The Kassel and Blue Dart Sites: Two Components of the Early … · The Kassel and Blue Dart sites...

LENNOX: THE KASSEL AND BLUE DART SITES ... 1

The Kassel and Blue Dart Sites: Two Components ofthe Early Archaic, Bifurcate Base Projectile PointTradition, Waterloo County, Ontario.

Paul A. Lennox

Archaeological mitigation, undertaken by theMinistry of Transportation in advance of highwayconstruction, resulted in the excavation of two Early

Archaic sites. Both are components of the BifurcateBase Tradition which is recognized over much ofeastern North America because of the highlydistinctive point style after which it is named. Thisarticle describes our investigations and our findingsat the Kassel site, a base camp, and the nearby BlueDart site, a short term, special purpose activity area,likely a kill site or butchering station. These singlecomponent sites furnish the first excavatedassemblages of this Archaic manifestation fromOntario and, along with an acceptable radiocarbondate of 8320 ± 60 B. P., help to establish both thepresence and form of the Bifurcate Base Traditionnorth of the Great Lakes. These sites may also heconsidered good examples of site types that havemuch broader implications. Kill sites and base campsrepresent universal settlement-subsistenceadaptations among hunter-gatherers. Both sites, beingsmall and yielding low artifact densities, furnish anew perspective on the elusiveness of such Archaic,and more specifically Early Archaic, components inthe Great Lakes region. These examples raisequestions about some basic assumptions concerningour evaluation of sites for further investigation basedon their artifact densities alone.

IntroductionThe Bifurcate Base Tradition is recognized as a late

manifestation of the Early Archaic and is distributedover much of eastern North America, dating between8000 and 9000 B.P. The tradition has long beenrecognized in the Great Lakes region due to the highlydistinctive point style after which it is named.However, other than the occasional point or smallmixed assemblage, components have remained elusivein the Northeast. In fact, the Kassel (AiHd-71) andBlue Dart (AiHd-89) sites represent the firstsubstantial assemblages excavated in Ontario.

This report documents the excavations and materialsrecovered from the Kassel and Blue Dart

sites and considers these findings with respect to theircontributions to the study of the Early Archaic and toour evaluation or perceptions of similar site types ascandidates for further investigation. Most descriptivedetail is presented in the initial sections of this reportwhere comparisons with similar materials are madewhen clarification is required of the analysis orterminology for specific artifact forms. Broaderconsiderations are discussed in the concludingsections.

EnvironsThe Kassel and Blue Dart sites are found in similar

topographic situations, being located on low, but welldrained, sandy ridges, which rise a few metres abovethe broad wetlands associated with Alder Creek, abranch of the Nith River which in turn joins the GrandRiver at Paris, Ontario (Figure 1). Alder Creekoccupies what was once a meltwater channel whichdrained portions of the Waterloo Moraine and is now amisfit stream bordered by relatively broad lowlands.Long before the sites were occupied the sandymoraine was formed by glacial meltwater depositstrapped between the retreating ice lobes of the LakeOntario and Lake Huron basins (Karrow et al 1990:3).This periglacial setting created a landscape dotted byice margin features such as kettle ponds, kames andeskers which provide considerable topographic relief.

The area's present vegetation is that of theCarolinian-Canadian Transition Zone (Cleland 1966)and biotic communities vary considerably dependingon local topographic features and drainage. Localpollen cores indicate that the area's vegetation was ina state of transition at the time the sites wereoccupied, at approximately 8000 B.P. Jack/red andwhite pine were in decline and elm, maple and beechwere becoming more common. The area was changinginto a more open and deciduous, essentially modern,environment (Karrow and Warner 1988, Karrow et al1990) as is argued for a much broader geographicalarea by Roberts (1984:250) and Wright (1978:69).

2 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY_ NO. 56

Figure 1. Location of the Kassel (AiHd-71) and Blue Dart (AiHd-89) Sites

Excavation TechniquesIt was unclear whether the sites had seen previous

disturbance by the plough. At Kassel the topsoilshowed considerable variation in depth from 10 cmto 25 cm, with the thinner topsoil tending to occurtoward the upper portions of the low ridge. The open,grassy knoll with a lone apple tree was edged bysecondary growth poplar. This, together with the rarefragment of historic iron, glass or white earthenwaresuggested that it had been cleared and perhapsploughed sometime in the distant past but the landarea available for cultivation was small by modernstandards.

At Blue Dart the topsoil was on the deeper end ofthe range listed for Kassel and its depth showed lessvariation, perhaps due to the gentle slope there. Thetrees had been cut at the time the site was discoveredbut cedar wetlands were noted downslope to the southwhile cultivated fields lay upslope and to the northof the existing highway. Prior to the construction ofthe highway, about twenty years ago, the site probablyexisted on the edge of a cultivated field.

With regard to the vertical distribution of artifacts,there was not a clear presence/absence distinctionbetween the topsoil and the subsoil as there often ison ploughed sites between the ploughzone, which

has usually incorporated the occupation layer or"living floor", and the sterile subsoil. Perhaps, due tothe sandy nature of the soils, the site locations on lowridges, and their age, topsoil development at the timeof occupation was limited and movement of culturalremains took place between the topsoil and the uppersubsoil during the many years since occupation (cf.Julig 1988).

Given these considerations and the limitedcontributions that piece plotting would likely haveprovided, the sites were excavated as if they wereploughed. The sandy-loam topsoil and approximately5 cm of the topsoil-subsoil transition zone wasshovelled through 6 mm mesh screens by one-metresquares. The topsoil-subsoil interface was examinedfor cultural features and samples of subsoil werescreened to test for the presence of cultural remains atthis level. Elsewhere on Archaic sites we have foundthat cultural remains may be present in what appearsto be sterile subsoil, within "features" that are moreoften than not visually imperceptible (Lennox1986a:15). Although it was common to recover tracesof cultural material in the upper portions of thesubsoil at Blue Dart and Kessel, aside from a singlesubsoil feature at the former site, no cultural featureswere identified.

On occasion the 6 mm (1/4") screens were replacedby 3 mm (1/8") screens, sometimes considerably


Figure 2. The Kassel Site Topography and Limits of Excavation

increasing the recovery of microdebitage in both thetopsoil and upper subsoil levels. This material washowever excluded from the analysis since it was notgathered systematically and, because of its small size,it could not easily contribute to the study of materialtype or morphology.

In the following text, tables and figures, artifactprovenance to the one-metre unit of recovery is

provided using the northwest grid coordinate of theexcavation unit. For example, provenance for anartifact recovered from a one-metre square boundedby coordinates 2N3E, 2N4E, 1N4E and 1N3E isreferred to as having been recovered from 2N3E. Ahyphen between provenance designations (ie. 6N3E-5N4E) indicates that the specimen was refitted fromtwo fragments recovered from the two units signified.

4 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 56

Figure 3. Kassel Site Debitage Density per Metre Square


The Kassel SiteThe Kassel site is located on Lot 6, SSR, in Wilmot

Township, Waterloo County, Ontario. The site issituated on the western end of a long, low, sandyridge (350 m/1160 ft. A.S.L.) and is bordered onthree sides by a broad tributary-wetland of AlderCreek (Figure 2). The site was first identified inSeptember of 1988 when a few pieces of debitagewere recovered while shovel testing an existinghighway right-of-way within an area where furtherhighway development was proposed. In the followingseason more intensive testing led to the recovery of adiagnostic Early Archaic point and further definitionof the site area. Excavations were expanded to anarbitrary limit of one-metre squares producing lessthan five pieces of debitage (Figure 3). Excavationswere completed during the 1989 field season exceptfor a few additional units excavated in 1990. A totalof 146 square metres was excavated. These included127 units within the large excavation block andanother 19 units placed around its periphery, initiallyto define the concentration and subsequently to testfor additional artifact clusters, none of which wereidentified.

Artifact DescriptionsAs indicated in Table I, 1163 artifacts were

recovered from the Kassel site, distributed as acontinuous cluster with a length of 17 metres north tosouth and a width of 10 metres east to west. Theartifact distribution was oriented across the low ridgeand down the gentle slopes to the north and south,rather than following the east-west crest of the ridgeas might have been expected (Figures 2 and 3).

Lithic DebitageAs is generally the case on Archaic sites in southern

Ontario, lithic debitage contributes the largest portionto the Kassel assemblage. Waste flakes from themanufacture and maintenance of stone tools made up93.2% of the assemblage (Table 1). In an attempt tounderstand the procurement and reduction of lithicmaterials the chipping debitage was analyzedaccording to material type and flake morphology.

Most of the debitage (95.0%) was of Onondaga chertwith small frequencies of Kettle Point and Selkirkcherts also represented (Table 2). Pebble cherts areavailable from the local till and while it is likely thatthese secondary sources provided pebble cherts froma number of primary sources (as the direction of icemovement in this area of the

province was from the northwest, south andsoutheast), a brief examination of roadcuts and gravelsources in the immediate site vicinity producednodules of both Onondaga and Selkirk cherts, butnone of Kettle Point chert. Extensive excavations on anearby Late Woodland village, the Sluyter Site(Lennox and Hagerty 1992), produced little evidencefor the use of the latter material, suggesting thatKettle Point chert is, in fact, scarce in the vicinity.

Debitage morphology was examined using a simpleclassification of flake types (Lennox 1986b). Theassemblage was divided into primary flakes (flakesfrom cores), secondary flakes (flakes from bifaces),unidentifiable flake fragments (primarily thosewithout striking platforms), and shatter (small angularpieces of chert showing none of the attributes of a trueflake (Table 2). Almost half (49.3%) of the debitageconsisted of flake fragments that could not beidentified, a fact attributed to the high frequency ofthin secondary flakes in the assemblage and notsimply to ploughing as has been suggested for othersites with highly fragmented debitage (Lennox19866:227, 1990:37). The largest portion of theidentifiable flakes (primary and secondary flakes)were secondary flakes (88%) indicating that thinningand resharpening of bifaces was the major lithicreduction activity at the site. The few primary flakesrecovered constitute only 12% of the identifiableflakes. This fact, and the scarcity of cores, suggeststhat little core reduction took place here, a suppositionreinforced by the scarcity of cortex. Cortex is presenton only fifty-one pieces of debitage (4.7% of thedebitage assemblage by frequency). Most examples(thirty-nine) are represented by rounded nodularcortex, indicating preference for secondary sourcematerials probably derived from local till. Only twelvespecimens exhibited tabular cortex and these occuronly on Onondaga chert. While the presence of tabularcortex has elsewhere been taken as an indication ofprimary source utilization, other excavations in thisarea have indicated that a lightly patinated tabularcortex may also be present on secondary sourcematerials. This suggests that some secondary sourcematerials were not extensively rolled or rounded priorto being deposited and were perhaps protected inglacial ice during transport. Tabular cortex does not,therefore, indicate the use of primary source cherts atKassel. The distribution of thermally altered debitage,pieces of chert exhibiting potlidding as well as thosewhich appeared to have thermally induced colourchanges, was examined in the hope of identifying thelocation of a hearth area. This material was howeverwidely distributed and offered no insights as to thesite's configuration.


Table 1. Artifact Type Frequencies from the Kassel and Blue Dart Sites

Artifact Type Kassel Blue Dartf % f %

Debitage 1084 93.2 199 95.7Utilized Flakes 27 2.3 4 2.0Retouched Flakes 3 0.3 0 0Retouched Bladelets 4 0.3 0 0Burins 2 0.2 0 0Scrapers 18 1.5 0 0Bifaces 14 1.2 2 1.0Biface/Knife 1 0.1 1 0.5Point Preforms 1 0.1 1 0.5Points and Fragments 7 0.6 1 0.5Drills 2 0.2 0 0

TOTAL 1,163 100.00 208 100.20

Table 2. Kassel Site Lithic DebitageChert Type Flake Type

Primary Secondary Shatter FragmentTotal

f %

Onondaga 52 421 29 528 1030 95.0Selkirk 4 9 0 5 18 1.7Kettle Point 1 12 0 0 13 1.2? 16 0 2 23 2.1

TOTAL f 62 458 29 535 1,084 100.00TOTAL % 5.7 42.2 2.7 49.3 99.9

Cores

Random, rotated or bipolar, cores are absent fromthe Kassel site assemblage. Larger pieces of chert,primary flakes from random cores, 30-40 mm in theirmaximum dimension, do exist, but the lack of coreson the site suggests that their production took placeelsewhere and that the large primary flakes werebrought to the site as blanks.

Utilized Flakes

A total of twenty-seven flakes exhibiting thirty-twoutilized edges were recovered from the Kassel site andthese appear widely distributed throughout theexcavations. Common to all specimens is use retouchresulting in the removal of a series of small flakes(less than 2 mm long) from one or more edges. Rarelyis use retouch extensive enough to create a markedchange in the shape of the flake edge showing use.Use retouch does tend to dull, or increase, the utilizededge angle. Descriptions of these specimens are foundin Table 3 while their

attributes are summarized below.

All of the twenty-seven utilized flakes are ofOnondaga chert but only fourteen are identifiable asto flake type. The remainder are represented by flakefragments many of which appear to have been brokenduring their use and then discarded. Otherassemblages (ie. Lennox I986b:228, 1990:41)exhibit apreference for the utilization of larger, thicker flakes,usually represented by primary flakes. However, inthis assemblage, where primary flakes make up only asmall portion (12%) of the identifiable debitage theutilization of secondary flakes appears to havesufficed, slightly outnumbering the utilization ofprimary flakes by a ratio of eight-to-six. Completeutilized flakes range between 17 mm and 50 mm inlength (mean = 32.1 mm), 11 mm-32 mm in width(mean = 19.6 mm) and 2 mm-9 mm in thickness(mean = 3.6 mm). The lateral edges of utilized flakesare usually the longest employable edges and theseare preferred on twenty-one of the twenty-sevenutilized edges that could be


Table 3. Utilized FlakesFlake MetricsProvenance Flake

Type Length Width Thick.

Utilized EdgeLoc. Shape Length

8N11E S 45 27 4 LV CC 24LV S 23

6N7E P 20 15 3 LV CC 126N8E F 9+ 11 2 LD S 8+5N7E P 29 27 5 DD S 27ON7E LD S 154N8E S 17 20 4 DD CV 203N6E F 16+ 12+ 2 ?D S 9+3N6E P 42 32 9 LB IR 173N7E P 30 11 3 LD CV 192N6E P 28+ 19 5 LD ? 7+2N8E F 20+ 9+ 2 ?D S 8+2N9E F 20+ 14+ 4 LV IR 15+2N11E F 13+ 14 3 LB S 11+ON9E F 29+ 26 4 LD S 9+

LV CC 14ON11E S 17 16 3 DD CV 91S8E F 17+ 11+ 3 ?D S 14+1S9E F 17+ 20 3 DD ? 11+2S7E F 15+ 10+ 2 ?D S 16+2S7E P 31 22 9 DD IR 162S7E S 40 17 4 LV CC 152S8E P 50 17 4 LD S 16

LV S 373S10E F 16+ 22+ 3 LV S 11+5S7E F 10+ 11+ 2 LV ? 8+5S9E S 28 11+ 4 DD ? 5+7S11E F 41+ 21 4 LB S 17+

LB IR 30+8S10E S 20+ 19+ 3 LD S 12+8S12E F 17+ 11+ 2 ?D S 10+9S12E S 30 19 2 LV S 12

Abbreviations:Flake Type: PPrimaryS Secondary FFragment

Location L:P ProximalD DistalL Lateral

Utilized Edge:Location R:D DorsalV VentralB Bifacial

Shape:S StraightCC ConcaveCV ConvexIR Irregular

Measurements are in mm. Material, in all instances, is Onondaga chert. +Indicates incomplete measurement due to breakage.

oriented. Six utilized edges are distal flake edges andthe remaining five are unidentifiable with respect toflake orientation. Utilized edge length ranges from 9mm to 37 mm (mean = 17.3 mm) on the twenty-ninemeasurable edges. Unifacial use

retouch, suggesting unidirectional scraping, appearspredominantly on dorsal surfaces (eighteen edges)while ten edges show unifacial use retouch on theirventral surfaces. Only four edges exhibit bifacial useretouch, and this contributed to an irregular edge


form in three of the four examples. Such retouchmay be attributed to bidirectional scraping, cuttingor whittling. Due to the small size of some utilizedflake fragments, five utilized edges were impossibleto orient to their original flake. Utilized edge shapeis dominated by seventeen examples of straightedges, four others being concave, three convex andfour irregular.

Retouched Flakes

Retouched flakes, in contrast to utilized flakes,appear to have been intentionally retouched tochange their shape or edge angle. Specializedexamples are described below as retouched bladeletsand scrapers. Of the three retouched flakes, onefrom 4N8E is made on a secondary flake measuring16 mm long, 17 mm wide and 2 mm in thickness. Itmay be classified as a denticulate with three smallteeth distributed over the 9 mm long lateral edge.Another specimen from 0N8E appears on a primaryflake measuring 20 mm in length and width and 4mm in maximum thickness. It possesses two steeplyretouched concavities measuring 7 mm and 8 mm inlength along its distal and lateral edges and is bestreferred to as a notch or spokeshave. The remainingspecimen from 4N 10E is made on a primary flakeand measures 23 mm long, 19 mm wide and 5 mm inmaximum thickness. It exhibits acute unifacialdorsal retouch and edge rounding of the slightlyconvex distal edge.

Retouched Bladelets

Four specimens have been classified as retouchedbladelets since they resemble those reported fromthe Icehouse Bottom Site in Tennessee. There theywere only recovered from Early Archaic strata(Chapman 1977:86). Similar specimens are alsoreported from the Early Archaic Nettling Site insouthwestern Ontario (Ellis et al 1991:16). Theseconsist of small blade-like flakes retouched alongboth lateral edges. Since they show little evidence ofuse they are thought not to have been used, orperhaps used for fine work (Chapman 1977:86 andfigure 23h). The Kassel examples (Table 4) areslightly wider than those from Tennessee but samplesizes are small in both instances. The Kasselexamples vary considerably in the extent of retouch.In some instances retouch covers the entire dorsalsurface of the flake (ie Figure 4:c,d) and contributesto a regular edge form (note that ventral retouch onthese specimens intrudes only 2 mm to 3 mm leavingthe medial portion of the flake's surface unscarred).On other examples continuous unifacial retouch ofthe lateral edges has had little effect on the size orshape of the flake (Figure 4:a,b). Three

of the four retouched bladelets were found closetogether toward the southwest end of the excavations(Figure 10). The retouched bladelets are shown inFigure 9 (c-f) next to specimens classed as drills. Inaddition to their differences in size it is also notablethat the bladelets are thinner and flatter in crosssection than is the case with the thicker and morepointed drills.

Burins

Often referred to with reservations in Ontariocontexts, as pseudo-burins, two such specimens wereidentified from the Kassel site. Recovered from 1S7E and 458E (Figure 5), these examples are quitesimilar in form though they differ in size, measuring26 mm and 14 mm long, 42 mm and 23 mm wide and5 mm and 3 mm thick, respectively. Both specimenswere made on the distal-lateral extremity of primaryflakes by removing burin spalls from the distal edge.The burin spall removed from the larger specimenwas initiated from a small tabular surface remnantlocated on the flake's lateral edge. The smallerspecimen could be classified as a dihedral burin, oneburin spall having been removed from the lateral edgeand this flake scar subsequently used as the strikingplatform for the removal of another burin spall fromthe distal edge. Fine dorsal retouch is also presentand continuous on the distal edge of the smallerspecimen and may represent an intentionalmodification to dull this edge for hafting or formanual use. Alternatively, this retouch may havebeen intended to strengthen the edge for removal ofthe burin spall. As with the larger specimen useretouch of the distal burin facet originates from thelateral edge.

Scrapers

Eighteen scrapers were identified from the Kasselsite. They comprise an assemblage which isdistinctive because of their small size and extensiveresharpening, compared with scrapers from mostother Archaic assemblages. While similarities existbetween these examples and those reported fromTennessee, it is not clear whether these forms arecharacteristic of the Bifurcate Base Tradition, theEarly Archaic in general, or whether they are simply aregional expression with broad temporal affinities.Many of the attributes which are highlighted in themorphological types appear to relate to scraperresharpening, exhaustion and discard, as is discussedin more detail below. The following scraperdescriptions divide this apparent reduction sequenceinto several stages to assist in the visualization ofsuccessive changes in form. Table 5 provides themetrics and provenances of these tools.


Figure 4. Retouched Bladelets: a - 8S11E, b - 1N6E, c - 5S9E, d - 8SIOE


Table 4. Kassel Retouched Bladelet Metrics (mm.)

Provenance Length Width Thickness

0SI0E 24 9 30S11E 28 18 4559E 27 12 31N6E -- 15 4

Flake Scrapers

These are large scrapers having steep unifacialretouch along at least one edge with little additionalmodification to shape or thin the tool. They aredistinguished from utilized or retouched flakes bytheir size and the more advanced or refined, steepcontinuous "scraper" retouch. The two completespecimens from 4N4E and 4S9E are technically endscrapers exhibiting steep distal dorsal retouch butthey appear to have been rejected when resharpeningresulted in large irregularities in their bit edges. Thelatter example (Figure 6:a) shows extensiverounding and polish which occurred on the distaledge before it was damaged. Bifacial retouch alongthe lateral edge is acute angled and may have servedin cutting rather than as a hafting modification. Thisspecimen was refitted from three fragments allrecovered from the same one-metre square. Thepebbly surfaces on the broken edges suggests thatthese breaks were thermally induced. The specimenfrom 7N5E-4N5E (Figure 6:b) can only betentatively identified as an end scraper since theflake's distal end is missing and the retouch on thelateral edge is irregular, perhaps representing adenticulate, with dorsal retouch forming three teethproximal to the break. These rather large scrapersappear to have been rejected due to breakage ratherthan to exhaustion.

Unifacial End/Side Scrapers

These scrapers form the largest portion of thescraper assemblage, being represented by tenspecimens. The end and side scraper categories havebeen united here because of the difficulty indistinguishing the two scraper types on smallspecimens which display such extensiveworkmanship that the striking platform and flakeorientation are often indiscernible. I suspect thatsimilar difficulties have led others to apply the termsend and side scraper to specific specimens on thebasis of utilized edge length and maximum tooldimensions (cf. Chapman 1977:57) rather than inreference to flake orientation. However, here, thisapproach seems arbitrary since these metrics arewithin millimetres and it is doubtful whether theywere taken into consideration by the craftsmen. It is

of interest to note that several end/side scrapers, aswell as the three specimens classed as alternatescrapers, exhibit converging (lateral?) edges creatinga rather pointed (distal?) end. Since these projectionsdo not appear to have been utilized it may be thatthese points are simply a result of extensivelyresharpening the adjacent (lateral?) edges and indi-cate some of the final stages of tool use or toolexhaustion.

Alternately Bevelled Scrapers

These three specimens are distinguished from thosedescribed above by the placement of retouch onopposite long or lateral edges of the tool resulting intrapezoidal cross sections. All three examples exhibitconverging lateral edges forming pointed distal ends(Table 5, Figure 6:k-m).

Scraper Discussion

One of the most notable characteristics of theKassel site scrapers is their small size and the extentof workmanship that they display. The assemblagemay be viewed as a product of material scarcity andtool resharpening, a continuum of reduction,resharpening, re-use, exhaustion and discard. Thefirst stage is represented by the large retouched flakescrapers which may be examples of tools lost orrejected due to breakage during the early 'stages oftheir use/reduction sequence (ie. Figure 6:a,b). Twoof the three large flake scrapers, for example, werefound in several fragments while the remainingspecimen appears to have been rejected due to anerror made during resharpening. The larger end/sidescraper from 1 S6E (Figure 6:c) appears to be thedistal end of an end scraper, yet fine retouch on thelateral edges suggests that these edges were receiv-ing most use while the distal end is not as finelyretouched and is beginning to show the protrusion orpoint common to many of the smaller end/side oralternate scrapers (ie. Figure 6:g-i, k-m). If completeit would have been longer than most of the otherend/side scrapers and it is expected that this speci-men was rejected due to breakage before it wasexhausted.


Table 5. Kassel Site Scraper Descriptions

Scraper Type/ Chert Metrics (mm) Retouch Comments

Provenance Type Leng. Width Thick. Loc. Shape

Flake Scrapers7N5E-4N5E ON 44+ 39 11 LD CV Denticulate?

4N4E ON 35 43 13 DD CV

4S9E ON 51 34 11 DD CV Three frags from same

End/Side Scrapers7N3E ON 19 16

LB

6 LD

CV unit. Thermal breaks

CV Ovate - all edges

6N7E KP 21 19+

LDPDDD

7 DV

CV steeply retouchedCV most use appears onCV flake's distal end?

LV ? Nodular cortex

6N7E KP 22 18 6 LD CV Converging lateral

5N6E ON 23 16

LD3 LD

CV edgesCV

1N7E ON 26 28 9 DD CV

1N9E KP 18 17 7 DD CV

1N10E ON 26 18

LDLD

6 LD

CVCVCV Converging lateral

1S6E ON 20+ 23

LD7 DD

CV edgesCV Distal fragment of

LD ? end/side scraperLD ? (not exhausted?)

2S8E ON 22 20 6 LD CV

2S8E ON 26 18

LD8 LD

CV Nodular cortexCV

Alternate (Side) Scrapers5N7E ON 25 17

PDDD

5 LD

CCCC

CV Converging lateral

2S10E ON 20= 13 5 LD

edgesCV

2S12E KP 26 17

LV5 LD

CVCV

Unidentifiable Fragments6N8E KP 22 14+

LV

4 LD

CV Nodular cortex

CV

2N10E ON 17+ 15+ 4 ?V ?

Location R:D Dorsal

V Ventral

Shape:CC ConcaveCV Convex

Retouch:Location L:P ProximalD DistalL Lateral

Measurements are in mm. + Indicates incomplete measurement due to breakage, .

Abbreviations:Chert Type:ON Onondaga KPKettle Point


The end/side and alternate scrapers are, for themost part, complete specimens. Their small size

and the greater number of retouched edges exhibitedby these specimens suggest that they have beenextensively reworked or resharpened and discardedupon exhaustion. It is noteworthy that five of theeighteen scrapers are made from Kettle point chert,far exceeding the appearance or use of this materialelsewhere in the assemblage. A similar preferencefor Kettle Point chert for use in the making ofscrapers has been documented in both Archaic(Lennox 1986b:228) andLate Woodland (Lennox1 9 8 1 : 2 4 4 , 1 9 8 4 :6 8 )assemblages and has beenattributed to the material'sresistance to dulling byabrasion.The Kassel site scrapers,

as a single artifact class,were widely distributedthroughout the excavationswith no apparent spatialpatterning as to scrapertypes or raw materials.

Miscellaneous Bifaces

Aside from the points, a point preform and drillsdescribed below, fourteenother bifaces recovered from Kassel appear to havebeen rejected at an early stage in their reduction dueto breakage. With three exceptions, they are smalledge fragments or midsections that offer few insightsas to the form of the complete specimens

other than to suggest that they were thickbifaces with sinuous edges, attributes usuallyassociated with early stage preforms ratherthan with finished tools. Three of the largerspecimens suggest that ovate-triangular formswere the norm, with lengths (48+ mm, 40 mm,and 31+ mm) widths (32 mm, 36 mm, and 40mm) and thicknesses (7 mm, 10 mm, and 10mm) appropriate for knife or projectile pointpreforms. An additional specimen from 0N9E-2S9E is also triangular or ovate-triangular in

form and while it exhibits nearlycomplete length (61 mm) andwidth (36 mm) measurements,both faces of the tool consist ofa l m o s t c o n t i n u o u spotlidded surfaces leaving only 6mm of the s p e c i m e n ' sor i g in a lthickness. What little remains ofthe tool's original surfacesuggests that this was a large yetrefined and well thinned biface,perhaps a knife.It is of interest to note the

distribution of this artifact classsince almost all e x a m p l e s wererecovered from the southern halfof the excavations (Figure 10).

Point Preform

A small, nearly complete biface appears to have beenan unfinished point or point preform (Figure 7:a),comparing favourably to the example from the BlueDart site (Table 6). This ovate-pentagonal

Table 6. Kassel and Blue Dart: Point and Preform MetricsProvenance Length Shoulder Stem Thickness Figure

Width Width Reference

Kassel Points4S8E 25 20 10 3 7:c, 84N6E 24 15 9 3 7:a, 84S11E (29) (22) - 4 7:d, 82S8E 35+ (25) - 5 7:e, 8Kassel Preform 35 28 6 7:aBlue Dart Point 33 29 15 5 13a, 14aBlue Dart Preform 39 30 5 13b, 14b

Measurements are to the nearest millimetre. () Indicates estimated measurements from point fragments..

+ Indicates incomplete measurement of remaining fragment.


Figure 6. Kassel Site Scrapersa,b Flake Scrapers (4S9E, 7N5E-4N5E)c-j, n,o End/side Scrapers (IS6E, 1N7E, 1N9E, 7N3E, 6N7E, 1N10E, 2S8E, 2S8E, 5N6E,

6N7E)k-m Alternate Scrapers (5N7E, 2SI0E, 2S12E)p, q Fragments (6N8E, 2N 10E)

14 O N T A R I O ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 56

biface was refitted from two fragments recoveredfrom 659E and 7S 11 E.

Points

Four complete or nearly complete points identifythe Kassel site as a member of the Bifurcate BaseTradition and within this Tradition the points mostclosely correspond to the Lecroy type. Two of thesmaller, complete specimens (Figure 7:b and 7:c)have been made on flakes with the most intrusiveretouch appearing on the dorsal surfaces. Theopposite faces exhibit the ventral surfaces of the flakeblank with edge retouch being the only refinement(Figure 8:b and 8:c). As a result the cross sections ofthese two points are plano-convex. The two largerpoints exhibit biconvex cross sections as a result ofthe fine bifacial retouch which extends across bothfaces. One of these has been burnt, resulting in theloss of one shoulder and slightly more than half of thebase including the basal edge (Figures 7:d and 8:a).The other point

sides of the bifurcated stem. This breakage patternmay have resulted when the hafted point was turnedat right angles to the shaft during use as a projectile.Two other small biface tips from 1S7E and 6S12E,and a biface midsection from 2N9E-1N9E appear tobe point fragments but offer few interpretive details.Point and preform metrics are provided in Table 6.

No evidence of basal modification, either grinding orburination (cf. Justice 1987:91-2, Prufer and Sofsky1965:31) occurs on the Kassel site examples.

Drills

Two small and narrow bifaces with straight basesand thick triangular and diamond shaped crosssections are elsewhere cited as straight sided basedrills (Chapman 1977:75). While slight edge roundingis noted toward the tapered (distal?) ends of the tools,fine retouch at the rounded, slightly wider, ends orbases appears excessive as a basal finishing techniqueand may in fact indicate an

Figure 7. Kassel Site Points and Preforma - Point Preform (6S9E-7S11E), b-e - Projectile Points (4N6E, 4S8E, 4S11E, 2S8E-2S8E)

fragment (Figure 7:e) shows an interesting set of fivebreaks. The tip was broken from the remainingportion of the blade and these fragments wererecovered from the same excavation unit suggestingthat this damage occurred in situ. The other fourmissing fragments include both shoulders and both

alternative orientation and/or use for these specimens.The examples from Kassel were both recovered from2S8E and measure 34 mm and 29 mm long, 11 mmand 8 mm wide and 7 mm and 5 mm in thickness(Figure 9:a and b). Similar examples are documentedfrom the Kirk, Bifurcate


Figure 8. Kassel Site Points


Figure 9. Kassel Site Drills (a, b) and Retouched Bladelets (c-f)

and Stanly strata at the Icehouse Bottom site(Chapman 1977:78) but are absent from the KirkHorizon, Nettling component in southwestern Ontario(Ellis et al 1991).

Kassel Site Summary andDiscussion

The Kassel site is located on a low sandy ridgebordered on three sides by a broad wetland adjacentto a small creek. Although located within thewatershed of the Grand River the site is situated aconsiderable distance inland from any majorwaterway and is best regarded as an upland, inland orinterior site location.

Excavations at Kassel were centred on an 127square metre, oval, concentration of debitage andtools that measured approximately 16 metres in lengthand 9 metres in width. Debitage density within thisarea ranged from a maximum of fifty-three per metresquare to an arbitrary excavation limit of one-metresquares that produced less than five pieces ofdebitage. The Kassel site lithic assemblage is meagrecompared to that of most Archaic sites excavated insouthwestern Ontario. Debitage densities are low overmost of the site area with 75% of the excavation unitsproducing less

than ten flakes per unit. It is tempting to attribute thescarcity of debitage to the site's distance from primarysources of chert but this cannot be substantiated sincegood secondary sources exist nearby and although thesize of these chert pebbles is limited, they appear tohave been utilized to some extent. It is also temptingto suggest a short period of occupation but thenumber of tools is rather substantial and there is abroader range of tool types represented here than isthe case at sites like Blue Dart. The Kassel siteappears to have been more than a temporary, specialpurpose activity area occupied for only a brief period.In all likelihood it represents a base camp.

Small, inland sites that produce more than a smallcluster of debitage and a few tools may representwinter habitation sites or base camps. This mayaccount for the close distribution of activities,perhaps focused near to a hearth or perhaps within ahouse structure. If Kassel is a winter base camp, thelow density of waste flakes may be attributed to thedifficulty of gaining access to chert sources during thecold season. Similar reasoning has been used toexplain the findings on several other sites recentlyinvestigated by the Ministry of Transportation(Lennox 19866, 1990) to a point of appearingredundant or lacking in imagination, but the fact isthat few provincial highways are built on majorwaterways where warm season camps were probablyconcentrated in the limited space available in these


Figure 10. Kassel Site Artifact Type Distribution


resource rich areas. Such concentrations of warmseason sites have resulted in what often appear to belarge intensively occupied or rich archaeologicalcomponents, but often prove to be those horizontallycontinuous mixed multicomponent nightmares thatline the banks of major waterways.

The low density of materials deposited on sites likeKassel may also reflect the requirements of rawmaterial and the way in which this material washandled between extraction at the source and deposi-tion sometime later. The wise management of rawmaterials was perhaps critical, more to the lives ofsome peoples than to others. This management anduse of raw material and tools is perhaps best por-trayed by far-ranging peoples such as Paleo-lndianswho seem to have carried enough toolstone fromquarry sites to last a considerable length of time. Thisdid not mean transporting large amounts of materialbut rather the wise management, use and reuse of thesmall amount of material that they did transport.Others have remarked on the burden of largequantities of material possessions in hunting andgathering societies.

"Of the hunter it is truly said that his wealth is uburden. In his condition of life, goods can become"grievously oppressive," .. . and so possess what theycan comfortably carry themselves. " (Sahlins1972:11)

Is the material conservation evident at Kassel acontinuation of a pattern practiced during the Paleo--Indian period? Evidence for broad ranging mobility,in the form of distant lithic source utilization,contributes largely to the picture of material conser-vation during Paleo-Indian times and is also evidentat the Early Archaic, Kirk horizon, Nettling site(Ellis et al 1991). Evidence for similar mobilitypracticed by the people who use Kassel, contributingto their regard for material acquisition, reduction anddiscard, is not as easily documented since exotic lithicmaterials are virtually absent. This, however, doesnot negate the likelihood of such a mobility patternpersisting into the later portion of the Early Archaicbut it does make its recognition more difficult.Alternatively, the conservation of raw materials heremay simply reflect the season of occupation ordistance from primary sources rather than being apart of any broader temporal phenomenon.

At Kassel the absence of cores or core remnantsand the scarcity of primary flakes and corticalsurfaces suggests that there was little core reductioncarried out here. This may be related to the site'sdistance from primary sources and perhaps, in part, toa reliance on pebble cherts for most of theirimmediate needs. Yet, assuming the use of pebble

cherts, primary flakes with or without cortex are rare,suggesting that virtually all primary reductionoccurred off the site and that the maintenance ofcomplete tools and the completion of preforms, andperhaps tool blanks, contributed to most of the site'sdebitage assemblage.

On Archaic sites where the early stages of the lithicreduction sequence were not practiced due to materialscarcity or where secondary source pebble cherts arethe only local chert source available, the bipolar coretechnique is not only present but well represented(Chapman 1977:57, Lennox 1984:62, 1986b:227,1990:40,47-49, Lennox et al 1986:82). This, however,is not the case at Kassel. This may simply be areflection of the site's function or the season ofoccupation, (perhaps shortly after tools werereplenished), so that material reduction here wassimply a matter of finishing tool blanks or preformsand tool maintenance activities such as resharpening.But the scarcity or absence of bipolar cores or piecesesquillées on Paleo-Indian sites (Ellis and Deller1990:47) or the earlier Early Archaic Nettling site(Ellis et al 1991:10) suggests that a broader patternmay be emerging. The preferential selection of largerprimary flakes for use is almost universal among theproducers of stone tools. Yet here, where corereduction appears minimal and, as a result, primaryflakes are relatively scarce, there is a greater emphasison the utilization of secondary flakes for expedienttools. Retouched flakes are scarce in this assemblagewith the specialized form, retouched bladelets,appearing as a distinctive tool form. These have alsobeen reported from Early Archaic assemblageselsewhere in the province and as distant as Tennesseeand may have restricted temporal or cultural affinities.

The scraper assemblage at Kassel is substantial,these being one of the most common artifact typesrecovered. Their morphology also seems to reflect aconservation or exhaustion ethic. Scrapers appear tohave been utilized and reworked so that the completespecimens (presumably those not discarded due tobreakage) are small and exhibit several bit edgesencompassing most of the available edges of the tools.For the most part these small specimens appear tohave been discarded due to their small size. Yet someof the Kassel specimens show great morphologicalsimilarity to those from such distant assemblages asIcehouse Bottom where arguments concerningrestrictions imposed by raw material scarcity cannotbe substantiated. Perhaps scraper form will also proveto be a sensitive cultural or temporal indicator. Thepreferential use of Kettle Point chert for theproduction of some of the Kassel site scrapers isnotable, although this material is virtually absent fromthe rest of the assemblage. As


previously noted a similar preference has beendocumented for other Archaic, as well as LateWoodland assemblages.

Also present are the distinctive thin triangularbifaces interpreted as knives, and the straight sidedbase drills. Similar examples of the triangular bifacesare cited for Early Archaic corner-notched pointassemblages (Ellis et al 1990:74, 1991:9) but theirpresence at Kassel indicates that they have broadercultural affinities. Similar drill types are documentedfrom the Kirk, Bifurcate and Stanly strata at theIcehouse Bottom site (Chapman 1977:78) but they areabsent from the Kirk Horizon, Nettling component inSouthwestern Ontario (Ellis et al 1991).

A small ovate-pentagonal biface, very similar to theexample from Blue Dart, is interpreted as a pointpreform. While other examples have been reported forbifurcate base components elsewhere, pentagonalpoint preforms are also reported for other Archaicstemmed point industries (cf, Ellis et al 1990:100).

A broader discussion of bifurcate base pointtypologies is found in the concluding section of thisreport. The slight variation seen in the few Kassel sitespecimens appears to be a function of their reductionfrom either flake blanks or from bifacial, likelypentagonal, preforms. The latter points are slightlylarger and biconvex in cross section while pointsmade from flake blanks have been simply formed,predominantly through the removal of short flakesfrom the tool's edges, leaving large portions of theoriginal flake blank unmodified. Does this variationseparate those points manufactured at the site(restricted by the availability of raw materials) fromthose transported here as finished specimens orpreforms?

Spatial Considerations: ActivityAreas and House Structures

Excavations at Kassel were directed by the densityof waste flakes recovered from one-metre squareunits. The limits of excavation were arbitrarily set atsquares producing less than five pieces of debitage,resulting in continuous excavation of a 127 squaremetre area. The number and range of tool typespresent suggest that the site was a base camp andprobably possessed a house structure. The size of thelithic scatter resembles others excavated in a similarfashion at Late Archaic sites such as Innes (Lennox1986b) and Canada Century (Lennox 1990), where thepresence of structures was argued from thedistribution and density of lithic debitage. Similararguments are difficult to make for Kassel because ofthe low debitage densities present here.

What is interesting are the distributions of artifacttypes across the site area. During the analysis allartifacts were plotted individually in search of clustersor patterns in their distributions. However noneappeared particularly outstanding. When all artifacttypes were plotted together (Figure 10) a large artifactcluster, which included all tool forms (points,scrapers, drills, retouched bladelets, bifaces andpreforms) was noted in the largest, more south-ern,portion of the area excavated. A smaller cluster oftools was found to the north where, with the exceptionof one point fragment, half of the scraper assemblagewas recovered, somewhat isolated from the other tooltypes present at the site. It may be that the largercluster represents the area of a house structure, withnumerous and varied activities represented by thetools recovered there. The area to the north mayrepresent an outside-of-house activity area, a placedevoted to the processing of skins. If the southernartifact distribution does represent the location of ahouse structure, its size, approximately 11 m by 7metres, is similar to structure size estimationsreported for the Late Archaic components cited above.These examples range from 11 m to 16 metres longand from 7 m to 10 metres in width, placing theKassel structure at the small end of this range.

The Blue Dart SiteThe Blue Dart site is located approximately 800

metres east of the Kassel Site, on Lot 5, SSR, inWilmot Township, Waterloo County, Ontario (Figure1). The site is situated on the southern end of a north-south oriented ridge, on a slight sandy rise a fewmetres above the present wetland (350 m. A. S. L.).While Alder Creek is now diverted to the north of thehighway, formerly it flowed to the south of the siteand bordered the site on three sides with a broadwetland, as shown in Figure 11.

The Blue Dart site was identified and mitigatedduring the 1990 field season. Understandably, giventhe site's small size and low artifact density, it hadbeen missed by our test pit survey in 1989 but waslocated when the proposed right-of-way was surfaceexamined following its minor disturbance duringlogging activities. At this time three small flakes werevisible close together on the surface. One-metresquare test units excavated at five-metre intervalsindicated the site's small size. Excavations werelimited to thirty-four one-metre squares most of whichwere concentrated in a five by five metre area(Figures 11 and 12) centred on a single subsoilfeature. The site produced a small but interesting


Table 7. Blue Dart Site Lithic Debitage Morphology and Material Types

Chert Type Flake TypePrimary Secondary Shatter Frag.

TOTAL

Onondaga 17 71 2 82 172Kettle Point 1 7 9 17

Haldimand - 6 2 8

Selkirk 1 - 1 2

TOTAL 19 84 2 94 199

assemblage consisting of one point, one pointpreform, three bifaces, four utilized flakes and 199pieces of chipping debitage (Table 1). These artifactsand the single feature identified are described in thefollowing sections.

Feature 1Feature I was identified in square 3N1 W. The

topsoil from this square produced the highest densityof debitage from the site, fifty-two items. The featurewas defined at the topsoil-subsoil interface as havingirregular edges, being oblong in planview. It wasoriented northeast-southwest measuring 89 cm longand 35 cm in maximum width. The feature wasdistinguished by its light grey-brown, sandy fillagainst the light reddish-brown, sandy subsoil andwas basin shaped in profile with a maximum depth of11 cm below the topsoil-subsoil interface. All featurefill (14 I) was removed for flotation, which producedtwelve only pieces of debitage and also about fiftyflakes and flake fragments that can only be describedas microdebitage since they were recovered using aone millimetre mesh screen.

There was a reluctance at first to assign Feature 1to the Early Archaic occupation since the density ofartifacts within the feature seemed to be even lessthan that recovered from the topsoil above. It wasthought that the feature might simply represent anundulation in the subsoil or be a byproduct of theindistinct vertical distribution of artifacts which isoften seen, on Archaic sites, to overlap the topsoil-subsoil interface and diminish rapidly within a fewmore centimetres of depth. The fact that the featurewas visible also raised questions of authenticity sincesubsoil features are rare on Archaic sites. Rather thanbeing defined on the basis of soil coloration they areoften visually imperceptible and usually definableonly on the basis of their artifact contents. However,the feature was not recognized until the surroundingsubsoil was exposed and what remained may onlyhave represented the base of a slightly deeperfeature.

When the volume of the identified feature remnant isconsidered against the volume of the topsoilexcavated above it the density of artifacts from withinthe feature is not in fact low. Furthermore, the featurewas the focal point of the site not only in terms ofdebitage and tool frequencies but also in thedistribution of thermally altered tools and debitage,suggesting that the feature may have served as ahearth. Flotation and fine screening of the feature fillproduced only a few pieces of wood charcoal, thelargest being less than a centimetre in length. Thewood charcoal was encrusted with a mineral depositand thus appeared much the same as the surroundingsoil matrix. Two pieces were large enough for speciesidentification, being sugar maple and white pine (R.Fecteau, personal communication, January 1992). Thelatter, larger specimen was submitted to theAccelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility at theIsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory for dating. Thefollowing results as reported by Dr. R. Beukens(Personal communication, May 16, 1992) provide asample age quoted as an uncalibrated conventionalradiocarbon date in years before present (B.P.), usingthe Libby carbon 14 meanlife of 8033 years. The errorrepresents the 68.3% confidence limit.

Sample Identification: Blue Dart Site Feature 1Description: White pine charcoalWeight used (mg): 162Isotrace Lab number: TO-2952Age (years B.P.): 8320 ± 60The date is considered as acceptable, closely corre-sponding to those reported for similar culturalmaterials in Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky(see Justice 1987:91-95).

Lithic DebitageThe debitage from Blue Dart was analyzed accordingto material type and flake type or morphology. Asindicated in Table 7, 86% of the debitage was ofOnondaga chert with seventeen examples of KettlePoint chert, eight of Haldimand chert, and two of


Figure 11. Blue Dart Topography and Limits of Excavation

Selkirk chert. Almost half of the debitage consisted offlake fragments that could not be identified as tomorphological type. Most of the flakes that could beidentified were secondary flakes, indicating thatthinning and resharpening of bifaces constituted themajor lithic reduction activity at the site. The fewprimary flakes recovered, along with the scarcity ofcores and the five pieces of debitage that exhibitcortex suggest that little, if any, core reduction tookplace here. Notably, some of the tools are of KettlePoint chert but little of the debitage is of thismaterial. Probably the tools of Kettle Point chert werebrought to the site in a finished state while those ofOnondaga chert required finishing and resharpeninghere. The few secondary flakes of Haldimand chertwere undoubtedly derived in resharpening the largebiface/knife described below. Likewise thosesecondary flakes of Onondaga chert may have beenproduced when preforms were refined into finishedtools as the reduction of the point preform to thefinished point would nicely illustrate.

Utilized Flakes

Three utilized primary flakes and what may be autilized core remnant are all of Kettle Point chert.These specimens are large pieces of material,compared to most others on the site, and were likely

transported here as blanks. One specimen, from5N3W, is the proximal end of a primary flake. Itexhibits convex lateral edges with fine, discontinuous,bifacial use retouch and some edge rounding perhapsfrom use as a cutting implement on soft materials. Itmeasures 20 mm long, 35 mm wide and 7 mm inmaximum thickness. Another primary flake from5N2W measures 35 mm long, 30 mm wide and 10 mmthick. It exhibits bifacial use retouch along 21 mmand 22 mm of its straight distal and lateral edgesrespectively, use wear that might be expected fromcutting harder materials. The remaining utilized flakefrom 4N0E measures 29 mm long, 18 mm wide and 5mm thick. It shows unifacial use retouch for 17 mmalong its concave lateral edge and may have been usedas a spokeshave. This flake undoubtedly derived froma small chert nodule, perhaps an exhausted core,recovered from 5N0E. The core remnant measures 31mm by 25 mm by 15 mm and exhibits unifacial useretouch and edge rounding on a 28 mm long convexedge.

Bifaces

The biface/knife of Haldimand chert was recoveredfrom 3N1 W. It is ovate-triangular in shape,measuring 57 mm long, 42 mm in maximum widthand 8 mm in thickness. Judging from the


Figure 12. Blue Dart Debitage per Metre Square. (The artifact density as shown in square 3N1W combines the topsoildensity of 52 with the 12 pieces of debitage recovered from Feature 1)

asymmetrical form of the tool and the secondaryflakes of Haldimand chert represented in the debitageassemblage, one lateral edge was resharpened at thesite while the opposite edge was left sinuous,unfinished, and was dulled perhaps to act as abacking. Basal thinning, apparent on one face of thetool, in combination with grinding of the base andadjacent lateral edges likely aided its hafting as acutting implement (Figures 13:c and 14:c).

Two other bifaces were fashioned from Kettle Pointchert. One small fragment, recovered from 4N0E,appears to have been a tool blank or preform. Thetool's edges have been rounded perhaps in preparationfor further thinning or from use. Another biface wasfragmented due to exposure to intense heat. The threefragments recovered mend to form an apparently wellthinned biface measuring 27 mm long, 12+ mm wideand 5 mm thick. Notably all three fragments wererecovered from 3NIW, above Feature 1, and supportthe feature's interpretation as a hearth.

Point and Point Preform

The single projectile point recovered from the BlueDart Site is a complete bifurcate base point and wasthe only artifact recovered from square 6NIE. It ismade of Onondaga chert and may be described asshort relative to its width (maximum length = 33 mm,maximum/shoulder width = 29 mm), with slightlybarbed shoulders and a broad (15 mm) and deeplybifurcated (4 mm) stem (Figures 13:a and 14:a). Thereis no evidence of grinding or burination on the haftingelement. In cross section the point is biconvex orlenticular, measuring 5 mm in maximum thickness.This example is slightly larger than those from theKassel site (Table 6).

The point preform, from 3N1W, is also ofOnondaga chert and may be described as weaklystemmed or pentagonal in form, similar to theexample from Kassel. It is so similar in size and shapeto the finished point, there is little doubt as to itsidentification (Table 6, Figures 13:b and 14:b). Priorto the recovery of the point the preform was thoughtto represent a finished point, typologically a MorrowMountain I, with poorly defined shoulders


Figure 13. Blue Dart Point, Preform and Knife

and a short broad stem. Indeed, the specimen wouldhave required very little modification to reduce it tothe finished specimen, raising the question of otherpreforms in similar contexts being misclassified. Abrief examination of the literature suggests that thismay be the case. Often where there are stemmedpoints in a sequence there are short stemmed orpentagonal forms regarded as points. For example,there is a very similar specimen from Calloway Island(Chapman 1979:221, figure 57a) which is likewisenoted to be similar to the Morrow Mountain Istemmed type. The Calloway Island example wasrecovered from Stratum V while other stemmed typesincluding bifurcates were recovered from strata IVthrough X. The specimen is plano-convex in crosssection "a percussion flaked primary flake brought tofinished form by pressure flaking. The extremeproximal end still retains the striking platform" and itis likely that this is also a preform for one of thestemmed point types in these strata.

Blue Dart Summary andDiscussion

The Blue Dart site is located 800 metres east of theKassel site in an identical setting, on a low sandyridge bordered by the broad wetland of the same smallcreek that the Kassel site is on. Blue

Dart is small in area with the largest portion of thesite being contained within a five metre squarecentred on Feature 1. The feature, interpreted as ahearth, yielded a very small sample of wood charcoaland an acceptable radiocarbon date for thiscomponent.

Debitage density is low over most of the site area,the debitage frequency totalling only 199 pieces.While there appears to be a high tool-to-debitageratio, it is not significantly different from that of theKassel site (Table 1). As at Kassel, this assemblage isdominated by secondary flakes reflecting mainly thereduction of preforms and tool blanks to finishedforms, and tool maintenance activities including theresharpening of worn or dulled edges. This suggeststhat finished tools, preforms or blanks were preparedelsewhere and carried to the site in a finished or semi-finished state where they were used to replace lost,damaged or worn implements and maintained forimmediate use. The assemblage of finished tools issmall but their forms, dominated by hunting andbutchering equipment, suggest that a restricted rangeof activities was undertaken here. Scrapers, commonat Kassel, as well as a variety of other tool typesrepresented in that assemblage, are absent from BlueDart.

These factors suggest that Blue Dart was a huntingcamp occupied for a brief period of time, a placewhere hunting tools may have been repaired or


Figure 14. Blue Dart Point, Preform and Knife

refurbished for continued use, and where game wasbutchered for immediate consumption or for transportto a base camp such as Kassel. The absence ofscrapers suggests that the refinement of skins or furswas not undertaken here. Perhaps there were none tobe prepared but, more likely, this longer process wasundertaken at a more substantial residence location. Itmay be that this specialized task was undertaken bywomen, who may have been absent from a huntingcamp.

It is noteworthy that many of the tools recoveredfrom Blue Dart were not exhausted or broken anddiscarded, but appear to represent finished and stillfunctional tools, with a remaining use-life whichwould have precluded their intentional discard. TheBlue Dart tool assemblage may represent simple loss,though the rate of unintentional tool deposition wouldthen appear to be remarkably high. The possibility ofa tool cache may be considered since most of the toolswere derived from a small area, but support for thishypothesis is inconclusive.

ConclusionsThe Kassel and Blue Dart sites represent two

settlement types, a base camp and huntingencampment, attributed to the Early Archaic,Bifurcate Base Tradition. The sites produced goodsamples representing single components and are well

defined temporally, contributing to our understandingof Early Archaic adaptations in this area. Being someof our first excavated examples from north of theGreat Lakes, many of their characteristics suggestavenues for further research rather than definitiveconclusions.

Based on a number of sites in the southeasternUnited States, the Bifurcate Base Tradition appears todate between 8000 and 9000 B.P., while the LeCroyportion of this sequence, to which the Kassel and BlueDart sites are most comparable, dates to the latter partof this period. As summarized in Justice (1987:91) adate of 6300 B.C. ± 100 is reported from the St.Albans Site in West Virginia (Broyles 1971), whileanother date of 6470 B.C. ± 110 is reported from aLeCroy component in northern Kentucky (Collins1979). Relative dating employing archaeomagneticallysampled hearths from Rose Island placed the LeCroyPhase at 6300 B.C. (Chapman 1977: 166). It isremarkable that the radiocarbon date of 8320 ± 60B.P. from Blue Dart is in close agreement with datesreported elsewhere.

Larger samples from stratified Early Archaiccomponents exist south of the Great Lakes, mostnotably from the Little Tennessee River Valley (cf.Broyles 1971, Chapman 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978,1979), and indicate a sequence of point types andassociated artifact styles within the Bifurcate BaseTradition. Broad comparisons over such great


distances are facilitated by the fact that developmentswithin the Early Archaic are generally similar overmuch of eastern North America (Chapman 1975, Tuck1974). Researchers have highlighted this aspect ofthese manifestations with reference to them ashorizons (Ellis et al 1990, Tuck 1974). However,while it may be acknowledged that there aregeneralized regional trends, the precise comparabilityof distant assemblages may be of questionableapplicability north of the Great Lakes.

As noted by Justice (1987:92), refinement of thistradition is confused. There has been an evolution inthe application of the type definitions. The typeswhich received attention earlier such as LeCroy(Kneberg 1956) were broadly defined resulting inlater examples of the Tradition being subsumed underthe earlier defined type name. Geographically closeand similar in form, for example, is the proposedLake Erie Bifurcate point type (Prufer and Sofsky1965:35-36); however, this type alone, or incombination with other bifurcate base point typeselsewhere reported, does not adequately represent theapparent range of forms present to the north of LakeErie. The very limited collections available fromOntario exhibit a range of variability beyond the typedefinitions formulated elsewhere. While we arerecognizing some attribute trends or clusters withinthis range, it will likely be some time beforecontributions from additional collections allowrefinement of the sequence in the Great Lakes Region.

Some observations based on the sites reported hereare noteworthy. Compared to Blue Dart, the Kasselassemblage is considerably larger. Kassel yielded fivetimes the amount of debitage, a sizeablerepresentation of scrapers and a much broader rangeof other tool forms (Table 1). Most tools at Kassel aredistributed in an area measuring approximately 11 mby 7 m in the southern portion of the site while asmaller concentration of tools, principally scrapers, isfound to the north (Figure 10). The larger area, with abroad range of activities represented, is probably ahouse floor while the small area, dominated byscraping tools, was probably a hide processing area.Together they appear to represent a base campoccupied for a longer period of time and by a largergroup of people than was the case for Blue Dart.

Estimations of the length of time that the Kasselsite was occupied and of the group size representedcan only be speculative. Arguments in support of anestimation of the size of the residence unit wouldfollow very closely those forwarded for the LateArchaic Innes site where two similar artifact clustersare represented (Lennox 1986b:234-238). There,estimations of floor area, estimations of the floor

area requirement per individual, considerations ofminimum band sizes for hunting and gatheringsocieties, estimated from both archaeological andethnohistoric sources, led to the tentative conclusionthat there were two extended families present, orsixteen to twenty individuals. However, unlike Innes,floor area is more difficult to estimate from the lowerdensity of debitage at Kassel. This may relate to thelength of time that the site was occupied. the obviousconclusion being that Kassel was occupied for a muchshorter duration, or equally valid, that the lowdebitage density may simply relate to the conservationor wise management of scarce raw materials. Givenour limited knowledge of the Archaic in general, andmore specifically the Early Archaic, combined withthe fact that virtually no floral or faunal data relatingto this specific area exist, it seems ludicrous tobecome involved in such a numbers game.

Blue Dart is a much smaller site with a limited arrayof tool forms focused on hunting and butcheringequipment, distributed within a few metres of ahearth. It is interpreted as a kill site or butcheringstation, perhaps more broadly considered as a huntingencampment.

The Kassel and Blue Dart sites offer severalimportant contributions. Theirs were the firstsubstantial excavations of Early Archaic components,and specifically those belonging to the Bifurcate BaseTradition, in Ontario. They provide our firstopportunity to examine the association of other toolforms with this long recognized point style. TheKassel and Blue Dart assemblages will aid indetermining whether or not the seemingly distinctivetool forms may be considered characteristic of theEarly Archaic in general or the Bifurcate Based PointTradition specifically. The material conservationapparent in the debitage assemblage and also evidentin other portions of the artifact inventory may berelated to an earlier tradition of wide mobility rangeor may simply be the result of site location or seasonof occupation. These hypotheses will be testable withthe excavation of additional components. Aside fromthese questions Kassel and Blue Dart provideexamples of settlement - subsistence responses thatare universal to hunters and gatherers. Base camps andbutchering stations or hunting camps have beencentral elements ofsettlement patterns and adaptive strategies throughoutprehistory and these components stand as excellentexamples.

The excavations of Kassel and Blue Dart also haveimplications for the investigation of similarcomponents either in the course of cultural resourcemanagement, or in programmes designed for strictlyresearch purposes. The decision to excavate Archaic


Figure 15. Generalized Pollen Diagram for Waterloo Region. (after Karrow et al 1990)

lithic scatters is often based on debitage density, sitesproducing high frequencies of debitage being "moresignificant or worthy of excavation" and sites oflower density, or areas peripheral to the focus oflithic debitage density, being less "worthy ofexcavation". Such decisions make severalassumptions, none of which are necessarily correct.When site significance is tied to the density of wasteflakes recovered, sites with low densities areroutinely eliminated from further investigationbecause they are "less significant". However theassumption that sites with low debitage densities arenot important selects against certain types of sites andperhaps also certain periods of prehistory where thereduction of lithic materials did not contribute largequantities to the density of artifacts across site areas.For example, most Paleo-Indian sites produce lowdebitage densities and, if for this reason alone theirexcavation was considered insignificant, we wouldlack an important portion of the prehistory of theGreat Lakes region. Fortunately many Paleo-Indiansites are recognizable because of the use of distinctiveraw materials and are therefore examined in greaterdetail for reasons other than artifact density.However, this raises questions

concerning Paleo-Indian communities that may haveused local materials. What about other periods inprehistory, or what about site types that are notrepresented by large amounts of lithic wastematerials? Are some of these sites also not worthy ofmore detailed consideration? These are simplequestions but how do we recognize, let alone evaluate,sites that have few artifacts, particularly if the fewartifacts that are recovered consist largely of wasteflakes? Solutions to these questions are not easilyprovided but at least knowing that such biases in oursamples exist may be considered a step in the rightdirection.

Sites like Blue Dart and Kassel are occupationscharacterized by low artifact densities but they areimportant. Perhaps all Archaic sites in this region aresimilarly characterized, or perhaps this is typical ofmost Early Archaic sites over a much broader areawhose inhabitants continued the material conservationtechniques of their Paleo-Indian ancestors. Have suchsites been written off before knowing what they are?Have we been selecting mixed multicomponent(unstratified) sites for further investigations simplybecause of their high debitage density and ignoringlow density sites that may


represent important single components, because of thepaucity of artifacts (debitage) that they produce? Theinitial excavation of shovel and screened test pits atKassel produced only a few flakes. The componentwas not temporally or culturally distinguishable untilmore detailed investigations were undertaken. BlueDart was missed by shovel testing and was onlyidentified by three flakes exposed on its surface afterthe soil had been slightly disturbed by loggingactivities.

The intensive surface collection and subsequentexcavation of ploughed components has suggestedthat about 1% of the ploughzone's contents is visibleon their ploughed and well weathered surfaces(Lennox 1986b:239). Had Kassel and Blue Dartappeared in a ploughed field they would probablyhave exhibited something in the order of twelve andtwo flakes respectively, and neither site would likelyhave produced any tools. They could conceivablyhave been written off as locations not requiringmitigation.

The evaluation of low density sites and theirrecommendation for further work takes on a newperspective with these data in mind.

These data also have implications for the suggestionthat Early Archaic sites are rare. The scarcity of EarlyArchaic sites has led some researchers to suggestmarginal environmental conditions related to a lowcarrying capacity of coniferous dominated forestenvironments as probable cause (Fitting 1968, Ritchie1969, 1971). Others have argued for a more open anddeciduous, essentially modern, environment by10,500 B.P. for at least parts of southern Ontario(Roberts 1984:250). This indicates the difficulties ofpaleoenvironmental reconstructions based on treepollen frequencies (Wright 1978). It is believed bythese and others that the replacement of Paleo-Indianassemblages with those attributed to the Early Archaicfollowed the northward progression of deciduousforests and related plant and animal communities(Ellis et al 1990:68, Roberts 1985:107, Tuck1974:76), but the precise nature of these interactionsawaits clarification through further investigations.

In the Waterloo region the concentration of kettlelakes and wetlands has allowed the construction ofpollen diagrams documenting the vegetation historyof the area. The paleobotanical Fischer-Hallman(Karrow and Warner 1988) and Gage Street sites(Schwert et al 1985) are located only 5 km to thenortheast of the Kassel and Blue Dart sites. HofstetterLake, a few kilometres to the west of Kassel and BlueDart, has also been cored but since the pollensequence seemed only to repeat the pollen

distribution pattern of other locations in the area thiscore was never formally presented (P. Karrow:personal communication July 8, 1992). Figure 15shows a generalized pollen diagram for the region andthe placement of Blue Dart and presumably also theKassel site within this succession. The components ofthe Bifurcate Base Tradition appear toward the end ofPollen Zone 3 and the beginning of Zone 4, a timeduring which pine pollen was declining and thefrequency of pollen from deciduous species wasbeginning to dominate the spectrum. It is notable thatthis pollen transformation roughly coincides with theend of the Early Archaic, but some deciduous speciesappear earlier and persist throughout Pollen Zone 3which roughly coincides with the span of the EarlyArchaic Period. This is the period of contention, withvarious interpretations of forest composition possible.As pointed out by others, the reconstruction of forestcomposition, related plant and animal communitiesand carrying capacity based on pollen frequenciesduring the Early Archaic may be suspect partly due tothe masking of particular species by more prolificpollen producers such as pine (cf Wright 1978:69).While these environmental considerations may beimportant in understanding the distribution anddensity of Early Archaic adaptations in eastern NorthAmerica, the apparent scarcity of Early Archaiccomponents has also been attributed to other factors.Site locations along former and now inundatedshorelines, a lack of recognition or directed researchinterest, low artifact density and small site size, havealso been suggested as contributing to a near vacuumin the literature (Ellis et al 1990:68, Funk andWellman 1984:88, Wright 1978). Certainly, the smallsizes and low artifact densities which characterizesuch sites as Kassel and Blue Dart make theirdiscovery and recognition difficult, especially usingtest-pitting as a survey technique. If such sites areploughed they may be easier to locate but the lowdensity of remains, particularly diagnostics, meansthat such Early Archaic "lithic scatters" would bedifficult to assign to specific cultural manifestations.Their potential significance would thus beunderestimated from the density and types of artifactson their ploughed surfaces. Furthermore, if such siteshappen to have been ploughed and surface collectedprior to detailed investigations, their culturalaffiliation would be made even more difficult if notimpossible to assess. In this regard it is noteworthythat the Blue Dart site produced only one diagnosticpoint from which cultural affiliation could bedetermined.

A growing awareness of the Early Archaic researchconducted south of the Great Lakes, research that hasled to the recovery of good samples in dateablecontexts, indicates that Early Archaic sites may not


be as rare in Ontario as once thought but that theyhave simply gone unrecognized. However, alongwith awareness has come expectation. We have heldthis work in such high regard that we have come toexpect deeply buried or stratified components, andthese have yet to be identified in Ontario. AsChapman concluded after excavation of themulticomponent stratified Icehouse Bottom site:

"Although it is apparently passé in the 1970s to beconcerned with culture history and assemblages,these are the hard data for model building andprocessual studies. Too much has been written basedon deflated sites and surface manifestations in whichthere were no controls of the time span representedby the artifacts. It is only with sites such as IcehouseBottom and Rose Island that diagnostic and lessdiagnostic artifacts can be placed in perspective. Weare still in this "formative stage" of Early andMiddle Archaic studies in the eastern United States."(1977 .125)

Well over a decade has passed and we are still atthis "formative stage" north of the Great Lakes. Inthe meantime our small, often ploughed, Archaicsites, particularly when combined with a fewnegative experiences on mixed, multicomponentsites that defy sorting into the various occupationsrepresented, appear to be of little significance. Thevalue of their potential contribution isunderestimated. However, that which we hold inhigh regard is not without its disadvantages.Stratified components have particular merits in termsof the fine temporal and stylistic control that stackedassemblages can provide, yet they undoubtedly havetheir drawbacks, not the least of which are themultiple occupations represented within single strata(perhaps by similar cultural manifestations but fordifferent reasons) in such attractive or resource richareas as the flood plains of major rivers; thecomparability or representativeness of artifact typefrequencies obtained from vertical shafts throughhorizontally staggered activity areas; and the verticaladmixture which undoubtedly has a tendency tosmear the textbook stratigraphy with which suchsites are mistakenly attributed. While recognizingand appreciating the major contributions of thesecomplex sites and their investigators, we should notunderestimate the value of small sites, like Kasseland Blue Dart, which appear, if only on the basis oftheir low artifact yield, to be briefly occupied singlecomponents. This is one area where smaller sites inout of the way places, or in areas where the resourcebase is somewhat diffuse and numerous potentialcamp locations exist, may make positivecontributions lessening the obstacles associated withmultiple, superimposed, mixed occupations and thecomplexity of their investigations (cf Chapman

1977:106).

Despite the conclusions of numerous surveys whichreport isolated points or small mixed assemblageswith such point forms included, substantialcomponents of the Bifurcate Base Tradition do existnorth of the Great Lakes awaiting discovery andexcavation. In order to do this, however, we mustreconsider the criteria that we use in site evaluationexercises, such that small, single component sites,that are not "rich" in a Late Woodland sense, get achance to present themselves for what they are ratherthan what we would like them to be.

References CitedBroyles, B.

1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St.Albans Site, Kanawa County, WestVirginia 1964-1968. West VirginiaGeological and Economic Survey,Report of Arch a eo lo gi ca lInvestigations No. 3 Morgantown.

Chapman, J.1975 The Rose Island Site and the

Cultural and Ecological Position ofthe Bifurcate Point Tradition inEastern North America. Dept. ofAnthropology, University ofTennessee, Report of InvestigationsNo. 14, Knoxville.

1976 The Archaic Period in the LowerTennessee River Valley: TheRadiocarbon Dates. TennesseeAnthropologist 1:1-12.

1977 Archaic Period Research in theLower Little Tennessee River Valley -1975. Dept. of Anthropology,University of Tennessee, Report ofInvestigations 18. Knoxville.

1978 The Bacon Farm Site and BuriedSite Reconnaissance. Dept. ofAnthropology, University ofTennessee, Report of Investigations23. Knoxville.

1979 The Howard and Calloway IslandSites. Dept. of Anthropology,University of Tennessee, Report ofInvestigations 27. Knoxville.

Cleland C.E.1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and

Ethnozoology of the Upper G r e a tL a k e s R e g i o n . AnthropologicalPapers of the University of MichiganNo. 29. Ann Arbor.


Collins, M.B.1979 The Longworth-Glick Site. In

Excavations at Four Archaic Sitesin the Lower Ohio Valley,Jefferson County, Kentucky (Vol.2). (M.B. Collins Editor),Department of Anthropology,University of Kentucky, OccasionalPapers in Anthropology 1:471-589.

Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology

of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650.(C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris Editors),Occasional Publication of theLondon Chapter, OAS NO. 5.

Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon and M.W. Spence1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology

of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650.(C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris Editors),Occasional Publication of theLondon Chapter, OAS NO. 5.

Ellis, C.J., S. Wortner, and W.A. Fox1991 Nettling: An overview of an Early

Archaic Kirk Corner-notchedCluster Site In SouthwesternOntario. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology, Vol. 15.

Fitting J.E.1968 Environmental Potential and

Post-Glacial Readaptation inEastern North America. AmericanAntiquity 33:441-445.

Funk, R.E. and B.Wellman1984 Evidence of Early Holocene

Occupations in the UpperSusquehanna Valley, New YorkState. Archaeology of EasternNorth America, Vol 12:81-109.

Julig, P.J.1988 The Cummins Site Complex and

Paleoindian Occupations in theNorthwestern Lake SuperiorRegion. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,Department of Anthropology,University of Toronto.

Justice, N.D.1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points

of the Midcontinental and EasternUnited States: A Modern Surveyand Reference. Indiana UniversityP r e s s . B l o o m i n g t o n andIndianapolis.

Karrow, P.F. and B.G. Warner1988 Ice, Lakes, and Plants 13,000 to 10,000

B.P.: the Erie-Ontario Lobe in Ontario.In Late Pleistocene and Early HolocenePaleoecology and Archaeology of theEastern Great Lakes Region. (R.S. Laub,N.G. Miller, and D.W. Steadmaneditors) Buffalo Society of NaturalSciences Bulletin 33:39-52.

Karrow, P.F., B.G. Warner, C.J.Ellis, and J.D.MacDonald

1990 What's Beneath Our Feet inWaterloo Region. QuaternarySciences Institute, University ofWaterloo, Publication No. 1.

Kneberg, M.1956 Some Important Projectile Point

Types Found in the Tennessee Area.Tennessee Archaeologist 12(1): 17-28).

Lennox, P.A.1981 The Hamilton Site: A Late Historic

Neutral Town. National Museum ofMan, Archaeological Survey ofCanada, Mercury Series, Paper103:211-403.

1984 The Hood Site: A Historic NeutralTown of 1640 A.D. NationalMuseum of Man, ArchaeologicalSurvey of Canada, Mercury Series,Paper 121:1-183.

1986a Archaeological Assessment andMitigation: A View From AProvincial Development Agency. In,Archaeological Consulting inOntario: Papers Of The LondonConference 1985. (W.A. Fox editor)Occasional Papers of the LondonC h a p t e r , O n t a r i o ArchaeologicalSociety Inc. No. 2.

19866 The Innes Site: A Plow DisturbedArchaic Component, Brant County,Ontario. The Midcontinental Journalof Archaeology, 11(2)221-268.

1990 The Canada Century Site: ALamoka Component located on theNiagara Penninsula. Ontario.Ontario Archaeology 51:31-52.


Lennox, P.A., C.F. Dodd and C.R. Murphy1986 The Wiacek Site: A late Middleport

Component in Simcoe County,Ontario. Ontario Ministry ofT r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n dCommunications, EnvironmentalUnit, Planning and Design Section,London, Ontario.

Lennox, P.A. and W.P. Hagerty1992 The Sluyter Site: A Late Woodland

Settlement in Waterloo County,Ontario. Manuscript on file OntarioMinistry of Transportation,Southwest Region, London.

Prufer, O.H., and C. Sofsky1965 The McKibben Site (33 Tr 57)

T r u m b u l l C o . , O h i o : Ac o n t r i b u t i on to the Late Paleo-Indian and Archaic Phase of Ohio.Michigan Archaeologist 11(1):9-40.

Ritchie, Wm. A.1969 The Archaeology of New York

State, Revised Edition. NaturalHistory Press, Garden City.

1971 The Archaic in New York. NewYork State ArchaeologicalAssociation Bulletin 52:2-12.

Roberts. A.C.B.1984 Paleo-Indians on the North Shore

of Lake Ontario. Archaeology ofEastern North America 12:248-265.

1985 Preceramic Occupations Alongthe North Shore of Lake Ontario.N a t i o n a l M u s e u m Man,Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series, Paper 132.

Sahlins, M.1972 Stone Age E c o n o m i c s .

Aldine-Atherton, Inc. Chicago.Schwert, D.P., T.W. Anderson, A.V. Morgan, A.Morgan and P.F. Karrow

1985 Changes in Late QuaternaryVegetation and Insect Communitiesin S o u th wes t e r n On ta r i o .Quaternary Research 23:205-226.

Tuck J.A.1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern

North America. Archaeology ofEastern North America 2(1):72-80.

Wright J.V.1978 The Implications of Probable Early

and Middle Archaic ProjectilePoints from Southern Ontario.Canadian Journal of ArchaeologyVol. 2:59-78.

Acknowledgements

The search for small sites, their discovery,excavation, analysis and reporting, requires supportfrom a number of individuals and institutions towhom I am most grateful. The project wasundertaken with the support of the Ontario Ministryof Transportation as part of their efforts to mitigatethe impact of highway construction on Ontario'sheritage resources. Dave Wake, Supervisor of theEnvironmental Unit and Ted Irving, Head of thePlanning and Design Section, Southwestern Region,were directly involved with the approvals necessaryfor this project. They always seem to have the rightquestions and I thank them for their confidence thatour work would provide suitable answers. MartySluyter, Project Manager, was always available toprovide a time frame and construction details toallow the fieldwork to be properly scheduled. We arewell ahead of construction - still! My thanks andappreciation are extended to the field crew: ElizabethAlder, Christine Dodd, William Fitzgerald, MikeGibbs, Wayne Hagerty, Malcolm Horne, JohnMacDonald, Harri Mattila, Carl Murphy, BeverlyMorrison, and Dave Riddell who provided expertfield assistance during various portions of the surveyand salvage excavations. Thanks are also due toseveral of these individuals who assisted in reportpreparation: Bev Morrison - drafting, Wayne Hagerty- photography, and John MacDonald for his excellentartifact drawings. I am also grateful to Dr. C. J. Ellisfor making his extensive collection of Early Archaicreports available for my use and for insightfuldiscussions concerning this most interesting period ofOntario's prehistory. The helpful comments of Dr. P.Reid, editor of Ontario Archaeology and theanonymous reviewers were also appreciated.


List of Figures Page

Figure 1. Location of the Kassel (AiHd-71) and Blue Dart (AiHd-89) Sites. 2

Figure 2. The Kassel Site Topography and Limits of Excavation. 3

Figure 3. Kassel Site Debitage Density Per Metre Square. 4

Figure 4. Kassel Site Retouched Bladelets. a - 8S11E, b - 1N6E, c - 5S9E, d - 8S1 0E) 9

Figure 5. Kassel Site Burins. 12

Figure 6. Kassel Site Scrapers. a, b. Flake Scrapers (4S9E, 7N5E-4N5E) c-j, n, o. End/sideScrapers (1S6E, 1N7E, 1N9E, 7N3E, 6N7E, 1N10E, 2S8E, 2S8E, 5N6E, 6N7E)k-m. Alternate Scrapers (5N7E, 2S10E, 2S12E) p, q. Fragments (6N8E, 2N10E) 13

Figure 7. Kassel Site Points and Preform. a. Point Preform (659E-7S11E) b-e. ProjectilePoints (4N6E, 4S8E, 4S11E, 258E-2S8E) 14

Figure 8. Kassel Site Points. 15

Figure 9. Kassel Site Drills (a,b) and Retouched Bladelets (c-f) 16

Figure 10. Kassel Site Artifact Type Distribution. 17

Figure 11. Blue Dart Topography and Limits of Excavation. 21

Figure 12. Blue Dart Debitage Density per Metre Square.(The artifact density as shown insquare 3N1 W combines the topsoil density of 52 with the 12 pieces ofdebitage recovered from Feature 1). 22

Figure 13. Blue Dart Point, Preform and Knife. 23

Figure 14. Blue Dart Point, Preform and Knife. 24

Figure 15. Generalized Pollen Diagram for Waterloo Region. (after Karrow et al 1990) 26

List of TablesTable 1. Artifact Type Frequencies from the Kassel and Blue Dart Sites 6

Table 2. Kassel Site Lithic Debitage 6

Table 3. Utilized Flakes 7

Table 4. Kassel Retouched Bladelet Metrics (mm) 10

Table 5. Kassel Site Scraper Descriptions 11

Table 6. Kassel and Blue Dart: Point and Preform Metrics 12

Table 7. Blue Dart Site Lithic Debitage Morphology and Material Types 20

Paul A. LennoxMinistry of Transportation, Southwest RegionLondon, Ontario

The Kassel and Blue Dart Sites: Two Components of the Early … · The Kassel and Blue Dart sites...

Documents

Transcript of The Kassel and Blue Dart Sites: Two Components of the Early … · The Kassel and Blue Dart sites...