Analyzing the archaeological material

For this part of the study, qualitative observations as well as measurements were recorded with the goal of describing the variation in form of the Genesee bifaces of southern Ontario. Though breaking down any complete artifact into a series of attributes and measurements will never perfectly describe its form, and the attributes and measurements chosen for observation will always be influenced by the researcher’s own biases, the observation of certain traits can be useful to allow for inter-sample comparisons of biface-making practices.

A problem with the assessment of biface form in this study may come from inherent biases in the typology that is already in use in Ontario archaeology. When the samples of this study were being assembled—as previously discussed—the “Genesee” bifaces were sorted from other bifaces based on a pre-determined projectile point typology (most researchers use Ritchie’s [1971] revised point typology). A type of artifact is meant to describe a trend in time or space that is “culturally relevant” (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Kreiger 1944). It allows for the organization of artifacts to make sense of

(1999) write that the typologies that continue to “work” are those that continue to be used. It is true that Genesee bifaces have certain distinctive attributes that make them recognizable to archaeologists, and are consistently dated within a 400 radiocarbon year (ca. 800 sidereal year) time period in a region that encompasses parts of Michigan, Ontario, and New York (Ellis et al. 1990a, 2009; Kenyon 1980b; Ritchie 1971). Therefore, even though making use of the Genesee type to define the sample may re- affirm certain biases already held by archaeologists about the form of these bifaces, it has proven to be so useful in describing the technology in the past that the risk was found to be acceptable for this study.

For each biface and biface fragment a variety of nominal traits were observed. The traits chosen for study, as well as the categories used to describe them, were based on those that previous research suggested were useful in

understanding broad point variability (e.g. Truncer 1990). These included: the material the biface was made from, the morphology of the base (straight, convex, or concave), the morphology of the stem (straight, expanding-based, narrowed-based), the morphology of each blade/fore- section edge (straight, convex, or concave), and whether or not the blades of the biface had a triangular shape. The material used to make each biface was identified with the use of sources such as von Bitter (1991), and by

comparing the bifaces of the samples to materials that had been previously identified by Chris Ellis. There were some materials that were not identifiable by sight alone, and the material for these bifaces was recorded as

“unidentified.” In order to determine whether the base and edges of the biface were straight, convex, or concave, that element of the biface was held on a flat surface. If light could be observed through any space in the middle of the base or the edge, it was noted as “concave.” If the base or

Figure 4-1. Length and width measurements. Drawn by Ian Kenyon. Reproduced with the permission of the Ontario Archaeology Society Inc., Toronto, Ontario, from Kenyon (1980b). (Dotted lines were added).

the edge could easily be rocked back and forth on the flat surface, the base or edge was noted as “convex.” If the element neither had space in the middle through which light could be seen, nor could be easily rocked back and forth, it was noted as “straight.” The blades of the biface were noted to have a “triangle shape,” regardless of blade outline shape, if the shoulders were the widest part of the blade.

Next, a series of 10 possible measurements were taken for each of the bifaces and biface fragments using a set of electronic calipers (to measure in millimeters), only in the dimensions for which the biface being examined was complete. The continuous measurements used were those employed in previous Ontario Genesee broad point studies, conducted by Kenyon (1980b), Burgar (1985), and Fisher (1987). Kenyon (1980b), the first to publish an extensive study on broad point form in Ontario, originally defined blade length, base width, stem length, base width, stem width, by including a graphic of a Genesee broad point with his measurements drawn onto it (Figure 4-1). Table 4-1. Measurement definitions

Measurement Description

overall length

the measurement from the very tip to the edge of the base

blade length

the measurement from the biface’s tip to its lowest shoulder

stem length

the measurement from the base of the biface to where the stem meets the blade maximum shoulder

height

the measurement from the base of the biface vertically to the point that is in-line with the

tip of the higher shoulder minimum shoulder

height

the measurement from the base of the biface vertically to the point that is in-line with the

tip of the lower shoulder base width

the measure of the distance between two basal corners

stem width

the measure of the distance between the two edges of the stem where it meets the blade shoulder width

the measure of the distance between the tip of each shoulder

stem thickness

the maximum distance between the two faces of the biface on the stem maximum thickness

the maximum distance between the two faces of the biface on the blade

When Burgar (1985) wrote his thesis on the metrics of the Genesee bifaces of Ontario, he added several measurements that Kenyon had not investigated in his research, only some of which were included in the present study: overall length, maximum stem thickness, and shoulder height. (One small change that I made to his methods was that instead of taking the “right” and “left” shoulder heights, as Burgar did, I took the “maximum” and “minimum” shoulder heights).

Finally, the macroscopic fractures on each of the Genesee bifaces were taken into

account, and the presence of any of seven types of macroscopic fractures were noted. The fracture categories included step-terminating impact fractures, spin-off fractures, impact burins, impact flutes, crushing, bending fractures, and cone-initiating fractures (see Table 4-2). Once a fracture was identified, it was examined and then photographed with the use of a Dino Lite digital low-power microscope (between 20 and 50x magnification

depending on the size of the fracture) and Dino Capture 2.0 software.

Based on previous experimental research, as well as the results of the experiment

conducted in this study (as described in Chapter 5), those macroscopic fractures that were considered diagnostic impact fractures (DIFs) included: step-terminating fractures

(Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard et al. 2004, 2005; Odell and Cowan 1986; Villa et al. 2009; Weitzel et al. 2014); spin-off fractures greater than 6 mm (Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard 2004, 2005; Weitzel et al. 2014); impact burins and impact flutes if they are large enough (Barton and Bergman 1982; Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard et al. 2004, 2005; Odell and Cowan 1986; Sano 2009; Titimus and Woods 1986; Villa et al. 2009; Weitzel et al. 2014); and finally, crushing—possibly only occurring when the biface strikes something relatively hard, like rock (Odell and Cowan 1986; Titimus and Woods 1986; Villa et al. 2009; Weitzel et al. 2014) or bone (as demonstrated in this study; see Table 5-5). These fractures could potentially all be simulated by dropping, but the chance of dropping a biface in just the right way to create a fracture like these is so low, that most

Table 4-2. Macroscopic fracture types

Fracture Image Description

step-terminating bending fracture

“A bending-initiating fracture which before meeting the opposite surface of the specimen runs parallel to this, and which thereafter…meet[s] the surface at a right angle” (Fischer et al. 1984: 23).

spin-off fracture

‘‘Cone fracture which initiates from a bending fracture and which removes parts of the original surface of the specimen,’’ (Fischer et al. 1984: 23).

impact burin

Hinge fracture along the lateral edge of biface (Odell and Cowan 1986: 204).

impact flute

A fracture that takes off a narrow tract of material from one of the faces of the point (Odell and Cowan 1986: 204).

crushing

‘‘[T]he force was directed so deeply into the interior of the stone that it dissipated before it could surface and remove a sizeable piece. As a result… the damage remained localized at the tip itself’’ (Odell and Cowan 1986: 204).

bending fracture

‘‘[I]nitiates from a large

area, having a straight or convex profile along its whole area of initiation’’ (Fischer et al. 1984: 23)

cone-initiating fracture

‘‘[I]nitiates from a point or small, well- defined area, having a concave profile in the area of initiation’’ (Fischer et al. 1984: 23)

Therefore, it would likely only be a confounding factor in interpretation if such fractures are found to be very rare overall in an assemblage. The fractures recorded that were not necessarily caused by impact, but might have been caused by a number of phenomena

(including knapping errors, trampling, cutting, or impact), included bending fractures and cone-initiated fractures (based on observations by Fischer et al. 1984; Odell and Cowan 1986; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Nielson 1991; Sano 2009; Shea et al. 2002; Sano 2009; Truncer 1988; Weitzel et al. 2014).