A Small Study of Lithics, from the Spaulding Green Project Area

By: Lisa Nesselbeck

Table of Contents………………….1

Thesis Statement…………………………1Introduction………………………………2Expectations……………………………...2Spaulding Green Site Location…………..3Definitions of Lithic Analysis……………4Base Theoretical Ideas…………………...10

Mass Analysis……………………10Sullivan and Rozen Categories…..12Formal versus Informal Tools……14Landscape Archaeology………….17GIS……………………………….19Historical Ecology……………….21

My Bias………………………………….22My Method of Data Collection………….25Raw Material Sources……………………29Data Collected……………………………34

Site 1……………………………..34Site 2……………………………..36Site 17………...………………….38Site 18……………………………40Site 23……………………………43Site 32……………………………45

Overall Interpretations…………………...46Conclusion……………………………….49Works Cited……………………………...51Attached Figures…………………………54

Thesis Statement:Through this paper I wish to explore how lithics can help researchers to interpret a site. I

will use a portion of the multitudes of lithics that have been excavated so far at the Spaulding Green project area to fulfill this purpose. Specifically I will focus on lithic analyses such as mass analysis, Sullivan and Rozen categories, landscape archaeology, GIS, and raw material sources.

1

Introduction:

Interpreting an archaeological site is arguably one of the more difficult goals of

archaeology. We can never know fully what these archaeological sites looked like, what they

were used for, what the past peoples did at them or why, however through the use of certain

methods and theory we can at least gather an idea. There are many ways in which archaeologists

are able to delve into who were at these archaeological sites, what they were doing there, where

they were at that specific location in the landscape, when these sites existed, and why they were

there. The archaeological analytical methods that this paper will focus on to help interpret is the

Spaulding Green project area, including lithic analysis. In this paper project area refers to the

overall Spaulding Green project area, and a site refers to the individual sites within the project

area. Throughout this paper I wish to first explain my preconceived expectations about what I

will find out about the sites, briefly introduce the Spaulding Green project area, and give some

background on the history of lithic analysis within the field of archaeology. Next I wish to State

my base theoretical ideas that I will use for my interpretations of Spaulding Green including but

not limited to mass analysis, Sullivan and Rozen categories, formal versus informal tool types,

landscape archaeology, GIS, and raw material sources. After I State my base theoretical ideas I

wish to State some of what I consider my inherit biases that I have acknowledged I possess thus

far, and describe how and what my methods of data collection were. And finally I wish to

present the hard data that I collected, and then interpret the data with the base theoretical ideas

that I mentioned before, both within each site data set and with the overall project area.

Expectations:

2

There are a few expectations that I think will happen throughout the lithic analysis and

subsequent research. I think that the sites that are located near each other will show that they are

from a few larger sites. More specifically I hope to be able to show that each individual site is

actually a smaller group of artifacts from a larger site. That over time the artifacts were moved

slightly through geological processes, and that the smaller site groupings all belong to one site. I

also expect to find that the one very large site (site 32) has many more lithics from it, and that

they indicate a longer duration of usage at that site, than the other sites. It may also be that the

larger site was a lithic workshop. I expect the two sites that I studied in the north (site 17 & 18)

to have similar lithic debitage, and to possibly be from the same site. I also expect that all of the

sites that I have studied will have the same raw material that can be found form the Onondaga

escarpment which is only a short walk to the south of the Spaulding Green project area. I also

expect that there would be a lot of flake fragments, debri, and broken flakes at the site, and very

few complete flakes, finished or broken projectile points, or cores. I think this because I would

expect the Spaulding Green project area to be a working lithic camp that may have only been

occupied temporarily. It may have been a site in which the raw material from the Onondaga

escarpment was brought to be worked into a rough core so that it was not so heavy to carry back

to another settlement elsewhere. I do not expect that there will be much if any other raw material

types to be found at Spaulding Green other than the Onondaga chert because the project area is

in such a close proximity to the Onondaga chert raw material source.

Spaulding Green Project Area Location:

To further study the field of lithic analysis I will now present just a small portion of the

very large amount of lithic data that has so far been unearthed from the project area called,

3

Spaulding Green. First it is important to understand spatially where the Spaulding Green is; it is

a project area in the US located in New York State, and is just under 20 miles to the East of the

city of Buffalo. It is located additionally within the Town of Clarence that is within Erie County.

See Figure 1 that is attached. Second it is helpful to understand why the Spaulding Green project

area was discovered and unearthed. It was unearthed because of a construction project of

around 380 residential units and 17 multiple family homes, which will cover an area of 140 ha

(346ac). (Perrelli, ii) Thus in accordance with laws and at the request of the developer the area

was explored for possible archaeological significance. It will also be helpful to further explain

the geography of the Spaulding Green project area. Most of the Spaulding Green project area is

or has been cultivated, there are also a few other disturbances such as “field drainage ditches, gas

lines, and the Heise-Brookhaven sewer line... The project area is a mixture of fallow and

agricultural fields, and secondary growth woods. Field ditches and tractor paths run north-south

in relation to property lines related to farmsteads along Greiner Road. A sewer line and gas line

run west-east through southern portion of the project area (Appendix E). A second gas line runs

north-south through the eastern portion of the project area (Appendix E). The aforementioned

paths and utility lines are also utilized for recreational nature paths by local residents. Telephone

lines also run west-east and north-south through portion of the project area (Appendix E). The

southeastern portion of the project area was, until recently a private golf course” (Perrelli, 11-

12). It should also be noted that work on the Spaulding Green project area is still in progress, so

some of this information may be updated at a later time.

Definitions of Lithic Analysis:

There are always vast amounts of data for lithics. This is because it is arguably more fun

4

to excavate the lithics and not as fun to count, size sort, and categorize the lithics. The problem

in the field of lithic analysis is how those categories are interpreted. Sullivan and Rozen were

the pair of scholars who while trying to create an 'interpretation free method' ended up bringing

light to the problem of interpretation, and ultimately had their 'interpretation free method' ripped

apart by other scholars because of its implied interpretations. Another interpretation which may

or may not be right is that modern archaeologists often suggest that a heavier mass means those

past peoples that inhabited that site were sedentary because they wouldn't want to carry around

heavy lithics. There is also the argument that as the average weight of a core decreases the flake

fragments should increase in number. The problem is; what if our base interpretations and

arguments are wrong? Lithic analysis is like trying to navigate through a thorn bush. Just when

you think you see all the thorns and attempt to take a path that you think is thornless you run into

more thorns that you did not see before.

Just to add to the complication Tuck points out another thorn, that the lithics that were

discarded may have been discarded because “they were not within the most acceptable forms of

projectile points being manufactured at that time” (68, Tuck). In addition we may or may not

understand why so many more lithics are found than other artifacts such as bone or pottery. It

may be because there are actually more, or it may be because as Shott hypothesizes that lithic

artifacts are arguably the most abundant artifact type found on ancient archaeological sites in

most parts of the world, and survive longer than other artifacts (Shott, 1994,66). Andrefsky also

supports Shotts Statement saying that, “in many areas of the world they represent the only form

of remains that have withstood the inroads of environmental and human perturbation, such as

erosion, decay, and landscape development...[and]....on a global scale an argument can be made

and easily defended that chipped stone tools and debitage represent the most abundant form of

5

artifacts found on prehistoric sites” (Andrefsky, 1998, 11).

Another problem is that some of the dating within the lithic field is in relation to other

items that the lithics are found with. Some of these lithics were found in grave settings and were

assumed to have similar dates as to the other non lithic items in the burial. The problem is that

“the practice of placing points of earlier cultures within the graves of Iroquois men is common in

later times” (103, Tuck). To further complicate matters, it is often assumed that if a man is

buried with spears, a knife, and other instruments of war that he is a warrior, but Classen and

Joyce point out that “the problem is that burial goods do not equal the activities and status of

living individuals” (86, Classen and Joyce).

In recent years GIS, and computer aided information systems, have tried to become

interpretation free and just collect the data, but they too are inherently biased. This is because

the archaeologist is choosing what to and what not to include in the recorded data. However

GIS is a nice system which is one of the more recent attempts to combine environment,

geographic, spatial, cultural and societal factors. Although GIS seems like it may be able to

answer all the questions archaeologists can pose to it, I agree with Wright's Statement that

archaeological evidence should be combined with other forms of evidence such as ethnohistory

(138, Wright). However in addition to Wright's Statement I think that all the fields of artifact

analysis, GIS, spatial analysis, landscape archaeology, Sullivan and Rozen categories, mass

analysis, the opposition of formal and informal tools, historical ecology, ethnologies, and any

other field that could be helpful in interpretation should be combined to gain a more complete

understanding of past and present sites, lands, peoples and cultures. Studying lithic analysis is

only a small part in gaining a fuller grasp on these past and present sites, lands, peoples and

cultures. However it is an important part since there is such a large number of lithics that survive

6

in the archaeological record.

Lithic analysis is hard to define, because of the vast numbers of terms and definitions that

apply to artifacts and variables. It seems that every writer decides which ones they like the best

for their work. Personally, I like Odell's definitions the best, if nothing but for vagueness and all

inclusivity. He defines lithic analysis as “pertaining to stone in some sense” (Odell: 4).

However it is important to further delve into the different ideas associated with lithic analysis,

including lithic artifacts, stone tools, lithic technology, debitage analysis, and related ideas. It is

important to define the terms used, because not all archaeologists conceptualize these ideas the

same, let alone have universally agreed upon definitions. In addition these ideas have changed

over the years, adding to the confusion of how they should be defined and used. It makes one

wonder if today’s definitions and applications of these terms will change, or if the ideas will

prove to be problematic and scrapped all together.

The broadest ideas which need to be properly explored are ideas about stone tools in the

context of lithic technology. One of the earliest definitions of stone tools and the debitage

produced during their manufacture is by Sullivan and Rozen. They said that lithic analysis is

“the systematic study of chipped stone debitage [which] provides important information about

prehistoric lithic technology. However, the results of most debitage analyses are unconvincing

because of questionable assumptions and inherent flaws in the typologies used to classify the

material” (Sullivan and Rozen, 1985, 755). In the year 2003 Odell described three different

definitions for a stone tool. The first being, “an object utilized by prehistoric people” (Odell,

2003, 4). The second being, “an object secondarily modified through retouch or grinding or one

that has been manufactured through a specialized technique” (Odell, 2003, 4) and the last being

“a secondarily modified object whose technology and shape are considered consistent with a

7

typology of stone tools for that region” (Odell, 2003, 4). To further these ideas of what a stone

tool is, Andrefsky proposed that the further a stone tool is retouched then the further along it is in

the reduction process, and its specific life history as a tool. This life history could include use,

reuse, sharpening, and dulling. Additionally Andrefsky believes cultures did not have specific

stone tool types, he believes they were flexible in what they could make (Andrefsky, 2009).

Then in the year 2011 Carr and Bradbury made what seemed like an obvious Statement; that

[stone tools] can provide further information about human behavior (Carr and Bradbury, 2011,

311).

According to Shott lithic artifacts do not degrade easily. This is a Statement which I

believe most archaeologists can agree to. However Shott goes on to hypothesize that lithic

artifacts are arguably the most abundant artifact type found on ancient archaeological sites in

most parts of the world, and survive longer than other artifacts (Shott, 1994, 66). While it is true

that generally stone survives longer than other materials it is hard for me to agree that it is the

most abundant artifact type found on ancient archaeological sites in most parts of the world.

Shott gives no data to back this Statement up, and I wonder if pottery sherds are more abundant

than lithic artifacts. Although, I do not have any data to back up this hypothesis. A different

interpretation of lithic artifacts was explained four years later by Andrefsky. Andrefsky describes

lithic artifacts as being “all culturally modified stone tool material found on prehistoric sites”

(Andrefsky, 1998, 1).

An early definition of lithic technology is a broad term which encompasses all techniques

and styles that are used to produce a stone tool, core or piece of chipped stone debitage,

according to Sullivan and Rozen (Sullivan and Rozen, 1989, 755). Five years latter Shott

describes technological lithic organization as a “manner in which human toolmakers and users

8

organize their lives and activities with regard to lithic technology” (Shott, 1994, 66). Four years

later Ramenofsky defines technology as “the methods and materials used to manufacture a

product” (Ramenofsky, 1998, 131). Ramenofsky continues describing technology as a concept

which “can be broken down into three subdivisions: reductive, additive, and altered. In the

reductive technology products are manufactured solely though the removal or subtraction of

material. In contrast, additive and altered technologies include the manufacture of materials

through the appending, joining, combining, or compositional alteration of like and unlike

materials” (Ramenofsky, 1998, 131). Lithic debitage analysis is an important method of

studying lithic technology. According to Shott “flakes are often denoted collectively as the term

debitage... [These] “flakes have been defined as any objects detached from larger stone masses”

(Shott, 1994,70). However often the term debitage is taken to be synonymous with the term

debris. The term “‘debris’ is sometimes applied to flakes that lack platforms and distinguishable

dorsal and ventral faces, what archaeologists often call 'shatter'” (Shott, 1994, 70). Thus debitage

analysis is often comparable to debris analysis.

Debitage analysis is described by Sullivan and Rozen as “the systematic study of

chipped stone artifacts that are not cores or tools-provides important information for

reconstructing prehistoric lithic technology and patterns of human behavior...Most debitage

analysts assume that a few key characteristics of an individual specimen are sufficient to infer its

technological origin, generally tool manufacture or core reduction. This view has influenced the

development of typologies whose analytic categories can accommodate only a restricted portion

of the range of formal variation in debitage. Many reliability and comparability problems of

current debitage analyses stem from this serious drawback” (Sullivan and Rozen, 1985, 755).

They go on to explain that “most debitage analyses are based on the premise that the

9

technological origins of individual artifacts, in this case by products of chipped stone artifact

production, can be inferred directly from combinations of key attributes. Typologies derived

from this assumption employ artifact categories that imply, often very specifically, the stage in

the manufacturing sequence when the artifacts were produced. We refer to these typologies as

Stage Typologies; typically they are composed of two major sets of categories. One set is for

debitage derived supposedly from tool manufacture. The other is for debitage from non tool

technological activities, generally core reduction” (Sullivan and Rozen, 1985, 755-756).

While I do not agree with the Statement: “on a global scale an argument can be made and

easily defended that chipped stone tools and debitage represent the most abundant form of

artifacts found on prehistoric sites” (Andrefsky, 1998, 11), it may be true that “in many areas of

the world they represent the only form of remains that have withstood the inroads of

environmental and human perturbation, such as erosion, decay, and landscape development”

(Andrefsky, 1998, 11).

Base Theoretical Ideas

Mass Analysis:

To further understand how lithics are analyzed there are a few methods of classification

which need to be explained. These are mass analysis and Sullivan and Rozen categories. Mass

analysis was pioneered by Stan Ahler around 1989 and today it is one of the most commonly

used methods of analysis for chipped stone technology. This is because it can be used for all

chipped stone technology, including broken or shattered pieces which are sometimes excluded in

other analyses (Ahler 1989, 85). Mass analysis is fast, simple, and an extremely efficient way of

sorting large samples. It can be used by people who have little experience with lithics, and is one

10

of the better ways to introduce those in an introductory field school to analyzing chipped stone

debitage. For those that understand chipped stone technology it can help to eliminate previous

biases as it has predetermined sizes of stacked screen mesh through which the chipped stones are

sorted. These predetermined screen sizes are an inch, quarter of an inch, and eighth of an inch.

The standard categories are that chipped stones are macro-sized if they do not fall through the

one inch mesh, large-sized if they do not fall through the quarter inch mesh, small if they do not

fall through the eighth inch mesh and micro if they fall through the eighth inch mesh. To

illustrate this see Figure Two. After the chipped stones are sized they are counted, weighed, and

then the number of cortical flakes are recorded according to their groups from the size grading

(Andrefsky 2007, 392-393) (Andrew Bradbury 2009, 2788-2789). Andrefsky describes a

cortical flake as “the amount of cortex present on the dorsal surface of flake debitage [which] has

been used as an indicator of the reduction stage for tools.” Cortex is defined as chemical or

mechanical weathering, usually caused by exposure to moisture and cold/heat which causes the

rock to change its color, texture, shape, and form a patina or weathered exterior surface

(Andrefsky 1998, 101). However, mass analysis is not a cut and dry analytical system and there

are still problems with it. One problem with the mass analysis theory is that because of its fast

and simple use, when it is the only system by which the chipped stone tools are being analyzed it

often results in misguided interpretations. The mass analysis system should always be used in

conjunction with one or more other systems of studying chipped stone tools so that the best data

is gathered leading to the best possible conclusions. More specific problems associated with

mass analysis is that since different flake blanks are used which have varying raw materials,

sizes, and shapes, there is a big problem trying to replicate the same chipped stones. In addition

to the differing raw materials there is also the problem that the person who is making the chipped

11

stone tool influences how it is made. This is problematic because one of the base theories of

mass analysis is that as a piece of stone is knapped the pieces that come off become smaller and

smaller. Since the pieces that come off are supposed to be smaller it is theorized that the average

weight of the flake will decrease. (Patterson 1990, 555-558) As the reduction process continues

it is expected that the weight and number of chipped stones in the small category will increase

since no more large portions are available to be taken off. Thus there should be an expected and

measurable outcome for the size of the chipped stones. (Andrefsky 2007, 398) However,

humans are not predictable, even if there are similarities. Just as no two people are exactly the

same no two flintknappers make the same sized chipped stones, it depends on their differing

styles and techniques. Some flintknappers may like to try to knock off large portions first, while

others may like to make a platform first, by which smaller chipped stones are knocked off, so

that larger portions can be knocked off later. Another problem with mass analysis is that it has

problems taking into account mixed archaeological data. Thus mass analysis assumes at its core

that chipped stones should be of a similar size, each stone tool is knapped the same way

regardless of the person, what the raw material is made of, that its shape and size are not a

problem, and that mixing of these chipped stones is not a problem. The base theory is that the

flake size can be used as a general analysis for which stage of manufacture it came from, even

when the finished stone tool is missing. These theories, while they are probable, should not in

any way be used with all chipped stones. The mass analysis should always be used in

conjunction with another analytical process so that the results can be agreed upon (Andrefsky

1998, 109).

Sullivan and Rozen Categories:

12

Sullivan and Rozen categories are separated into four categories: complete flakes, broken

flakes, flake fragments, and debris (Ramenofsky 1998: 138). These four categories are

differentiated by three characteristics which are the following: if they have a single interior

surface, the location of the point of applied force, and their margins. A single interior surface is a

ventral surface that is “indicated by positive percussion features such as ripple marks, force lines,

or a bulb of percussion.” A point of applied force “occurs when the bulb of percussion intersects

the striking platform.” Margins are “when the distal end exhibits a hinge or a feather termination

and if lateral breaks or snaps do not interfere with accurate width measurement” (Rozen 1985:

758-759). The debitage is classified as debris if no single interior surface is discernible. It is

classified as a flake fragment if the single interior surface is discernible but the point of applied

force is absent. The flake is categorized as a broken flake if the single interior surface is

discernible and there is a point of applied force but the margins are not intact. Finally, it is a

complete flake if the single interior surface is discernible, there is a point of applied force

present, and the margins are intact. Thus Sullivan and Rozen categories are easily replicable and

are very clear on what the classifications are for the different categories in their system, as long

as the researcher can identify what is debitage, a single interior surface, a point of applied force,

and margins on chipped stones. For a summary of the categories see Figure Three. Sullivan

and Rozen categories are free standing analysis that uses objective and replicable data that does

not have anything to do with the final conclusions about the chipped stone. The problem with

the Sullivan and Rozen analysis is not with the typology but with the interpretations of the

typology that Sullivan and Rozen presented. They indicated that they thought that there would

be a higher percentage of complete flakes for core reduction, and that tool production produces

fewer complete flakes and more flake fragments. Other studies have shown that tool production

13

produces larger numbers of complete flakes rather than core reduction (Andrefsky 1998, 124).

Additional studies are needed to understand which interpretation is correct.

The problem with the Sullivan and Rozen categories is that they need additional data and

interpretation. The problem with needing additional interpretation is that the way this system is

set up, it predisposes so that it is more conducive to certain ideas. Even Sullivan and Rozen say

the “structure of typologies fundamentally affects debitage analysis” (Rozen 1985: 774).

Sullivan and Rozen theorize that “manufacturing sites yield quantities of exhausted and

unsuitable partially worked cores, broken or misshapen flakes, and preforms, and great quantities

of debris resulting from the reduction of cores…In contrast; sites at which little or no

manufacturing debris is present yield exhausted or broken tools and larger flakes.” Sullivan and

Rozen are concerned with production, maintenance sites, reduction and the breakdown of the

materials. Thus Sullivan and Rozen analysis tries to understand through chipped stones what is

going on across the whole site (Mauldin 1989, 166). Supposedly the kind of tools they used can

be categorized and tell more about the time period and what the people were doing at a site. The

major problem with Sullivan and Rozen categories is that it claims to be “interpretation free”

which it is not, according to both Ensor and Roemer (1989), and Mauldin (1989). It also does

not “provide an empirical support for the connection between behavior or organizational aspects

and specific debitage attributes” (Mauldin 1989: 166). The 'interpretation free' method is

valuable because it is a categorizing system that is easy to teach to newcomers into lithic

analysis. Each categorizing system can be used although Sullivan and Rozen categories are

easier to understand for amateurs, but one must consider the sensitivity and variability of the

specific site being studied and then decide which classification system is better.

14

Formal versus Informal Tools:

While it is debatable if lithics are, or are not, the most abundant forms of artifacts to

survive the onslaught of the environment, I postulate the following; that there is a relationship

between lithics, environment, and the landscape. Traditionally in the field of archaeology,

environment and landscape have influenced how lithics are interpreted. Specifically base camps,

settlement patterns, raw material sources, and curation are all variables to be understood in

relation to mobility patterns on past landscapes. Traditionally “mobile groups, which are

believed to have manufactured portable tools, [are unlike] sedentary groups [which] do not have

to expend extra effort in the production of formal tools. With increasing sedentism there may

come a reduction in the spatial scale of resource availability, because such groups may be

tethered to their relatively permanent residential locations and fixed food resources. Weight

restrictions for tools are no longer a consideration for more sedentary groups. One advantage

possessed by informal tools is the considerably lower amount of work required for their

production. Ethnographic accounts and archaeological experiments have shown that tools such as

non-retouched flakes and bipolar shatter are quite effective to complete most tasks” (Andrefsky,

1994, 23). Thus mobile groups and sedentary groups who were far away from a raw material

source were more careful about raw materials they chose to work with. The decision to abandon

something or to retain it was likely based on some consideration of utility. People carried stone

to supply themselves with usable edges in anticipation of the possibility of future needs, in all

likelihood selecting artifacts that would provide a greater efficiency in use and/or possessed the

potential for extended use-life. If raw materials were being taken from the local area for use by

travelers or hunters who did not stay in one location the big question is; where are the local raw

materials that were taken? If archaeologists would be able to find the local raw materials in other

15

places it may help to understand how people traveled. The lithic flakes may act as a kind of

bread crumb from the raw material source to the stone tool's final resting place. It would be

interesting to do a study in which a group of lithics that all have the same raw material source are

plotted on a map with the topography and to try to understand how the past peoples navigated the

land (Douglas, 2008, 513). Other supporters of mobile populations being more likely to create

formal tools is Parry and Kelly. “Parry and Kelly argue that the toolkits of mobile populations

who lack continuous access to raw material are characterized by formal tool manufacture from

standardized cores, allowing tool stone to be efficiently transported to locations of use. Highly

mobile populations are expected to invest in their tool kits through the manufacture of formal

tools such as bifaces, which are useful because of their amount of portability, potential cutting

edge, and because they can be resharpened and re used” (Prasciunas, 2007, 335). According to

Andrefsky, “the term "formal" is used in this study to encompass a wide variety of tools that

have undergone additional effort in production, whether the production occurred over the course

of several resharpening or hafting episodes or in one episode of manufacturing from raw material

to finished product...Formal tools have been characterized as flexible tools, or tools that are

designed to be rejuvenated and have the potential to be redesigned for use in various

functions...These tools have generally been linked with populations practicing more mobile

settlement strategies (and having short-term site occupations). The logic behind this association

rests with the relation between raw-material availability and tool needs or uses. Because mobile

groups occupy relatively large areas, they may find themselves in regions where lithic raw

materials are not suitable for use as tools, and thus must have ready-made tools available for the

tasks at hand. In such cases, portable tools, tools that can be redesigned, or tools that have

variable functions are best suited for the situation” (Andrefsky, 1994, 22). Thus the production of

16

bifacial core technology among mobile populations could be interpreted as a response to raw

material scarcity, and bifaces allow multiple uses from one material, and are thus more efficient

tools.

The opposite of formal tools are informal tools, and are defined as follows; “informal

tools are unstandardized or casual with regard to form. Expediently made tools are included in

this category. These tools are believed to have been manufactured, used, and discarded over a

relatively short time period...Informal tools are thought to be associated with more sedentary

populations (having longer-term site occupations). Unlike mobile groups, which are believed to

have manufactured portable tools, sedentary groups do not have to expend extra effort in the

production of formal tools. With increasing sedentism there may come a reduction in the spatial

scale of resource availability, because such groups may be tethered to their relatively permanent

residential locations and fixed food resources. Weight restrictions for tools are no longer a

consideration for more sedentary groups. One advantage possessed by informal tools is the

considerably lower amount of work required for their production. Ethnographic accounts and

archaeological experiments have shown that tools such as non retouched flakes and bipolar

shatter are quite effective to complete most tasks” (Andrefsky, 1994, 23).

Thus it is traditionally thought that those materials of poorer quality are more often made

into informal tool designs, and that high quality lithic raw materials are made into formal tool

designs. If past peoples were in close proximity to a high quality raw material source, and could

acquire the raw material in a great abundance, then both formal and informal tools could be

made. In addition to raw material choices and the weight of the raw material it also matters how

mobile or sedentary the population is, because mobile people are more likely to put more effort

into making formal lithics than sedentary people are. Thus there are numerous factors that go

17

into why certain past peoples made lithics the way they did.

Landscape Archaeology:

Landscape archaeology is the study of how the past people used the environment and

landscape that was available to them. It incorporates the study of material culture, human

alteration of the environment, and the natural environment. In addition landscape archaeology

can be used to study how the natural environment was altered by humans, and for what purpose.

Personally I like Nicole Branton's description of landscape archaeology the best. He describes

them as "the landscapes in landscape archaeology may be as small as a single household or

garden or as large as an empire...although resource exploitation, class, and power are frequent

topics of landscape archaeology, landscape approaches are concerned with spatial, not

necessarily ecological or economic, relationships. While similar to settlement archaeology and

ecological archaeology, landscape approaches model places and spaces as dynamic participants

in past behavior, not merely setting (affecting human action), or artifact (affected by human

action)" (Branton, 2008:114). Central to the study of landscape archaeology is the idea of space,

and most importantly spatial patterning and analysis. Spatial analysis such as GIS helps to show

how “societies form and are formed by their natural and constructed environments. People make

their territories, houses, living spaces, and workspaces their own by consciously modifying them

in terms of their effects on the sense, their utility and economic value” (Marquardt & Crumley,

1987:1). In short spatial analysis shows “how a group adjusts to a geographic area, and how that

reflects much of the groups history, organization and values, and in turn such adjustments

influence that groups perception of the physical and constructed environment” (Marquardt

&Crumley:1). Thus landscape is the physical appearance of the relationship between humans

18

and the environment, and historical ecology is how humans, landscape and environment all affect

each other. However these changes are not meant to be short term studies. These changes are to

be studied throughout centuries and centuries of change. Through the use of historical ecology

scholars are able to gain a glimpse of how those past peoples actions in their environment

affected the more modern environment. A more scholarly definition which I tend to agree with is

written by Will Meyer, a research assistant professor at UB. He defined historical ecology as a

“cluster of concepts that offers a holistic, practical perspective to the study of environmental

change. It may be applied to spatial and temporal frames at any resolution, but finds particularly

rich data sources at what is loosely termed the ‘landscape’ scale—where human activity and

biophysical systems interact and archaeological, historical, and ethnographic records are

plentiful. The term assumes a definition of ecology that includes humans as a component of all

ecosystems, and a definition of history that encompasses both the history of the Earth system as

well as the social and physical past of our species (Balee 2006; Crumley 2007b). Historical

ecology is predicated upon the assumption that it is possible to construct an evidence-validated

narrative of landscape transformation resulting from the continual interaction between (spatially

and temporally) diverse human activities and changing environmental conditions. It is imperative

to understand landscape archaeology when studying historical ecology because they are so

tightly interwoven theoretically.

GIS:

Lithics themselves are hard to cast in a historical ecology and landscape archaeology

sphere. However the methods surrounding lithics are easier to relate to landscape archaeology

and historical ecology. While there are numerous methods to study lithics one of the main ways

19

to study them collectively as a group is the idea of GIS, or geographic information systems. GIS

is just one of the methods used to gather the information to study spatial analysis. The system is

able to take a measurement of an artifact including its latitude, longitude, height above or below

the datum, degree from the datum, and distance from the datum. Thus if the datum location is

known using GIS archaeologists are able to pin point every other artifact in relation to the datum.

This creates a useful map of the locations of the artifacts by which archaeologists are able to

apply further methods to interpret the artifacts' meanings in relation to the placement of one

another. Another method by which spatial analysis is studied is the use of the spatial

autocorrelation. Spatial autocorrelation is a measure of “the degree of spatial similarity observed

among neighboring values’’ (Pfeiffer et al., 2010: 34). Ideally, true prevalence rates (TPRs)

should be used in paleopathological research due to these rates accounting for

differential...preservation, CPR values were statistically assessed against the known

corresponding TPR values in the study sample” (Gowland &Wedtern, 2012, 304). Thus with the

use of spatial analysis and GIS there are lots of statistics, however these statistics are all relative

to each other and can be interpreted differently depending on how the archaeologist views the

data (Whallon, 1984, 242).

GIS helps to analyze, interpret, visualize, and understand relationships in the data

collected. Thus through the use of GIS, researchers are able to input each individual lithic into a

computer and understand where it is in relation to the landscape. Researchers are then able to

digitally visualize the spread of the lithics and how the landscape may have influenced some of

the groupings of lithics. There are countless ways in which GIS is able to tell researchers about

the land, although it often raises more questions than it answers. Personally, I have used a total

station before which helps contribute to the use of GIS and understand the site more. A total

20

station is an electronic theodolite which measures distance, slope, height and other

measurements. Sometimes these groupings of lithics are visible without the use of GIS such as

groupings of lithics that are larger near tree roots, because the tree roots help to bring the lithics

to the surface, while others are much more confusing, and need the use of GIS. GIS also helps

reveal data which may not be so apparent to researchers such as the lack of lithics tin a certain

area, when the surrounding areas are plentiful with lithics. Thus GIS helps to understand and try

to make sense of the spatial dynamics of a site while also raising more questions about what we

would assume to find at a site.

Spatial analysis and GIS help to tie together both the natural and cultural factors, both

past and present (Rossignol:195). GIS is able to map the landscape in addition to the precise

location of the lithics. Since GIS is able to link both the landscape and physical lithics it is able

to help the researchers more clearly understand what the landscape would have looked like in the

past. Through the use of GIS we are able to further the field of landscape archaeology.

Landscape archaeology is the study of how the past people used the environment and landscape

that was available to them. Thus through the use of GIS we are able to map things on a larger

scale such as sources of raw chert and where these sources were in relation to base camps or

other settlements. In addition researchers are able to gain a bigger picture of how the landscape

is affected by a mix of cultural and natural factors, such as how the natural chert came to be

formed and why it had unnatural chunks taken out of it, which were pieces taken off through

human activity.

Historical Ecology:

The study of landscape archaeology leads into the larger topic of study called historical

21

ecology. Historical ecology adds to the field of landscape archaeology by also being concerned

with the interactions between the societies and environments and how they affected each other

(Rossignol, 196). While how humans affected the environment through the study of lithics is

hard to prove, a few ideas can be inferred from what the lithics were used upon. Thus through

the analysis of lithics with analytical methods such as GIS, and the ideas surrounding it such as

landscape archaeology and historical ecology archaeologists are able to better understand the

past, while also inadvertently better understanding the present.

My Bias:

Over the years researchers have identified that there is a certain inherit bias in both the

excavator and the researcher, and that these inherit biases may skew or color the data, the

expectations for a site, and the final conclusions about the site. Over the years researchers have

tried to always be without prejudice when collecting and researching their data, however being

so free from prejudice while collecting and researching data is not always possible. Sometimes

the researcher is not even aware that they are skewing the data one way or another. Thus I want

to be entirely clear on how I may or may not be biased, in case it affects my conclusions about

the site, my methods of collecting data, or my lithic analysis as a whole.

As a group I think archaeologists try to say that they are aware of their bias but a vast

majority of them do not understand how their own personal viewpoints and upbringing affect

how they research. Personally I've been thinking about this a lot. I would categorize myself as a

young adult, of German descent, middle class, white, American, and Lutheran. I am sure there

are also other defining characteristics that affect my work but I have not yet identified them.

First my view point as a young adult makes me somewhat naïve to the multitude of ideas

22

in the academic work that I have not read as of yet. Thus I know I may say things that latter I

will look at with disgust over my naivety at the time. This also makes me accepting of

professors critiques because they have been in the field much longer than me, and have grown as

the field has grown. As of yet I am not sure how my middle class and white standing affects my

work, but I understand from reading other scholars work that financial standing and ethnicity

does affect ones work. My nationality as an American citizen make me more focused on the

method and theory behind researching, unlike European archaeology where the focus is more on

precise documentation, and little interpretation of the data which is collected. I have come to

realize that my religious belief in the Lutheran branch of Christianity has made me question

authority, which is also helpful when studying archaeology, and archaeological method and

theory. Finally my being of German descent may or may not explain my obsession with

classifications and definitions.

There are also certain methods, models, and theories that I take for granted, and assume

most lithic scholars know about and use. One such method is the Sullivan and Rozen categories.

While I do not believe that their method is interpretation free as they suggested I do think that it

is helpful to categorize the lithics into flake fragments, broken flakes, debri, and complete flakes,

as well as other categories such as cores, retouched flakes, and finished flakes. Another method

which is often implied in my analyses are that a heavier mass implies that those people that

inhabited that site were sedentary because mobile groups wouldn't want to carry around heavy

lithics. And thus the opposite is true that if the mass is light that the past peoples would have had

a tendency to be more mobile, because it would be easier to move around and hunt game. I often

assume that informal tools are more often made by mobile groups and sedentary groups have

more time to make formal tools. However scholars such as Parry and Kelly argue that mobile

23

groups were more likely to make formal tools because their access to a raw material source was

not constant and thus they needed to be able to have dependable formal tools on them at all

times. I also often assume that formal tools are made out of more exotic chert and that informal

tools are made out of poorer quality cherts. In addition the chert that is more exotic to the

location I assume to be considered to be more expensive to acquire, harder, and that this exotic

chert shows some sort of higher status. Meanwhile the cheaper, poorer, or closer chert would be

considered not as expensive and to express a lower status. There is also the argument that as

average weight of a core decreases the flake fragments should increase in number. Another

method that I take for granted is that the spatial information that can be gathered through data

such as GIS is important to the theory of landscape archaeology, which can tell us about the

movement of past peoples. This of course implies that geography and the movement of past

peoples were both important to the past peoples and that through learning about it researchers

can learn something more about the past peoples. Personally I believe that I have a tendency to

be more focused on geography, and how present landscapes may have been similar to past

landscapes. Often I assume that the present landscape is not all that different from the past

landscape when past peoples settled on the land. I know that these landscapes were not always

so similar to present day, but I often forgo this fact because I simply because I do not understand

how much or how little the geography has changed over the years. I often do not understand or

take into account how the glaciers affected the deposition of the lithics and other artifacts

mentioned. Another geography related bias I hold is that I often believe that sites that are closer

together and both apart of a much larger site. I often do not take into account the vast numbers

of years that may have taken place between groupings of lithics that are close to each other. In

general I have a tendency to lump things together and try to relate things to each other.

24

Finally, I also believe that there are certain ideologies that present researchers, are forcing

upon the past because they think the past must have had different status roles because we do in

the modern world, and I am also guilty of often pushing this ideology onto the past peoples.

Another bias that I have is that I do not use any literary Native American sources. I look only

through the lens of an archaeologist, statistician, and geographer with some method and theory.

It would help greatly to link the archaeological finds to some literary native American sources,

however I do not feel like I interpret the Native American sources as of yet. Although I know of

some of them, the acquisition of them is often difficult, and I do not feel like I can understand

interpret them enough to link them to the archaeological data, however I hope it is something I

can do in the future.

My Method of Data Collection:

Data collection is additionally an important part of archaeology that should always be as

transparent as possible. Thus I will briefly describe how the data that I will soon look at was

collected. First the data from the field was examined through the following means which is

described in the Phase 1A/1B Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Spaulding Green

Residential Development Project, “A pedestrian survey [which] was conducted over about 57.4

ha (141.7 ac) of recently plowed fields and about 82.7 ha (204.3 ac) of unplowed ground surface

within the project area. The plowed areas were Phase 1B surface inspected walking with the

furrows at 2 m (6.6 ft) intervals. Pre and Post-Contact artifacts were flagged and collected. The

artifact find spots were then mapped using a global positioning system (GPS) and a total station.

Fields were examined twice before Phase 2 surface collections were initiated. The Phase 1B

subsurface investigations were conducted by excavating 2,963 STP on 296 transects throughout

25

the unplowed parts of the project area (Table 5). Soils were sifted through a 6 mm (1/4 inch)

mesh to recover any artifacts present. Records were taken of soil color and texture along with

any artifacts recovered from the various soil horizons encountered. A typical shovel test

measured 35- 38 cm (12-14 in) in diameter and was excavated through an Ap-horizon plowzone

and 10-15 cm (4-6 in) into sterile B-horizon subsoil. In some instances, this was prevented by

natural obstructions such as roots, large rocks or standing water. Shovel testing was conducted at

15 m (50 ft) intervals in unplowed and wooded areas. Fields A-B were shovel tested at 60 m (200

ft) intervals after surface collections were done. An additional 309 STPs were excavated where

initial STP yielded pre-contact artifacts. Closer- interval testing was intended to determine the

extent of additional material to define site limits. Four STPs were aligned at 1 m (3.3 ft) and 5 m

(16 ft) intervals in the cardinal directions around find-spots. Auxiliary testing methodology

altered slightly increasing 1 m (3.3 ft) to 2.5 m (8.3 ft) and offset from the cardinal directions

based upon field conditions. Sites identified by surface inspection were generally not

investigated further with subsurface testing. A total of 132 of 309 auxiliary STPs contained at

least one pre-contact artifact (Table 5). Minimal radial testing was conducted with the

understanding a Phase 2 investigation is warranted in most cases where artifacts were found. A

7.5 m (25 ft) testing interval was used in areas with high sensitivity, when transects approached

an MDS location, and in landscapes that held a higher potential to yield pre-contact artifacts near

Ransom and Got Creek. Two 1x1 m (3.3x3.3 ft) test units were excavated at the Spaulding Green

1 site Locus 1 (UB 3699). The objective was to investigate the density of pre-contact artifacts on

the surface as compared with buried material, and to examine the subsoil interface for cultural

features in the area. Ground disturbances are widespread within the Spaulding Green

Development project area. These include field drainage ditches, gas lines, and the Heise-

26

Brookhaven sewer line. Other disturbances include a driveway and parking lot associated with

the golf course located in the southeastern corner of the project area. Most of the project area is

currently or was previously cultivated” (Perrelli, iii).

The laboratory data collection methods were as follows: “All artifacts were processed at

the SUNY at Buffalo Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology. Cultural material is

categorized for processing, maintaining all provenience information. Chipped stone material,

utilized cobbles, ceramics and charcoal are treated separately. These different materials were

cleaned using methods appropriate for preserving the condition of each, stabilizing them for

identification and analysis. Lithic artifacts included all chipped stone tools and debitage,

groundstone, utilized cobbles, and fire-cracked rock (FCR). Lithic artifacts were soaked in tap

water, cleaned with brushes and air dried prior to identification. Ceramics from Spaulding Green

Residential Development project area were air dried, and then dry brushed to aid in

identification. The ceramic interior side received no treatment in order to preserve carbonized

food remains. Charcoal recovered during Phase 1 survey was not washed, allowed to air dry and

isolated from possible carbon contaminants. All original field notes, maps, photographs, lab

notes and other records generated by the Phase 1 study are curated at the Marian E. White

Museum, Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo” (Perrelli, 24).

Finally are my data collection methods. Since there was obviously too large a data set to

do a simple and short study of lithics I decided to only study a portion of the lithic materials. To

have an equal representation of the data across all the sites I am studying I choose to only choose

sites that have been completed through all 3 phases. Next to choose my sites I looked at the

spatial layout of the sites on a map. Since I am primarily concerned with geography and spatial

dynamics I wanted to make sure that I did not choose all the sites from the same area. I was

27

interested in Site 32 because it was so large spatially so that was the first site I choose to look at.

My second, third, and fourth sites I looked at were Sites 23, 2, and 1. I choose these sites

because of their close proximity to Site 32 and because of their close proximity to current

wetlands. I was interested if these sites were all possibly related, and if their close location to the

wetlands affected them in any way. For my fifth and sixth Sites that I looked at I choose two

Sites that were farther away from the other four and were close in proximity. I was interested if

these two sites were similar at all in their lithic assemblage, and if these two sites were similar to

the other four.

It should also be noted that I did not analyze any lithics that were categorized as a tool, or

projectile point, and I did not look at cortical variation. I wanted to solely look at the bi products

of lithic production because I often doubt the final resting places of tools and projectile points. I

doubt these final resting places because if these artifacts were held in a higher esteem than the bi

products, such as broken flakes, flake fragments, whole flakes, and debris, then they would have

been more apt to have been moved around. People would have taken these tools and projectile

points great distances from where their raw material was taken and from where they were

produced. However the bi products of lithic production were in a sense expendable. They would

not have been moved a great distance from where they were flaked from the main core. The

greatest distance these broken flakes, flake fragments, whole flakes, and debris would have been

moved is to the outskirts of a settlement so that they would not be walked upon. There would be

no reason to carry these bi products farther than that. Meanwhile tools and projectile points

would have been moved around until they came to the end of their use life. I also did not look at

cortical variation because I believe the process of identifying the cortical amount is too

subjective. Thus in opposition to the vast majority of studies I will not look at tools, projectile

28

points, or cortical variation but only the bi products such as broken flakes, flake fragments,

whole flakes, and debris.

The next step I took to analyze my chosen six sites was that I decided I should make a

spreadsheet of the data for all the lithics by their find number for easy documentation and

calculation. There had been some previous work on the lithics, so all of the lithics were bagged,

weighed, and size sorted. First I recorded any artifacts that were found that were not lithics

within my sites that had been bagged. Next I went through the bags of lithics that had been

previously recorded with their weights and sizes for each and sorted them according to the

Sullivan and Rozen categories, excluding those that had been recorded as micros because they

are so small they are hard to identify what their raw material is. Some had previously been

categorized by Sullivan and Rozen but they were done with two different labeling systems and I

doubted the previous categorizations so I re analyzed them all. While categorizing them I sorted

them as one of the following; a broken flake, flake fragment, complete flake, debitage, or core.

In addition since I was interested in raw material sources I recorded what I thought the raw

material source of each flake may be. I only sorted the flakes as one of the follow raw material

sources: Onondaga, Seneca, Edge Cliff, Reynales, Quartz, or Miscellaneous. One important

thing to note is that not every bag only had one artifact. Some bags that hundreds of lithics while

some were bagged individually. It seems that there had been some miscommunication in the

cataloguing or some sites were just catalogued differently for an unknown reason. All the sites

except Site 32 had multiple lithics per bag if they were found in the same area and level,

however Site 32 did not. Every single lithic from Site 32 was bagged individually, and given its

own unique find number, even if they were found in the same area and level. While it is

somewhat more helpful when trying to analyze data to give each individual lithic its own unique

29

find number it makes the cataloguing process much more time consuming.

Raw Material Sources:

The raw material sources of chert which was the primarily mineral used for the

production of lithics in New York State is poorly documented. There is no overarching article or

summary of the various sources, even though it should not be that hard to compile. One of the

earliest and still often cited sources about raw material sources is by Charles F Wray, however it

is somewhat outdated being that his article was from 1948. I tried to find more recent raw

material studies than ones that were written over fifty years ago. Jack Holland from the Buffalo

Museum of Science seems to be the scholar who has extensively studied the chert raw material

recently and the most, unfortunately he did not publish much of his knowledge. In addition to

the problems of raw material sources is that the names and various locations of the raw material

sources vary from article to article because raw material sources are often only known locally.

The most helpful article on raw material sources is by the New York State Museum. They did a

very interesting study using nine raw material samples they collected to see which of their

artifacts matched the raw material samples on a chemical level. The site they were studying was

called Trapps Gap project area and is located in Ulster County, which is in south east New York

just below Albany and above New York City. To illustrate this see figure four, noting these are

approximate locations. In this figure the Green dot is the location of Spaulding Green, the blue

rectangle is the bands of rock that contained the four chert raw material sources that I looked for

while studying the lithics; Reynales, Edge Cliff, Seneca, and Onondaga. Reynales is from the

Northern band of rock just above the Spaulding Green project area , and Edge Cliff, Seneca, and

Onondaga are from the southern band of rock below the Spaulding Green project area . The dark

30

red dot is the location of the Trapps Gap project area and the brown dots are the locations of

nine raw material source locations where the New York State Museum took raw material samples

while studying the Trapps Gap project area . The yellow dots are just a few other known project

areas around the Trapp Gap project area and Spaulding Green project area . I hope that in the

future this kind of chemical comparison to local raw material sources would be a more

mainstream practice when studying lithics. Especially because as I was visually inspecting each

lithic and deciding which source it could possibly be from there were many lithics that appeared

to be none of the four sources that I focused on. There could be many reasons for this, it could

be from another source that I was not aware of, it could have been burnt which often changes a

lithics appearance, or it could just look slightly different from the raw material sample I was

basing my choices off of because of weathering. I agree with Rieth that “as Calogero (1992:87–

90) and others (Kuhn and Lanford 1987: 57–69; La Porta 1996:73–83) point out, visual

inspection of materials often leads to erroneous assumptions about the origin and procurement of

lithic artifacts” (Reith,1). If I had addition time and resources it would be interesting to expand

the number of raw material sources to look at in conjunction with the Spaulding Green project

area . I would like to expand the search radius for raw material sources. The Trapps Gap project

area analysis took into account primarily within a fifteen mile radius of the Trapps Gap project

area , but they also included two samples that were as far away as a hundred miles from the

project area . All four raw material sources that I looked at were within a fifteen mile radius, and

it would be interesting to see if and how many of the lithics are from sources farther away in

New York State. I would also like to perform some chemical analysis studies on small portions

of the lithic assemblages from Spaulding Green to validate or invalidate what I inspected visually

and see if my visual inspections were accurate.

31

To further explore the raw materials it will be helpful to understand how the natural chert

bearing rock is made, in addition to which groups belong to which formations. In short certain

carbonate rocks contain within them an abundant amount of chert because of the way the

minerals react to one another. One of the carbonate rock outcrops that has an abundant supply of

chert in New York State is the Onondaga Formation. Within the Onondaga formation there are

four members, Edgecliff, Nedrow, Morehouse, and Seneca. “The Edgecliff Member is present

throughout the outcrop belt of the Onondaga Formation in New York. Oliver (1954) describes the

Edgecliff in the central part of the State as a massive, light-gray to pink, very coarsely crystalline

limestone...Chert is generally sparse throughout the Edgecliff and is mostly confined to the upper

part of the unit, though it may occur throughout (Oliver 1954, 1956). The Edgecliff becomes

finer-grained and darker-colored both to the west and to the east of the Syracuse area. South of

Albany County, the lithology of the Edgecliff changes markedly. The coral fauna is sparser and

the limestone is darker-colored and more fine-grained. It is distinguishable from the overlying

Nedrow and Morehouse only by the presence of large crinoid columnals, which are characteristic

of the Edgecliff everywhere (Oliver 1956)” (Kelly, 15). Seneca is also a memebr of the

Onondaga formation. Kelly describes the Seneca member as extending “from the Buffalo area

east to Cherry Valley, southeast of Utica. Lithologically, the Seneca is nearly identical to the

Morehouse ( i.e., medium-gray, fine-grained limestones with dark-gray chert and abundant

fossils). The fossils, however, are distinctive...Stratigraphically upward, the Seneca is

progressively darker-colored and thinner-bedded. At the top it is argillaceous and is interbedded

in a gradational contact with the Union Springs Shale (Oliver 1954)...Little of the Seneca

member is exposed in the quarries in the Buffalo area and the lithology is poorly known. To the

east of Seneca County, the Seneca Member retains its lithological characteristics, although

32

progressively more beds are missing from the top. East of Cherry Valley, no Seneca remains in

the section (Oliver 1954)” (Kelly 16). The Reynales formation however is not from the

Onondaga formation but is found farther north in the Niagara Escarpment. It is the farthest and

more distinctive raw material source that I used out of the four, since it is the only formation that

is not part of the Onondaga formation. The Reynales formation is characterized by irregular

masses of dark gray chert. Not much is written about the Reynales formation because the

Onondaga formation tends to overshadow it.

Other carbonite rock formations that have the possibility for chert in them in New York

State are the Tully formation including the upper and lower members. Within the Onnondaga

formation there is also the Nedrow member and Morehouse member. There is the Helderberg

group which consists of the Alsen and Port Ewen formations, the Becraft limestone, New

Scotland formation, Kalkberg formation, Coeymans limestone, Rondout formation, and Manlius

formation. Within the Manlius formation are the Thacher members, Olney members, Elmwood,

Clark Reservation, and Jamesville members. There is also the Cobleskill formation, Salina

group, and Lockport group. There are numerous other groups and formations within New York

State and I only mentioned above a little under half of them. However I think it is enough to

make my point that there could be numerous other sources of the lithics other than the Onondaga

formation, although the Onondaga formation seems most likely since its close proximity to the

Spaulding Green project area .

While I was researching some of the other formations and groups I luckily noticed that a

few of the lithics I was looking at were from the Lockport group. According to Kelly “The

Lockport Group in New York extends 320 kilometers (200 miles) from Niagara Falls to Ilion”

(Kelly, 23). Within the Lockport group there are “four formations of the Lockport which are,

33

from bottom to top, the Gasport, Goat Island, Eramosa, and Oak Orchard Formations. To the

east, in the Bergen quadrangle, the Gasport Formation is replaced by a unit which Zenger (1965)

calls the “limestone lentil.” In the Rochester area the Lockport is made up of the Penfield

Formation, which is roughly equivalent to the Gasport, Goat Island, and Eramosa. Here, the

Penfield is overlain by the Oak Orchard Formation. Between Clyde and Oneida the entire

Lockport is composed of the Sconondoa Formation...The Lockport [Group] is generally

characterized by brownish-gray color; medium granularity; medium to thick bedding; stylolites;

carbonaceous partings; vugs filled with sulphate, sulfide, and halide minerals; and poorly

preserved fossils” (Kelly, 23). In addition to a few pieces of lithics that were from the Lockport

group there were a few lithics whose raw material source I just had to put down as unknown

because it didn't match any known raw material sources in the area.

Data Collected

Site 1:

The data that I collected will finally be presented. See attached Figure Five for a

complete table of the data. I will present the data per site, describing the location, geography,

Sullivan and Rozen categories, raw material locations, sizes, if there are any cores present, the

collective weights, if there are any burnt flakes found, any fire cracked rock, pot sherds, utilized

flakes, charcoal samples, bone or other historic materials. I will interpret the data for each site

using the aforementioned methods and theories. Finally I will attempt to interpret the overall

Spaulding Green project area based on only the six sites that I studied out of the 32 sites

associated with Spaulding Green.

Spaulding Green site 1 is generally in the center of the Spaulding Green project area , if

34

the boundaries of the site are taken as Goodrich road, Greiner road, Kraus road, and Clarence

Center road. It is slightly to the left of the wetlands if the viewer is looking north. Even more

specific is that “the center of Locus 1 of the site is approximately 739 m (2,423 ft) east of the

centerline of Goodrich Road and 919 m (3,015 ft) north of the center line of Greiner Road in a

plowed field” (Perrelli, 41). The artifacts found at site 1 consist of 363 lithics, including 54

broken flakes, 140 flake fragments, 83 complete flakes, and 76 debris. When these lithics are

sorted by the four categories for raw material source there are 310 from the Onondaga formation,

8 from the Seneca, 13 from Edge Cliff, 15 from Reynales, and 7 are made from Quartz. There

were 562 micro flakes which were not researched as to their raw material or Sullivan and Rozen

type as they are so small they are difficult to identify. There were 257 small flakes, 99 large

flakes, and 7 macro flakes. There were 21 cores, 20 flakes showed signs of burning, there were

36 fire cracked rocks, 385 potsherds, 1 flake shows signs of utilization, 77 sample of charcoal

were recovered, 32 pieces of bone, and various other faunal remains such as seeds and nutshells

were collected. There were also 3 flakes which were given find numbers but the flake associated

with the find number was missing. No historical artifacts were recovered from site 1. There

were various tools and projectile points found such as a Madison point, hammerstones and

cobbles. Out of the 21 cores, 11 did not have recorded weights, out of the 11 remaining cores

with recorded weights the average weight was 12.7grams.

With the above data, methods, and theory we can finally deduce certain ideas about the

site. First I wish the explore mass analysis with the help of Sullivan and Rozen categories,

specifically the idea that Patterson described which is that it is theorized that as the reduction

process continues it is expected that the weight and number of chipped stones in the small

category will decrease and increase respectively, since no more large portions are available to be

35

taken off. To look at this I will further look at only portion of the lithics from site 1. I will only

look at 249 of the 363 lithics. Specifically I will look at lithics that are within the find numbers

179233 to 179304. Within this range there are 562 micro, with a total weight of 24.4g, 198 small

lithics with a total weight of 80.7g, and 51 large lithics with a total weight of 123.9g. The total

weight for all of the lithics is 232.3g. Thus the average weight for the lithics in the micro

category is .04g the average for the small lithics is .40g, and the average for the large category is

4.55g. Thus it is true that the average weight decreases as the number of lithics increases.

Second I wish to interpret the findings in relationship to landscape archaeology. Since

the is a drastically high number of raw materials from the Onondaga Formation with just a few

which are almost insignificant compared to the number found that are from the Onondaga

Formation it can be assumed that most of the lithic raw materials were Onondaga. Since most of

the raw materials were from Onondaga it can be assumed that they knew about the raw material

source, especially since it was in such close proximity to the site, that it was a good enough

quality for the inhabitants to not want to travel a longer distance to get materials from another

source. Unfortunately without a more detail spatial analysis, possibly through the use of GIS and

mapping, possible routes to the different raw material sources from the site, it is hard to describe

the site more

Site 2:

Spaulding Green site 2 is also generally near the center of the Spaulding Green project

area, if the boundaries of the site are taken as Goodrich road, Greiner road, Kraus road, and

Clarence Center road. It is slightly to the south west of the wetlands if the viewer is looking

north, and a bit south of site 1. Even more specific is that “the center of the scatter is

36

approximately 659 m (2,162 ft) east of the centerline of Goodrich Road and 735.7 m (2,413.7 ft)

north of the centerline of Greiner Road in a plowed field ” (Perrelli, 48). The artifacts found at

site 1 consist of 319 lithics, including 76 broken flakes, 179 flake fragments, 49 complete flakes,

and 11 debris. When these lithics are sorted by the four categories for raw material source there

are 307 from the Onondaga formation, 0 from the Seneca, 6 from Edge Cliff, 0 from Reynales,

and 1 are made from Quartz, and 1 is from an unidentified source. There were 103 micro flakes

which were not researched as to their raw material or Sullivan and Rozen type as they are so

small they are difficult to identify. There were 219 small flakes, 92 large flakes, and 8 macro

flakes. There were 4 cores, 13 flakes showed signs of burning, there were 1 fire cracked rocks, 0

potsherds, 18 flake shows signs of utilization, 2 sample of charcoal were recovered, 71 pieces of

bone, and various other faunal remains such as seeds and nutshells were collected. A few

historical artifacts were recovered from site 2 such as a piece of glass. Various soil samples were

taken from this site and the light fractions were saved and given artifact numbers. There were

various tools and projectile points found such as a gravers and knives. Most of the various bones

were identified as cow bones, although some were also from pigs. Out of the 4 cores the average

weight was 44.3 grams.

This data could be interpreted various ways. If it was to be interpreted through mass

analysis with the help of the organization of Sullivan and Rozen categories specifially with the

help of Pattersons idea that as weight decreases the number of falkes should increase. To look at

this I will further look at only portion of the lithics from site 2. I will only look at 269 of the 319

lithics. Specifically I will look at lithics that are within the find numbers 189985 to 190044, and

191943 to191994. Within this range there are 98 micro, with a total weight of 5.6g, 196 small

lithics with a total weight of 82.4g, 66 large lithics with a total weight of 148.8g, and 7 macro

37

with a total weight of 207.2g. The total weight for all of the lithics is 444g. Thus the average

weight for the lithics in the micro category is .05g the average for the small lithics is .42g, the

average for the large category is 2.25g, and the average for the macro category is 29.6. Thus it is

true that the average weight decreases as the number of lithics increases.

Trying to interpret the above data through a landscape archaeology framework is

difficult. This is because although we have a lot of statistical data for the specific site it is not yet

related to an overarching spatial dynamic. The above mentioned data can tell us that site 2 was,

even more than site 1 a site which acquired the vast majority of its raw material from the very

near Onondaga Formation. However an interesting piece of data for site 2 is that one of the raw

material sources is none of the four or quartz. It is not identified with the current raw material

sources. This could mean various things; it is from another local source that wasn't looked at, it

was a burnt or chemically altered raw material from one of the four in a way that its physical

appearance has drastically changed, or that it is from a farther away source. What is puzzling is

that only one piece was found. Of course it could be that the core that this lithic was chipped

from was a one of a kind core to be chipped at this location. Thus there were only a few lithics,

compared to the majority of others chipped at this site. Thus the likelihood of finding the others

is quite low. However this is speculation. To definitively find out where it is from there are a

few possibilities, I think the best would be to do a chemical analysis of the raw material like the

New York State Museum did in the aforementioned article.

Site 17:

Spaulding Green site 17 is the north western most site of all the Spaulding Green project

areas, if the boundaries of the site are taken as Goodrich road, Greiner road, Kraus road, and

38

Clarence Center road. Even more specific is that “the center of the scatter is approximately 147

m (482.28 ft) east of the centerline of Goodrich Road and 1.62 km (1.01 mi) north of the

centerline of Greiner Road in a fallow field” (Perrelli, 131). Site 17 is significantly smaller than

site 1 or site 2. Site 17 only has 53 lithics, including 12 broken flakes, 33 flake fragments, 0

complete flakes, and 2 debris. When these lithics are sorted by the four categories for raw

material source there are45 from the Onondaga formation, 0 from the Seneca, 2 from Edge Cliff,

0 from Reynales, and 0 are made from Quartz, and 0 are from an unidentified source. There

were 30 micro flakes which were not researched as to their raw material or Sullivan and Rozen

type as they are so small they are difficult to identify. There were 31 small flakes, 19 large

flakes, and 3 macro flakes. There were 4 cores, 4 flakes showed signs of burning, there were 0

fire cracked rocks, 0 potsherds, 5 flake shows signs of utilization, 8 sample of charcoal were

recovered, 1 piece of bone, and a few other faunal remains such as seeds and nutshells were

collected. No historical artifacts were recovered from site 17. Various soil samples were taken

from this site and the light fractions were saved and given artifact numbers. There were various

tools and projectile points found such as a gravers and cobbles. Out of the 4 cores the average

weight was 11.75 grams.

This site hardly has enough lithics to make it worth it to study, compared to site 1 and 2.

However when studying if the weight decreases as the number of lithics increases it is actually a

nice manageable number. Instead of site 1 and 2 where I only looked at a portion of the lithics

when studying Patterson’s idea for site 17 all 35 lithics can be looked at. Thus the 3o micro

flakes have a total weight of 1.5g, the 19 small lithics have a total weight of 13.7g, 19 large

lithics with a total weight of 66.3g, and 2 macro with a total weight of 36.5g. The total weight

for all of the lithics is 118g. Thus the average weight for the lithics in the micro category is .05g

39

the average for the small lithics is .72g, the average for the large category is 3.48g, and the

average for the macro category is 18.25. Thus it is true that the average weight decreases as the

number of lithics increases.

Trying to interpret the above data through a landscape archaeology framework is even

more difficult than trying to interpret the previous two sites, this is because it is such a small

amount of data. Site 17 is again primarily from the Onondaga Formation. It also has the largest

number of flake fragments out of the Sullivan and Rozen categories just like site 1 and 2 did.

What is interesting about this site is that the number of micro and small flakes both hover around

lower thirties. Usually there are either more micro flakes or small flakes, not nearly the same

number. What is also more interesting is that the number of large flakes is only 10 less than the

micro and small. Normally there is a significantly more number of either micro or small flakes

than large. The numbers of size sorted flakes from site 17 are inconsistent with the numbers

from site 1 and 2. This could be because of inconsistent methods of collections, other human

errors, or an environmental or geographic factor such as the dispersion of lithics from the site

through geological processes. It could also mean something more significant about site 17 such

as that it was a site that may have been on the outskirts of a settlement and was a garbage heap

for lithic debitage that was flaked at another location. This would explain the somewhat lower

number of lithics found from the site, and why there were similar numbers of micro, small, and

large flakes; because the micro and small flakes would have been harder to pick up and dump

near the outskirts of the settlement, however again this is just speculation.

Site 18:

Spaulding Green site 18 is also in the north western most site of all the Spaulding Green

40

sites like site 17 was, but it is a bit farther to the east of site 17, if the boundaries of the site are

taken as Goodrich road, Greiner road, Kraus road, and Clarence Center road. Even more

specific is that “the center of the scatter is approximately 318 m (1,045 ft) east of the centerline

of Goodrich Road and 1.53 km (0.95 mi) north of the centerline of Greiner Road in a fallow

field” (Perrelli, 133). Site 18 is significantly larger than any of the other sites studied so far. Site

18 only has a total number of 1766 lithics, including 360 broken flakes, 1036 flake fragments,

226 complete flakes, and 132 debris. When these lithics are sorted by the four categories for raw

material source there are1721 from the Onondaga formation, 1 from the Seneca, 26 from Edge

Cliff, 1 from Reynales, and 1 are made from Quartz, and 4 are from an unidentified source.

There were 413 micro flakes which were not researched as to their raw material or Sullivan and

Rozen type as they are so small they are difficult to identify. There were 1241 small flakes, 483

large flakes, and 42 macro flakes. There were 12 cores, 318 flakes showed signs of burning,

there were 0 fire cracked rocks, 0 potsherds, 14 flake shows signs of utilization, 17 sample of

charcoal were recovered and 0 piece of bone. A few historical artifacts were recovered from site

18 such as pearl wear, aqua flat glass, refined earthenware, white wear, red wear, slag, and nail

fragments. There were various tools found such as a gravers and scrappers. Out of the 12 cores

the average weight was 38.25 grams.

This site has so many lithics that it is almost overwhelming to start to study. First we will

delve into the total weights for each to see if Patterson’s idea holds true for this site. Instead of

doing a portion of the whole I will give the total weights for all 1766 lithics per size sorting.

Thus the 413micro flakes have a total weight of 39.8g, the 1241 small lithics have a total weight

of 547.3g, 483 large lithics with a total weight of 2,294.7g, and 42 macro with a total weight of

908.1g. The total weight for all of the lithics is 3789.9g. Thus the average weight for the lithics

41

in the micro category is .09g the average for the small lithics is .44g, the average for the large

category is 2.47g, and the average for the macro category is 21.62. Thus it is true that the

average weight decreases as the number of lithics increases.

To begin to interpret site 18 is a daunting task. There is a nice distribution of Sullivan

and Rozen categories, with the most plentiful being flake fragments as is normal, and least being

debri which is also normal, however the sheer number of lithics from this site makes it an

interesting site to study. However then when we look at the raw materials it is interesting that

essentially almost all are from the Onondaga, there are a few that are moot points in the overall

scheme of things from Seneca, Reynales and ones that are made of quartz. There are 4 that are

unidentifiable as to their raw material source which although it is interesting is not very

uncommon for a group of lithics this size. However it is interesting to note that one of the 4

unidentifiable raw materials is actually from the Lockport chert group, which shows that the

inhabitants not only traveled south to the Onondaga Formation but also north. There are

however a few raw materials from Edge Cliff, but overall they still only represent a little over

one percent of the raw materials found at site 18, the other 98 percent are all Onondaga.

It could be speculated that since site 18 had such a sheer number of lithics associated with

it and that site 17 had such a low number of lithics that site 17 was actually the dumping place

for debitage that was primarily made at site 18. However if site 17 was a dumping site why

would there actually be more lithics at the site in which the lithics were made? If they cared to

dump the lithics further from the locations in which the inhabitants slept and ate all of the lithics

would have been dumped at site 17 and not such a low number. It could be that site 18 was the

main production center and site 17 was a dumping area for those that made tools but did so in

their own homes and resting places and did not want the debitage in their home. Meanwhile the

42

rest of the lithics were left at site 18 because they were in designated production areas and not

the areas in which people ate and slept. To help further solidify or destroy these speculations it

would be helpful to have a general age range for these lithics. If the two sites were from very

different time periods then they would not be associated with each other. Maybe they were just

so close together because that is where people always camped and they had remembered it

throughout the years. It is difficult to have a definite idea of why there were so many lithics at

site 18 and so few at site 17 without further research.

Site 23:

Spaulding Green site 23is generally in the south eastern corner of the Spaulding Green

project areas, just above site 32 which will be discussed next, if the boundaries of the site are

taken as Goodrich road, Greiner road, Kraus road, and Clarence Center road. It is just to the

south of a present day wetland, the same wetland that site 1 and 2 are near. It is also the closest

site to the road that boarders the Spaulding Green project area on the east, Krauss road. Even

more specific is that “the center of the scatter is approximately 529 m (1,735 ft) west of the

centerline of Kraus Road in a secondary growth woods and wetlands” (Perrelli, 151). Site 23 is

the smallest site from Spaulding Green that I will study, it is even smaller than site 17. Site 23

only has a total number of 43 lithics, including 7 broken flakes, 25flake fragments, 4 complete

flakes, and 4 debris. When these lithics are sorted by the four categories for raw material source

there are39 from the Onondaga formation, 0 from the Seneca, 1 from Edge Cliff, 0 from

Reynales, and 0 are made from Quartz, and 0 are from an unidentified source. There was 1

micro flakes which were not researched as to their raw material or Sullivan and Rozen type as

they are so small they are difficult to identify. There were 19 small flakes, 22 large flakes, and 2

43

macro flakes. There were 3 cores, 30 flakes showed signs of burning, there were 0 fire cracked

rocks, 0 potsherds, 0 flake shows signs of utilization, 0 sample of charcoal were recovered and 0

piece of bone. No historical artifacts or tools were recovered from site 23. Out of the 3 cores the

average weight was 29.7 grams.

Again, we will delve into the total weights for each to see if Pattersons idea holds true for

this site. Instead of doing a portion of the whole I will give the total weights for all 43 lithics

per size sorting, since there are so few lithics. Thus the 1 micro flakes has a total weight of .1g,

the 19 small lithics have a total weight of 5.4g, 22 large lithics with a total weight of 40.1g, and

2 macro with a total weight of 81.5g. The total weight for all of the lithics is 127.1g. Thus the

average weight for the lithics in the micro category is .01g the average for the small lithics is

.28g, the average for the large category is 1.87g, and the average for the macro category is

40.75. Thus it is true that the average weight decreases as the number of lithics increases.

Interpreting site 23 may seem easier because of the lower number of lithics compared to

site 18 however, site 23 has its own share of oddities. While there is a higher number of flake

fragments the number of broken flakes, complete flakes and debri are all similar. Site 23 does

not have the normal distribution of the highest amount being flake fragments then a lower

amount of broken, complete and finally the lowest amount of debri. Instead there is only a large

number of flake fragments. This truly is odd. What is also odd about this site is that for the sizes

there are similar numbers of small and large flakes but then hardly any micro or macro flakes.

My hinting suspicion is that there was human error while collecting the archaeological artifacts

in the field, however that is only one of the possible explanations. Another odd thing about site

23 is that the average weight of the macro sized lithics was 40.75g. This is vastly larger than the

average of the macro size from the other sites that were studied. The other averages were 29.6g,

44

18.25g, and 21.62g. A possible explanation for the inconsistent numbers from this site is that it

was a new or inexperienced flint knapper. They may not have knapped in the same fashion as

more experienced knappers, or they may have been an experienced knapper and just had their

own way of knapping which was not how most other people knapped. One thing that is not odd

about this site is that all but one raw materials from site 23 were from the Onondaga Formation.

Site 32:

Spaulding Green site 32 is generally in the south eastern corner of the Spaulding Green

project areas, just south of site 23, if the boundaries of the site are taken as Goodrich road,

Greiner road, Kraus road, and Clarence Center road. It is the largest spatially of the sites that

were looked at in this study. Even more specific is that “the center of the scatter is approximately

1,363.6 m (4,473.8 ft) southwest of the intersection of Roll and Goodrich Roads and 1,280.8 m

(4,202.1 ft) northeast of the intersection of Goodrich and Griener Roads in a plowed field”

(Perrelli, 180). Site 32 has a total number of 477 lithics, including 71 broken flakes, 245flake

fragments, 81 complete flakes, and 37 debris. When these lithics are sorted by the four

categories for raw material source there are394 from the Onondaga formation, 2 from the

Seneca, 37 from Edge Cliff, 0 from Reynales, and 0 are made from Quartz, and 1 is from an

unidentified source. There were 29 micro flakes which were not researched as to their raw

material or Sullivan and Rozen type as they are so small they are difficult to identify. There were

251 small flakes, 185 large flakes, and 41 macro flakes. There were 43 cores, 29 flakes showed

signs of burning, there were 0 fire cracked rocks, 0 potsherds, 41flake shows signs of utilization,

0 sample of charcoal were recovered and 0 piece of bone. No historical artifacts were recovered

from site 32. There were various tools recovered such as scrapers, hammerstones, gravers and

45

cobbles. Out of the 43 cores the average weight was 29.9 grams.

Again, we will delve into the total weights for each to see if Pattersons idea holds true for

this site. I will again do a portion of the whole for 43 lithics, specifically find numbers 191698

to 191740. Thus there are 0 micro flakes, the 3 small lithics have a total weight of 3g, 24 large

lithics with a total weight of 101.9g, and 16 macro with a total weight of 518g. The total weight

for all of the lithics is 127.1g. Thus the average weight for the lithics in the small lithics is 1g,

the average for the large category is 4.24g, and the average for the macro category is 18.64.

Thus it is true that the average weight decreases as the number of lithics increases.

Originally I was the most excited to study site 32. It was the largest spatially however

once I analyzed the data I quickly realized that even though it was large spatially that the finds

from the site were no different than other site distribution of artifacts. It had the largest number

of flake fragments, most of the raw material was from the nearby Onondaga Formation, and it

had the largest number of small lithics followed by the largest number of large lithics. It did

have the largest number of utilized flakes out of the sites I studied and the most number of tools

but that was the only difference. This would suggest that this site was not one where the lithics

were chipped but instead where the lithics were used in practical manners. Thus through the

interpretation of site 32 and site 18 I realized that the spatial size of the site does not matter as to

the amount of lithics found at a site. Smaller sites may have a significantly higher number of

lithics than larger sites.

Overall Interpretations:

First it should be mentioned that overall the “spatial distribution of sites identified during

in the background research found that most Late and unidentified Woodland habitation sites

46

occur above the Onondaga Escarpment. Although two Late Woodland workshops and camps

were identified on elevated areas along Ransom Creek, below the escarpment...In this regard, the

Spaulding Green sites are somewhat atypical given its Late Woodland, Iroquoian, cultural

affiliation and location below the escarpment away from a perennial water source” (Perrelli, 41).

Thus I am already studying somewhat unique sites. There is one site from Spaulding Green, site

23, which does not fit the normal distribution of lithics artifacts across the Sullivan and Rozen

categories, and mass analysis. See attached Figure Six. In addition site 17 also has a

surprisingly similar number of size sorting artifacts from those that were studied. It is not clear

why these two sites have inconsistent numbers with the normal distributions but the

discrepancies are noted.

When the final numbers of Sullivan and Rozen categories, mass analysis, size sorting,

core numbers, and the other various characteristics that were noted such as the amount that were

burnt, number of fire cracked rock et cetera, were analyzed all together for the 6 sites that were

studied we are able to gain a fuller picture of the Spaulding Green sites as a whole, if it is

assumed that they were all from around the same inhabitation period. It can also now be

interpreted that the Spaulding Green project area were sedentary sites. There was a very low

spatial scale of raw material availability, most were from the Onondaga Formation, with only a

few other raw materials from other sources. See attached Figure Seven. In addition the average

weights for the lithics were higher than other sites. It also would make sense for the lithics to be

informal because they did not care about how heavy the cores and other raw materials would

have been because they were in such a close proximity to the Onondaga raw material source.

Thus it can be concluded that most of the lithics that would have been produced at the Spaulding

Green project area were informal tools. This seems to hold true because there were actually very

47

few formal tools, such as projectile points, scrappers or gravers, found discarded at the site, only

a handful compared to the over three thousand lithics that were studied. See attached Figure

Eight.

A few addition conclusions about the site is that pottery sherds are not commonly found

at Spaulding Green in comparison to lithics. Only 385 pottery sherds were found from all six

sites, and they were all found from the same site, site 1. Thus in my opinion studying lithics is

more helpful to the archaeological record than studying bones, pottery or faunal analysis because

these decay over time. However they are still important to study so that we do not

overemphasize the lithics in the archaeological record, even if they are vastly more numerous. It

is also important to point out that from all six sites that Patterson’s idea did hold to be true, that

the average weight decreases and the number of flake fragments increase. Although Patterson’s

idea may also be a coincidence found through the use of mathematics. See attached Figure Nine.

Additionally the vast majority of the lithic raw materials were actually from the nearby

Onondaga Formation. To further the study of raw material sources chemical analyses of the

lithics should be conducted to further concrete these ideas since interpretation of raw material

sources through visual inspection is not as accurate.

If we were to try to interpret the six sites as all being from a larger site that was occupied

at the same time each could be assigned to a work area. Sites 1 and 2 would be the area in which

inhabitants both ate. This can be concluded because of the high numbers of animal bones,

charcoal remains, and number of burnt flakes, that were recovered from these sites. Site 1 also

had flaking done from somewhat farther sources than the Onondaga Formation, since it was the

site that had the highest number of lithics that were from raw material sources that were not the

Onondaga Formation. However the high numbers of recovered bones and charcoal samples

48

could also suggest that these two sites are not as old as the other four sites, because the bones and

charcoal have not yet decayed. The other sites may have also had bones and charcoal that over

time decayed or were obscured by geologic means. Sites 17, 18, 23 and 32 were most likely flint

knapping work sites. Although it can be tempting to try to associate Sites 17 and 18 as related

because site 17 has such a low number of total lithics from it and Site 18 is so close and has such

a higher number of lithics. In addition the uneven distributions of sizes of lithics from Site 17

suggests there was something different about the site, such as that the lithics may have not

actually been knapped there but were discarded there from a neighboring working area. In

addition sites 23 and 32 are spatially close and again like sites 17 and 18, one site is significantly

larger than the other with an uneven distribution of sizes of lithics from site 23. Thus just as site

17 may have been a dumping area for the larger site 18, site 23 may have been a dumping area

for the larger site 32. It seems too good to be true to have two groups of sites that each have a

larger site nearby, and a small site in which the number of sizes of lithics are uneven and not

normal.

Conclusion:

Personally I think that spatial analysis, mass analysis, Sullivan and Rozen categories,

landscape archaeology, GIS and artifact analysis should be used in conjunction with each other,

and it is regrettable that I could not use more GIS analysis while studying Spaulding Green it

would have told us vastly more about the site in relation to its spatial analysis and landscape

archaeology. While there are pros and cons to each approach, it is important to identify these

pros and cons in relation to the site that is being studied. These pros and cons are not always the

same site to site and thus a careful study of spatial analysis and artifact is needed in which the

49

archaeologist fully understands the method and theory behind these ideas and is then able to

apply it and work with the ideas in relation to their specific excavation. In addition

archaeologists always have to be careful of their inherit biases when studying the past and

making sure present ideas, such as the importance of geography and settlement layouts. However

archaeologist's ideas change over the years and no one idea should ever be held as an absolute

rule. These ideas may change because the archaeologists realize their own inherent biases. They

may realize the way that it affected the way in which they collected, interpreted and went about

their research. While not all past archaeologists let their own bias affect their work a vast

majority have, and still do. This is important because modern anthropology is based off of some

of the ideas of these past archaeologists and thus modern archaeologists often worry if they are

being objective or subjective, and where bias may be inserted into their work without them

meaning to insert it. Thus I think ideas should always be changing, being re-explored, and being

re-worked to try to better understand the life and death of both past and present peoples.

50

Works Cited:Ahler, Stanley A.

1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association: 85-118.

Andrefsky Jr, William.2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. J Archaeol Res: 65-103.

Andrefsky, William.2007 The application and misapplication of mass analysis in lithic debitage studies. Journal of Archaeological Science: 392-402.

Andrefsky, William.1998 Lithics Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andrefsky Jr., William.1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity: 21-34.

Bradbury, Andrew and Carr, Philip.2009 Hits and misses when throwing stones at mass analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: 2788-2796.

Branton, Nicole2009 Landscape Approaches in Historical Archaeology: The Archaeology of Places. In International Handbook of Historic Archaeology, Majewski, Teresita and David Gaimster, eds. Springer

Brian M. Fagan1978 Review of, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology by Ian Hodder; Clive Orton. The

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Winter), pp. 595-597Calogero, B. L. A. 1992 Lithic Misidentification. Man in the Northeast 43:87-90.Carr, Philip and Bradbury, Andrew.

2011 “Learning from Lithics: A Perspective on the Foundation and Future of the Organization of Technology.” PaleoAnthropology: 305-319.

Clark, G. A.1978 Review of, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology by Ian Hodder; Clive Orton, American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan), pp. 132-135.

Claassen, Cheryl, and Rosemary A. Joyce, eds.1997 Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica. Univ of Pennsylvania

Press.Douglass, Matthew J., Holdaway, Simon J., Fanning, Patricia C, and Shiner, Justin I.

2008 An Assessment and Archaeological Application of Cortex Measurement in LithicEnsor, H. Blaine and Roemer, Jr., Erwin.

1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity: 175-178.

51

Foster, Gary AM.1990 The Wolfe Creek site AcHm-3: a prehistoric neutral frontier community in

southwestern Ontario. Vol. 3. Ontario Archaeological Society.Gowland, R. L., and A. G. Western

2012 Morbidity in the marshes: Using spatial epidemiology to investigate skeletal evidence formalaria in Anglo‐Saxon England (AD 410–1050). American journal

of physical anthropology 147.2, 301-311.Grinde, Donald A., and Bruce Elliott Johansen.

1995 Ecocide of Native America: Environmental destruction of Indian lands and peoples. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.

Hamlin, Christine2001 Sharing the Load: Gender and Task Division at the Windover Site. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death. Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker, eds. Pp.119-136. AltaMira Press.

Hobley, Brian.1988 PART V BRITAIN. The rebirth of towns in the West AD 700-1050: a review of

current research into how, when, and why there was a rebirth of towns between 700 and 1050: based upon papers presented to the Fourth joint CBA/DUA International Conference on the Rebirth of Towns in the West AD 700-1050 held at the Museum of London on 21-23, March, 1986. No. 68. Council for British Archaeology (GB).Kelly, Willam M.

2011 Mineral Industry of the State of New York 2007-2010. CHAPTER 3: CRUSHED STONE New York State Museum Record 3: 11-34.

Kuhn, R. D., and W. A. Lanford.1987 Sourcing Hudson Valley Cherts from Trace Element Analysis. Man in the Northeast 34:57–69.

LaPorta, P. C.1996 Lithostratigraphy as a Predictive Tool for Prehistoric Quarry Investigations: Examples from the Dutchess Quarry Site, Orange County, New York. In A Golden Chronograph for Robert E. Funk. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 15, edited by C. Lindner and E. V. Curtin, pp. 73-83. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, volume 15. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem,.

Lennox, Paul Anthony.1982 The Bruner-Colasanti Site: A Early Late Woodland Component, Essex County,

Ontario. Musee National de l'Homme. Collection Mercure. Commission Archeologique du Canada. Publications d'Archeologie. Dossier Ottawa 110.Marquardt, William H., and Carole L. Crumley.

1987 Theoretical issues in the analysis of spatial patterning. Regional dynamics: Burgundian landscapes in historical perspective:1-18.

Mauldin, Daniel S. Amick and Raymond P. Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's1989 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation . American Antiquity: 166-168.

Meyer, William J., and Carole L. Crumley.2011 Historical Ecology: Using What Works to Cross the Divide. Atlantic Europe in the

52

First Millennium BC: Crossing the Divide 109-34.Odell, George.

2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer. Patterson, Leland W.

1990 Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution. Society for American Archaeology: 550-558.

Perrelli, D., Houston, M., McGreevy, J., & Montague, N.2010 Phase 1A/1B Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Spaulding Green Residential Development Project a 140 ha (346 ac) Development in the Town of Clarence, Erie County, New York. Reports of the Archaeological Survey, 38, 593.

Prasciunas, Mary M.2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency. American Antiquity: 334-348.

Ramenofsky Ann Felice, and Anastasia Steffen.1998 Unit issues in archaeology: measuring time, space, and material. University of Utah Press.

Read, Dwight W.1977 Review of, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology by Ian Hodder; Clive Orton, American

Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec), pp. 957-958Rieth, Christina B., and L. Lewis Johnson.

2010 TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LITHIC ARTIFACTS FROM THE TRAPPS GAP SITE. Current Research in New York Archaeology: AD 700–1300 700: 41.

Rossignol, Jaqueline, and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds.1992 Space, time and archaeological landscapes. Springer.

Rozen, and Sullivan.1985 Debitage Analysis. American Antiquity: 755-779.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory: 69-110.Rozen, and Sullivan.

1989 The Nature of Lithic reduction and Lithic Analysis: Stage Typologies Revisited. American Antiquity, 54: 179-184.

Sassaman, Kenneth E1998 Lithic Technology and the Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. In Reader In Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches. David S. Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin, eds. Pp159-172. Routledge.

Scollar, Irwin1979 Review of, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology by Ian Hodder; Clive Orton, Computers and the Humanities, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar), pp. 74-78.

Shott, Michael J.1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1.1: 69-110.

Spector, Janet.1993 What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village Minnesota Historical Society Pr.

Tuck, James.1971 Onondaga Iroquois prehistory: A study in settlement archaeology. Syracuse

University Press.Whallon, Robert

53

1984 Unconstrained clustering for the analysis of spatial distributions in archaeology. Intrasite spatial analysis in archaeology, 242-277.

Wright, Milton. 1981 The Walker Site

Attached FiguresFigure One:

Accessed: May 6th, 2013. Google Maps.

54

Figure Two:

Source:(Andrefsky 1998, 101)

Figure Three:

Source: (Rozen 1985, 759)

55

Figure Four:

Figure Five:

56

Figure Six:

1 2 17 18 23 320

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Sullivan and Rozen Categories

BF (Broken Flake)FF (Flake Fragment)C (Complete)D (Debris)

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Lith

ics

1 2 17 18 23 320

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4001036

Smaller Focused: Sullivan and Rozen Categories

BF (Broken Flake)FF (Flake Fragment)C (Complete)D (Debris)

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Lith

ics

57

Figure Seven:

1 2 17 18 23 320

200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Raw Material Source

O (Onondaga)S (Seneca)EC (Edge Cliff)R (Reynales)QuartzMisc.

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Lith

ics

1 2 17 18 23 320

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Mass Analysis

MicroSmallLargeMacro

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Lith

ics

1721

58

Figure Eight:

1 2 17 18 23 320

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100318

Smaller Focused: Miscellaneous Data

Core #Burnt #FCR #PotSherd #UtilizedCharcoalBone

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Arti

fact

s

1 2 17 18 23 320

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4001721 394

Smaller Focused: Raw Material Source

O (Onondaga)S (Seneca)EC (Edge Cliff)R (Reynales)QuartzMisc.

Site Number

Num

ber o

f Lith

ics

318385

59

Figure Nine:

1 2 17 18 23 320

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Core Number Versus Core Weight

Core #Weight OF CORES (grams, g)

Site Number

Amou

nt

1 2 17 18 23 320

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Average Weights in Grams (g)

AVERGAE WEIGHT MICROAVERAGE WEIGHT SMALLAVERAGE WEIGHT LARGEAVERAGE WEIGHT MACRO

Site Number

Wei

ght i

n G

ram

s (g

)

60

61