Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ylit20

Download by: [Illinois State University Milner Library], [Logan Miller] Date: 11 April 2016, At: 07:38

Lithic Technology

ISSN: 0197-7261 (Print) 2051-6185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ylit20

Smudge Pits and Stone “Drills”: The Use of ChippedStone Tools at Burrell Orchard

G. Logan Miller & Brian G. Redmond

To cite this article: G. Logan Miller & Brian G. Redmond (2016): Smudge Pits and Stone“Drills”: The Use of Chipped Stone Tools at Burrell Orchard, Lithic Technology, DOI:10.1080/01977261.2016.1168145

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2016.1168145

Published online: 11 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”: THE USE OF CHIPPEDSTONE TOOLS AT BURRELL ORCHARD

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, Campus Box , Normal, IL,USA

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Wade Oval Drive, Cleveland, OH, USA

Recent investigations by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (CMNH) identified an extensive Late Archaicoccupation at Burrell Orchard (LN), located on a promontory overlooking the Black River in northern Ohio.CMNH excavations have documented widespread midden deposits, prepared clay floors, post molds, and pit fea-tures including numerous smudge pits. The formal chipped stone tool assemblage is dominated by lanceolate pro-jectile points and bifacial “drills.” High-powered lithic microwear analysis was performed on formal chippedstone tools recovered from the and CMNH field seasons. Tool types examined included completeand fragmentary lanceolate points, drills, and other bifaces. The results indicate that many “drills” were actuallyused to perforate dry hide and, thus, may have held a unique place in the hide-processing activities conducted atthe site.

KEYWORDS: Use-wear, Archaic, Bifacial Perforator, Great Lakes, Functional Analysis

Recent investigations at Burrell Orchard(LN) in northern Ohio have documentedwidespread midden deposits, prepared clayfloors, post molds, and pit features, includingnumerous smudge pits dating to the Late Archaicperiod (Redmond and Scanlan ; Redmondet al. , ). The presence of dozens ofsmudge pits suggests that hide-processing ingeneral (smoke-curing) was a major activity con-ducted at the site. However, other than the pres-ence of smudge pits, this inference of intensivehide-processing appears unsupported by thechipped stone tool assemblage, as few morpho-logically recognizable hide-working implements(e.g., end- or side-scrapers) were identified in theformal stone assemblage. Instead, the assemblageis dominated by lanceolate projectile points andrelatively long and narrow-bladed bifaces gener-ally identified as “drills.” This discrepancy led toan examination of the potential hidden uses ofstone tools at Burrell Orchard. Thus, furtherinsight into the function of a sample of stonetools, and their relationship to other remainsrecovered from the site, was sought throughmicrowear analysis. The activities performedwith chipped stone tools at Burrell Orchard areof even broader interest, because the site is quiteunique in comparison to other Late Archaic sites

in the area. Specifically, no midden deposits ofsimilar scale or prepared clay floors have beendocumented at other Late Archaic components innorthern Ohio (Purtill ; Redmond andScanlan ). Instead, most sites of this age aresmaller in scale and consist of small pit clusters,limited structural evidence, and thin middendeposits (Purtill ; Stothers and Abel ).The construction of clay floors within thickmidden deposits is in fact more similar to LateArchaic components in the lower Ohio RiverValley, such as the “clay platforms” constructedat the Late Archaic Riverton site in the WabashRiver Valley of southeastern Illinois (Winters:–). Consequently, research into thefunction of the chipped stone tools from BurrellOrchard is likely to provide important insightsinto regional Late Archaic lithic technologies, aswell as new interpretations of lifeways in thesouthern Lake Erie region.In regards to the relationship between tool form

and function, numerous morphological typesincluding projectile points, drills, scrapers, andother bifaces have been identified at the site.While insight was gained into the function ofeach of these types, the examination of drillsfrom Burrell Orchard also provided an opportu-nity to address an underexplored—and rather

© Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupDOI: ./.. Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

ambiguous—typological form, that of the bifacialperforator. In general, drills and perforators shareimportant similarities in that both types contain asharp point to produce holes in other materials.On the other hand, the two types refer to verydifferent activities and worked materials. Rela-tively long, slender (i.e., a large length-to-widthratio), roughly parallel-sided bifacial tools arecommonly referred to as drills. As with themodern electrical equivalent, prehistoric stonedrills are assumed to have been used to produceholes in hard materials using a rotary motion.However, some scholars have assigned a differentfunctional interpretation to similar implements bylabeling them “bifacial perforators.” In contrast todrills, bifacial perforators are more analogous toawls—often made of organic materials such asbone or wood by prehistoric individuals through-out the world—that are used to produce holes insofter materials using pressure and a twisting orboring motion. While both tool types have beenidentified in the North American archaeologicalrecord, the difference between drills and bifacialperforators has been largely unexamined bymicrowear analysis to date. Instead, those scholarsthat distinguish between bifacial drills and per-forators do so based on inferred function ormacroscopic use-wear (Deller et al. ;Dincauze ; Ellis et al. ; Henning andSchermer ). Often, however, these termsappear to be used interchangeably in the literature.While geographic and temporal variations cer-tainly exist, the tools we focus on as drills or bifa-cial perforators can generally be described asbifacially flaked, long, and rod-like with roughlyparallel sides and bi-convex cross sections withpointed or slightly rounded tips. Drills and bifacialperforators may be knapped from blanks, flakes,or reworked projectile points. This definitioncovers the range of bifacial perforators describedin the literature but does exclude some objectsdescribed as drills. For example, Mississippianmicrodrills found at Cahokia in the AmericanBottom are little more than marginally retouchedblades (Yerkes ). While microwear analysisdemonstrated that these tools functioned asdrills, they are clearly of a different morphologicaltype (i.e., metric attributes and flaking pattern)than the definition provided here.Definitions of bifacial drills are fairly ubiqui-

tous, with Ellis et al. (:) providing a repre-sentative definition as long, narrow, bifacial toolswhose “tips are narrow and blunt to relativelypointed and are sometimes polished from use.

Fore-sections have a marked bi-convex todiamond-shaped transverse section.” These typesof tools have been reported from Paleoindianthrough Historic period sites across NorthAmerica. Sometimes, however, similar artifactsare described as bifacial perforators. Forexample, Dincauze (:) describes “bifaciallyflaked narrow perforator shafts” present in alllayers but the plow zone at the Middle Archaicto Historic period Neville site in New Hampshire.Henning and Schermer (:Table .) reportthe recovery of a bifacial perforator (as a distinctcategory from drills) from the surface of theearly European Contact period site of BloodRun/Rock Island on the border of Iowa andSouth Dakota. Macroscopic evidence in the formof edge blunting and crushing is given as a ration-ale to distinguish between the two tool types(Henning and Schermer :). Outside ofthe USA, Ellis et al. (:) list bifacial perfora-tors at the Early Archaic Nettling site in southwes-tern Ontario as “well-made, elongated, narrowforms with marked Plano-convex transverse sec-tions, a lack of any expansion of the base, andthin pointed tips or working ends.” Ellis et al.(:) note that the bifacial perforators are dis-tinct from drills, with the latter exhibiting expand-ing bases and biconvex to diamond-shaped crosssections. Deller et al. (:Figure e) present adrawing of a bifacial perforator made on a flake,with a bi-convex or diamond-shaped crosssection, from the Paleoindian period Crowfieldsite, also in Ontario. The difficulty in macroscopi-cally distinguishing between drills and perforatorsis reflected by Bement (:) at Bering Sink-hole in Texas, in which a “drill bit” with “adiamond shaped cross section” is classified as a“drill/perforator.” Ives (:) notes that whilemany archaeologists have identified bifacial per-forators among Middle Archaic assemblages inthe Northeast, use-wear analysis is needed todifferentiate between drills and perforators. Inother words, the bifacial drill and perforator dis-tinction has only been addressed through macro-scopic functional inference or difference in baseform (e.g., expanded vs. strait). No microwearanalysis has been conducted on the class of toolsexplicitly described as bifacial perforators inorder to definitively demonstrate their functionas such. As functional studies have not been uti-lized to address this dichotomy, it is unclearwhether the two terms reflect actual functionaldifferences or simply idiosyncratic differences innomenclature.

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

TABLE BURRELL ORCHARD MICROWEAR RESULTS

CMNH Artifact Context Material OtherCAT. # Type Unit Depth/

Feature*Used? Motion Worked Notes

A- Drill, base/midsection

N E cmbd Yes Perforate Dry hide Hafted; refit withA-

A- Drill .N.E

cmbd Yes Drill Bone Hafted

A- Drill N E F. - No HaftedA- Drill N E cmbd Yes Perforate Dry hide Thinner than others,

no hafting evidenceA- Drill N E cmbd Yes Perforate Dry hide HaftedA- Drill N

.EF. - Yes Perforate Dry hide Hafted

A- Drill tip N E cmbd Yes Perforate Dry hide Refit withA-

A- Drill tip N E –cmbd

Yes Drill Stone

A Lanceolate pointtip

.N.E

cmbd No Spots of stone polish

A- Lanceolate point,broken base

N.E

cmbd Yes Projectile

A- Lanceolate pointtip

N E –cmbd

No

A- Lanceolate point N E –cmbd

Yes Butcher Meat Hafted

A- Lanceolate point N E cmbd ? Hafted; patinatedobscuring wear

A- Lanceolate point N E cmbd No HaftedA- Lanceolate point,

base/partial blade.N.E

cmbd Yes ? Genericweak

Hafted; resharpenedand used afterremoval

A-- Lanceolate point,base/partial blade

BurrellFarm

Surface Yes Cut Dry hide Hafted

A- Lanceolate pointmidsection

BurrellFarm

Surface No One spot of stonepolish

A- Lanceolate point,base/partial blade

BurrellFarm

Surface Yes Butcher Meat Hafted; resharpenedand used afterremoval

A- Lanceolate point BurrellFarm

Surface Yes Projectile Hafted

A- Lanceolate point,broken tip

BurrellFarm

Surface ? Hafted, possibleprojectile break

A- Genessee point(refit)

.N.E

cmbd Yes Butcher Meat Hafted

A- Madison point,broken tip

N E –cmbd

No Hafted

A- Brewerton point N E –cmbd

No

Continued

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

Despite the frequent use of the term “drill”and the less frequent, but still prevalent, use of“bifacial perforator” in the literature, as well asthe apparent difficulty in distinguishingbetween the two, there has been minimal func-tional research on the topic. To address thisincongruity and obtain a more detailed view ofthe activities conducted at the site, we turnedto lithic microwear analysis. We utilizecommon terms such as projectile points anddrills—as opposed to the less common bifacialperforator—for simplicity, even though sub-sequent analysis may have assigned differentfunctions to these morphological types. In thispaper, we present the results of microwearanalysis that provided some surprising insightsinto the deer-processing and hide-workingindustry at Burrell Orchard.

BURRELL ORCHARD

The Burrell Orchard site is located in SheffieldVillage, Lorain County, Ohio, on a glacial lakeplain landform overlooking the floodplain of theBlack River (Figure ). Intensive survey and testexcavations by the Cleveland Museum ofNatural History, in cooperation with the FirelandsArchaeological Research Center in Amherst,Ohio, began in and continued through (Redmond and Scanlan ; Redmondet al. , ). To date, the project has docu-mented a Late Archaic period, stratified, sheetmidden covering approximately . ha of thebluff-top and extending as much as cm belowthe surface. These midden deposits have produced

only Late Archaic material culture. Ten radiocar-bon assays on midden and pit feature contents(nine hickory nutshell and one bone) span amaximum two-sigma, calibrated date range of to BC (Redmond and Scanlan ;Redmond et al. , ). Recent excavationshave recorded at least two prepared clay floorsthat may have served as foundations for struc-tures. Formal artifacts consist primarily of flakedstone projectile points and drills, groundstonecelts/adzes, anvilstones, abraders, mortars, ham-merstones, slate bannerstones, and various boneand antler awls, billets, and pin fragments.As noted above, formal flaked stone artifacts,

which are the focus of this study, primarilyinclude projectile points and drills (Figure ).The most frequently recovered form of projectilepoint is a lanceolate which is widest at its midsec-tion (waist) and tapers gradually to a straight toslightly concave base. All points of this form arethin and were fashioned by percussion flaking,which, in the better-worked specimens, exhibitsparallel flaking. Most points have been retouched(pressure-flaked) along the lateral edges, andgrinding is rare. Some points show evidence ofreworking below the waist, which producedslight shoulders and straight to tapering stems.These artifacts most closely resemble the typesAdder Orchard in Ontario (Fisher :) andSteubenville found in the upper Ohio RiverValley (Mayer-Oakes ; Ritchie :–). Related point forms, but not raw materials,can be seen among the stemmed lanceolatepoints of the so-called Satchell complex of north-western Ohio, southern Michigan, and

TABLE . CONTINUED

CMNH Artifact Context Material OtherCAT. # Type Unit Depth/

Feature*Used? Motion Worked Notes

A- Biface midsection BurrellFarm

Surface Yes Butcher Meat/bone

A- Biface N E – cmbd

Yes Scrape Dry hide

A- Biface N E –cmbd

Yes Butcher Meat

A- Biface base N E F. - NoA- Biface fragment .N

.E cmbd No

*cmbd=centimeters below datum.

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

southwestern Ontario (Stothers and Abel:–). The vast majority of projectilepoints from Burrell Orchard are made from one

or another variety of Pennsylvanian age chertsderived from the Upper Mercer limestone for-mation of the Pottsville group (Kagelmacher). These cherts outcrop primarily in the Wal-honding River Valley of west-central CoshoctonCounty, Ohio—approximately km south ofthe site—and range from dark blue-gray to grayto light brown in color. They are referred to by anumber of names including “Nellie,” “UpperMercer,” and “Upper Mercer-Gray” (DeRegnau-court and Georgiady :–), among others.Drills often have expanded bases, though not

always, with long shafts measuring up to cmin un-reworked specimens. Cross sections are gen-erally biconvex with shafts that taper graduallyfrom the tips to expanded bases with straightbasal margins. Raw materials of the drills aredivided between Upper Mercer cherts andVanport (Flint Ridge) cherts. The most intensivelyutilized aboriginal outcrops of Flint Ridge chertare located approximately km south of theBurrell Orchard site in eastern Licking County,Ohio (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady ).Study of subsistence remains from Burrell

Orchard indicates that significant effort wasexpended in the acquisition and processing ofhickory nuts and white-tailed deer. For example, of pit features ( per cent) contained deerbone. Due to the highly fragmented condition ofthe bone assemblage, minimum number of individ-uals (MNI) was not calculated. Number of ident-ified specimens (NISP) was used and resulted in

FIGURE Location of Burrell Orchard.

FIGURE Examples of formal chipped stone tools fromBurrell Orchard.

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

the following counts: deer, squirrel, sevenwoodchuck, six muskrat, and < for raccoon,red fox, opossum, and dog (Redmond et al.). Based on these results, deer remains domi-nated the faunal assemblage and, although notubiquitous, were found in the largest number offeature contexts. This we interpret as convincingevidence of the importance of deer hunting andprocessing by the site inhabitants. In terms of nut-shell ubiquity, of features ( per cent)sampled for flotation processing contained nut-shell. The g of nutshell identified in theflotation samples are dominated by hickory (.per cent), followed by black walnut (. percent), and other taxa, such as acorn and butternut(. per cent) (Redmond and Scanlan ;Redmond et al. , ).All major skeletal elements of the deer are rep-

resented in the bone assemblage, which stronglysuggests that whole deer carcasses were returnedto the site for processing. Systematic butcheringis well represented by cut marks, and roasting ofselected body portions is indicated by charred orsmoked bone fragments. The extraction ofmarrow from deer longbones, as well as theboiling of bones for grease, is suggested by thelarge number of epiphyseal ends and smashedshaft fragments found in midden deposits andsome pit features (Outram ). The presenceof at least smudge pits, most likely used forhide-smoking (i.e., Binford ), reveals thatdeer were harvested for more than just meat andmarrow. The use of deer bone and antler forimplements such as awls, pins, projectile points,and at least one billet is readily in evidence.

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS

Lithic microwear analysis has demonstrated thatthe use of stone tools on various materials willproduce wear patterns that are distinct fromthose caused by non-use-related processes as wellas those of other materials. Microwear analysis,as developed by Keeley () based on initialwork by Semenov (), uses incident lightmicroscopy to identify polishes, striations, andedge damage caused by utilization. Tool functionis interpreted through controlled comparisonwith experimental tools of known use to dis-tinguish specific motions on specific materials.The method has been validated by several indepen-dent blind tests that have led to its adoption incountless studies worldwide (Evans et al. ;

Yerkes and Kardulias ; see also Evans for an up-to-date review of blind testing).Prior to microscopic analysis, artifacts were

photographed so that locations of use-wearcould be noted. Each artifact was then placed inan individual plastic container and washed in anultrasonic cleanser. During the ultrasonic cleaningprocess the artifacts were submersed in liquid soapfor minutes, drained and rinsed, and then sub-mersed in tap water for minutes. Tools werealso spot cleaned with acetone as needed duringthe analysis to remove finger grease. After airdrying, the artifacts were examined with anOlympus model BHM incident light microscope,equipped with a digital camera, at magnificationsof –×. In order to interpret materialworked and motion employed, microwear traceson the artifacts were compared to an experimentalreference collection of over tools composed ofover a dozen Midwestern chert types, includingthe Upper Mercer and Vanport cherts commonat Burrell Orchard (Miller , , a).Particularly relevant to this study is that this exper-imental collection included numerous tools used todrill bone and wood in addition to perforating dryhide (Figure ).Twenty-eight chipped stone tools recovered

from Burrell Orchard were examined for micro-wear patterns (Table ). The microwear sampleincluded artifacts from CMNH excavations in and as well as surface collections bythe Burrell Family. The sampling strategyfocused on obtaining a total sample of the bifacialtools with complete, or reasonably complete, func-tional edges. For example, complete projectilepoints and those with only a portion of the tipmissing were included in the sample while recov-ered projectile point bases were not included.The sample consisted of complete and brokenlanceolate projectile points. The sample alsoincluded eight drills and drill fragments. These rep-resent all of the drills recovered in two seasons ofexcavations. Four of the drills were complete andunbroken while one base and one tip fragmentrefit to form another complete drill. Drill frag-ments included one tip and one base. Five of thedrills were made of Vanport chert, two weremade of Upper Mercer gray chert, and one con-sisted of a coarse, gray type of stone, possibly grey-wacke/metasediment (Redmond and Scanlan:; Redmond et al. :). Eightadditional projectile points and biface fragmentswere included in the sample. These include one

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

Genessee-type point base (CMNH catalog #A-) of Upper Mercer gray, which isconsidered a transitional Middle to Late Archaicform that has been dated from the early fifth toearly fourth millennia BP (Justice :–;Ritchie :–). An unfinished or damagedside-notched point (A-) most closelyresembling the transitional Middle to LateArchaic Brewerton Side-notched type (Ritchie:–) and made of Delaware chert, avail-able in Erie and Sandusky counties to the west ofthe site (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady:), was also included. The sample alsoincluded a triangular point (A–) of theMadison type (Justice :–) from theplow zone and representing a Late Woodland toLate Prehistoric reoccupation of the area. Micro-wear analysis determined that this tool washafted but did not show evidence of further utiliz-ation; therefore, it is excluded from further analy-sis, leaving only Late Archaic artifacts in thesample. Additional artifacts included a large, thinbiface midsection (A-), a bifacialthumbnail scraper (A-), and otheruntyped biface fragments.

RESULTS

Overall, of the artifacts examined in thissample exhibited use-related microwear traces(Table ). Most of the tools were utilized forhunting and the subsequent preparation and pro-cessing of animal hides. However, drilling hardmaterials was represented as well. Many of theartifacts with no evidence of use were basal frag-ments in which the utilized end may have broken.Overall, six of the lanceolate points exhibited

evidence of utilization. They were used for threeseparate identifiable tasks, with one exhibitinggeneric weak polish that could not be assigned toa particular material. The five lanceolate pointsfor which worked material could be identifiedwere used as projectiles (n = ), to butcher meat(n = ), and to cut dry hide (n = ). Those pointsthat were unused but contained fully intact basesshowed signs of hafting in the form of haftingbright spots, polish, and edge damage (Rots). As is the case with A-, theportion with microscopic evidence for use mayhave broken on impact (Figure ). Other completespecimens, such as A-, contained novisible signs of use, through either impact fractures

FIGURE (a) Edge rounding, matte polish, and large pit (as indicated by the arrow) diagnostic of dry hide on experimentalimplement made of Vanport chert used to perforate dry hide for minutes (× magnification). (b) Edge damage, andbright polish with small pits (as indicated by the arrow) diagnostic of bone/antler on experimental implement made of UpperMercer chert used to drill wet bone for minutes (.× magnification). (c) Edge damage and bright, flat polish diagnosticof stone on experimental implement made of Upper Mercer chert used to drill sandstone for minutes (.× magnification).(d) Dull, greasy, and invasive polish diagnostic of meat butchery on experimental implement made of Vanport chert used tobutcher white-tailed deer (.× magnification).

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

or microscopic polishes. Many factors may preventthe formation of diagnostic use-wear on projectilepoints (Fischer et al. ; van Gijn , ).Thus, it is not currently possible to say whether ornot this point was used. Two lanceolate points didexhibit the bright linear streaks of polish at theirtips characteristic of projectile impact (Figure ).Some projectile points, like A-, wereremoved from the haft before being used asknives, as evidenced by dull, greasy meat polishextending into the haft area, and evidence of reshar-pening (Figure ). Others, such as A-,may have been used to butcher meat while stillhafted (Figure ). Dull, greasy meat polish ispresent on the slightly concave lateral edge. Thispolish terminates above the stem area that containshafting bright spots and other hafting wear.Another lanceolate point (A--)

was used to cut dry hide, as indicated by edgerounding and pitted polish. The polish is limitedto the blade and does not extend into the haftarea, indicating that the tool was probably stillhafted during use. The point exhibiting genericweak polish (i.e., polish formed through use butnot diagnostic of a particular material),A-, was used in a manner similar tothe de-hafted meat knife (A-) discussedabove in that it was de-hafted and probablyresharpened during use as a hand-held knife.Eight additional bifaces and biface fragments

were examined, with seven reported here (as theLate Woodland to Late Prehistoric Madison

point was excluded from further analysis; see theMethods section above). Of these, four exhibitedevidence of utilization. Three contained dull,greasy, invasive polish indicative of butcheringmeat. These meat knives included such variedforms as the Genesee point base (A-),the large, thin biface midsection (A-),and a small, roughly triangular biface fragment(A--). A small scraper (A-)was used in a transverse motion to scrape dryhide as indicated by edge rounding and a matte,large-pitted polish (Figure ).Eight drill fragments representing seven separate

drills were examined. Six of the seven drillsshowed evidence of utilization. Four of thesewere used to perforate dry hide while one eachwas used to drill bone/antler and stone. The onethat did not have evidence of use was hafted,however. In fact, five of the six drills with intactbases contain indications that they were hafted atsome point during their use life (Figures and). There is no evidence to suggest that they wereremoved from the haft (i.e., overlap between usewear and hafting wear as seen on some lanceolatepoints) before performing these functions. In otherwords, nearly all drills were hafted during use (seedescription of A- below for the loneexception). Four of the drills (or five of the frag-ments) contained a matte polish associated withedge rounding, and large pits characteristic ofworking dry hide (Figures and ). The locationof this polish along high points and ridges with

FIGURE Lanceolate projectile point (A-) with a possible impact damage scar and hafting bright spot. Magnificationof inset photo is .×. Dotted line indicates upper extent of hafting evidence.

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

striations running perpendicular to the lateraledges indicates that the tools were used in a twist-ing motion to perforate dry hide. One drill,A-, made of Vanport chert, is muchthinner than the others. It was also used to perfo-rate hide but there is no evidence that it was hafted(Figure ). Thus, while the ultimate function ofA- was the same as the others, it is of

a different form and was used in a slightly differentmanner (i.e., unhafted vs. hafted) than the others.Other drills functioned as drilling implements.

One specimen (A-) contained a highlydeveloped bright polish restricted to the workingedge of the tool and associated with macroscopi-cally visible edge damage (Figure ). Thispattern is associated with drilling bone or antler.

FIGURE Lanceolate projectile points (left: A-, right: A-) exhibiting bright linear streaks of polish indica-tive of projectile use near their tips. Both tools were also hafted, and a representative hafting bright spot is included forA-. All inset photo magnifications are .×. Dotted line indicates upper extent of hafting evidence.

FIGURE Left: Lanceolate point (A-) with dull invasive meat polish present above the hafted base. Right: Lanceolatepoint (A-) with dull, greasy, invasive meat polish extending down into the haft area. All inset photo magnifications are.×. Dotted line indicates upper extent of hafting evidence. Dashed lines indicate extent of utilization.

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

It may be associated with producing somethinglike the bone pin fragment recovered at the site(Redmond et al. :–).A small drill tip fragment, A-, con-

tained extensive edge damage and patches ofbright flat polish matching those used in exper-iments to drill stone (Figure ). The only drilledstone artifacts recovered from the site are severalbannerstone fragments, but most research suggests

that bannerstone holes were produced by canedrilling and not with stone drills (Kinsella ;Sassaman :). Therefore, it is unknownwhat type of object this drill was used to produce.Of the seven drills or drill fragments examined

in this study, five were manufactured from FlintRidge chert; one was a gray variety of UpperMercer chert; and one consisted of a coarse, graytype of stone, possibly greywacke/metasediment

FIGURE Handheld bifacial scraper (A-) with matte, large-pitted polish and striations perpendicular to the edgeindicative of scraping dry hide. Dashed lines indicate extent of utilization.

FIGURE Right: “Drill” base and midsection (A-) with matte, large-pitted polish and edge rounding associated withperforating dry hide. Left: “Drill” (A-) with similar matte, large-pitted polish and edge damage. Both drills containhafting wear as well. All inset photos magnifications are .×. Dotted line indicates upper extent of hafting evidence.Dashed lines indicate extent of utilization. Note the similarities with the dry hide polish in Figures a and .

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

typical of contemporary Satchel Complex assem-blages found in northwestern Ohio (Stotherset al. :). Thus, Flint Ridge chert appearsto have been the preferred raw material for hide-working tools. This may have to do with thesuperior knapping qualities of this chert, whichwould have facilitated the manufacture of such

long and narrow bifaces. Notably, the drill tipused to perforate stone (A-) is madefrom coarse metasediment, which may have beenmore suitable for drilling of dense material.In addition to presentation of the results based

on tool type, the examination of drill function bystratigraphic unit may prove informative. Three

FIGURE Left: Refit “drill” (A- and A-) with edge rounding and matte, large pitted polish on the tip andshaft. This artifact contained hafting bright spots as pictured. Both inset photo magnifications are .×. Right: Unhafted “drill”(A-) with microscopic use-wear indicative of perforating dry hide. Inset photo magnification is ×. Dotted line (inleft photo) indicates upper extent of hafting evidence. Dashed lines indicate extent of utilization.

FIGURE Left: “Drill” (A-) with very bright, small-pitted polish associated with extensive edge damage indicativeof drilling bone/antler. Right: Drill tip (A-) with bright, flat polish associated with extensive edge damage indicative ofdrilling stone. Note the similarities with Figures b and c, respectively, and the differences in texture and extent of polish incomparison to Figures and . Dotted line indicates upper extent of hafting evidence. Dashed lines indicate extent of utilization.

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

different stratigraphic levels have been identified atBurrell Orchard above culturally sterile sub-soil.The uppermost stratum is the historical plowzone. Below this are two undisturbed strata inter-preted as an upper midden (Stratum III) and alower midden (Stratum II) (Redmond andScanlan ; Redmond et al. ). Analyzeddrills were recovered from each of these levels(Table ). The thin, unhafted drill made ofVanport chert (A-) was recovered nearthe base of stratum II. All of the other tools usedto perforate dry hide were recovered from themidden in stratum II and III or cooking featuresoriginating in Stratum II levels (Table ). Thetwo drills recovered from the plow zone wereused to drill bone/antler and stone.

DISCUSSION

A major research objective addressed in this studywas documenting the activities conducted at thesite using chipped stone tools. Comparison ofthese activities with the features and artifactassemblage provides a more nuanced view of siteactivities than any individual class of data couldon its own. The chipped stone tools examinedfrom Burrell Orchard were largely used foranimal procurement and subsequent processing.Lanceolate points were successfully used as projec-tiles in hunting, presumably largely in the procure-ment of white-tailed deer. Whole carcasses weretransported back to the site and lanceolate pointswere subsequently used, both hafted andun-hafted, to butcher meat and process hides.The identification of over two dozen smudge pitsat the site indicates that hide smoking and curingwas a major undertaking as well. Curiously, nofresh hide scrapers and only one dry hide-scrapingimplement have been identified. The use of thedrills to perforate dry hides at this site is well docu-mented. Thus, we have identified procurement (interms of projectile use), processing via butchering,smoking hides over smudge pits, and finishing theproducts with perforations for sewing or otheruses. Activities also involved the production ofother items as indicated by implements used todrill stone and bone.All of the drills from the upper and lower

middens and associated features were used to per-forate dry hide. This provides some evidence forcontinuity in site function through time. It is inter-esting to note that the two drills used to drill hardmaterial were recovered from the plow zone(Table ). These two tools may date to a more

recent occupation than the others, assuming thelaw of superposition holds. However, a sampleof two is far from sufficient to demonstrate arelationship, and this pattern requires furtheranalysis. A second research objective involvedthe examination of the relationship between toolform and function at Burrell Orchard. Twomajor types of bifacial artifacts, projectile pointsand drills, are especially pertinent to this objectiveand will be discussed further here.As the name implies, projectile points are gener-

ally assumed to be designed for throwing, or beingotherwise propelled, at targets in hunting orwarfare. Functional analysis of projectile pointsoften documents their uses as projectiles as wellas butchering knives (e.g., Ahler ).However, points were not always used solely forthese purposes, as numerous additional activitieshave been identified as well (Ahler ; Miller, b; Smallwood ). The BurrellOrchard points follow these previously identifiedpatterns. Lanceolate points at Burrell Orchardwere used as projectiles in many cases. Theywere also used as knives to butcher meat and cutdry hide. Their use as knives occurred both whilehafted and while un-hafted.Several projectile points displayed no evidence

of use. This can be explained for some by theirfragmentary nature or missing tips. However,only one point (A-) contained identifi-able macrofractures attributable to projectile use.Identification of projectile use through macrofrac-ture analysis is still a highly problematic pursuit(Rots and Plisson ).Other complete points and tips contained no evi-

dence of use. Even when used as projectiles, often,projectile points do not contain microwear ontheir edges or surfaces. Linear polish is the mostdistinctive type of projectile microwear that hasbeen observed on experimental darts and arrows(Fischer et al. ; van Gijn , ), butnot all experimental stone projectiles had theselinear traces on their surfaces. In simulatedhunting experiments, it was found that mostdarts and arrows broke after only one or twoshots, and any microwear traces that werepresent were weakly developed (Cheshier andKelly ; Dockall ). Thus, it is unclearhow many points were actually used as projectiles.Examination of the other major type of bifacial

tool at the site, drills, indicates that the term “bifa-cial perforator” does reflect a functional categoryat Burrell Orchard. However, the tools fromBurrell Orchard functioned as both bifacial

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

perforators and drills. The only macroscopicdifference is the extensive edge damage resultingin a high attrition rate and marked narrowing tothe tip of the tools used to drill hard materials(see Figure ). As only two drills were used onhard materials such as these, a much largersample is needed to demonstrate whether thispattern is a reliable indicator of use. Additionally,while this study has demonstrated the relevance ofthe term “bifacial perforator” at Burrell Orchard,microwear studies in other sites and regions areneeded to determine the extent of this tool typein prehistory. It is also possible that further micro-wear analysis will reveal even greater variation inthe function of drills, as Lewenstein () ident-ified scraping, graving, and cutting, in a samplefrom Belize, as secondary functions to drilling.A couple of isolated examples of tools that func-

tioned as bifacial perforators exist in the literature,and they both began with classification as drillsbefore interpreting their use as hide perforators.For example, Kimball (:) documented ahafted drill that was used to “bore dry hide” in theLate to Terminal Archaic assemblage at thePadula site (NM) in eastern Pennsylvania. AtDust Cave in northern Alabama, Walker et al.() report the results of microwear analysis oftwo drills from the Late Paleoindian levels. Onlyone of these showed evidence of utilization, and itis described as an awl for perforating hide(Walker et al.:). Thus, the bifacial perfora-tors at Burrell Orchard may be part of a wider, yetunder-recognized, pattern of tool function.Further analysis of additional assemblages isneeded to document how widespread the existenceof bifacial perforator use was.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, microwear analysis has helped toclarify the relationship of the formal chippedstone tool assemblage to the activities inferredfrom the features and other remains to have beenconducted at Burrell Orchard. Chipped stonetools were used in the procurement, preparation,and processing of hides by the site’s inhabitants.The lack of chipped stone hide-scraping tools isdeserving of further study. Perhaps the scrapingtools lie outside of the formal tool assemblage asunmodified flake tools. It is also possiblethat the hide-scraping tools are located in anas-yet-unexplored portion of the site, or that hidescraping was conducted with bone, wood, orother non-chipped stone implements. Interesting

insights into the relationship between tool formand function have been documented at BurrellOrchard as well. The documentation of numerousbifacial perforators used to produce holes in dryhide is a unique feature of the site. However, thiswas not a specialized tool form as morphologicallysimilar tools were used on hard materials such asbone and stone. Further analysis of additionalassemblages is needed to document the spatialand temporal distribution of drills and bifacialperforators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the Lorain County Metro Parks, theSheffield Village Historical Society, and Firelands Archaeol-ogy. Financial support for field work was provided by theLaub Foundation and the Albert G. & Olive H. SchlinkFoundation, the Cleveland Archaeological Society, the Kir-tlandia Society of the Cleveland Museum of NaturalHistory, Mr Bucky Kitto and Ms JoAnn Bedore. GrantMcCall and three anonymous reviewers provided helpfulcomments to improve the strength and clarity of themanuscript.

REFERENCES

Ahler, Stanley A. Projectile Point Form and Function atRogers Shelter Missouri. College of Arts and Science,University of Missouri-Columbia and the MissouriArchaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.

Bement, Leland C. Hunter-Gatherer Mortuary Practicesduring the Central Texas Archaic. University of TexasPress, Austin.

Binford, Lewis R. Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: TheUse of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. AmericanAntiquity :–.

Cheshier, Joseph, and Robert L. Kelly Projectile PointShape and Durability: The Effect of Thickness: Length.American Antiquity :–.

Deller, D. Brian, Christopher J. Ellis, and James R. Keron Understanding Cache Variability: A DeliberatelyBurned Early Paleoindian Tool Assemblage from theCrowfield Site, Southwestern Ontario, Canada.American Antiquity :–.

DeRegnaucourt, Tony, and Jeff Georgiady PrehistoricChert Types of the Midwest. Occasional MonographsSeries of the Upper Miami Valley ArchaeologicalResearch Museum, No. . Western Ohio PodiatricMedical Center, Greenville, Ohio.

Dincauze, Dena F. The Neville Site: , Years atAmoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. PeabodyMuseum Monographs . Peabody Museum Press,Boston.

Dockall, John E. Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: AReview of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence.Journal of Field Archaeology :–.

Ellis, Chris J., Stanley Wortner, and William A. Fox Nettling: An Overview of an Early Archaic “Kirk

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

Corner-notched Cluster” Site in Southwestern Ontario.Canadian Journal of Archaeology :–.

Evans, Adrian Anthony On the Importance of BlindTesting in Archaeological Science: The Example fromLithic Functional Studies. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience :–.

Evans, Adrian Aanthony, H. Lerner, D. A. Macdonald, W. J.Stemp, P. C. Anderson Standardization, Calibrationand Innovation: A Special Issue on Lithic MicrowearMethod. Journal of Archaeological Science :–.

Fisher, Jacqueline The Adder Orchard Site: LithicTechnology and Spatial Organization in the BroadpointLate Archaic. Ontario Archaeological Society, London,Ontario.

Fischer, A., P. Vemming Hansen, and P. Rasmussen Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic ProjectilePoints. Journal of Danish Archaeology :–.

van Gijn, Annelou The Wear and Tear of Flint:Principles of Microwear Analysis Applied to DutchNeolithic Assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia. University of Leiden, Leiden.

van Gijn, Annelou Flint in Focus; Lithic Biographies inthe Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

Henning, Dale R., and Shirley J. Schermer ArtifactAnalysis. Plains Anthropologist :–.

Ives, Timothy H. A Functional Analysis of MiddleArchaic Stemmed Points from the Monhantic Fort Site,Mashantucket, Connecticut. Archaeology of EasternNorth America :–.

Justice, Noel D. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points ofthe Midcontinental and Eastern United States. IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington.

Kagelmacher, Michael L. Ohio Cherts ofArchaeological Interest: A Macroscopic andPetrographic Examination and Comparison. CD versionof unpublished M.A. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology,Kent State University, .

Keeley, Lawrence H. Experimental Determination ofStone Tool Use. A Micro-Wear Analysis. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Kimball, Larry R. Microwear Analysis of Late andTerminal Archaic Projectile Points from the Padula Site(NM), Pennsylvania. Journal of Middle AtlanticArchaeology :–.

Kinsella, Larry The Bannerstone: A PrehistoricPrey-Specific Artifact Designed for Use in the EasternWoodlands ofNorthAmerica.Ethnoarchaeology:–.

Lewenstein, S. M. Stone Tools at Cerros: TheEthnoarchaeological and Use-Wear Evidence. Universityof Texas Press, Austin.

Mayer-Oakes, William J. Prehistory of the Upper OhioValley: An Introductory Archaeological Study.Anthropological Series No. , Annals of the CarnegieMuseum . Carnegie Museum of Natural History,Pittsburgh.

Miller, G. Logan Ohio Hopewell Ceremonial BladeletUse at the Moorehead Circle, Fort Ancient. UnpublishedMaster’s Thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus.

Miller, G. Logan Illuminating Activities at PaleoCrossing (ME) through Microwear Analysis.Lithic Technology :–.

Miller, G. Logan a Ritual, Craft, and Economy in OhioHopewell: An Examination of Two Earthworks on theLittle Miami River. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.Ohio State University, Columbus.

Miller, G. Logan b Lithic Microwear Analysis as aMeans to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: ACase from the Great Lakes. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience :–.

Outram, Alan K. A New Approach to Identifying BoneMarrow and Grease Exploitation: Why the“Indeterminate” Fragments Should Not Be Ignored.Journal of Archaeological Science :–.

Purtill, Matthew P. The Ohio Archaic: A Review. InArchaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by ThomasEmerson, Dale McElrath, and Andrew Fortier, pp. –. State University of New York Press, Albany,New York.

Purtill, Matthew P. Dwelling on the Past: Late ArchaicStructures of the Ohio Region. In Building the Past,Prehistoric Wooden Post Architecture in the OhioValley—Great Lakes, edited by Brian G. Redmond andRobert A. Genheimer, pp. –. University Press ofFlorida, Gainesville.

Redmond, Brian G., and Brian L. Scanlan Archaeological Investigations at the Burrell OrchardSite (Ln): Season. Cleveland Museum ofNatural History Archaeological Research Report No.. https://www.academia.edu//ARCHAEOLOGICAL_INVESTIGATIONS_AT_THE_BURRELL_ORCHARD_SITE_Ln__SEASON

Redmond, Brian G., Brian L. Scanlan, and Meghan Marley Archaeological Investigations at the BurrellOrchard Site (Ln): Season. ClevelandMuseum of Natural History Archaeological ResearchReport No. . https://www.academia.edu//Archaeological_Investigations_at_the_Burrell_Orchard_Site_Ln__Season

Redmond, Brian G., Brian L. Scanlan, and Meghan Marley Archaeological Investigations at the BurrellOrchard Site (Ln): Season. ClevelandMuseum of Natural History Archaeological ResearchReport No. . http://www.academia.edu//ARCHAEOLOGICAL_INVESTIGATIONS_AT_THE_BURRELL_ORCHARD_SITE_Ln__SEASON

Ritchie, William A. A Typology and Nomenclature forNew York Projectile Points (Revised edition). New YorkState Museum and Science Service, New York.

Rots, Veerle Prehension and Hafting Traces on FlintTools: A Methodology. Leuven University Press,Leuven, Belgium.

Rots, Veerle, and Hughes Plisson Projectiles and theAbuse of the Use-Wear Method in a Search for Impact.Journal of Archaeological Science :–.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. Crafting Cultural Identity inHunter-Gatherer Economies. Archeological Papers ofthe American Anthropological Association :–.

Semenov, Sergei Prehistoric Technology. Translated byM. W. Thompson. Barnes and Noble, New York.

Smallwood, Ashley M. Building ExperimentalUse-Wear Analogues for Clovis Biface Functions.Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences :–.

G. LOGAN MILLER AND BRIAN G. REDMOND

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16

Stothers, DavidM., and Timothy J. Abel ArchaeologicalReflections of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland TimePeriods in the Western Lake Erie Region. Archaeology ofEastern North America :–.

Stothers, David M., Timothy J. Abel, and Andrew M.Schneider Archaic Perspectives in the Western LakeErie Basin. In Archaic Transitions in Ohio and KentuckPrehistory, edited by Olaf H. Prufer, Sara E. Pedde, andRichard Meindl, pp. –. The Kent State UniversityPress, Kent, Ohio.

Walker, Renee B., Kandace R. Detwiler, Scott C. Meeks, andBoyce N. Driskell Berries, Bones, and Blades:Reconstructing Late Paleoindian Subsistence Economyat Dust Cave Alabama. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology :–.

Winters, Howard D. The Riverton Culture: A SecondMillenium[sic] Occupation in the Central WabashValley. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations,No. . Springfield, Illinois.

Yerkes, Richard W. Microwear, Microdrills, andMississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity:–.

Yerkes, Richard W., and P. Nick Kardulias RecentDevelopments in the Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. Journalof Archaeological Research :–.

NOTE ON CONTRIBUTORS

G. Logan Miller is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology atIllinois State University. His research concentration is on theprehistory of the Midwest and lithic microwear analysis.His current field project is focused on the investigation of aHopewellian encampment in southwest Ohio.

Correspondence to: G. Logan Miller, Department of Soci-ology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, CampusBox , Normal IL, USA. Email: glmill@ilstu.edu

Brian G. Redmond is Curator and John Otis Hower Chair ofArchaeology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.He also serves as Adjunct Associate Professor in Anthropol-ogy at CaseWestern Reserve University. His research interestsinclude the development of settled village life and communityorganization in the lower Great Lakes, ceramic analysis, andPaleoindian bone modification.

SMUDGE PITS AND STONE “DRILLS”

Lithic Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry],

[L

ogan

Mill

er]

at 0

7:38

11

Apr

il 20

16