative spectroscopy to assess flaked projectile point provenance: Application and preliminary analysis of the welling site, Ohio, U.S.A

“…The proportion in each group identified by each method was then compared using a contingency table (e.g. Alberti, 2013;Clark, 2017;Lewis, 1986). Statistical significance was assessed using the Z-test for a difference in proportions.…”

“…The temporal distribution of these eight points is spread across all time periods, with five in the Early Archaic, two in the Late Archaic, and one in the Late Woodland. Earlier, Archaic groups may have directly procured these points and brought them to Welling; later, Woodland groups may have instead traded for these exotic cherts (Lewis et al, 2022).…”

“…Upper Mercer chert outcrops are common is Coshocton, Licking, Muskingum, Perry, and Hocking counties, Ohio Notes: The Welling Site sits within the parent formation boundaries in Coshocton County. The potential geologic distribution of upper Mercer in the Pottsville group of the Pennsylvanian siltstone/limestone may be larger than is currently understood (Lewis et al, 2022) – this potential distribution is shown between the two black dotted lines. This potential distribution was procured from a digital Ohio map from CD produced as a result of a contract between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Ohio geological survey (released with permission of the Ohio geological survey, June 2005) [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]…”