lithic assemblages: transitions of …...orientation for the lithic analysis follows the research...

177Chapter 10: Lithic Assemblages

In: Archaeological and Paleoecological Investigations at the Richard Beene Site in South-Central Texas, 2007, editedby A. V. Thoms and R. D. Mandel, pp. 177–228. Reports of Investigations No. 8. Center for Ecological Archaeology,Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

177

10

LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES: TRANSITIONS OF HOLOCENETECHNOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

John Dockall and Charlotte D. Pevny

This chapter details the results of technological andfunctional analyses of flaked, ground, and batteredstone assemblages recovered from the deeply strati-fied Richard Beene site (Appendix C). The researchorientation for the lithic analysis follows the researchdesign for the overall Applewhite Reservoir project(Carlson et al. 1990). Research topics included pat-terns of raw material procurement and use, settle-ment patterns, technology, and cultural change.Component terminology and assemblage nomencla-ture used herein is derived from Chapter 9.

The Assemblages

Lithic assemblages (Table 10.1) recovered from theRichard Beene site provide a significant windowinto the occupation strategies and behaviors duringthe Holocene epoch. The earliest Holocene compo-nents are represented primarily by Blocks H and T(early Archaic) and date to ca. 8700 B.P. The as-semblages recovered from these contexts may rep-resent the largest collection of in situ cultural mate-rials associated with Angostura projectile points inTexas, if not North America (Thoms et al. 1996:8).Block G represents an extensive late, Early Archaiccomponent and assemblage and dates to ca. 7000B.P. Excavations in this area yielded numerous smallcooking features and artifact-concentrations (Chap-ter 13) in direct association with stemmed/indented-based projectile points, a plethora of other flake tool

types, faunal remains, and FCR. Deposits in BlockA and U represent a Middle Archaic occupation thatdated to ca. 4100–4500 B.P. These Middle Archaiccomponents re represented by comparatively fewartifacts; including Bell and Desmuke points, andfeatures; including small hearths. A Late Archaiccomponent in the lower portion of Block B (ca. 3100B.P.) yielded a large feature that resembled an earthoven and a high density of broad-bladed projectilepoints and thin bifaces. The Late Pre–Columbiancomponent in the upper portion of Block B, datedtypographically to ca. 1200–400 B.P. yielded arrowpoint fragments, ceramic sherds, and a high densityof FCR.

The largest artifact category recovered from41BX831 is debitage (Table 10.2). In terms of totalnumbers and percentages, the upper Perez compo-nent/paleosol (Blocks H, T, and N), lower Medina(Block G), upper Medina (Block U and upper BlockA), and upper Leon Creek (lower Block B) havesubstantial sub-assemblages of debitage. These com-ponents correspond to early and late Early Archaic,Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic occupations, re-spectively, and they provide the best insight intolithic technology. Excavations also yielded smallsub-assemblages from components dated to themiddle, Early Archaic.

The most obvious correlation between debitageand tools in these sub-assemblages is that largernumbers of one corresponds to larger numbers of

178 Archaeological and Paleoecological Investigations at the Richard Beene Site

Payaya: Late Pre-Columbian, Block upper B Category Total Percent of Classes

Cores 1 12.50 Projectile points 2 25.00 Bifaces 1 12.50 Edge modified flakes 1 12.50 Nonflaked 3 37.50 Total 8 100

Upper Leon Creek: early, Late Archaic, Block lower B Category Total Percent of Classes


Lower Leon Creek: Middle Archaic, Block upper A Category Total Percent of Classes

Cores - - Projectile points 1 50.00 Bifaces 1 50.00 Edge modified flakes - - Nonflaked - - Total 2 100

Upper Medina: Middle Archaic, Blocks lower A, U and other exposures Category Total Percent of Classes


Lower Medina: late, Early Archaic, Block G Category Total Percent of Classes


continued

Table 10.1. Lithic assemblages by component and period of occupation.


the other category. Another interesting trend is theaverage weight of an individual flake from eachpaleosol or component (Table 10.2). Generally, thismeasure is consistent among the sub-assemblagesranging from 1.1 to 3.45 g; the exception is the up-per Perez component with an average flake weightof 0.8 g. The technological and behavioral signifi-cance of this trend is explored more fully in the dis-cussions that follow. What the overall trend sug-gests, however, is an increase in core reduction fromthe early Holocene to late Holocene components.In comparison to other components, the lithic as-semblage recovered from the upper Perez compo-

nent were characterized by tool maintenance and re-pair as a significant activity with less core reduction.

Raw material selection for stone tool manufac-ture was characterized by almost exclusive use oflocal Edwards chert cobbles in the Medina Rivergravel bars (Table 10.3). Selection for this materialrepresented more than 90 percent of the analyzedsubsample for every major component. Other mi-nor raw materials that were common within the as-semblages included unidentified cherts, quartzites,and several unidentified or undetermined raw ma-terials.

Elm Creek: middle, Early Archaic, Blocks I and K Category Total Percent of Classes

Cores 5 45.46 Projectile points - - Bifaces 2 18.18 Edge modified flakes 4 27.27 Nonflaked 1 9.09 Total 12 100

Upper Perez: early, Early Archaic, Blocks H, N, T, and other Perez exposures

Category

Total

Percent of Classes Cores

140

30.43

Projectile points

15

3.26 Bifaces

53

11.52

Edge modified flakes

246

53.48 Nonflaked

6

1.30

Total 460 100

Table 10.1. Continued.

Paleosol/Component Debitage Total/Percent Total Weight (gms) Average Flake Weight (cms)

upper Perez 7868/28.305 9913.11 0.79 Elm Creek 303/1.0898 234.15 2.25?

lower Medina 9917/35.676 4459.49 2.22 upper Medina 1643/5.91 475.41 3.45

lower Leon Creek 106/0.381 44.99 2.35 upper Leon Creek 7338/26.398 5360.85 1.36

Payaya 622/2.237 297.78 2.08

Table 10.2. Debitage by total count/percent, total weight, and average flake weight foreach assemblage recovered from the major components identified at the Richard Beene site.


Size-Grade Analysis

All types of chert (i.e., “chert”, “Edwards”, and“Georgetown”) are included as a single analyticalunit in the size-grade analysis. Size grade data arebroadly indicative of both core reduction strategiesand various techniques of flaking (Table 10.4).Larger size grades typically indicate the presenceof early stages of core reduction and are frequentlyassociated with greater abundances of cortex. Sizegrade data must also be considered in relation tothe initial size range of raw materials such as cobblesor pebbles.

Cortex Variability

Cortex variability (Table 10.5) by size grade likelydemonstrates behavioral trends related to techno-logical differences and variability in raw materialnodule size. Based on overall proportions (percent-age) of cortex represented in each size grade, thereis an obvious and predictable relationship betweenflake size and cortex abundance. The smaller theflake, the less cortex is present. Among the upperPerez, lower Medina, upper Medina, and lower and

upper Leon Creek flake assemblages, the completereduction sequence is well represented. Technologi-cal differences among these assemblages representdifferent types of reduction sequences includinggeneralized core reduction (simple flake tool manu-facture), tool finishing or maintenance, and manu-facture of retouched flake tools from small primaryand secondary cortex flakes.

Upper Perez flake size and cortex patterns areconsistent with generalized core reduction and be-haviors that result in a rather high proportion ofsmaller flake sizes with and without cortex. Suchbehaviors include the manufacture of tools fromsmall cortical flakes and maintenance or manufac-ture of bifacial and unifacial tools. Tool-type fre-quencies in the components bear this out ratherclearly.

Lower and upper Medina size grade and cortexpatterns follow the upper Perez trends rather closely,as do those of lower and upper Leon Creek. Littlecan be said about behavioral patterning representedby the Elm Creek or Payaya debitage assemblagesdue to small sample size. For components with ad-equate assemblage sizes, the data strongly suggest

Table 10.3. Raw material type for analyzed subsamples from each component(values in cells are total counts/percentages).

Raw Material (Code) UP* EC* LM* UM* LLC* ULC* Payaya Chert (1) 1/0.05 - - 82/5.90 3/5.00 - - Quartzite (2) 36/1.63 - 6/0.19 17/1.22 2/3.33 68/7.02 - Sandstone (4) 1/0.05 - 1/0.05 1/0.08 1/1.66 3/0.30 - Limestone (5) - - - - - 1/0.10 - Mudstone (8) - - - - - 1/0.10 - Chalcedony (9) - 1/8.99 - - - - - Quartz (10) - - - 1/0.08 - - - Conglomerate (12) - -

-

- - 1/0.10

-

Edwards chert (local cobbles) (14)

2163/ 98.22

81/91.0

1 3045/98.79 1279/92.08 54/90.00 887/91.63 12/100.0

Georgetown chert (17) - - - - - 1/0.10 -

Other (20) - - - - - 3/0.30 -

Undetermined (99) 1/0.05 - 30/0.97 9/0.64 - 3/0.30 - Totals 2202 89 3082 1389 60 968 12

* UP: upper Perez component; EC: Elm Creek component; LM: lower Medina component; UM: upper Medina component; LLC: lower Leon Creek component; ULC: upper Leon Creek component.


a flake assemblage that is the result of a mix of tech-nological behaviors that included reduction, vari-ous stages of tool manufacture, and maintenance.Patterning also suggests that there was a degree oftechnological stability through time, given the simi-larities in the debitage assemblages.

Block Comparisons of Flake Size

Block comparisons of general size grade variabilitycan be used to address technological differencesbetween areas and components. These data can alsoanswer questions about post-depositional processesincluding sheet erosion and flooding, which mightremove smaller size grades. Due to sample size vari-ability, only certain blocks for particular time peri-ods or components can be used to develop infer-ences in this comparison (Tables 10.6–10.10).

Blocks (early, Early Archaic) associated withthe Perez component present a similar pattern offlake variability (Table 10.6). Without exception,“Block” L, all blocks exhibit between 67.5 and 76.8percent debitage in size grades 6 and 7. Block L,which represents a grab-sample from mechanicalexposures of the Perez paleosol, has only 15 per-cent of debitage in size grades 6 and 7 and 67.4percent of all debitage in grades 3 and 4. BecauseBlock was not excavated/screened, its grab sampleis not comparable to excavated blocks (H, N, andT). Interestingly, Block H assemblages, which ap-pear to represent lag deposited artifacts, seem torepresent a technologically intact debitage assem-

blage similar to other upper Perez debitage assem-blages. This supports that Block H material was nottransported very far from its primary contexts.

Lower and upper Elm Creek components(middle, Early Archaic) present a similar trend indebitage proportions to that of the upper Perez Table10.7). Lower Elm Creek, Block K, has 80.0 percentof debitage in grades 6 and 7 compared with 84.6percent for Block I. These patterns are similar, butboth values are probably inflated due to smallersample sizes compared with those from the upperPerez. Nevertheless, tool repair or late-stage finish-ing is suggested by the pattern.

Data from lower and upper Medina components,late, Early Archaic and Middle Archaic respectively,continue the trends noted for the upper Perez andElm Creek components (Table 10.8). Proportionsof grades 6 and 7 debitage range from 70.9 percent(lower Medina Block Gc) to 89.5 percent (upperMedina Block U). Sample sizes for these blocks aresufficiently large and lend credibility to these pat-terns. Lower and upper Leon Creek debitage assem-blages (Table 10.9), Middle and Late Archaic re-spectively, also mimic these patterns. Size grades 6and 7 range from 74.5 percent (lower Leon Creek)to 79.1 percent (upper Leon Creek). Sample sizes,again, are not a problem and do not seem to influ-ence this pattern. Payaya (Late Pre-Columbian) is abit lower, but similar at 68.5 percent, suggesting thatsmall tool retouch or tool maintenance was a com-mon behavior (Table 10.10).

Size Grade UP* EC* LM* UM* LLC* ULC* Payaya 1-50mm 1 - - - - 6 - 2-25mm 51 1 34 2 - 55 1 3-19mm 276 3 62 19 - 146 12 4-12.5mm 951 25 353 96 6 507 25 5-9.5mm 1013 22 500 115 9 692 48 6-6.3mm 1878 63 1684 288 23 2036 111 7-2.8mm 3460 179 5988 1018 56 3636 349 8-2.8mm 238 10 1296 105 12 260 76 Totals 7868 238 9917 1643 106 7338 922

* UP: upper Perez component; EC: Elm Creek component; LM: lower Medina component; UM: upper Medina component; LLC: Leon Creek component; ULC: upper Leon Creek component.

Table 10.4. Size grade flake counts for each component.


UP*

(n=2

126)

LE

C*

(n=8

1)

LM*

(n=3

042)

U

M*

(n=1

275)

LL

C*

(n=5

4)

ULC

* (n

=884

) Pa

yaya

(n=1

1)

Cor

tex

Type

C

orte

x Ty

pe

Cor

tex

Type

C

orte

x Ty

pe

Cor

tex

Type

C

orte

x Ty

pe

Cor

tex

Type

Si

ze

Gra

de

(in m

m)

1 2

3 1

2 3

1 2

3 1

2 3

1 2

3 1

2 3

1 2

3 1(

50)

- 10

0 -

- -

- -

- 10

0 -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- 2(

25)

16.7

66

.6

16.7

-

- -

14.2

42

.9

42.9

-

- -

- -

- -

50.0

50

.0

- -

- 3(

19)

16.9

55

.9

27.2

-

- -

10.5

31

.5

58.0

-

18.1

81

.9

- -

- 28

.5

28.5

43

.0

- -

- 4(

12.5

) 6.

2 38

.6

55.2

-

100

- 4.

8 24

.2

71.0

7.

4 27

.7

64.9

-

20.0

80

.0

23.6

21

.0

55.4

-

- 10

0 5(

9.5)

5.

2 27

.2

67.7

-

- -

4.3

2037

75

.0

1.1

18.6

80

.3

- 25

.0

75.0

15

.6

29.6

54

.8

- 25

.0

75.0

6(

6.3)

4.

5 20

.8

74.7

7.

1 42

.8

50.1

24

.1

11.4

64

.5

2.5

16.5

81

.0

12.5

12

.5

75.0

14

.3

15.8

69

.9

- -

100

7(2.

8)

1.8

10.9

87

.3

1.5

9.2

89.3

0.

8 7.

7 91

.5

0.7

7.8

91.5

16

.6

8.3

75.1

5.

2 5.

9 88

.9

- -

- 8(

2.8)

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- 11

.1

88.9

-

- 10

0 -

- 10

0 -

- -

*

UP:

upp

er P

erez

com

pone

nt; L

EC: l

ower

Elm

Cre

ek c

ompo

nent

; UEC

: up

per E

lm C

reek

; LM

: low

er M

edin

a com

pone

nt; U

M: u

pper

Med

ina c

ompo

nent

;

LL

C: lo

wer

Leo

n Cr

eek

com

pone

nt; U

LC: u

pper

Leo

n Cr

eek

com

pone

nt.

Tabl

e 10

.5.

Cor

tex

and

size

gra

de v

aria

bilit

y by

Pal

eoso

l/Com

pone

nt.


Flake Types and Reduction Techniques

A notable trend in the debitage flake types for allcomponents prior to the Late Pre–Columbian is thedominance of soft hammer flakes (i.e., bending ini-tiation) over hard hammer flakes (i.e., conchoidalinitiation). The Payaya differs in being roughlyequivalent in both flake types, albeit having a smallsample size. Correlated with a predominance of softhammer or bending type flakes are an abundance ofbroken flakes and shatter.

Early Holocene components—Perez, ElmCreek, lower Medina—generally reflect a similararray of identified flake types (Table 10.11). Tech-nologically, a bending initiation technique appearsto have been typical for tool manufacture in lieu of

Size Grade (mm)

Ha Hb Hc L N T T2

1(50) - .03 - 0.0 - - - 2(25) 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.1 - 0.7 - 3(19) 3.5 3.5 5.5 23.2 1.7 1.0 1.7

4(12.5) 12.9 12.1 14.7 44.2 8.2 7.7 6.7 5(9.5) 12.5 14.2 16.7 16.5 13.5 7.7 9.2 6(6.3) 22.2 26.9 24.9 13.9 24.7 18.8 20.6 7(2.8) 45.7 40.6 36.9 1.1 47.1 58.0 52.7

8(<2.8) 2.6 1.8 0.9 - 4.8 6.1 9.1 Totals 2434 3222 510 86 170 674 694

Table 10.6. Selected block comparisons of debitage size grade proportions for the upper Perez component.

Table 10.7. Selected block comparisons of debitagesize grade proportions for the Elm Creek component.

Size Grade (mm)

Ga (lower Medina)

Gb (lower Medina)

Gc (lower Medina)

A (upper Medina)

U (upper Medina)

1(50) - - - - - 2(25) 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.1 - 3(19) 0.7 0.5 3.3 1.1 0.7

4(12.5) 2.6 3.5 7.7 6.1 3.5 5(9.5) 4.7 4.9 6.3 7.5 4.7 6(6.3) 16.2 17.1 13.7 17.4 18.6 7(2.8) 64.0 60.3 57.2 60.5 70.9

8(<2.8) 11.8 13.3 10.3 7.3 1.6 Totals 615 9009 271 1375 258

Table 10.8. Selected block comparisons of debitage size grade proportions for the lower andupper Medina components.

Size Grade (mm)

K (lower Elm Creek)

I (upper Elm Creek)

1(50) - - 2(25) 0.4 - 3(19) 0.8 1.5

4(12.5) 8.0 3.1 5(9.5) 8.4 3.1 6(6.3) 21.7 15.4 7(2.8) 58.4 69.2

8(<2.8) 2.3 7.7 Totals 226 605


a conchoidal initiation technique. This is unexpectedgiven the predominance of the use of local chertgravels. Although it is only “negative evidence,” adearth of hammerstones in the lithic assemblage maybe correlated with the use of softer billets of perish-able material such as bone or wood as a technologi-cal preference. It is also possible that hammerstoneswere among the highly curated tool such that theymay not have been discarded regularly at the site.

There may be a technological link betweenbending flakes and the presence of some discoidbifacial cores. A difference in the proportions ofbending initiation flakes among the Early Archaiccomponents may indicate behavioral or organiza-

tional differences associated with differences in sitefunction or activities. Perhaps the use of a bendinginitiation technique is related to a systematic corereduction strategy in which greater control over flakedimensions was desired, especially if flakes wereto be selected for tools or for manufacture into otherretouched expedient tool types.

The relatively few lipped and pressure typeflakes document occasional retouch or repair ofedged flake tools or bifaces and perhaps toolresharpening and finishing of these and other tools.Blades and blade cores are present but rarely so, inEarly Archaic assemblages. The upper Perez com-ponent includes tools made on blades and a bladecore. Blades are also present in both the Elm Creekand the lower Medina components. To the extent

Table 10.9. Selected block comparisons of debitagesize grade proportions for the lower and upper Leon

Creek components.

Table 10.10. Debitage size grade proportions for thePayaya component.

Table 10.11. Flake type proportions by component.

Flake Type UP* EC* LM* UM* LLC* ULC* Payaya Bending initiation 28.47 84.48 28.11 16.26 14.81 21.30 41.66 Conchoidal initiation 1.71 - 0.36 0.54 - 4.17 58.34 Flake with platform missing 56.49 13.58 58.09 74.04 35.58 36.30 - Shatter 11.65 3.70 11.46 6.09 46.29 30.32 - Pot lids 0.32 - 0.39 0.46 - 1.01 - Lipped (or biface thinning) 0.60 - 0.82 0.15 1.86 3.83 - Blade - 1.24 0.32 0.39 - 3.83 - Pressure 0.69 - - 1.84 1.86 2.85 - Unknown 0.07 - 0.39 0.23 - 0.11 -

* UP: upper Perez component; EC: Elm Creek component; LM: lower Medina component; UM: upper Medina component; LLC: lower Leon Creek component; ULC: upper Leon Creek component.

Size Grade (mm)

A (lower Leon Cr.)

B (upper Leon Cr.)

D (upper Leon Cr.)

1(50) - 0.08 - 2(25) - 0.7 - 3(19) - 2.0 5.2 4(12.5) 5.7 6.9 10.5 5(9.5) 8.5 9.5 5.2 6(6.3) 21.7 27.8 21.1 7(2.8) 52.8 49.5 58.0 8(<2.8) 11.3 3.5 - Totals 106 7300 38

Size Grade (mm) B (Payaya)

1(50) - 2(25) 0.1 3(19) 1.9

4(12.5) 4.0 5(9.5) 7.7 6(6.3) 17.8 7(2.8) 56.1

8(<2.8) 12.4 Totals 622


that blade blanks and blade tools were at all com-mon, they must have been part of the curated toolassemblage.

The Middle Archaic upper Medina componentmirrors the technological character of the Early Ar-chaic. Blades, lipped flakes, and pressure flakes arepresent in small proportions. Late Archaic debitagesamples illustrating continuation of technologicaltrends observed for earlier time periods.

The temporal redundancy of these technologi-cal patterns suggests several interpretations. First,the technological organization of a river-cobblelithic technology was established by the early, EarlyArchaic period and remained stable into the LateArchaic period. Accordingly, the technologicalneeds associated with habitation probably remainedrelatively consistent. Certainly the compositions ofthe tool assemblages from Early to Late Archaicsuggest similar activities and patterns of site use. Itcould also indicate this technology was adaptableand flexible enough to meet a variety of needs thatchanged through time. Small sample size makes theLate Pre–Columbian Payaya component difficult tointerpret.

Table 10.12 provides a broad representation ofcore reduction intensity via the flake/core ratio. Thisratio is based on the assumption that there is a tech-nological relationship between cores and flakes ineach assemblage. The upper Perez and lower ElmCreek assemblages present flake/core ratios that aresuggestive of technological connections between thecores and most of the debitage. Accepting the limi-tations of sample size for some assemblages, otherassemblages present decidedly different ratios.

In these cases, an unknown proportion of thedebitage is not related to the cores but was producedvia other techniques or purposes such as tool repair,maintenance, recycling, or retooling. Alternatively,there may have been a greater degree of curation ofcores or more intensive core reduction. There maycertainly be a relationship between these ratios andthe abundance of bending initiation flakes. Curationand/or more intensive tool or core reduction are themost plausible explanations of ratio differences and

could account for the low density of cores withinthese sub-assemblages.

Early, Early Holocene:Upper Perez Component

Blocks T, H, and N, along with mechanically ex-posed collection areas J and L (Figure 4.1), repre-sents the upper Perez component of the early Ho-locene (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.) epoch. These excava-tion areas represent the earliest dated occupationsat the Richard Beene site. Table 10.13 provides in-formation on the lithic assemblages recovered fromthese blocks and other proveniences associated withearly Holocene occupations.

As expected, debitage represents the majorityof flaked stone artifacts from all early Holocene

Table 10.12. Flake/core ratios for each component/occupation period.

Component: Occupation

Flake/Core Ratio

upper Perez: early, Early Archaic 56.2

lower Elm Creek: middle, Early Archaic 47.6

upper Elm Creek: middle, Early Archaic -

lower Medina: middle, Early Archaic 521.94

upper Medina: Middle Archaic 547.66

lower Leon Creek: Middle Archaic -

upper Leon Creek: early, Late Archaic 305.75

Payaya: Late Pre-Columbian 622.00


contexts. Biface manufacture is not a significantcomponent of the upper Perez lithic assemblage.Edge-modified implements dominate the tool as-semblage. A comparison of cores and total debitageyields a flake/core ratio of 56.5, but this figure ig-nores variability in flake size. A more realistic ratiofor indicating technological relationships is betweenflakes and tools, which is 19.4. This measurementassumes that there was a shared technological rela-tionship between tools and debitage as opposed toan exclusive relationship between cores anddebitage: debitage was the product of diverse ac-tivities such as tool manufacture, flake retouch, andoccasional biface manufacture and tool mainte-nance.

In a study of amorphous core technology in themidsouth, Johnson (1986) employed the core/bifaceratio as a measure of the relationship of lithic re-source abundance and the type of core reduction. Acore/biface ratio close to, or approaching zero, wascharacteristic of localities lacking ready access tosuitable material. In these cases, a bifacial core re-duction strategy was employed as a strategy of rawmaterial conservation. In areas with abundance oflithic raw material, and especially at quarries, theratio was higher, between 1.00 and 3.00.

For the upper Perez assemblages, the core/bifaceratio is 2.81, which is consistent with an abundanceof raw material from the Medina River and other

nearby gravel sources. When the core/biface ratiofor individual assemblages from the upper Perez isconsidered however, a different picture of reduc-tion strategies emerges that may represent techno-logical relationships to task specific activities.

It is known that there is ample raw material atthe Richard Beene site, so raw material scarcity can-not be considered as an influencing factor. For ex-ample, the core/biface ratio for blocks varies from1.83 to 5.14. Core/biface ratios between 1.83 and2.00 may be indicative of a relative raw materialshortage. Components of Block H with a greaterabundance of bifaces or bifacial cores could sug-gest that there were specific functional requirementsfor flakes produced as tools. Increased mobility(small groups staying for very short periods) mayalso have contributed to observed differences.Hayden et al. (1996:22–24) argued that a bifacialstrategy is most appropriate for groups in contextsof high mobility or task specific needs.

Blocks Ha, Hb, and Hc represent the bulk ofthe upper Perez assemblage. Block T was more in-tact in terms of being in primary context. Block Ncontributes to the overall character of upper Perezlithic technology and reinforces patterns based onlarger sub-assemblages from Blocks H and T.

The combined upper Perez assemblage is rep-resented by 545 flaked stone tools and cores and

Component Block Cores Bifaces Edgemodified Non-flaked

Points Debitage Totals

H H 3 9 - - - - 12 H Ha 36 7 50 3 4 2434 2534 H Hb 53 16 197 - 3 3222 3491 H Hc 11 6 25 - 1 510 553 N N 2 - - - - 170 172 T T 5 3 19 3 2 1368 1400 J J 2 1 5 - 1 20 29 L L 10 3 8 - 1 86 108 - BHT 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - EDM 16 2 23 - 2 - 43 - Grab - 2 10 - - - 12

Totals - 138/1.8 49/0.5 337/4.0 6/0.07 15/0.2 7810/93.4 8355

Table 10.13. Early, Early Archaic (upper Perez) totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from all blocks (values inbottom row are total counts/percents).


7,810 pieces of debitage. It is a very significant as-semblage from the early, Early Archaic period insouth Texas that contains a variety of cores, bifaces,and edge-modified flake tools, projectile points,along with a few non-flaked tools.

Expedient hard-hammer cores with randomflake removals from suitable platforms represent themost common core type at the Richard Beene site(Figure 10.1). Large pebbles and small cobbles ofchert were selected for this reduction strategy. Usu-ally, negative flake scars from previous flake remov-als served as platforms for subsequent flake removal,resulting in an angular or blocky core. Flakes pro-duced by this method were thicker than flakes re-moved from discoid cores and had more dorsal cor-tex and fewer dorsal flake scars. Striking platformswere typically cortical or single-faceted, and flakecross-sections ranged from wedge-shaped to trian-gular and irregular. Lateral edges exhibited an as-sortment of edge angles from obtuse to acute andwere used in a variety of tasks requiring a range ofedge angles suitable for cutting/scraping and chop-ping/adzing.

Discoid cores are also common in the assem-blage (Figure 10.1a-c). They have a prepared sur-face that served as a striking platform to removeflakes from the opposite side of the core, and fre-quently retained cortex on the prepared platformsurface. This core reduction strategy was useful inproducing expedient flake-tool blanks for a varietyof cutting tasks requiring a thin cross-section andacute lateral edges.

Conical blade cores were recovered from theearly, Early Archaic deposits (Figure 10.1d-e).Blades produce a more usable cutting edge per re-moval than either discoid or random flake produc-tion strategies. Such elongated flakes are useful forincising, piercing, drilling, and perforating.

A single example of a macroflake percussioncore was recovered from surface exposures of thePerez paleosol. Other core fragments from BlocksT and U represented repair of broken cores or dam-aged platforms. Some may also represent recyclingof exhausted or otherwise abandoned cores for ex-pedient tools. Block H and its sub-blocks present

the best picture of core reduction strategies duringthe early Holocene at the site. The abundance ofcores indicates that flake production was an impor-tant activity.

Bifaces (Figure 10.2) represent the third largestgroup of flaked tools from upper Perez assemblages.Of bifaces, 61.5 percent are thick (>1 cm) and 38.6percent are thin (<1 cm). The thick/thin dichotomycan represent a distinction between heavy-duty andlight-duty implements. The majority of upper Perezbifaces were recovered from Block H (77.5 %).

Distally beveled bifaces represent one of themajor types of bifacial artifacts in upper Perez as-semblages. Eighteen distally beveled bifaces wererecovered from various contexts within the upperPerez (Figure 10.3). Table 10.14 provides basicmetric data for distally beveled bifaces from theupper Perez. In general, beveled bifaces were uni-form in size.

Functionally and technologically these imple-ments have been classified as heavy-duty scrapingor adzing tools similar in form and function toDalton adzes or Clear Fork bifaces and unifaces(Dial 1998; Gaertner 1992; Hofman 1977, 1978;Shiner 1975; Turner and Hester 1999:246, 252).Similar implements are common in lithic assem-blages in the eastern United States beginningca.10,000 B.P. (Anderson and Sassaman 1996). Onefragmentary thick biface with heavy edge damage(Cat. 368) in the upper Perez assemblage could pos-sibly represent a Guadalupe biface (Figure 10.4).

Adzing tools from Richard Beene were almostas frequent as knives and projectiles combined.Those in the upper Perez represented the entire tool-use life from unfinished/abandoned preforms toimplements broken and discarded. It appears thatthere was on-site use and retooling of these tools(Thoms et al., 1996:18–20). These tools indicate theimportance of woodworking tasks during the early,Early Archaic period.

The presence and importance of woodworkingactivities are also indicated in the variability of edge-modified flake tools. A number of the beveledbifaces retain evidence of impact fractures against


Figure 10.1. Selected cores (a–c) discoid; (d–e) conical; (f–g) amorphous; and (h–i) recovered from the upperPerez component, early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.)


a dense material and lateral edge preparation forhafting. A few small (size grade 3) percussion flakesin the upper Perez assemblage may representresharpening flakes from beveled bifaces. The strik-ing platforms and portions of the dorsal surface onthese retain bright polish, step fractures, and a gen-eral battered appearance observed on some of thebeveled bifaces. The distal ends of some of thebifaces exhibit remnants of small percussion-flakescars where flakes were removed during the lastresharpening episode prior to discard.

Several thin bifaces in the upper Perez assem-blage are technologically and stylistically similarto Lerma bifaces (Turner and Hester 1999:145).These bifaces co-occur with the Angostura points.

Lerma bifaces are known to be a common techno-logical trait of temporally equivalent lithic assem-blages in south-central Texas (Kelly 1989). Thoms(1993) noted that the Lerma specimens recoveredfrom upper Perez components technologically re-semble Zella Angostura points described by Kelly(1983). Functional analysis of the upper Perez speci-mens (Figure 10.5a-c) indicated that these imple-ments probably functioned as hafted knives (Thoms1995). The presence of large knives that are tech-nologically similar to projectile points has beendocumented as a common feature of early Holocenelithic assemblages in the southeastern United States(Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985; Collins 1979;Goodyear et al. 1989; Kimball 1996:163–164;MacDonald 1968; Morse 1973).

Figure 10.2. Selected bifaces (a–f) from the upper Perez component, early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600B.P.).


Figure 10.3. Distally beveled bifaces (a–l) from the upper Perez component, early, Early Archaic period (ca.8800–8600 B.P.).


Block Length Width Thickness Weight EDM 61.58 - 19.57 40.69

H 73.08 - 18.09 43.37 Hb 71.14 - 16.06 50.00 Hc 53.52 - 14.57 25.87 Hc 67.71 - 18.01 45.85 L 72.76 - 24.11 66.32

Table 10.14. Metric data for complete distally beveledbifaces from upper Perez components.

Figure 10.4. Guadalupe tool from the upper Perezcomponent, early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600B.P.).

Figure 10.5. Lerma-like (a) biface and (b–c) basalfragments thereof from the upper Perez components,early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.).

A complete Lerma-like specimen (Figure 10.5a)was recovered from the upper Perez paleosol alongwith four basal fragments. The complete specimenis a large lanceolate, laurel-leaf shaped biface withsome light step flaking and polish along the lateraledges. Functional determinations for this specimenare not clear. Two thin-biface distal fragments re-semble the distal end of the complete specimen.

One proximal-medial fragment (Figure 10.5b)has pronounced edge grinding of the lateral edgesof the base. A basal fragment (Figure 10.5c) hasminor edge grinding and smoothing at the proximalportion of the haft element. Another biface fragmentexhibited pronounced grinding of the haft elementedges. The presence of only one complete speci-men along with basal or distal fragments of Lerma-like bifaces suggests that broken implements wererepaired or replaced with partially finished or fin-ished bifaces. Fracture patterns and fragments sug-gest that Lerma bifaces functioned as hafted bifa-cial cutting tools primarily. Relatively complete pre-forms may have been part of individual toolkits.

Fourteen whole and fragmentary Angosturapoints and one Angostura-like fragment were recov-ered from the upper Perez component (Figure 10.6).Four specimens were complete or nearly complete,five were proximal fragments, seven were proxi-


Figure 10.6. Angostura (a–e) points and (f–n) fragments thereof from the upper Perez components, early, EarlyArchaic period (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.).


Figure 10.7. Other projectile points from the upperPerez components, early, Early Archaic period (ca.8800–8600 B.P.): (a) Planwiew-like specimen; and (b)Hoxie-/Gower-/Jetta-like specimen.

mal-medial fragments, and one was a distal-medialfragment. This breakage pattern suggests huntingimplements were being reconditioned and replacedrather than manufactured on site. Fragments of lan-ceolate points are similar in raw material and tech-nology to those identified as Angostura.

One of the non-Angostura types is a basal frag-ment of a possible Plainview point (Figure 10.7a).This fragment has well-ground basal edges, a con-cave base, and parallel lateral basal edges. It maybe within the range of variation of Texas Angosturapoints, however. Thoms (1993:16–27) briefly de-scribed the Angostura technology and assessed therelevance of this specimen in relation to the wholeconundrum of the Angostura as a type concept.

The second ostensibly non-Angostura specimen(Figure 10.7b) is a stemmed/shouldered point thatresembles the Hoxie–Gower–Jetta morphologicalscheme. This artifact exhibits a distal-impact scarand some reworking of the tip after impact. Lateraledges of the stem exhibit edge-grinding. The basalconcavity is not as pronounced as on most Gowerspecimens. This specimen more closely resemblesHoxie in the depth of the basal cavity but the shoul-ders are reminiscent of the Gower point form. Iden-tification is tentative as Hoxie or Gower. The pres-ence of basal stem-edge grinding, however, is char-acteristic of Hoxie and not Gower or Jetta. This pointdiffers from Angostura points in basal and stem/shoulder characteristics. It also differs from thestemmed/indented base point forms from 41BX831in the presence of basal grinding and an apparentabsence of barbs or pronounced shoulders, as aretypical of the late, Early Archaic points from BlockG (lower Medina component).

In the absence of preforms, there is no defini-tive evidence of a manufacturing sequence for An-gostura points. Moderate to heavy lateral edge grind-ing is evident on stems of six specimens and slightgrinding on the stem of one specimen. One com-plete Angostura point exhibits alternately right-bev-eled lateral blade edges and the second whole speci-men exhibits alternately left-beveled blade edges.

Table 10.15 presents metric and completenessdata for Angostura points. Thickness data show a

bimodal distribution of the sample into two groups:>5.00 but <7.00 and >7.00 but <9.00. This bimodaldistribution represents thickness differences at pointmidsection (>7.00 but <9.00) versus point thicknessat the base (>5.00 but <7.00).

Two lanceolate point medial fragments are alsopresent in the early, Early Archaic component (Fig-ure 10.8). One exhibits two bending fractures andthe other exhibits a single bending fracture on oneend (Figure 10.8a) while the other represents a prob-able failed burin spall removal in which a previousbending fracture served as the striking platform (Fig-ure 10.8b). This specimen exhibits a classic plung-ing fracture and the burin spall was supposed to havefollowed the lateral edge of the medial fragment,but plunged inward truncating the medial portion.It is unlikely that this removal was due to huntingimpact.

The typology of all of these specimens fromRichard Beene is probably best left at Angosturarather than to imbue it with some type of variantstatus, especially given the fragmentary and re-worked nature of the sample. Broken and completeAngostura points from the site resemble those il-lustrated by Collins et al. (1998:224) from the Wil-

ab


son–Leonard site. Angostura points from Wilson–Leonard were recovered in various contexts datedto the early portion of the Early Archaic period.

Aside from projectile points, edge-modifiedflake tools are perhaps most informative of earlyHolocene behaviors at the Richard Beene site. Athick/thin dichotomy suggests a functional distinc-tion between tools that served heavy-duty versuslight-duty functions. Based on the abundance oflocal raw materials represented, most edge-modi-fied tools were probably manufactured, used, anddiscarded on the site.

Unifaces exhibit retouch that is more regular-ized along at least a portion of the edge, whereasedge-modified implements typically exhibit agreater degree of variability in edge shape and de-gree of retouch. Even so, there are essentially equalproportions of both thick and thin edge-modified

Figure 10.8. Lanceolate point medial fragments (a–b)from the upper Perez components, early, Early Archaicperiod (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.).

Catalog Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Weight (gms) Fragment Haft-

grinding

27 45.99 21.73 7.73 9.70 proximal-medial yes

28 35.51 20.33 7.06 5.80 proximal-medial no

29/ 6391 47.70 18.48 7.56 9.60 proximal-

medial no


31 20.52 19.90 5.45 2.3 proximal no 352 20.71 21.26 5.73 2.9 proximal no 353 13.80 17.03 5.84 1.4 proximal no 354 17.91 22.7 7.53 3.2 proximal no 666/ 125 78.68 19.61 6.75 12.22 distal-medial yes


6351 84.31 22.95 8.34 15.64 complete yes 6352 52.48 24.36 8.15 11.69 distal-medial undetermined 6395 59.33 22.74 7.69 10.62 complete yes 6663 31.00 22.20 5.80 4.50 proximal yes

Table 10.15. Metric and grinding data for complete and fragmentary Angostura points from the upperPerez components.


implements. If this pattern is literally translated intofunctional inferences, then this tool group is indica-tive of roughly equal proportions of tools beingemployed in tasks requiring a variety of functionaledge characteristics.

Edge-modified implements classified as thickor thin unifaces were scarce, represented by only19 implements. Edge-modified flake tools includeda variety of denticulate or carinated implements withtoothed or scalloped edges, notched flakes, occa-sional small burin spall cores, burin spalls, graver-like tools, and battered pieces resembling piecesesquillees (Figure 10.9). The morphological vari-ability reflected within this group of implementssuggests a diverse array of tasks were undertaken atthe site.

Smashed flakes were occasionally found amongthe debitage from the upper Perez and upper LeonCreek components (Figure 10.10). This flake typeis a by-product of flintknapping (including flakes,flake fragments, or shatter) that exhibits featuresindicative of secondary reduction for expedient flaketool manufacture. Typical features may includemultiple impact cones or ring cracks, radiating trans-verse breaks, and pronounced bulbs of percussionon the face of the transverse break that indicate theflake was placed on an anvil and subjected to forcessimilar to bipolar percussion. Often, this type ofbreakage produces multiple chisel-like edges thatserve as very durable scraping implements. Flakesand broken bifaces can serve as raw material forsuch reduction trajectories. While photographs ofsmashed flakes (Figure 10.10) adequately illustratestriking platforms, percussion cones, bulbs of per-cussion, and smashed surfaces, the more subtle at-tributes of small ripple marks and radiating frac-tures are not readily visible.

Smashed or deliberately broken flakes have ear-lier been identified as a Folsom period technique atthe Hanson site in Wyoming (Frison and Bradley1980). At that site, percussion and biface thinningflakes were occasionally broken by direct percus-sion to produce fracture angles that were used in avariety of scraping tasks. The present author ob-served similarly deliberately broken flakes used sec-

ondarily as tools in lithic assemblages from the SantaCruz Islands in the Pacific.

Smashed flakes represent an interesting tech-nique to quickly or expediently produce usable tooledges and to extend the utility of good quality ma-terials or broken tools. These expedient implementswere made by employing a bipolar technique to thedorsal or ventral surface of a percussion flake. Thisresults in a radiating fracture surface and splits theflake into several wedge-shaped fragments originat-ing at the point of impact. On occasion the flake isalso merely broken in two fragments but also ex-hibit a radial fracture pattern. These flakes appearto have been deliberately broken or shattered to pro-duce small angular fragments with obtuse anglededges along the fractures. These angular pieces mayrepresent an expedient use of on-hand debris to pro-duce additional tools for small tasks. Seven speci-mens identified in the overall Richard Beene assem-blage. Only three were recovered from excavationcontexts, one from the upper Leon Creek and twofrom the upper Perez. The remaining four specimenswere isolated finds from exposed areas in the spill-way trench.

Diagnostic features on smashed flakes from thesite were only identified during detailed microscopicuse-wear analysis. This flake type, therefore, maybe overlooked during standard technological analy-ses that focus on the macro attributes.

One of the smashed flakes from the Upper Perezis a thin edge-modified flake with light scraping andcutting wear (Figure 10.10f). It is a medial flakefragment with a transverse break at each end. Onetransverse break has a negative Herzian cone andradiating ripple marks and the percussion blow wasdelivered to the ventral surface. The second smashedflake from the upper Perez (Figure 10.10a) is a largepercussion flake broken by direct percussion to theventral surface that produced a radiating fracturepattern at the distal end of the flake. This fragmentwas then retouched into a notched denticulate tool.

A smashed flake was recovered from the upperLeon Creek paleosol (Figure 10.10b) and is a distalfragment of a larger percussion flake. The break


Figure 10.9. Edge-modified tools from the upper Perez components, early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600B.P.): (a–b) gravers; (c–d) thick denticulates; (e–f) pieces esquilles; (g–h) burin spalls.


Figure 10.10. Smashed flakes from the upper Perez and other components at the Richard Beene site.

surface exhibits opposed percussion cones and ra-diating fractures at the midpoint of the transversebreak. The lateral edge has microscopic edge wearsuggestive of use as a cutting tool on a soft mate-rial. Features that were observed on other similarartifacts (Figure 10.10c–e) include small bulbs ofpercussion and ripple marks on transverse breakswith multiple cones of percussion on opposite sur-faces suggestive of breakage on an anvil.

Non-flaked implements recovered from the up-per Perez include three hammerstones (Figure10.11), two of quartzite and one chert, and twopecked/ground chert artifacts. The dearth ofhammerstones from early Holocene contexts sug-gests that these implements may have been curatedand only discarded after they had either been dam-

aged or were too small. As noted, however, it is alsopossible that soft hammers were used more oftenthan hard hammers.

In summary, the upper Perez lithic assemblagerepresents one of the best examples of an in situ,well-dated Angostura assemblage in North America.Coupled with the abundance of Angostura pointsand the variety of bifacial and edge-modified imple-ments, this assemblage provides a unique windowinto lithic technology associated with Angosturapoints. The non-biface portion of the lithic assem-blage includes a variety of functional and morpho-logical types, the majority of which appear to rep-resent an assemblage distinctly oriented towardwoodworking and toolkit maintenance and refur-bishing.


Figure 10.11. Hammerstones (a–c) from the upper Perez components, early, Early Archaic period (ca. 8800–8600 B.P.).

Middle, Early Holocene:Elm Creek Component

The Elm Creek components are dated to the middle,Early Archaic period (ca. 8500–7500 B.P.). Theyare composed of several small blocks (I, K, O, P,and M), most of which were excavated to salvagemechanically exposed features. Sample size fromthe Elm Creek paleosol is small (Table 10.16) and,accordingly, probably not “representative” as theUpper Perez assemblage. Projectile points are lack-ing and bifaces are few, as are other flaked and non-flaked tools. Characteristics of Elm Creek debitage

discussed earlier indicate that bending initiationflakes dominate the debitage assemblage at 84.48percent, the highest of all Holocene components.

The predominance of small flake sizes (grades6 and 7) and the dearth of cores, bifaces, or otherimplements suggest that flake tool finishing or late-stage biface finishing were important activities.Sample size of tools and cores is too small to pro-vide meaningful core/biface, flake/tool, or flake/coreratios. As discussed earlier however, the patterns forElm Creek debitage follow closely those of the up-per Perez, which suggests similar technological ori-gins and perhaps similar range of behaviors.


Edge-modified implements included two thickunifacial tools, one thin edge-modified tool, and onethick edge-modified tool (Figure 10.12a–e). BlockI had two bifaces and Block K also had two bifaces(Figure 10.12g). Several cores were recovered fromBlocks K and O. Two chipped stone axes (Figure10.12h, i) were found on exposures of the Elm Creekpaleosol in the spillway trench. One pecked/groundartifact, a possible bola stone, was recovered fromBlock O (Figure 10.12f). A grinding slab (Figure10.12j) was recovered from the lower portion of theElm Creek paleosol exposed in an exploratory back-hoe trench (no. 61) dug near the south end of thespillway trench (Figure 4.2).

The Elm Creek lithic assemblage is similar tobehavioral or technological organization of the up-per Perez component, except for projectile pointsand the presence of two chipped stone areas. Giventhe absence of projectile points from any Elm Creekcomponents, the bifacial counterpart of this assem-blage can only be speculated. Non-bifacial flakedtools are broadly comparable to those of the upperPerez and overall the assemblage may represent asimilar technological and behavioral adaptation tothe earlier assemblage.

Late, Early and Middle Holocene:Medina Components

The lower Medina component is represented byBlock G and dated to ca. 6900 B.P. The upperMedina component is represented by artifacts fromlower Block A (ca. 4500 B.P.) and Block U (ca. 4600B.P.) (Figure 4.1). Both core reduction and biface-related lithic activities are represented in Block G.

Block U follows the same trend as the Elm Creekassemblages in being dominated by debitage (Table10.16).

These patterns indicate basic technological dif-ferences between the late, Early and Middle Archaicthat can most logically be explained as a result ofdifferent behaviors or activities. Technological ra-tios are useful only for the lower Medina compo-nent because of sample size limitations of the upperMedina components. The flake/core ratio for thelower Medina is 520.78, an unusually high valuethat indicates behaviors other than core reductionwere responsible for the bulk of debitage produc-tion. The core/biface ratio for the lower Medina as-semblages is 0.82. Values for individual lowerMedina excavation blocks are similar and indicatethat both core reduction and biface manufacturewere characteristic behaviors. It is possible that bythe middle Holocene, stylistic and technologicalchanges in projectile point forms or changes in sitefunction were influencing the lithic technology.

Projectile points from the late, Early Archaicassemblage (Block G) were predominately corner-notched and barbed, with parallel-sided to slightlyexpanding stems, usually with concave (i.e., in-dented) bases. These include Martindale-like andBandy-like specimens (Figures 10.13a-b), Baker(Figures 10.13c-f), and Uvalde (Figures 10.13h)points. An unidentified lanceolate point (Figure10.13g) and an unidentified stemmed indented basepoint (Figures 10.13i-j) are also represented. TheBandy/Martindale-like specimens have straighterbases than typically found on Bandy and Martindalepoints (Turner and Hester 1999). Only one of thestemmed/indented base points exhibited basal grind-ing. An interesting aspect of this projectile point

Component Block Cores Bifaces Edge modified Non-flaked Points Debitage Totals

Elm Creek K 4 2 2 - - 226 234 Elm Creek I - 2 1 - - 605 608 Elm Creek O 2 - - 1 - - 3 Elm Creek P - - 1 - - - 1

Totals - 6/0.7 4/0.4 4/0.4 1/0.1 - 831/98.78 846

Table 10.16. Middle, Early Archaic totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from several Blocks and proveniences(upper and lower Elm Creek) (values in bottom total row include total counts/percents).


Figure 10.12. Selected artifacts from the Elm Creek component, middle Early Archaic period (ca. 7500–8500B.P.): (a–c) edge modified tools; (d–e) cores; (f) possible bola stone; and (g) adze.


Figure 10.12(cont.).: (h–i) axes and (j) sandstone grinding slab.


Figure 10.13. Projectile points from the lower Medina component, late, Early Archaic period (ca. 6900 B.P.): (a–b) Martindale/Bandy-like; (c–f) Baker; (g) unidentified lanceolate (Pandale-like?); (h) Uvalde; and (i–j)unidentified stemmed/indented base points.


assemblage is its resemblance to such types as theKirk, Hardin, Jude, Decatur, and other stemmed/in-dented types that occurred in the southeastern UnitedStates at roughly the same time (Anderson andSassaman 1996).

The unidentified lanceolate point (Figure10.13g) superficially resembles an Angostura pointbut is technologically distinct. The lateral bladeedges are considerably reworked and the barbs aremissing. It appears that the lateral edges have beenentirely reworked to give this point a lanceolateappearance. The cross-section is asymmetrical withslight bevels on the blade edges.

Possible identification for this specimen is as aPandale type. Morphologically this point resemblesPandale in basal and blade characteristics. Argumentagainst it being a reworked stemmed/indented pointtype is that none of the other projectile points withstemmed or indented bases are shoulderless. Fur-ther examination of this specimen is warranted.

A key characteristic of the lower Medina assem-blage is that the lateral blade edges of projectilepoints are resharpened and beveled to varyingamounts. The degree of reworking makes thesepoints difficult to type. The degree of basal concav-ity is also variable. Early Archaic point types thatcould be represented within the variability of thisgroup include Martindale, Uvalde, Baker, and per-haps Gower.

The Upper Medina component is representedby bifaces, unifaces, cobble tools, adzing tools, andcores (Figure 10.14). Two Desmuke points (Figure10.15a–b), a Uvalde (Figure 10.15c), a Travis (Fig-ure 10.15d), and an unidentified point are repre-sented. Also in this assemblage are four Bell/ Andicefragments; the first is a complete barb/basal frag-ment with a portion of the blade (Figure 10.15e)and the second specimen is a barb (Figure 10.15f).Two smaller fragments of either Bell or Andicepoints were recovered from various upper Medinacontexts near Block U (Figure 10.15g–h). Exceptfor the Uvalde point, which is considered to be anEarly Archaic type, these point styles are typical ofthe middle Holocene of central and south Texas(Turner and Hester 1999).

It should be noted that the Uvalde point (Figure10.15c) was collected from a mechanical exposureof the upper Medina paleosol in the vicinity of BlockU (Figure 4.1). This is the only specimen from theMiddle Archaic assemblage that exhibits a distinc-tive patina that results from prolonged exposure tothe sun. As such, it is possible that this early Ho-locene point was collected during the middle Ho-locene and eventually ended up encased in the up-per Medina paleosol, which dates to about 4500 B.P.In any event, this particular Uvalde point is far morereminiscent of points from the lower Medina assem-blage, dated to about 6900 B.P., than it is to otherpoints in the Middle Archaic assemblage.

One Desmuke came from a surface exposure ofthe upper Medina paleosol (Figure 10.15a) and thesecond Desmuke (Figure 10.15b) was recoveredfrom Block U within the upper Medina paleosol(4430±55 B.P. [GX–21746–AMS]). Both Desmukepoints were heavily reworked and resharpened andrepresent points which were probably discardedduring retooling and personal gear maintenance. Thetip of one Desmuke point (Figure 10.15b) has beenretouched into a dihedral burin by the removal oftwo small burin spalls along each lateral edge(Thoms et al. 1996:26). The technology of the dis-tal tip is not characteristic of impact wear.

The tip of the Travis point (Figure 10.15d) ex-hibits an impact fracture that crushed the tip andthen removed a burin-spall-like fracture along onelateral blade -edge. The Travis point was recoveredfrom a surface exposure of the lower Leon Creekand upper Medina paleosols in the spillway trench(between ca. 4100 and 4500 B.P.) (Thoms et al.1996:26).

Non-biface flaked tool types and bifacial imple-ments from the Medina pedocomplex are similar tothe upper Perez and include a variety of edge-modi-fied implements that represent portions of a wood-working toolkit, inclusive of Clear Fork bifaces (Fig-ure 10.16e–f; Tables 10.17 and 10.18). A commontechnological trait shared between lower Medina andupper Perez projectile points is the presence of lat-eral-edge beveling, suggesting that projectile pointsof both time periods served double duty as huntingand butchering tools. This phenomenon is not as


Figure 10.14. Selected artifacts from the upper Medina component, Middle Archaic period (ca. 4500 B.P.): (a)lenticular biface; (b) thick uniface; (c–d) cores; (e–f) hafted cobble tools (axes); and (g) adzing tools.


Figure 10.15. Projectile points from the upper Medina component, Middle Archaic period (ca. 4500 B.P.): (a–b)Desmuke; (c) Uvalde; (d) Travis; (e–f) Bell/Andice; and (g-h) possible Bell/Andice stems.

common on upper Medina and later period projec-tile points. Again, this is suggestive of a technologi-cal and behavioral change in hunting technology/behaviors during upper Medina times.

Early, Late Holocene:Leon Creek Components

The lower Leon Creek component (ca. 4100 B.P.)is represented by upper Block A. Lower Block Band Block D represent the upper Leon Creek (ca.3500–2800 B.P.) (Figure 4.1). Block B represents

the best assemblage from this component(Table 10.19). Late Holocene technological inter-pretations are based on the recovered Block B lithicassemblage. A flake/core ratio of 310.66 is againtoo high and suggests other behaviors influencingthe composition of the lithic assemblage. A core/biface ratio is 0.52, indicative that both core reduc-tion and biface manufacture characterized the as-semblage to varying degrees.

Lower and upper Leon Creek componentsyielded a number of projectile points, 90 percent ofthem coming from lower Block B (Figure 10.17).Upper Block A yielded a proximal fragment of a


Figure 10.16. Selected artifacts from the lower Medina component, late, Early Archaic period (ca. 6900 B.P.):(a-c) cores; (d) thick uniface; (e–f) adzing tools; and (g) drill fragment.


Table 10.18. Middle Archaic totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from upper Medina paleosol/component(values in bottom total row include total counts/percents).


lower Medina Ga 5 4 3 1 3 615 631 lower Medina Gb 11 16 37 - 5 9009 9078 lower Medina Gc 2 3 1 1 2 271 280 lower Medina Ge 1 - - - - - 1 lower Medina EDM - - - - 1 - 1

Totals/ Percent - 19/

0.19 23/ 0.23

41/ 0.41

2/ 0.02

11/ 0.11

9895/ 99.03 9991

Table 10.17. Late, Early Archaic totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from the lower Medina paleosol/component (values in bottom total row include total counts/percents).


Lower Leon Cr. Au - 1 - - 1 106 108 upper Medina A - - - - - 1375 1375 upper Medina Al - - 1 - - - 1 upper Medina U 1 - 3 - - 258 262 upper Medina EDM - - - - 4 - 4

Totals/ Percents - 1/ 0.05 1/

0.05 4/

0.22 - 5/ 0.28 1739/ 99.37 1750

Component Block Cores Bifaces Edge modified

Non-flaked Points Debitage Totals

B (upper Leon Creek) Bl 24 45 50 9 10 7300 7438

D (upper Leon Creek) D - - - - - 38 38

Totals - 24 45 50 9 10 7338 7476

Table 10.19. Late Archaic totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from all Blocks and proveniences (upper andlower Leon Creek). Values in bottom total row include total counts/percents.

projectile that is a projectile point barb. The upperLeon Creek (lower Block B) yielded Ensor (Fig-ures 10.17a–c), Lange (Figure 10.17d), Marcos (Fig-ures 10.17e–f), Marshall (Figure 10.17g),Pedernales (Figure 10.16h–i), and Langtry (Figure10.17j) points. These point types are representativeof the Middle and late-Transitional Archaic periodin Texas (Turner and Hester 1999). There is oneunidentified medio-distal blade fragment (Figure

10.18a) and a proximal or basal fragment (Figure10.18b) that resembles a Pedernales base but re-mains untyped.

Edge-modified implements and bifaces occurin roughly equal proportions within lower Block B(upper Leon Creek), suggesting a relatively equalimportance of both formal and informal implementsand bifacial and core/flake technological strategies.


Figure 10.17. Projectile points from the upper Leon Creek component, early, Late Archaic period (ca. 3500–2388 B.P.): (a–c) Ensor; (d) Lange; (e–f) Marcos; (g) Marshall; (h–i) Pedernales; (j) Langtry .


components reflecting toolkit maintenance andwoodworking. Local sandstone grinding slabs andfragments are also more abundant from Leon Creekcontexts, although one fragment was recovered froman earlier Elm Creek component.

Late, Late Holocene: Payaya Component

The Payaya component represents the Late Pre-Columbian period (ca. 1200–400 B.P.) at the Rich-ard Beene site. Behavioral interpretations of the LatePre–Columbian Payaya component are limited be-cause of sample composition and a predominanceof debitage (Table 10.20). Meaningful technologi-cal ratios are not feasible. Debitage size grade dataare ratios are not feasible. Debitage size grade dataare broadly comparable with other assemblages fromthe Richard Beene site. The flaked artifact assem-blage includes two finished but fragmentary arrowpoints: one Perdiz-like arrow point with a brokentip and a Scallorn or Perdiz-like fragment with thestem and tip missing. Other implements include onehammerstone, a core, an edge-modified flake tool,one biface, and one tool of unknown function (Fig-ure 10.23).

Sample size is a distinctly limiting factor interms of understanding Payaya lithic technology.Obviously, arrow points were in use based on thepresence of two fragmentary specimens resemblingPerdiz and Scallorn types. It is assumed that therewere technological changes that were associatedwith the introduction of the bow and arrow.

Block and Paleosol Comparisons of ToolFunction and Tool Discard

Comparisons of tool function and tool discard atthe Richard Beene site provide information on tem-poral and probable spatial patterns of lithic behav-ior. Tool function was assessed by microscopic use-wear analysis of formal implements, minimallymodified tools, and unmodified but utilized flakes.Use-wear analysis was not conducted to assess ex-act worked materials, but to provide broad interpre-

Figure 10.18. Projectile point fragments from theupper Leon Creek component, early, Late Archaicperiod (ca. 3500–2388 B.P.): (a) unidentified medio-distal fragment; and (b) possible Pedernales base.

Edge-modified and bifacial artifacts are comparableto those recovered from earlier dated contexts (Fig-ures 10.19 and 10.20, respectively).

Associated with the edge-modified tool com-ponent is a small number of non-flaked artifacts fromlower Block B. Non-flaked implements include threehammerstones (Figure 10.21), a sandstone grind-ing slab (Figure 10.22), two hammerstones, and apiece of ochre. The presence of grinding slabs orfragments of these implements suggests the process-ing of vegetal food items. Such implements are notcharacteristic of other assemblages from the Rich-ard Beene site, although one sandstone grinding slabwas recovered from the Elm Creek paleosol.

Lower and upper Leon Creek lithic assemblageinterpretations are based primarily on Block B arti-facts. Debitage analysis indicates that both core re-duction and biface manufacture were manufactur-ing strategies of these assemblages. In addition toan increasing variety of projectile point types suchas Lange, Langtry, Marcos, Marshall, andPedernales, a tip fragment of what appears to be aneedle-sharp dart point was recovered from upperBlock A. Again, non-biface edge-modified artifacttypes represent a continuation of forms from earlier


Figure 10.19 Selected artifacts from the upper Leon Creek component, early, Late Archaic period (ca. 3500–2800 B.P.): (a–d) edge-modified tools and (e–h) cores.


Figure 10.20). Bifacial tools from the upper Leon Creek component, early Late Archaic period (ca. 3500–2800B.P.).

tations of tool motion and edge damage that couldbe used to develop behavioral inferences. All arti-facts were initially scanned for use wear with aNikon Stereomicroscope with a magnification rangeof 7–30X. Final functional interpretations and use-wear descriptions were performed using a WILDHeerbrugg Stereo-microscope with a magnificationrange of 6–100X. An Erinreich MKII fiber opticlight source was used in conjunction with both mi-croscopes. All tool margins and surfaces were ex-amined for use wear. Functional assessments anddescriptions were typically made between 40 and100X.

Functional classification follows the classesemployed by Ahler and Swenson (1985) in theiranalysis of lithic material from Big Hidatsa Village.The functional classifications, 66 in all, are mor-phological but also employ functional or tradition-ally typological terms such as drill, projectile point,knife, scraper, or spokeshave where deemed appro-priate. The following section discusses tool func-tional inferences by block and component. The pri-mary data for this section come from functional andmorphological analyses of all edge-modified toolsand bifaces.


Figure 10.21. Selected hammerstones from the upper Leon Creek component, early, Late Archaic period (ca.3500–2800 B.P.).

Tool Function in Upper Perez Component

Functional determinations and interpretations ofchipped stone artifacts from the upper Perez com-ponents were compromised somewhat by effects offlood scouring that redeposited artifacts (Chapter 4).Flood scouring resulted in as yet undetermined edgedamage to many specimens, although the amountof edge damage does not appear to have substan-tial. Nonetheless, results of the analysis presentedin Tables 10.21 and 10.22 are useful from an over-all site behavioral perspective. Due to size of thelithic assemblages, functional data are discussed inbroad categories and not specifically in relation toparticular tool types.

Bifaces present consistent results as having beenemployed in a variety of cutting, wedging, andadzing tasks, most probably related to wood-work-ing tasks. These data speak of a fairly specific rangeof tool motions and perhaps functions for non-pro-jectile point bifacial implements. Edge-modifiedflake tool functional data (Table 10.22) indicate agreater diversity of tasks or motions. By far, andnot surprisingly, retouched or utilized flakes used

on variable materials are most abundant in the as-semblage. Wear patterns on these implements werevariable, non-specific as to worked material, andexhibited varying combinations of abrasive andmicrofracture damage. Transverse scraping imple-ments used on hard material and a variety of beakedflake tools represent the next most abundant imple-ment types. These implements suggest that wood-working tasks were being conducted.

Whether the abundance of these tools can beequated to the rate at which these tasks were con-ducted or suggest that tools used in wood-workinghad a high attrition rate is not known presently. Otherindications of wood-working include the presenceof heavy-duty chopping tools, flake tools with den-ticulated edges, and flakes used to saw or slice hardmaterial.

Most interesting in terms of general abundance,variety of tool types, and functional inferences arethe biface and edge-modified implements fromBlocks Ha and Hb. Lithic assemblages from bothblocks suggest a similar array of tasks. To an ex-tent, the Block Hc assemblage is comparable as well.


Figure 10.22. Selected non-flaked artifacts from the upper Leon Creek component, early, Late Archaic period(ca. 3500–2800 B.P.): (a) grinding slab fragment and (b) ochre fragment.


Tool Function in Elm Creek Component

Two bifaces were recovered from the lower ElmCreek paleosol, in Block K. One is classified as ageneralized, patterned bifacial cutting tool and theother as a beveled scraping/adzing implement orClear Fork biface Figure 10.12g). There were only

four edge-modified implements recovered from ElmCreek contexts; two retouched or utilized flakes usedon variable material from Block K; a light-dutytransverse scraper used on soft material from BlockP.; and a beaked flake tool probably used as a slot-ting or grooving tool.

Component Block Cores Bifaces Edge modified

Non-flaked Points Debitage Totals

B (Payaya) B 1 1 1 1 2 622 628

Table 10.20. Late Pre–Columbian totals for flaked and non-flaked artifacts from all Blocks and proveniences(Payaya component). Values in bottom total row include total counts/percents.

Figure 10.23. Selected artifacts from the Payaya Component, Late Pre–Columbian period (ca. 1250–400 B.P.):(a) non-flaked cobble tool; (b) thick edge-modified tool; (c) fragment of a Perdiz arrow point; (d) drill fragment;and (e) Indian ceramic sherds.


Blo

ck

Sub-

bloc

k Bi

face

Fun

ctio

nal C

ateg

orie

s

Pr

ojec

tile

Perf

orat

or

Cut

ha

rd

mat

eria

l

Gen

eral

ized

cu

ttin

g

Punc

h/

wed

ge/

chis

el

Scra

ping

/ ad

zing

Gen

eral

ized

or

unk

now

n fu

nctio

n U

ndet

erm

ined

B

Bl

- -

- -

- -

1 1

H

H

- -

- 1

1 1

1 1

H

Ha

1 -

1 3

- 2

- 1

H

Hb

- 1

1 4

1 4

- 4

H

Hc

- -

- 1

1 3

- 1

J J

- -

- -

- 1

- -

L L

- -

1 2

- 2

- 1

N

N

- -

- -

- -

- -

T T

- 1

- -

- 1

- -

T T2

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

BHT

1 -

- -

- -

- -

- -

EDM

-

- -

1 -

1 -

- -

Gra

b -

- -

1 -

- -

- To

tals

-

1 2

3 13

3

15

2 9

Tabl

e 10

.21.

Bifa

ce fu

nctio

nal d

ata

for u

pper

Per

ez c

ompo

nent

s.


2. P

erfo

rato

r 5.

Bas

al sc

rape

r/grin

der

6. L

ight

dut

y tra

nsve

rse

scra

pers

use

d on

soft

mat

eria

ls

8. E

xped

ient

, gen

eral

pur

pose

cut

ting

tool

13

. La

tera

l scr

aper

use

d on

soft

mat

eria

l 14

. H

eavy

dut

y ch

oppi

ng, p

ound

ing

tool

15.

Gen

eral

ized

, pat

tern

ed b

ifaci

al c

uttin

g to

ols

17.

Tran

sver

se sc

rape

rs u

sed

on h

ard

mat

eria

ls

18.

Den

ticul

ated

flak

e to

ol

19.

Slot

ting,

gro

ovin

g to

ol (b

eak)

20

. G

ener

aliz

ed tr

ansv

erse

scra

ping

tool

22

. U

tiliz

ed fl

ake

used

to sa

w o

r slic

e ha

rd

mat

eria

l

23.

Ret

ouch

ed o

r util

ized

flak

e us

ed o

n va

riabl

e m

ater

ial

25.

Cor

e/pu

nch/

wed

ge/c

hise

l 27

. St

eep-

edge

d, h

eavy

dut

y sc

rapi

ng/a

dzin

g to

ol

30.

Gra

ving

, inc

isin

g to

ol

45.

Spok

esha

ve

99.

Und

eter

min

edB

lock

Su

b-bl

ock

Edg

e-M

odifi

ed

Func

tiona

l Cat

egor

y 2

5 6

8 13

14

15

17

18

19

20

22

23

25

27

30

45

99

B

B

l -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- H

H

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- 2

- -

- -

- H

H

a -

1 1

- -

- -

2 4

2 1

6 29

-

- -

- -

H

Hb

- -

6 1

- 2

- 8

- 6

1 7

52

- -

- -

6 H

H

c -

- -

- 1

- 1

- 1

2 -

- 19

-

- -

- 1

J J

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

5 -

- -

- -

L L

- -

1 -

1 -

- 1

- -

- -

5 -

- -

- -

N

N

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

T T

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

4 -

- -

- -

T T2

1

- -

- -

- -

1 -

- -

- 9

- -

- 1

3 -

BH

T 1

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- ED

M

1 -

- -

- 1

- 2

1 3

- -

15

2 1

1 -

3 -

Gra

b -

- -

- -

- -

1 -

- -

- 7

- -

- -

2

Tota

ls

- 2

1 8

1 2

3 1

15

6 13

2

13

147

2 1

1 1

15

Tabl

e 10

.22.

Edg

e-m

odifi

ed fu

nctio

nal d

ata

for u

pper

Per

ez c

ompo

nent

s.


Tool Function in lower and upper Medina Compo-nents

Bifacial artifacts from the lower and upper Medinacomponents represent the same general range offunctions or tasks as those from the upper Perezpaleosol (Table 10.23). The majority of bifaces wereemployed in a variety of functions and representuse on a variety of materials, although nothing spe-cific. Small numbers make interpretations difficult.Edge-modified implements are dominated by re-touched or utilized flakes used on a variety of ma-terials (Figures 10.14 and 10.16).

Block Gb (late, Early Archaic) is representativeof all Medina paleosol components and indicatesfunctional continuity with early Holocene flakedtools. Functional data suggest a greater importanceof wood-working tasks and a greater use of morespecialized wood-working implements compared toassemblages from later Holocene contexts (Figure10.15).

Tool Function in lower and upper Leon CreekComponents

Functional data from lower and upper Leon Creekcomponents (Table 10.24) indicate a similar rangeof tasks characterize these Holocene components.Bifacial artifacts (Figure 10.20) are associated witha rather narrow functional range and perhaps a lim-ited set of associated tasks. The most common tasksor tool motions are generalized cutting and scrap-ing/adzing, suggesting that bifaces may have beentypically associated with wood-working and pro-cessing a variety of other materials.

Edge-modified flake tools from upper LeonCreek assemblage were most commonly associatedwith working variable materials. The most commontool type is retouched or utilized flakes used on avariety of materials, but the rest of the assemblageis strongly oriented toward wood-working tasks andappears to represent a wood-working toolkit (ingeneral composition). Present are a single perfora-tor, a heavy-duty chopping/pounding tool, a den-ticulated flake tool, three beaked implements (slot-ting or grooving), a unifacial beveled tool used inscraping or adzing, and a spokeshave or notched

tool (Figure 10.19b). With the exception of certainblocks of the upper Perez, lower Block B exhibitsthe most clear-cut assemblage inferred to be associ-ated with wood-working tasks.

Tool Function in Payaya Component

The Payaya assemblage (Late Pre–Columbian) isthe smallest of all datasets from the Richard Beenesite. A single retouched or utilized flake used onvariable material was recovered from upper BlockB (Figure 10.23). It is not possible to place it intoany behavioral context.

Blank Types for Edge-Modified FlakeTools: A Block Comparison

Technological variability among different blanktypes used for modified and unmodified flake toolsis instructive and relates to tasks associated witheach assemblage. Nine different potential blanktypes were coded during the lithic analysis: (1)cobble; (2) cobble fragment; (3) cortex-free flake;(4) cortical flake; (5) macroflake; (6) blade; (7) burinspall; (8) core; and other/undetermined types. Edge-modified implements were selected for blank analy-sis because the majority of unfinished bifaces couldnot be identified as to blank type and most non-flaked implements were not appropriate for this typeof analysis. Table 10.25 provides summary countsof particular blank types for components and exca-vation blocks.

Some particularly interesting trends were de-tected in this analysis. First, blank types such asburin spalls and blades are limited entirely to earlyHolocene components. Second, blades as a blanktype for edge-modified tools are restricted to upperPerez components (Blocks Hb and Hc), and seemto co-occur with burin spalls. Cortical and non-cor-tical flakes are the most common blank types se-lected for edge-modified tool manufacture amongall components. This suggests that the majority ofthe technology used to produce tool blanks was ageneralized core reduction strategy and was char-acteristic of early, middle, and late Holocene occu-pations. Similarities can be observed among Blocks


Tabl

e 10

.23.

Bifa

cial

and

edg

e-m

odifi

ed to

ol fu

nctio

nal d

ata

from

the

Med

ina

com

pone

nts.

Blo

ck

Sub-

bloc

k Lo

wer

Med

ina

(late

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic)

Pr

ojec

tile

Perf

orat

or

Cut

, har

d m

ater

ial

Gen

eral

ized

cu

ttin

g Pu

nch/

w

edge

/ chi

sel

Scra

ping

/ ad

zing

G

ener

aliz

ed o

r un

know

n fu

nctio

n U

ndet

erm

ined

Bifa

ce F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

ies

G (L

M*)

G

a -

- -

1 -

- -

3

G (L

M*)

G

b 2

- -

4 -

2 6

2

G (L

M*)

G

c 1

- -

- -

- 2

-

Edg

e-m

odifi

ed T

ool F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

ies

17

19

23

46

27

99

-

-

G (L

M*)

G

a -

- 3

- -

- -

- G

(LM

*)

Gb

1 -

34

- 1

1 -

-

G (L

M*)

G

c -

- -

- -

1 -

-

Tot

als

- 22

19

60

52

28

10

3 8

5

Blo

ck

Sub-

bloc

k U

pper

Med

ina/

Low

er L

eon

Cre

ek (M

iddl

e A

rcha

ic)

Bifa

ce F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

ies

EDM

(U

M*)

-

- -

- -

- 1

- -

Edg

e-m

odifi

ed T

ool F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

ies

A (L

LC*)

A

u 1

- -

- -

- -

- A

(UM

*)

Al

- 1

- -

- -

- -

U (U

M*)

U

-

- 4

- -

- -

- ED

M

(UM

*)

- -

- -

1 -

- -

-

Tot

als

- 1

1 4

1 -

1 -

- *

UM

: upp

er M

edin

a com

pone

nt; L

M: l

ower

Med

ina

com

pone

nt; L

LC:

low

er L

eon

Cre

ek co

mpo

nent

.


Blo

ck

Sub-

bloc

k U

pper

and

Low

er L

eon

Cre

ek (L

ate

and

Mid

dle

Arc

haic

)

Fun

ctio

nal C

ateg

ory

Gen

eral

ized

cu

ttin

g Sc

rapi

ng/a

dzin

g G

ener

aliz

ed o

r un

know

n fu

nctio

n U

nde

term

ined

-

Bifa

ce F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

y B

(UL

C*)

B

l 25

2

2 17

-

Ed

ge-m

odifi

ed T

ool F

unct

iona

l Cat

egor

y

6

14

17

18

19

23

27

45

99

B

B

- -

2 1

- 5

- -

1 B

(UL

C*)

B

l 1

1 -

1 3

37

1 1

*

UL

C:

uppe

r Leo

n C

reek

com

pone

nt.

Tabl

e 10

.24.

Bifa

cial

and

edg

e m

odifi

ed fu

nctio

nal d

ata

from

upp

er a

nd lo

wer

Leo

n C

reek

com

pone

nts.


Com

pone

nt, O

ccup

atio

n, B

lock

C

obbl

e C

obbl

e Fr

agm

ent

Non

cort

ex

Flak

e C

orte

x Fl

ake

Mac

rofla

ke

Bla

de

Bur

in

Spal

l C

ore

Oth

er

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, H

-

- -

1 -

1 -

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, H

a -

3 24

20

1

- 2

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, H

b 3

10

34

45

- 3

1 1

1 up

per P

erez

, ear

ly, E

arly

Arc

haic

, Hc

- 1

9 10

-

1 1

- 1

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, J

-

- 2

3 -

- -

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, L

1

- 2

5 -

- -

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, T

-

- 2

- -

- -

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, T

2 -

- 10

4

1 -

- -

- up

per P

erez

, ear

ly, E

arly

Arc

haic

, Gra

b -

1 4

4 -

- 1

- -

uppe

r Per

ez, e

arly

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, E

DM

2

- 19

10

-

- -

- -

low

er E

lm C

reek

, mid

dle,

Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, K

-

- 1

1 -

- -

- 1

uppe

r Elm

Cre

ek, m

iddl

e, E

arly

Arc

haic

, I

- -

- -

- -

- -

-1

low

er M

edin

a, la

te, E

arly

Arc

haic

, Ga

- -

3 -

- -

- -

- lo

wer

Med

ina,

late

, Ear

ly A

rcha

ic, G

b -

1 20

11

-

- 3

- 1

low

er M

edin

a, la

te, E

arly

Arc

haic

, Gc

- -

- -

- -

1 -

- up

per M

edin

a, M

iddl

e A

rcha

ic, A

l -

- -

1 -

- -

- -

uppe

r Med

ina,

Mid

dle

Arc

haic

, U

- -

4 -

- -

- -

- up

per M

edin

a, M

iddl

e A

rcha

ic, E

DM

1

- -

- -

- -

- -

uppe

r Leo

n C

reek

, ear

ly, L

ate

Arc

haic

, B

- -

4 3

1 -

- -

- up

per L

eon

Cre

ek, e

arly

, Lat

e A

rcha

ic, B

l 1

1 26

11

-

2 -

- 2

Paya

ya, L

ate

Pre-

Col

umbi

an, B

u -

- -

1 -

- -

- -

Tota

ls

8 17

16

4 13

0 3

7 9

1 7

Tabl

e 10

.25.

Bla

nk ty

pes f

or e

dge-

mod

ified

tool

s fro

m 4

1BX

831.


Ha, Hb, Hc, and T of the upper Perez component,Block Gb of the lower Medina component, andlower Block B of the upper Leon Creek component.

Other technological, functional, and typologi-cal similarities have been demonstrated for thesecomponents indicating similar occupational inten-sity, site function, and technological organizationat the site across time and space. The upper Perezcomponent and associated assemblages, however,are distinctive in regard to the presence of bladesand small burin spalls/cores that may be indicativeof specialized activities which were not conductedin later time periods or were accomplished with adifferent toolkit.

Comparisons with Assemblages fromSurveyed and Tested Sites

Technological changes among various diagnosticartifacts at the Richard Beene site closely followthose well documented for south Texas (Turner andHester 1999). These have been described in somedetail above but have not been placed within a re-gional context with the rest of the data generatedduring the archaeological survey of the proposedApplewhite Reservoir impoundment area. Analy-ses of the survey and testing data from theApplewhite project area documented a variety ofdiagnostics representing Early Archaic through LatePre–Columbian/Protohistoric and Historic periods(Dockall and Pevny 2008).

Diagnostic projectile points and fragments in-dicate the broad time periods represented at sites inthe Applewhite Reservoir project area. Severaldozen sites located within a few km upstream of theRichard Beene site produced similar Early, Middle,and Late Archaic dart points and/or Late Pre–Columbian arrow points (Mandel et al. 2008;McCulloch et al. 2008). Late Pre-Columbian arrowpoints, however, comprised 57.5 percent of the alldiagnostic points, far more than was the case forthe Richard Beene site. These data suggest that sur-vey and testing efforts during the Applewhite Res-ervoir archaeological project primarily sampledyounger sites. While the some of the downstream

sites were on high terraces where projectile pointsof all different time periods were exposed on thesurface, most of the surveyed and tested sites wereon the Applewhite terrace. Artifacts exposed on theApplewhite terrace tended to be only a thousandyears old although it is likely that much older pro-jectile points were buried in the terrace fill well be-neath even the deepest test pits. Table 10.26 pro-vides summary data on temporal diagnostics recov-ered during survey efforts.

The variability of projectile points and bifacialdiagnostics recovered from surveyed and tested sitesis much greater than the projectile point variabilityencountered at 41BX831. Virtually all projectilepoint types identified from any one of the surveyedand tested sites are represented by single specimens.The Late Pre–Columbian period at several sites wasrepresented by multiple examples of a single type.The only other diagnostics recovered during thesurvey were a Guadalupe biface from 41BX526 andClear Fork tools from 41BX526 and 41BX872.

A single Angostura point from 41BX793 repre-sents early, Early Archaic occupation within the res-ervoir area, whereas more than a dozen specimenswere recovered from 41BX831. Documented early,Early Archaic occupation elsewhere in the reservoirarea is sparse attesting to the significance of theRichard Beene site assemblages from the upperPerez components.

Middle, Early Archaic evidence for occupationwithin the project area is more abundant. Represen-tative point types include Abasolo (41BX872),Bulverde (41BX526, 41BX854), Thinned-BaseEarly Triangular (41BX526, 41BX539, 41BX670),La Jita (41BX849), and Uvalde (41BX532). AUvalde point type was also recovered from41BX831. Again, the data suggest that evidence forEarly Archaic occupation, based on presence of di-agnostic points, is rather sparse and widely scatteredwithin the project area.

Middle Archaic evidence for occupation andsettlement within the project area is more abundantand perhaps suggests some logistical and subsistencechanges between the early and middle Holoceneperiods. Point styles representative of this period


include Carizzo (41BX528, 41BX544), Pedernales(isolated find, 41BX528, 41BX540, 41BX546,41BX831), Tortugas (41BX534, 41BX669,41BX793), Pandora (41BX552), Ellis (41BX554),and Marshall (41BX539).

Late Archaic types evidence an even greaterdiversity of point styles. Types found at sites in theproject area include Marcos (41BX528, 41BX858),Montell (41BX526, 41BX528, 41BX872), and Frio(41BX528, 41BX872). Transitional Archaic pointstyles are represented by two Ensor points(41BX528, 41BX537).

Untyped dart point preforms were found at41BX346 and 41BX534. Several finished butuntyped dart points were also found. These were asmall corner-notched specimen from 41BX537, alarger triangular corner-notched point from41BX528, two stemmed points from 41BX526, anda shouldered point from 41BX834. Miscellaneousfragments were recovered from three sites:41BX526, 41BX534, 41BX539.

Late Pre–Columbian evidence represents a mi-nor difference in projectile points recovered fromsurveyed and tested sites. The first notable differ-ence is that multiple examples of point types arefound at single sites more commonly than singlespecimens of dart points. The second notable dif-ference is that Late Pre–Columbian diagnostics arelimited to only four types: Alba (41BX528,41BX544), Edwards (41BX525, 41BX537,41BX544), Perdiz (41BX374, 41BX528, 41BX534,41BX537, 41BX544), and Scallorn. Other arrow

points include a unifacial contracting stemmed point(41BX669), a unifacial side-notched example(41BX528), and a stemmed point made on a bifacefragment (41BX863). Arrow point preforms wererecovered as surface finds from 41BX528,41BX534, and 41BX637.

A single Guerrero point was found at 41BX528and represents the Historic period. Within the projectarea, Protohistoric and Historic occupation was iden-tified at the Pampopa–Talon Crossing site (Thomsand Ahr 1995).

Summary and Conclusions

The Richard Beene site can be placed within a frame-work of a mobile group settlement pattern. The site’sartifact assemblages are defined spatially andstratigraphically. In that sense, each assemblage rep-resents a different occupation or at least spatiallysegregated sets of artifacts indicative of differenttasks. The site probably served as a base camp, lo-gistical and/or residential, within a mobile hunter–gatherer economic and subsistence system. Basedon observed patterning within and between differ-ent artifact assemblages recovered from the site, itprobably served alternately as both types of camps.Assemblage composition and size differences may,in part, document this phenomenon, which is re-lated to time, season, and duration of occupation.

Site 41BX831 can be considered a lithic rawmaterial source area, but only as incidental to uti-

Time Period Types Represented (whole identifiable) Count Percent early, Early Archaic Angostura 1 1.25

late, Early Archaic Abasolo, Bulverde, Thinned-Base Early Triangular, Uvalde, LaJita 8 10.00

Middle Archaic Carrizo, Pedernales, Tortugas, Pandora, Ellis, Marshall 14 17.50

Late Archaic Marcos, Montell, Frio 8 10.00 Transitional Archaic Ensor 2 2.50 Late Pre-Columbian Alba, Edwards, Scallorn, Perdiz 46 57.50

Historic/Protohistoric Guerrero 1 1.25 Totals - 80 100.00

Table 10.26. Summary data on recovered temporal diagnostic projectile points from the survey efforts.


lizing the site for other resources. The local lithicmaterial was not the primary reason for site loca-tion and occupation. Based on the presence of hearthfeatures and a diversity of tool types, food procure-ment and processing were undoubtedly the princi-pal focus of site occupation, with lithic material pro-curement and tool manufacture related to and sup-porting these activities.

Support for this inference is the relative scar-city of biface preforms and finished bifaces that weremanufactured of local material. Debitage and arti-facts that would document a biface manufacturestrategy as part of the lithic technology are scarceas well. Preforms and other unfinished and finishedbifaces seem to have been gear that was made oremployed off site, perhaps within the logistical andforaging radius of 41BX831. Broken and otherwiseworn out hunting gear was likely returned to thesite for repair, replacement, and discard. Primarilyvery late-stage shaping or sharpening seems to haveplace on site during gear repair. Again, support forthis inference is based on the dearth of projectilepoint preforms, manufacturing failures, and early-stage bifaces.

Local chert gravels were used to manufacture arange of heavy- and light-duty tools for resourceprocurement and processing. Wood-working imple-ments are a significant component of the preservedand recovered technological assemblage. They rep-resent an important aspect of the core reduction strat-egy at the Richard Beene site from the early to lateHolocene.

For Pre–Columbian lithic assemblages in gen-eral it is typically difficult to address questions aboutfunctional diversity since the types are an organiza-tional construct of the archaeologist. Moreover, therecovered tools represent only the discarded por-tion of the overall technology. Discarded tools suchas broken projectile points may not have been usedon site, but represent a different set of behaviorsnot directly associated with the main tasks at thesite.

In the case of 41BX831, the best understandingof tasks that were conducted at the site is obtainedfrom informal flake tools and non-projectile point

bifaces. Projectile points represent hunting, a taskthat occurred within the logistical or foraging ra-dius of the site but not on the site itself. Projectilepoint use on-site was almost entirely related to re-pair, replacement, and discard of broken gear. Thesewere probably ancillary activities conducted in as-sociation with the main resource procurement andprocessing tasks that were being conducted. This isnot to say that projectile point manufacture neveroccurred, but there is only limited evidence for it.An alternative could be that this task was spatiallysegregated elsewhere from those locations that wereexcavated.

High frequencies of expedient tools in the as-semblages from this site could reflect the use anddiscard of tools manufactured of local material inpartial effort to conserve personal gear and toolsmanufactured of non-local chert. The character ofthe lithic assemblage from the site suggests certainconvincing similarities with what Binford (1978a)had termed a foraging campsite.

It is apparent from the composition of the lithicassemblages that local raw materials played a sig-nificant role in the technological organization.Binford (1977, 1978a, 1979, and 1989) stressed thatvariables of mobility, resource distribution, and tool/task relationships were integrated with tactical andplanning depth (Binford 1989). Planning depth in-cludes tool manufacture, transport, and maintenance.Tactical planning is used to assure that technologi-cal needs are met. In terms of the Richard Beenesite, these variables undoubtedly formed a basis ofdecision making which structured the organizationof the lithic technology.

Provisioning was a key logistical behavior atthe Richard Beene site (cf. Kuhn 1990). Beginningin the early Holocene, lithic technology emphasizedactivity-level provisioning in which the majority oftools were manufactured, as items were needed, andthen discarded soon after use. This pattern of toolmanufacture and use is comparable to Binford’sconcept of expedient technology (Binford 1977,1979). A predictable supply of suitable lithic mate-rial is necessary for this level of provisioning tooccur.


Some of the technology at the site was orga-nized around provisioning to equip individuals withtoolkits and personal gear (Binford 1977). At theRichard Beene site this is reflected indirectly by thepresence of items that may be considered to haveformed components of personal gear. This wouldinclude projectile points, bifacial preforms and cut-ting implements, bifacial and unifacial adzing imple-ments, hammerstones, and formal unifaces.

At present, it is not possible to estimate the pro-portion of each assemblage that represents personalgear. Components of personal gear are typicallyunder heavier or more frequent use demands thanexpedient gear. This results in higher attrition, toolbreakage, repair, and replacement rates than expe-dient tools. Virtually every projectile point recov-ered from the site exhibits evidence of eitherresharpening prior to discard or represents basalfragments that were carried back to the site for re-placement. This similar pattern is also reflected in amajority of the beveled bifaces (i.e., Clear Fork andsimilar tools) and in unifaces. On the basis of lithicevidence, there is no direct indication that areas ofthe Richard Beene site were deliberately provi-sioned, either in terms of cached tools, tool blanks,or raw material. The geological occurrence of suit-able chert materials in the vicinity of the site wouldindicate that these types of provisioning activitieswere not necessary.

The research questions (Carlson et al. 1990) thatwere generated for the Applewhite Reservoir ar-chaeological project can be addressed to varyingdegrees with information derived from the presentlithic analysis. It is not certain when inhabitants firstarrived in the area, but it is known that the site envi-rons were intermittently occupied into the Late Pre–Columbian period. Also, based on excavation data,it is certain that there are undisturbed or at leastminimally disturbed deposits dating to the early tolate Holocene periods.

Throughout the Holocene period subsistencepatterns and associated technology remained suffi-ciently the same to argue that a broad-spectrum for-ager pattern of subsistence was practiced. Techno-logical changes were primarily associated with for-

mal tools such as bifaces and projectile points. Styleschanging but the same basic functions remained.

Research questions concerning technology canbe addressed in greater detail. The composition ofthe toolkit for much of the Holocene at the RichardBeene site remained quite stable. This suggests: (1)the site continued to fill the same role within theforager regimen; (2) subsistence and technologicalbehaviors remained comparable across time; and (3)perhaps use became less intensive over time.

Toolkit composition included both a curated andformal aspect as well as an expedient component.The formal, curated implements included heavilyretouched and hafted unifacial tools, hafted andunhafted bifacial knives and preforms, and projec-tile points. Evidence that these implements werecurated is represented by the presence and abun-dance of basal point fragments, worn out retouchedflake tools, heavily retouched and resharpened pro-jectile points, and other bifaces. Expedient toolsmade with hard and/or soft hammers include thickand thin flakes with a variety of edge morphologiesthat may have been functionally relevant. The abun-dance of denticulated, serrated, notched/beakedflake tools coupled with varied wear patterns sug-gests the exploitation of a number of different envi-ronmental resources. Wear patterns of expedientflake tools and bifacial adzes indicate that woodprocurement and modification was a common ac-tivity.

Comparative Studies

Some of the more appropriate studies to which theRichard Beene site can be compared are found in arecent volume by Anderson and Sassaman (1996),entitled The Paleoindian and Early Archaic South-east. The comparison of 41BX831 with the greaterSoutheastern United States is legitimate on severalgrounds, one of the most logical being that of geog-raphy. Wissler (1917) described the environs thatencompass the site as ecotonal between the Plainsand Southeast culture areas. Thoms (Chapter 2)noted the geographic position of the site within thePost Oak Savannah on the southern edge of the GreatPlains. The site lies within the inner portion of the


West Gulf Coastal Plain within 50 km of the GreatPlains province. Floral and faunal characteristicsindicate a broad similarity with the rest of the WestGulf Coastal Plain.

One of the more notable aspects of the earlyHolocene technology of the Richard Beene site isthat it is predominantly expedient in character. Otherresearchers have documented a similar technologi-cal shift from curated to expedient lithic technologi-cal organization between 9800–9000 B.P. (Ander-son and Sassaman 1996:27–28). This shift, theysuggested, marked change to a foraging subsistencesystem based on residential mobility.

In his discussion of Early Archaic settlementpatterns along the Savannah River floodplain ofSouth Carolina, Daniel (1996:88–89) noted that acomparison of the abundance of formal versus ex-pedient tools revealed differences between a col-lector settlement system and a forager settlementsystem. He noted in a comparison of seven Savan-nah River sites that expedient tools dominated lithicassemblages, hence a forager strategy. Other linesof data from the site suggest the Richard Beene sitefits well with this pattern of a forager settlementsystem dominated by a generalized subsistence regi-men. But Daniel also concluded that the differencesin raw material use patterns along the SavannahRiver were influenced by local geological condi-tions, a conclusion that can likewise be readily ap-plied to the Richard Beene site.

In terms of assemblage composition and sitetype, the Richard Beene site resembles the HawRiver site (31CH29) in North Carolina (Cable 1996).This site lies within a Holocene alluvial terrace inthe Haw River Valley and a number of block exca-vations produced lithic assemblages associated withdiscrete occupations spanning the early to middleHolocene contexts. Culturally, occupations spannedthe period from the Late Paleoindian to the MiddleArchaic periods. Here again, comparisons of expe-dient versus curated implements demonstrated abroad-spectrum forager model of subsistence andsettlement. The complement of curated and expedi-ent tool types from Haw River closely resemblesthose of 41BX831. There were eleven curated tool

types and nine expedient tool types. Curated typesfrom Haw River are projectile points and fragments,thick retouched unifaces, thin retouched unifaces,combination unifacial implements, bifacial tools andcores, flake blanks, chopping implements, and drills.

Expedient tools from the Haw River site includethick retouched unifaces, utilized flakes, flake cores,flakes with bifacial retouch, various forms of modi-fied flake tools, and flake adzes. Allowing for ana-lytical differences in artifact classification, theseclasses are in the range of variability of implementsidentified from various components at RichardBeene.

Cable (1996) concluded that some of the occu-pational floors at Haw River represented logisticalfield camps (cf. Binford 1978a) that were the focusof a variety of different activities, including imple-ment repair and discard of curated and expedienttools, along with a limited amount of subsistence-related activity. Both Haw River and Richard Beenesites exhibit a fairly restricted range of expedienttool variability. Most of the flake tools from bothsites are variations on a theme differing in edgeshape and mode of retouch and size, but withoutextensive modification.

The difference between these sites is largely inthe greater abundance of extensively modified flakesor unifaces at Haw River, suggesting to Cable (1996)that some of the occupations represented short-termlogistical camps used for bulk processing of mate-rials procured by hunting. Given the amount ofburned rock and the absence of significant numbersof formal or extensively modified implements fromany occupations at Richard Beene, hunting and pro-cessing of resources procured via hunting do notappear to have been common activities. Rather, theburned rock, hearths, grinding implements, and va-riety of expedient and limited formal tools that doappear seem to have been used to work a variety ofmaterials, wood among them. These findings indi-cate that the Richard Beene site was the locus forprocurement and processing of an array of perish-able riverine or woodland resources, a different sortof bulk processing than that observed at Haw Riverby Cable (1996).


The Wilson–Leonard site lithic assemblage(Collins et al. 1998) provides an excellent compara-tive assemblage to that from the Richard Beene site.Numbers aside, the early, Early Archaic Wilson–Leonard and Richard Beene assemblages reflectsome similarities. Both assemblages have lanceolateand stemmed/indented-base point types, distallybeveled bifaces, a number of specialized flake tooltypes, burin/burin spalls, pieces esquillee, thick andthin unifaces, and spurred or beaked implements.Both sites also had implements that probably func-tioned in plant processing. Waco Sinkers andgrooved stones are characteristic only of the Wil-son–Leonard assemblage, although one groovedstone, possibly a bola stone, was recovered fromsediments dating to about 7600 B.P. at the RichardBeene site.

Wilson–Leonard is characterized by a greatervariety of stemmed/indented-base point types suchas Hoxie, Gower, and Jetta. Late, Early Archaicforms from the site include Uvalde, Baker, Bandy,and Martindale. There is one specimen from theupper Perez paleosol at the Richard Beene site thatmay fit within the Hoxie–Gower–Jetta morphologi-cal scheme. This specimen (Figure 10.7b) has beenreworked distally, but has lateral edge grinding onboth sides of the stem. Lateral grinding is also acommon technological feature of both lanceolateand stemmed points at Wilson–Leonard. Distalresharpening and alternate edge blade beveling char-acterize points from both sites.

Both sites have Clear Fork tools in associationwith Early Archaic lithic assemblages. At Wilson–Leonard, Clear Fork bifaces occur throughout thesequence but the unifacial form appears only in thelater part of the Early Archaic timeframe. This tech-nological transition is not seen at the Richard Beenesite, as bifacial forms persist through time andunifacial forms are absent.

At the Wilson–Leonard site, unlike the RichardBeene site, there were a number of large tools andbifacial preforms in addition to a variety of burins,unifacial tools, and perforators (Collins et al.1998:224). A small number of ground-stone imple-ments such as manos and unpitted metates were re-covered from the site in addition to Waco Sinkers

and a grooved stone. The metate or grinding slabfragments recovered from various late, Early Ar-chaic contexts at Richard Beene were also unpittedand slab-like but were much fewer in number andvariability.

One of the more important analytical studiesfrom the Wilson–Leonard site is the debitage andflake analysis conducted by Masson (2000). Herstudy was focused on the analysis and interpreta-tion of the small flake component (flakes less than2.5 cm in maximum dimension).

Results of Masson’s study demonstrate thatmuch of the lithic reduction at the Wilson–Leonardsite was organized with an emphasis on later-stagebifacial thinning. There was a strong reliance onlocally available, fine-grained cherts with only aminor increase in some coarse-grained varieties overtime. Cortex types and patterning indicated that siteoccupants preferred nodular cobbles with a possibleshift to some upland residual gravel sources later intime. The Richard Beene site evidence also indi-cates use of local nodules of chert procured fromgravel deposits. There appears to have been no iden-tifiable technological shift to upland residual gravelsources. The Wilson–Leonard data suggest a for-ager-type subsistence strategy, but the technologywas directed largely toward biface manufacture.Richard Beene technology was organized towardexpedient tool manufacture, tool use, and curatedtool maintenance and resharpening.

A brief comparison with Plainview projectilepoints from the San Isidro site, Nuevo Leon, Mexico,with the Angostura points from 41BX831 is inter-esting. The majority of points from San Isidro ar-gue for a repeated and intermittent occupation be-tween the Late Paleoindian and Archaic periods. Keyelements include a series of Plainview points and anumber of Clear Fork tools. Excavations at SanIsidro yielded 14 Plainview points (Epstein1969:29–30), in marked contrast to the single speci-men from Richard Beene. However, as with Angos-tura points from the Richard Beene site, San IsidroPlainview points are dominated by fragmentarybases and reworked points. Most appear to repre-sent haft breaks.


Of the Clear Fork tools that were recovered atSan Isidro, both unifacial and bifacial specimens arerepresented. Eight specimens were found: fourwhich conformed to Ray’s Gouge 1 type in beingbifacial and four which are unifacial and conformto Ray’s Gouge 2 type (Epstein 1969:39). Theunifacial specimens were manufactured from thickpercussion flakes of a tan limestone. Only one bifa-cial gouge was manufactured from chert. Six illus-trated specimens in the San Isidro report (Epstein1969:41: Figure 7) show a general consistency inmaximum width with variability in planview shapefrom ovate to triangular, with bit contour varyingfrom straight to slightly convex to concave. Themajority of these implements were complete, incontrast to the specimens from the Richard Beenesite. A similar range of shapes, however, is notedamong Clear Fork tools from Richard Beene.

Ethnoarchaeology and Woodworking

The most pertinent ethnographic and ethno-archaeo-logical study of stone tools associated with wood-working is that conducted by Hayden (1979) amongthe Australian Aborigines. Hayden focused his studyon stone tool function, morphology, and context.General characteristics of the replicated and archaeo-logical stone tools associated with wood-workingincluded a mix of formal and expediently manufac-tured forms. These included chopping implements,adzes, a variety of hand-held modified and unmodi-fied flake tools (scrapers, notches, denticulates, andburins), flake saws, impact flakes, and wood-grind-ing implements. Most of these general categoriesand forms of tools, the notable exception beingburins, were present in most of the component as-semblages at 41BX831. The similarities betweentoolkits described and discussed by Hayden andformal and flake tool variability observed at41BX831 strongly suggest that portions of the sitetechnology reflect an array of wood-working tasksand repair and replacement of wood-working com-ponents of portable lithic toolkits.

The 41BX831 lithic assemblages and those dis-cussed by Hayden (1979) both evidence a mix offormal and generalized core reduction strategies (fol-lowing Cobb and Webb 1994; Johnson 1986; Parryand Kelly 1985; Teltser 1991). A mix of core reduc-

tion strategies can be viewed as logistical flexibil-ity within the technological system that allowed toolmakers and users access to a variety of tools ofmultiple and specific functions. The lithic assem-blages from 41BX831 also reflect a mix of tool re-pair, tool replacement, and specialized wood-work-ing toolkits.

These types of activity sets are strong evidenceto support an argument that the assemblages wereassociated with short-term repeated occupations ofat least several days’ duration. This setting is simi-lar to that documented by Hayden during his re-search among the Australian Aborigines (Hayden1979). One striking example of the lithic assemblagefrom Richard Beene is the general rarity of suchheavy-duty wood-working implements such ashandheld or hafted axes, heavy wedges, or otherheavy chopping implements. Behaviorally, this sug-gests that heavy procurement tasks were rarely con-ducted at the Richard Beene site. A similar patternwas noted by Hayden (1979:15) for Western Desertand Tasmanian groups and it correlated with rela-tively small wooden artifact inventories (small interms of numbers of wooden artifacts).

In terms wooden artifacts that might have beenmanufactured and utilized by the inhabitants of41BX831, there are some basic comparisons thatcan be made with the Western Desert and Tasma-nian groups. As with these groups and probably themajority of Paleolithic stone tool-using hunter–gath-erer band level groups known, the most commonimplements were the digging stick, spears and com-ponents, traps, and some type of wooden throwingstick or club.

Examples of the types of wooden artifacts whichmay have been represented among the inhabitantsof the Richard Beene site are reflected in the pre-served wooden artifacts from the Trans Pecos andLower Pecos areas of West Texas. Included are rab-bit sticks, hearth sticks, spear shafts, digging sticks,arrow shafts, and bows, among a variety of otheritems (Hamilton 2001; Shafer 1986). Wood is notnecessarily the only material that could be modi-fied with these tools. Occasional artifacts manufac-tured from bone or soft stone could also have beenmodified with the same range of stone tools inferred


to have been used to work wood. Seldom consid-ered is the idea that this range of tools is also suit-able for preparing materials for woven items suchas sandals, baskets, trays, and matting and for com-ponents of snares, traps, and nets.

Hayden (1979) makes a further important dis-tinction between the Western Desert and most Pale-olithic stone tool inventories used for wood-work-ing. That distinction is the presence of the hafted

adze among the Western Desert groups. There aretemporal differences at 41BX831 that suggest ei-ther a general reorganization of lithic toolkits ori-ented toward wood-working, logistical changes intoolkit structure toward more hunting dominatedimplements, or both. This is attested by the pres-ence of hafted beveled bifaces and unifaces withinthe Early and Middle Archaic periods and their ab-sence in Late Archaic and Late Pre–Columbian pe-riod assemblages.

lithic assemblages: transitions of …...orientation for the lithic analysis follows the research...

Documents