Nine-thousand years of optimal toolstone selection through the North American Holocene

Abstract

Abstract

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

“…First, the concept of “quality” is often a subjective and poorly defined characteristic of knappable stone (Brantingham et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2009; Browne & Wilson, 2011; Eren et al, 2014). Quality can be perceived or evaluated in varying ways, including color, shape, size, patterning, availability, translucence, function (e.g., sharpness), brittleness, and durability—among other possible traits (Williams et al, 2019, p. 314). Therefore, when discussing “quality,” specificity is essential and subjectivity should be eschewed (cf.…”

“…In other examples, however, formal, complex tools were made on poor‐quality, locally available toolstones (e.g., Brantingham et al, 2000; Meltzer & Eren, 2021; K. B. Tankersley, 1994; K. B. Tankersley et al, 1991). Of course, there are examples where raw material quality does not appear to change, even over longer periods of time (e.g., Bamforth, 1990; Williams et al, 2019).…”

“…However, unlike the majority of studies discussing chert quality, which compare different kinds of toolstones (e.g., basalt vs. chert; chert type 1 vs. chert type 2), our analysis here focuses on chert quality within a single kind of chert, and whether quality differs if that single chert is local or exotic. Following Williams et al (2019, p. 314), and many others (Brantingham et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2009; Crabtree, 1967; Doelman et al, 2001; Domanski et al, 1994; Eren et al, 2014; Luedtke, 1992), we explicitly and quantitatively define quality in this study as fracture predictability (see Section 2.2). Rocks that fracture predictably possess few impurities that could potentially interfere with fracture propagation (Bamforth, 2009; Brantingham et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2009; Brown et al, 2009; Domanski & Webb, 1992; D. Stout et al, 2005; Whittaker, 1994).…”

“…An important archaeological site that sits within the bounds of the Upper Mercer outcrop is the Welling site (33‐Co‐2) in Coshocton county (Diez‐Martin et al, 2021; Lepper, 2005; Miller et al, 2019; Prufer & Wright, 1970; Williams et al, 2019). Welling is best known for its Late Pleistocene Clovis occupation, but based on projectile point types, possesses occupations that span the entire Holocene, from the Early Archaic through Late Prehistoric periods (9000 B.P.…”

Was Welling, Ohio (33-Co-2), a Clovis Basecamp or Lithic Workshop? Employing Experimental Models to Interpret Old Collections

“…For example, Miller and colleagues (2019) assessed the microwear on several diagnostic Clovis tools from Welling. In another example, Williams and colleagues (2019) developed a new quantitative geochemical measure of toolstone quality and used it to assess the stone quality of Welling's Archaic and Woodland projectile points. Several chert sourcing studies are also currently in preparation, as is a radiocarbon assessment of recently discovered charcoal samples from the site.…”