LABRADOR ARCHAIC LITHICSA STUDY IN METRICS AND MATERIALS

Joshua Keddy

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 20

LABRADOR ARCHAIC LITHICSA STUDY IN METRICS AND MATERIALS

byJoshua Keddy

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 202015

Copetown Press, St. John’s

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 20ii

No part of this book may be reproduced by any means without written consent of the publisher, except for brief quotations in scholarly works or reviews.

Copetown PressSt. John’s, NL, Canada

www.copetownpress.com copetownpress@nl.rogers.com

Copyright © 2015 Copetown Press

Cataloguing and Citation Information

Author: Keddy, JoshuaTitle: Labrador Archaic Lithics. A Study in Metrics and Materials.Series: Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology (No. 20)Imprint: Copetown PressPlace of Publication: St. John's, NL, CanadaDate: 2015

vi, 103, 39 illustrations, 26 tables, bibliography, appendices. Paperback.

Archaeology; History; Antiquities; Labrador; Newfoundland and Labrador; Canada;

ISSN: 0847-1533ISBN: 978-1-895087-29-1

Keddy: Labrador Archaic Lithics iii

11L 5.1 MaterialsThe Labrador Archaic lithic assemblages that were analyzed were composed of a number of different materials, and certain materials stand out as being staples within these lithic traditions, namely quartzes and quartzites of varying qualities, Ramah chert, Mugford cherts, and slate. A number of other lithic types occur consistently, but in much small-er quantities on Labrador Archaic sites; minerals such as silicified slate, schist, gneiss,

granite, jasper, mica, rose and smoky quartz, soapstone, sandstone, and rhyolite. As well feldspar, hornblende, limestone, and different aggregate minerals and tuffs are includ-ed in the collections of these eight sites, but not with distinct cultural modifications; if they are cultural they could have been collected as curiosities or for unknown social or cultural purposes. The final material from these sites is a variety of fine grained, opaque black chert referred to in Chapter 2 as Black Ramah or Kaumajet Black. Artifacts of this

material are scarce (2.0% of the total collections from all eight sites), and debitage is even more elusive (0.2% of the weight of debitage from the assembled collections), indicating

that black chert was likely worked off site and transported on site as finished artifacts.The raw materials from which the lithic collections are formed tell part of the story about

who made and used these tools, and how they conceived of their actions. The major sources for consistently high quality raw materials in northern Labrador are confined to a small number of known locations, while low quality materials are abundant 5.1 MaterialsThe Labrador Archaic lithic assemblages that were analyzed were composed of a number of different materials, and certain materials stand out as being staples within these lithic traditions, namely quartzes and quartzites of varying qualities, Ramah chert, Mugford cherts, and slate. A number of other lithic types occur consistently, but in much small-er quantities on Labrador Archaic sites; minerals such as silicified slate, schist, gneiss,

granite, jasper, mica, rose and smoky quartz, soapstone, sandstone, and rhyolite. As well feldspar, hornblende, limestone, and different aggregate minerals and tuffs are includ-ed in the collections of these eight sites, but not with distinct cultural modifications; if they are cultural they could have been collected as curiosities or for unknown social or cultural purposes. The final material from these sites is a variety of fine grained, opaque black chert referred to in Chapter 2 as Black Ramah or Kaumajet Black. Artifacts of this

material are scarce (2.0% of the total collections from all eight sites), and debitage is even more elusive (0.2% of the weight of debitage from the assembled collections), indicating

that black chert was likely worked off site and transported on site as finished artifacts.The raw materials from which the lithic collections are formed tell part of the story about

who made and used these tools, and how they conceived of their actions. The major sources for consistently high quality raw materials in northern Labrador are confined to a

small number of known locations, while low quality materials are abundant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... ivLIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... viABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 Focus of Research ...................................................................................................................1 Why Research Extant Collections? .........................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2: HISTORY OF MARITIME ARCHAIC RESEARCH ...................................5 The Maritime Archaic in Newfoundland and Labrador .........................................................5 Paleoclimatic Factors in Post-Glacial Labrador .....................................................................9 Northern and Southern Branches of the Maritime Archaic ....................................................9 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................11 Site Selection.........................................................................................................................11 Artifact Categories ................................................................................................................16 Material Analysis ..................................................................................................................24 Metric Analysis .....................................................................................................................27 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...........................................................................................................31 Total Lithic Assemblage .......................................................................................................32 Individual Site Assemblages .................................................................................................36 Assemblage Metrics ..............................................................................................................50 Geometric Morphometrics ....................................................................................................53

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................57 Materials ................................................................................................................................57 Metric Analysis .....................................................................................................................66 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................77 Expediency ............................................................................................................................77 Contending with Climate 6500-5000 BP ..............................................................................81 The Last Word .......................................................................................................................81 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................83

APPENDICES A - E ..................................................................................................................93

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 20iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the Northeast, showing generalised distributions of some of the Archaic complexes discussed, and some locations mentioned in the text ....................................2Figure 2. Locations of sites used for analysis ...............................................................................13Figure 3. Hammerstones, AcCh-7 .................................................................................................17Figure 4. Cores/hammerstones of high-quality quartz, AcCh-7 ...................................................17Figure 5. Schist tablets, AdCh-7 ...................................................................................................18Figure 6. Bifaces ...........................................................................................................................19Figure 7. Projectile points .............................................................................................................20Figure 8. Endscrapers ....................................................................................................................21Figure 9. Celts ...............................................................................................................................22Figure 10. Adzes .............................................................................................................................23Figure 11. Semi-lunar knives ..........................................................................................................25Figure 12. Knapped semi-lunar knives ...........................................................................................25Figure 13. Projectile point outline showing the four structures measured using TPSDig. .............29Figure 14. A comparison of length measurements taken using calipers and digital methods .........................................................................................................................55Figure 15. Material frequencies within debitage collections ..........................................................59Figure 16. A vein of quartz in the bedrock on Black Island ...........................................................60Figure 17. Material frequencies within the artifact assemblages of each site ................................60Figure 18. Total material distributions by artifact type ...................................................................62Figure 19. A model for quartz use on early Labrador Archaic sites ...............................................63Figure 20. Frequency of each artifact type made from quartz ........................................................63Figure 21. Frequency of each artifact type made from Ramah Chert .............................................64Figure 22. Two examples of the re-use of broken artifacts .............................................................65Figure 23. Dimensions of expedient flake tools from each site ......................................................66Figure 24. Dimensions of retouched flake tools from each site ......................................................67Figure 25. Dimensions of retouched/utilized flakes from each site ................................................67Figure 26. Dimension of utilized flakes from each site ..................................................................68Figure 27. Material frequencies within the expedient flake tools assemblages from all sites ..................................................................................................................68Figure 28. Dimensions of endscrapers from Early Labrador Archaic sites ....................................69Figure 29. Variation in endscraper shape ........................................................................................70Figure 30. Percentages of different endscraper shapes from each site ...........................................70Figure 31. Inter-site variations in the structure of the distal end of endscrapers ............................70Figure 32. A 'scraper' from Nukasusutok 5 (HcHc-07:210) ............................................................71Figure 33. Flake points and micropoints .........................................................................................72Figure 34. Projectile points .............................................................................................................73Figure 35. Projectile point proportions ...........................................................................................74Figure 36. Distribution of projectile point shoulder widths from Early Labrador Archaic site ....................................................................................................................74Figure 37. Late Labrador Archaic projectile points from the Rattlers Bight site ...........................75Figure 38. Different artifact types showing similarities in shape or manufacturing techniques ......................................................................................................................78Figure 39. Diagram showing different levels of risk vs consequences during the knapping process .....................................................................................................80

Keddy: Labrador Archaic Lithics v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Site chronology ...............................................................................................................31Table 2. Investigative strategies ....................................................................................................32Table 3. Total debitage ..................................................................................................................33Table 4. Total assemblage of lithic artifacts by raw material type ................................................35Table 5. Ballybrack 10 debitage ....................................................................................................36Table 6. Evilik Bay 5 debitage ......................................................................................................37Table 7. Imilikuluk 5 debitage.......................................................................................................38Table 8. Gull Arm 1 debitage ........................................................................................................39Table 9. Nukasusutok 5 debitage...................................................................................................39Table 10. Cutthroat Island 2 debitage..............................................................................................40Table 11. Dog Bight L9 debitage ....................................................................................................41Table 12. Ballybrack 10 artifacts by raw material type...................................................................42Table 13. Evilik Bay 5 artifacts by raw material type .....................................................................43Table 14. Dog Island Southwest 1 artifacts by raw material type ...................................................44Table 15. Imilikuluk 5 artifacts by raw material type .....................................................................45Table 16. Gull Arm 1 artifacts by raw material type .......................................................................46Table 17. Nukasusutok 5 artifacts by raw material type .................................................................47Table 18. Cutthroat Island 2 artifacts by raw material type ............................................................48Table 19. Dog Bight L9 artifacts by raw material type ...................................................................49Table 20. Total expedient flake tools ...............................................................................................51Table 21. Utilized flakes ..................................................................................................................51Table 22. Retouched flakes..............................................................................................................52Table 23. Retouched/utilized flakes ................................................................................................52Table 24. Endscrapers .....................................................................................................................54Table 25. Projectile points ...............................................................................................................54Table 26. Dimensions and proportions of projectile points based on the geometric morphometric analysis ....................................................................................................56

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 20vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), Memorial University School of Graduate Studies, Memorial University Department of Archaeology, and the Memorial University Graduate Student Union.

Right off the bat I’d like to extend my absolute and sincerest thanks to my MA thesis super-visor, Dr. Lisa Rankin. Thank you for axing my more crackpot ideas before they got too far along, and for your helpful suggestions and constructive criticism on the rest. For not losing hope or at least for not letting me know that you had, thanks Lisa.

I’d like to thank The Rooms Provincial Museum for allowing me to study collections held there, and Elaine Anton for getting me space to conduct my research in the basement and for all her help tracking down and wrangling collections and catalogues, setting up for photos, and generally showing me the ropes. Also I’d like to thank Ashley for her volunteer work, and Art for taking photos that were invaluable even if they never made their way into this paper.

Thanks to my fellow graduate students for sharing the burden and bewilderment inherent in this process, and to Bitters for helping to soothe both of those. Nate, thanks for introducing me to geo-metric morphometrics and coaching me through the learning process. Thanks to Pat and Heather for being exemplary roommates, and to Mary and Jack for all they’ve done.

Thanks to Mom and Dad for occupying both ends of the encouragement spectrum. Dad, thanks for pushing me to keep going, and for the support and the couch in Ottawa. Mom, you drove me to Newfoundland seven years ago, and you’ve been a constant source of encouragement and support ever since. Thanks for knowing that I’m not looking for dinosaur bones.

Finally I’d like to acknowledge and thank those researchers who preceded me into Labrador’s past. This research was conducted on extant collections, and I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who excavated and curated these assemblages for their outstanding work. Without the excel-lent archaeological investigations of these scholars this undertaking would not have been possible.

ABSTRACT

The lithic collections from eight Early to Middle Labrador Archaic sites were examined to deter-mine whether material and morphological trends might be recognized which relate to the cultural shift from the Early to Middle Labrador Archaic occupations of northern Labrador. Despite a con-siderable amount of previous research on this time period in this region, a mathematical metric and material description of these changes does not currently exist in the literature. This analysis was undertaken on collections excavated over the last 40 years in order to fill in that gap and create a firm quantitative basis from which future research can be launched. Towards this end traditional measurement techniques as well as modern digital approaches to artifact analysis were undertaken in order to better understand any such morphological shifts. Material frequencies within the col-lections were analyzed and factors including the distance from each site to the source areas of lithic types, as well as risk management within the lithic reduction process, were determined to have had an impact on Labrador Archaic lithic strategies.

1

INTRODUCTION

Eight thousand years ago northern Labrador could be characterised as mostly tundra, although there were glacial remnants and localised weather systems and vegetation patterns (Fitzhugh

& Lamb 1985:363). It was in this harsh environment that the Maritime Archaic people lived and thrived. They were the first inhabitants of Newfoundland and Labrador: the earliest members of the group appeared between 7500 and 8000 years ago, and they remained in the region for close to 4000 years after that, surviving environmental changes and encounters with new cultural groups (Fitzhugh 2006:51-64). Although the Maritime Archaic persisted throughout this period as a cul-tural entity, this is not to say that their culture did not change. Those Maritime Archaic people who settled in northern Labrador are known archaeologically as the Northern Branch of the Maritime Archaic, or simply the Labrador Archaic (Rankin 2008a:5; Tuck pers. comm:2012). The Southern Branch of the Maritime Archaic occupied the Strait of Belle Isle, the island of Newfoundland, and regions further south (Figure 1).

The Labrador Archaic comprises three major phases: Early (7500-6000 BP), Middle (6000-4200 BP) and Late (4200-3500 BP) (Fitzhugh 2006:51-55). These phases have been further sub-divided into complexes such as Naksak and Sandy Cove (Hood 2008:175; Rankin 2006:33-34).

FOCUS OF RESEARCH

My research is focused on lithic artifacts which were produced during the transition between the Early and Middle phases of the Labrador Archaic. While these terms are fairly broad, the more spe-cific cultural complexes identified within the Labrador Archaic are either geographically or tempo-rally inappropriate for my research scope. The lithic material from the Early and Middle phases of the Labrador Archaic is considered diagnostic of the shift between these two cultural periods. The changes in lithic tool forms include a switch from basic triangular or “nipple based” projectile points to more elongated specimens with pronounced shoulders and haftable stems (Tuck 1976:50-51), as well as an increase in the use of materials like Ramah chert and slate, and a diminishing use of local lithic materials (Fitzhugh 2006:53). I looked specifically at Labrador Archaic sites which date to between five and seven thousand years BP, with the aim of quantifying the lithic changes which occurred between the cultural phases and determining possible causes for them.

Despite the fact that this shift in stone technologies is the basis for the separation of Early and Middle Labrador Archaic phases, none of the major publications reference an in-depth metric analysis of the lithic material using multiple collections from sites dating to this period (Fitzhugh 1976, 1997; Hood 2008; Tuck 1971, 1976). This is not to say that this change has not been observed, but simply that analysis of the lithic material from this time has remained largely descriptive. Albeit these descriptions are often illustrated with artifact photographs (Tuck 1976:50-51), they do remain qualitative statements (Hood 2008:175-176; Tuck 1976:51). A substantial collection of material was recently returned to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador by the Smithsonian Institution, and from these existing collections I was able to select a wide range of applicable material to conduct a more substantial quantitative lithic analysis. My aim was to

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 202

determine and document any change through time in the size, shape, and distribution of tools and tool types from these collections.

I also examined possible correlations between changes in tool type/morphology and the changing frequencies of raw material use evident in the collections. The Early-Middle transition within the Labrador Archaic has been linked to the increased use of Ramah chert and a decline in the use of other materials like locally available cherts, quartzes, and rhyolites (Fitzhugh 2006:53; Tuck 1971:2). However, this change in lithic material use has not been demonstrated systematic-ally and across multiple collections. The interplay between lithic materials and the forms of the tools made from them is an integral part of Early to Middle Labrador Archaic lithic traditions. Determining how material use changed over time is as important as determining how tool form changed to better understand how the Labrador Archaic people organized their lithic technologies.

Finally I used digital image analysis software to complete some of my metric analysis. This was done in order to explore the potential utility of these programs for archaeologists. Although the programs I used (TPSutil and TPSdig) were originally developed for use in the field of biology they

Moorehead

/ Red Pain

t

Labrador Archaic

Maritim

e Arch

aicLaurentian

Newfoundland

Labrador

Nain

Port au

L’Anse

Groswater Bay

Labrador Straits

Ramah Bay

Amour

Choix

km0 500

Figure 1. Map of the Northeast, showing generalised distributions of some of the Archaic complexes dis-cussed, and some locations mentioned in the text.

Keddy: Labrador Archaic Lithics 3

work well for studying archaeological collections. The programs were first tested against caliper measurements to ensure their accuracy, and then used to analyze projectile points; unfortunately, due to the small number of projectile points in the collected assemblages the more complex statis-tical applications offered by these programs were not used. Aside from this these programs proved to be useful in studying collections without handling the actual physical artifacts which can cut down on travel and courier costs involved in studying distant collections. Also the measurement tools built into these programs are extremely effective at retrieving and recording accurate metric data from artifact photos. Hopefully the promising (if somewhat limited) results from testing these programs within an archaeological context will entice other researchers to apply them to their own research.

It is my hope that an in depth analysis of lithic assemblages from Labrador Archaic sites can help illuminate how these people perceived their interactions with their world. In contemporary society we interact with out surroundings in a much less personal manner than in the past. We rou-tinely use tools made from natural materials like metal and wood, but these tools come ready-made and using them gains us no experiential concept of the connection between those tools and their component parts. The Labrador Archaic people had to face their environment and their place within it much more directly. The tools they used were made from materials which were likely procured by them or at least by someone they knew. This tactile proximity to their world is reflected in how they structured their technological lifestyles, especially regarding tool form and raw material selection. By understanding how the different facets of Early to Middle Labrador Archaic lithic assemblages interacted with each other, it is possible to decipher some of the factors which influ-enced the creation of these lithic assemblages, and which reflect Early to Middle Labrador Archaic world views.

WHY RESEARCH EXTANT COLLECTIONS?

Although fieldwork was an option for this project I chose to work with extant museum collections for several reasons. First and foremost, the collections currently held at The Rooms Provincial Museum contain many Labrador Archaic lithic assemblages, even more so with the collections which were recently returned by the Smithsonian Institution. Museum collections are considered to possess potential for research, reference, or exhibition (Burcaw 1997:65). However much of the ar-chaeological material that gets put into museums is not revisited for study or use and their potential remains untapped. Furthermore, collection space within museums is a limited commodity which requires financial upkeep; frequently this comes out of governmental or public/private funding. By studying museum materials rather than conducting excavations of my own, I chose to make use of some of these extant materials, and not add to the stress on museum storage facilities by excavating additional collections which would need to be housed. Using extant collections was not without problems, but it was well worth the effort.