This section of the Phase 3 data recovery proposal presents planned analysis methods for the prehistoric Dorothy Scott 1 and 4 sites and the historic Blackmar-Eaton (MDS 1001) site. The two groups of sites are discussed separately. Each group requires methods unique to the different types of artifacts they are expected to yield.
Prehistoric
Data Analysis and Research Methods. The proposed field and lab methods will recover data with which to address the proposed research topics. Data are generated through the classification of artifacts and features, the identification of food remains, spatial and stratigraphic relationships of artifacts and features, age associations, etc. Data are also generated through typological and attribute analyses of different sets of material culture, such as lithic and ceramic artifacts. These data sets form the basis of interpretations of activity area and site function, for example, and facilitate comparison of technology, subsistence and settlement practices of the different culture groups represented. Site function is determined, in part, by assessing the different tasks performed at each site. Occupation duration is assessed through artifact density, artifact diversity, feature depth and content, and the density and diversity of food remains for the various components represented. Stone tool production and the organization of ceramic technology will be studied using the horizontal and vertical distribution of artifacts in addition to tool, debitage and vessel form, typological and attribute analysis. The condition of raw chert used at the site will be studied by observing the nature of cortical surfaces on flakes and cores. In all cases, the practices of different groups and material from different periods will be compared and contrasted. Ultimately, material from this site will be compared with that from other sites to synthesize the available information and contribute local and regional knowledge of prehistory.
Site Structure and Function. The analysis of site structure is achieved through the study of the patterns of artifacts and features in vertical and horizontal space. Activity areas are defined by grouping artifacts and features associated with different cultures and times, mapping the distribution of material evidence and treating feature and artifact associations as analytic units. Site functions are defined based on groups of activities that can be attributed to particular occupations, with reference to known archaeological patterns at the local and regional level. Artifacts such a stone tools and ceramics are categorized functionally and stylistically to develop an understanding of activity patterns, production techniques, task performance and variation within analytic units. Variation in the nature and distribution of debitage within occupation episodes, in relation to finished tools and other remains adds another dimension to the analysis of site structure and the study of prehistoric land use.
Feature Analysis. Feature data collection will involve the excavation of features by internal stratigraphic subdivisions, if evident, and flotation sampling of all identifiable features and differing fill types within features. Analysis will include information about feature contents and dimensions. Feature analysis is important for defining site structure and for reconstructing subsistence and settlement patterns of the people that used the site. Excavated features will be classified both temporally and functionally where possible. Artifacts and ecofacts from individual features will be considered discrete occupation episodes for analytical purposes. Features will be grouped by culture and time period where possible to form arbitrary analytic units. Individual features may be assigned functions based on artifact and ecofact content, shape, size and depth.
Paleobotanical and Faunal Analysis. Paleobotanical and faunal material is collected through soil screening and by flotation processing of soil samples from feature fill. Larger bones and charcoal fragments, when present, are collected from the 6 mm (1/4 in) mesh field screens during test unit excavation. Flotation-processed samples of carbonized floral remains will be sent to a professional paleo-botanist analyst with experience analyzing material from similar sites in the same geographic area. No human bones will be analyzed unless this work is authorized and overseen by the Seneca Nation of Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office.
Questions relating to seasonality are addressed, in part, by analyzing floral and faunal data. Evidence of seasonal site use, specific types of food remains and the use of early horticultural practices, if present at the Dorothy Scott 1 site, may be generated by the analysis of floral remains. Similarly, faunal material recovered may add greatly to our understanding of each site use, and of change in the environment and human use of the locale through time. A comparison of subsistence and settlement patterns will rely on comparisons of feature and artifact distributions and assessments of occupation duration and intensity.
Research questions specific to the Late Archaic Dorothy Scott 4 site and the Early Woodland Dorothy Scott 1 site include determining site function, understanding seasonal site use and identifying specific subsistence practices. The data needed to study the nature of food processing will be collected from floral and faunal assemblages where possible to compliment the tool and debitage analysis. Together, these data will allow for the reconstruction of different food procurement and processing strategies. Comparisons can then be made with similar data sets from the different periods at the same locale. These and other data will facilitate the study of changing subsistence and settlement practices through time.
Chronology. C14 dates will be obtained from feature charcoal or floral and faunal remains if possible. C14 dates will be used to corroborate dates associated with soil horizons, diagnostic artifacts, and to establish the age of site deposits in general. All C14 samples will be sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. for analysis. Typically, C14 samples will consist of wood charcoal or carbonized seeds, nut shell and other annual plant parts, as selected from flotation samples processed at the Archaeological Survey. C14 samples may also be collected from undisturbed proveniences during excavation if special circumstances permit. This will be plausible if large chunks or discrete pockets of charcoal are identified in features or wall profiles. A maximum of ten C14 dates is proposed for the Scott 1 and Scott 4 sites data recovery projects, including up to five AMS C14 assays. Dating specific cultigens and other annual plants will provide more accurate age associations with material remains, and better chronological control over archaeological components associated with them. This will allow for more precise and meaningful interpretations of site function and significance in a regional context.
Analysis of Lithic Technology. Lithic artifacts recovered during the Phase 3 may include utilized cobbles, formal groundstone, fire-cracked rock and chipped stone material. Utilized cobbles and groundstone represent informal and formal stone tools respectively. They are subjectively classified as to function based on wear marks, shape and other characteristics. No formal groundstone was recovered at either site, but formal groundstone artifacts such as birdstones, gorgets, axes and adzes are associated with some Early Woodland period sites and may be recovered. The analysis of this material will be geared towards understanding artifact, feature and site function. These artifacts are classified by form and function, and by their horizontal and vertical provenience at the site, and are grouped by culture and time period. Fire-cracked rock is identified where cobbles display sharp edges and fresh breakage surfaces from heat stress, sometimes accompanied by black and reddish discoloration. This material is indicative of hearths and other facilities used for food processing among other things. This material is counted, weighed, and used as another data set with which to assess feature and site function.
Chipped stone tools and debris represent the most numerous artifacts from each site and represents a body of data with considerable research potential. Chipped stone material is first divided into tool and debitage categories. Tools are classified based on formal attributes such as bifacial thinning, notching and shaping. No attempt is made to identify tools based on the presence of retouch or use-wear in this analysis. Formal tools and debitage are discussed separately, but the interpretation of site function and technological organization relies on information from all artifact categories. A sample of debitage is examined to determine the nature of chipping debris as part of the analysis of chipped stone technology.
Following the initial cleaning and lab processing, chipped stone debitage is size-sorted to facilitate assemblage description and as a preliminary step in assessing technological organization. This is accomplished by re-sifting debitage through different sized wire mesh screens. Micro flakes are defined as those flakes that passed through all mesh sizes including 6 mm (1/4 in) mesh. Small flakes passed through 12 mm (1/2 in) mesh but were trapped by 6 mm (1/4 in) mesh, large flakes were trapped by 12 mm (1/2 in) mesh and macro flakes were trapped by 25 mm (1 in) mesh. Burned flakes are identified based on the presence of pot-lid fractures (Luedtke 1992).
The analysis of chipped stone material is conducted under the assumption that tools and debris are products of some type of organized lithic technology (Binford 1979, Nelson 1991, Carr 1994). This theoretical stance maintains that artifacts, as products of human behavior, are representative of problem solving strategies. The production, use and discard of stone tools reflect the needs of a particular resource user in a specific physical and social environment. This concept is a useful starting point for understanding the material patterning of artifacts in western New York and the underlying technological practices that lead to this patterning.
Schiffer (1996) argues that prehistoric artifacts were used in a systemic context, and are subject to a variety of physical changes, including wear, breakage and transportation to and from sites via natural forces. Such changes can occur before, during and after artifacts enter the archaeological record. In addition, sites often represent a mix of cultural material from different human groups and periods. Researchers should proceed with caution and have realistic expectations of what inferences can be made with particular sets of archaeological data. Despite these potential difficulties, the concept of technological organization supplies a framework for the analysis of chipped stone and other material from archaeological sites. Every attempt is made to present the data in a manner useful for making inferences about technological organization. Further inferences can then be made regarding the relationship between chipped stone tools and other aspects of subsistence, settlement and technology such as raw material acquisition, logistical mobility and seasonal settlement patterning. A primary goal of this type of analysis is to recognize patterns and variation in the practice of tool making and use strategies. Identifying different techniques used by people from different cultures or periods, in conjunction with subsistence and settlement data, will facilitate interpretations of changing social, economic and environmental conditions through time.
Ceramic Technology. The ceramic analysis, should such finds be recovered at the Early Woodland period Scott 4 site, will be conducted using whole vessels as the unit of analysis, although whole vessels are generally not found on prehistoric sites in western New York. In most cases, vessels are represented by groups of similar sherds found in the same provenience. Attributes used to associate sherds include; temper type, temper color, temper type and color uniformity, temper grain size, grain size uniformity, interior and exterior surface treatment, decoration, sherd thickness, and overall vessel shape. Only whole (non-exfoliated) rim and body sherds are considered in the analysis. Vessel lots are subject to typological comparisons in an attempt to identify them in relation to the existing
regional culture-historical frameworks and ceramic studies (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949, MacNeish 1952, Guthe 1958; White 1961, Schock 1974, Engelbrecht 1984, Allen 1988, Rayner-Herter 1995). Interpretations of the material are based on associations between vessel types, site components and known culture groups and periods.
Historic
Functional Categorization. Historic artifacts were analyzed according to a functional cataloging system adapted from the non-hierarchical catalogue system developed by the Public Archaeology Facility (PAF) at the State University of New York at Binghamton (e.g. Wurst 1997). This scheme is based on Stanley South’s (1977) functional categorization system developed for 18th century colonial sites, wherein each artifact is assigned to a category representative of a unique use-context.
According to Wurst (1997), the functional patterning scheme does not work well in 19th century contexts since industrialization, mechanization and standardization of production added too much variability to materials and their use contexts on later historic period sites (Wurst 1997:24). Recently, work has been done to develop better methods to date 19th and 20th century artifacts (Miller 1991; Miller, et. al. 2000; Maxwell 2000; Samford 2000). The current functional categorization schema was developed by the Public Archaeology Facility, SUNY at Binghamton. It represents the development of new functional categories that better account for the range of materials frequently recovered from later historic period. Though the functional categorization system is no longer viewed as a predictive model for site development, it does provide an organized system for the analysis and reporting of archaeological results. In this system, artifacts are categorized into fifteen (15) functional classes, a brief description of which is presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Historic Artifact Functional Categorization System.
Functional Category # Artifact Examples
Unidentified 0 Unidentified function, form or material.
Food Related 1 Ceramic preparation/storage, food serving/consumption wares, beverage
containers, bottle glass, glassware, tableware.
Food Remains 2 Faunal (mammal, fish and shellfish) and floral (e.g. seeds, nuts, etc.) eco-
facts.
Architectural 3 Brick, mortar, plaster, nails, spikes, screws, bolts, washers, window glass.
Hygiene/Medicinal 4 Pharmaceutical bottles, chamber pots, tooth brushes, combs.
Household/Furnishing 5 Hinges, knobs, drawer pulls, and locks, escutcheon plates, keyhole
surrounds, rollers, brass tacks.
Clothing 6 Buckles, buttons, straight pins, glass beads.
Personal/Amusement 7 Coins, rings, pencils, tweezers, pocket knifes.
Tools/Arms 8 Firearms, gunflints, balls, shot, hammer, saw, screwdriver, farm
equipment.
Smoking 9 Tobacco, opium pipes and smoking accessories.
Lighting 10 Light bulb parts, lamp glass, oil, gas hardware.
Miscellaneous Modern 11 Plastic, paper, foil, cellophane.
Transportation/Mechanical 12 Automobile and carriage parts, roads, horseshoes, horseshoe nails.
Heating/Energy/Fuel 13 Coal, coal ash, charcoal, slag.
Non-Food Faunal Remains 14 Faunal materials not identified as food remains, e.g. human and animal
burials.
Prehistoric 15 Flakes, projectile points, utilized cobbles, fire cracked rock, pottery, etc.
Within each group, artifacts are classified according to provenience, material, decoration, color, form, physical dimensions, weight (when applicable), percentage complete, number of fragments, number of complete objects, as well as a brief description of the artifact(s). Assemblages for each trench, stratigraphic layer, and feature, were categorized separately in order to preserve contextual integrity. Artifacts were then entered into a Microsoft Excel ™ spreadsheet and Microsoft Access ™ for purposes of analysis and reporting.
Chronology. Archaeological chronology will be analyzed using formulaic Mean Artifact Date (MAD) seriation techniques. Mean Artifact Dating techniques utilized for this project were adapted from Stanley South’s (1977) mean ceramic dating (MCD) method. Similar to MCD, MAD values expresses the frequency relationship between diagnostic artifact types of known manufacture periods (South 1977:218). Instead of relying solely upon domestic ceramics, MAD calculations include production dates for all temporally diagnostic site artifacts including clothing group artifacts (e.g. buttons); activities group artifacts (e.g. barbed wire, electrical equipment), architectural group items (e.g. nails, building hardware), and other kitchen group artifacts (e.g. bottle glass, metal containers).
A Mean Artifact Date is calculated by multiplying a median production date by the count of that particular artifact type. All median production date products are then summed and divided by the total number of diagnostic artifacts within the assemblage. The resulting value is the mean artifact date. In addition to the mean artifact date, a mean beginning and mean ending production date may also be calculated in order to provide additional means of interpreting site occupation dates. The MAD is weighted towards artifact types that possess similar production date ranges. The assumption is that artifacts produced during the same period were likely acquired, used and/or deposited within the same general historic occupation. When mean artifact dates are taken for each contextually discrete assemblage, it is possible to create a relative chronology for the site based on the relationship between mean artifact dates. However, the result is several MADs for each ‘class of artifact’ because different objects/materials are used in different ways, and have different breakage rates/disposal behavior; it is erroneous to uncritically assume that all artifacts possess similar performance characteristics.
The mean artifact date calculation assumes that diagnostic artifact count refers to the number of whole artifacts. However when artifacts are recovered from sheet midden contexts, individual fragments are often too small and/or too fragmentary to determine the minimum number of vessels. In these cases, if the mean artifact date is calculated from sherd count and not vessel count, the mean ceramic date may be artificially influenced due to the fact that each individual sherd is now counted as an individual vessel. In order to avoid this problem, when an assemblage is too fragmentary to count individual vessels, each individual type of identified vessel will be counted as one vessel. While these measures may not reflect the actual assemblage date, it does allow for a basic seriation of site assemblages.
Spatial Analysis. Spatial analysis will be conducted in order to locate activity areas including dumps, middens and structures to reconstruct overall site structure and occupational history. Both overall artifact density and functional category/group will be examined within each horizontally and vertically discrete provenience excavated. Spatial analysis will be conducted with the aid of the Surfer ™ 7.0 software package, published by Golden Software. Surfer is a continuous surface generator used to interpolate artifact densities across the site and to visualize these densities on the site map as contours. Geographic coordinates are plotted using x and y values, while artifact density is plotted by the z value. Physical locations on the site grid, including both data collection unit locations and site boundaries, are converted into x and y values and entered into a Microsoft Excel ™ spreadsheet. Artifact counts for each provenience are then entered as z values.
Archival Sources Analysis. Archaeological interpretation of the Blackmar-Eaton site was augmented by archival research. A comprehensive understanding of a large spectrum of written documents often helps answer research questions that are difficult to answer by excavation alone (Reith 2001:24). Historic documentary sources were consulted, including Erie County deed records; New York State and Federal population schedules; agricultural censuses; Late 19th and early 20th century town and county histories; historic maps and atlases; as well as genealogical data and family histories. A list of the historic documents pertaining to the Blackmar-Eaton site and its occupants is presented in Table 12.
Erie County land transaction records were located for the UB 3660 project area between 1824 and 1857. Insufficient data is presently available for property transactions that occurred during the late 19th century and early 20th century, though they will be forthcoming as data becomes available. Deed records regarding the Blackmar- Eaton (MDS 1001) site were found in three sources. The first source is Erie County deed ledgers found in the Erie County Clerks Office. Though these records are often the most complete and informative source for land transaction records, the majority of the ledgers are original copies and have already started to disintegrate.