Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2019

Jeremy C. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Kent State University, 221 McGilvrey Hall, 325 South Lincoln Street, Kent, OH 44242, USA
Diana M. Simone
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Kent State University, 221 McGilvrey Hall, 325 South Lincoln Street, Kent, OH 44242, USA
Briggs Buchanan
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Harwell Hall, 800 South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA
Matthew T. Boulanger
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, 6425 Boaz Lane, Dallas, TX 75205, USA
Michelle R. Bebber
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, 750 Hilltop Drive, Kent, OH 44242, USA
Metin I. Eren
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, 750 Hilltop Drive, Kent, OH 44242, USA Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1 Wade Oval, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Stone was a critical resource for prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Archaeologists, therefore, have long argued that these groups would actively have sought out stone of ‘high quality’. Although the defining of quality can be a complicated endeavour, researchers in recent years have suggested that stone with fewer impurities would be preferred for tool production, as it can be worked and used in a more controllable way. The present study shows that prehistoric hunter-gatherers at the Holocene site of Welling, in Ohio, USA, continuously selected the ‘purest’ stone for over 9000 years.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Andrefsky, W. 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiquity 59: 2134. https://doi.org/10.2307/3085499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, D. 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 3850. https://doi.org/10.2307/280392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, D. 2009. Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 142–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2009.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. & O'Connell, J.. 1984. An Alyawara day: the stone quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 406–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.40.3.3629763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P., Olsen, J., Rech, J. & Krivoshapkin, A.. 2000. Raw material quality and prepared core technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 255–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D., Plummer, T., Ferraro, J., Ditchfield, P. & Bishop, L.. 2009. Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1605–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.03.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K., Marean, C., Herries, A., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Braun, D., Roberts, D., Meyer, M. & Bernatchez, J.. 2009. Fire as an engineering tool of early modern humans. Science 325: 859–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, B., O'Brien, M. & Eren, M.I.. 2018. On the probability of convergence among North American projectile points, in O'Brien, M., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I. (ed.) Convergent evolution and stone tool technology: 275–88. Cambridge (MA): MIT.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 1979. The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: a manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7: 1180.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. 1935. The flint-knapping industry at Brandon. Antiquity 9: 3856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00009959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crabtree, D. 1967. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 4 tools used for making flaked stone artifacts. Tebiwa 10: 6073.Google Scholar
Dean, W. 1974. Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparison with other methods. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44: 242–48.Google Scholar
DeForrest, D. 2006. Assessing ‘lithic sound’ to predict a rock's ease of flaking. Columbia: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
DeRegnaucourt, T. & Georgiady, J.. 1998. Prehistoric chert types of the Midwest. Greenville: Western Ohio Podiatric Medical Center.Google Scholar
Doelman, T., Webb, J. & Domanski, M.. 2001. Source to discard: patterns of lithic raw material procurement and use in Sturt National Park, northwestern New South Wales. Archaeology in Oceania 36: 1533. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4453.2001.tb00468.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanski, M. & Webb, J.. 1992. Effect of heat treatment on siliceous rocks used in prehistoric lithic technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 601–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(92)90031-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanski, M., Webb, J. & Boland, J.. 1994. Mechanical properties of stone artefact materials and the effect of heat treatment. Archaeometry 36: 177208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1994.tb00963.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C. 1989. The explanation of northeastern Paleoindian lithic procurement patterns, in Lothrop, J. & Ellis, C. (ed.) Eastern Paleoindian lithic resource use: 139–64. Boulder (CO): Westview.Google Scholar
Eren, M., Roos, C., Story, B., von Cramon-Taubadel, N. & Lycett, S.. 2014. The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 49: 472–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, M.I., Buchanan, B. & O'Brien, M.. 2018. Why convergence should be a potential hypothesis for the emergence and occurrence of stone tool form and production processes: an illustration using stone tool replication, in O'Brien, M., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I. (ed.) Convergent evolution and stone tool technology: 6172. Cambridge (MA): MIT.Google Scholar
Field, A. 2013. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.Google Scholar
Goodyear, A. 1989. A hypothesis for the use of cryptocrystalline raw materials among Paleo-Indian groups of North America, in Lothrop, J. & Ellis, C. (ed.) Eastern Paleoindian lithic resource use: 19. Boulder (CO): Westview.Google Scholar
Gurtov, A. & Eren, M.I.. 2014. Lower Paleolithic bipolar reduction and hominin selection of quartz at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: what's the connection? Quaternary International 322–23: 285–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice, N. 1987. Stone Age spear and arrow points of the midcontinental and eastern United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, R. & Todd, L.. 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/281017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepper, B. 2005. Ohio archaeology. Wilmington (OH): Orange Frazer.Google Scholar
Loendorf, C., Blikre, L., Bryce, W., Oliver, T., Denoyer, A. & Wermers, G.. 2018. Raw material impact strength and flaked stone projectile point performance. Journal of Archaeological Science 90: 5061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, S. 2010. Cultural transmission, genetic models and Palaeolithic variability: integrative analytical approaches, in Lycett, S. & Chauhan, P. (ed.) New perspectives on old stones: 207–34. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6861-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, S. 2011. ‘Most beautiful and most wonderful’: those endless stone tool forms. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9: 143–71. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.9.2011.23.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, S. 2013. Cultural transmission theory and fossil hominin behaviour: a discussion of epistemological and methodological strengths, in Ellen, R., Lycett, S. & Johns, S. (ed.) Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology: a critical synthesis: 102–30. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D. & Andrefsky, W.. 2008. The role of lithic raw material availability and quality in determining tool kit size, tool function, and degree of retouch: a case study from Skink Rockshelter (46NI445), West Virginia, in Andrefsky, W. (ed.) Lithic technology: measures of production, use and curation: 216–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499661.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, L., Buchanan, B., Boulanger, M., Redmond, B. & Eren, M.I.. 2018. On the late Paleoindian temporal assignment for the Honey Run Site, Coshocton County, Ohio, U.S.A.: a morphometric assessment of flaked stone lanceolate projectile points. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20: 588–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manninen, M. & Knutsson, K.. 2014. Lithic raw material diversification as an adaptive strategy—technology, mobility, and site structure in Late Mesolithic northernmost Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 33: 8498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mei, J. & Rehren, T., , T (ed.). 2009. Metallurgy and civilisation: Eurasia and beyond. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Beginnings of the Use of Metals and Alloys (BUMA VI). London: Archetype.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D. 2002. What do you do when no one's been there before? Thoughts on the exploration and colonization of new lands, in Jablonski, N. (ed.) The first Americans: 2758. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G., Bebber, M., Rutkoski, A., Haythorn, R., Boulanger, M., Buchanan, B., Bush, J., Lovejoy, C.O. & Eren, M.I.. 2018. Hunter-gatherer gatherings: stone tool microwear from the Welling Site (33-Co-2), Ohio, U.S.A. supports Clovis use of outcrop-related base camps during the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. World Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1461128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I. (ed.). 2018a. Convergent evolution and stone tool technology. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I. (ed.). 2018b. Issues in archaeological studies of convergence, in O'Brien, M., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I. (ed.) Convergent evolution and stone tool technology: 320. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, R. 2009. Old tools, new eyes. Lakewood (CO): Stone Dagger.Google Scholar
Proceq. 2017. Silver Schmidt operating instructions, Silver Schmidt and Hammerlink. Available at: https://www.proceq.com/uploads/tx_proceqproductcms/import_data/files/SilverSchmidt_Operating%20Instructions_English_high.pdf (accessed 5 February 2019).Google Scholar
Prufer, O. & Wright, N.. 1970. The Welling site (33Co2): a fluted point workshop in Coshocton County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 20: 259–68.Google Scholar
Roux, V., Bril, B. & Dietrich, G.. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping: the case of stone-bead knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology 27: 6387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1995.9980293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, P. & Morala, A.. 2018. First insights into the technique used for heat treatment of chert at the Solutrean site of Laugerie-Haute, France. Archaeometry 60: 885–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. 2015. Modeling the influences of raw material availability and functional efficiency on obsidian projectile point curation: a Great Basin example. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 112–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speth, J., Newlander, K., White, A., Lemke, A. & Anderson, L.. 2013. Early Paleoindian big-game hunting in North America: provisioning or politics? Quaternary International 285: 111–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.10.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, D. 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: an ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693722. https://doi.org/10.1086/342638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, D. 2005. The social and cultural context of stone-knapping skill acquisition, in Roux, V. & Bril, B. (ed.) Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behavior: 331–40. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Stout, D. & Semaw, S.. 2006. Knapping skill of the earliest stone toolmakers: insights from the study of modern human novices, in Toth, N. & Schick, K. (ed.) The Oldowan: case studies into the earliest Stone Age: 307–20. Bloomington (IN): Stone Age Institute.Google Scholar
Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M. & Levin, N.. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48: 365–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.10.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S. & McLennan, S.. 1985. The continental crust: its composition and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tsirk, A. 2014. Fractures in knapping. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Tylecote, R. & Tylecote, R.. 1992. A history of metallurgy. London: Institute of Materials.Google Scholar
Webb, J. & Domanski, M.. 2008. The relationship between lithology, flaking properties and artefact manufacture for Australian silcretes. Archaeometry 50: 555–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00381.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman Arthur, K. 2010. Feminine knowledge and skill reconsidered: women and flaked stone tools. American Anthropologist 112: 228–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01222.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman Arthur, K. 2018. The lives of stone tools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.10.2307/j.ctt20p57bpCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, J. 1994. Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Williams et al. supplementary material

Williams et al. supplementary material 1

PDF 555 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 20
Total number of PDF views: 125 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th April 2019 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-qzt2x Total loading time: 0.332 Render date: 2021-01-16T01:06:47.022Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 00:52:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *