Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T16:07:34.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heat Treatment, Ozarks Cherts, and Prehistoric Toolstone Use in Southwest Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David A. Byers ,
Craig Picka  and
Jack H. Ray
David A. Byers
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, Sociology and Anthropology, 0730 Old Main 245C, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84321 (david.byers@usu.edu)
Craig Picka
Affiliation:
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Bismarck Office, 116 North 4th Street, Suite 200, Bismarck, ND 58501 (cpicka@swca.com)
Jack H. Ray
Affiliation:
Center for Archaeological Research, Missouri State University, 901 S. National, Springfield, MO 65897 (jackray@missouristate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Burlington and Jefferson City cherts often dominate Ozarks lithic assemblages, and this record contains ample evidence for the heat treatment of both. In this paper, we use a technological investment model to understand why prehistoric knappers may have invested in heat treatment at the Big Eddy Site in southwest Missouri. Tech investment models offer one way to evaluate the cost-benefit relationships of various technologies and, consequently, the conditions under which a manufacturing strategy might be adopted. We conduct a heat treatment experiment to measure the untreated utilities of the two materials, the approximate time needed to heat each, and the resultant gains in utility a knapper acquires by spending the time to do so. In the Big Eddy case, the tech investment model suggests that the two toolstones were heat-treated differentially in response to differences in utility gains and availability on the landscape.

Los sflex Burlington y Jefferson City frecuentemente dominan los ensamblajes líticos Ozark y este registro contiene abundante evidencia de tratamiento térmico en ambos. En este articulo utilizamos un modelo de inversión tecnológica para entender por qué los talladores prehistoricos pudieron haber invertido en el tratamiento termico en el sitio Big Eddy del suroeste de Missouri. Los modelos de inversión tecnológica ofrecen una forma de evaluar la relación costo-beneficio de varias tecnologías y subsecuentemente las condiciones bajo las cuales una estrategia de manufactura podría adoptarse. Conducimos un experimento de tratamiento termico para medir la utilidad de ambos materiales, el tiempo aproximado necesario para tratar cada tipo, y las resultantes ganancias en utilidad adquiridas por el tallador al invertir tiempo en este tratamiento. En el caso de Big Eddy, el modelo de inversión tecnológica sugiere que estos materiales recibieron tratamientos térmicos diferentes en respuesta a las diferencias en ganancias de utilidad y su disponibilidad sobre el paisaje.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 507 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A. 1983 Heat Treatment of Knife River Hint. Lithic Technology 12:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Becker, Mark 2009 Microwear, Tools, and Handles: A Pilot Functional Investigation of the Chipped Stone Assemblage. In The Hell Gap Site: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite on the Edge of the Rockies, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 285–299.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Edwin K., and Purdy, Barbara A. 1986 Decrease in Fracture Toughness of Chert by Heat Treatment. Journal of Materials Science 21:1963–1966.Google Scholar
Behm, Jeffery A. 1982 Rodgers Shelter Techno-Functional Studies: Heat Treatment Experiments. In Holocene Adaptations within the Lower Pomme de Terre River Valley, Missouri, Vol. 2, edited by Marvin Kay, pp. 265–272. Illinois State Museum Society, Springfield.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 2009 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: Five Simple Models. Eliot Werner Publications, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L., Winterhalder, Bruce, and McElreath, Richard 2006 A Simple Model of Technological Intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:538–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleed, Peter, and Meier, Marlene 1980 An Objective Test of the Effects of Heat Treatment of Flakeable Stone. American Antiquity 45:502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, Jason, Ugan, Andrew, and Hunsaker, Lori 2002 The Effect of Handling Time on Subsistence Technology. World Archaeology 34:164–181.Google Scholar
Bradley, Bruce A., Collins, Michael B., and Hemmings, Andrew 2010 Clovis Technology. Archaeological Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Cooper, Christopher C. 2002 A Study of the Morphological Changes in Tiger Chert Resulting from Heat Treatment. Lithic Technology 27:153–160.Google Scholar
Crabtree, Don E., and Robert Butler, B. 1964 Notes on Experiment in Flint Knapping: 1 Heat Treatment of Silica Materials. Tebiwa 7:1–6.Google Scholar
Domanski, Marian, and Webb, John A. 1992 Effect of Heat Treatment on Siliceous Rocks Used in Prehistoric Lithic Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanski, Marian, Webb, John A., and Boland, James 1994 Mechanical Properties of Stone Artefact Materials and the Effect of Heat Treatment. Archaeometry 36:177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Garrison, Ervan G. 1975 Thermally Altered Novaculite and Stone Tool Manufacturing Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology 2:125–131.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Peter White, J. 1983 Heat Treatment of Siliceous Rocks and Its Implications for Australian Prehistory. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1:43–48.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. R., Bergman, C. A., Clayton, C. J., Ohnuma, K., Robins, G. V., and Seeley, N.J. 1987 Experimental Investigations of the Heat Treatment of Flint. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, edited by G. D. G. Sieveking and M. H. Newcomer, pp. 43–52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jew, Nicholas P., and Erlandson, Jon M. 2013 Paleocoastal Flaked Stone Heat Treatment Practices on Alta California's Northern Channel Islands. California Archaeology 5:79–104.Google Scholar
Kay, Marvin (editor) 1982 Holocene Adaptations within the Lower Pomme de Terre River Valley, Missouri. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Klippel, Walter E. 1970 Preliminary Observations on Heat-treated Chert from Late Archaic and Woodland Sites along the Southern Border of the Prairie Peninsula in Missouri. The Missouri Archaeological Society Newsletter 239:1–7.Google Scholar
Lopinot, Neal H., Ray, Jack H., and Conner, Michael D. (editors) 1998 The 1997 Excavations at the Big Eddy Site in Southwest Missouri. Center for Archaeological Research, Missouri State University. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW41-95-D-0016. Copies available from Center of Archaeological Research, Springfield, Missouri.Google Scholar
Lopinot, Neal H., Ray, Jack H., and Conner, Michael D. 2005 Regional Research and the Archaic Record at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426), Southwest Missouri. Center for Archaeological Research, Missouri State University. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW41-00-0026. Copies available from Center of Archaeological Research, Springfield, Missouri.Google Scholar
Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Mandeville, Margaret D. 1973 A Consideration of the Thermal Pretreatment of Chert. Plains Anthropologist 18:177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandeville, Margaret D., and Jeffery Flenniken, J. 1974 A Comparison of the Flaking Qualities of Nehawka Chert before and after Thermal Pretreatment. Plains Anthropologist 19:146–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercieca, Alison, and Hiscock, Peter 2008 Experimental Insights into Alternative Strategies of Lithic Heat Treatment. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2634–2639.Google Scholar
Nami, Hugo G. 1999 The Folsom Biface Reduction Sequence: Evidence from the Lindenmeier Collection. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amik, pp. 82–97. Archaeological Series 12. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Michael J., and Raymond Woods, W. 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
Pavish, Larry A., and Sheppard, Peter J. 1983 Thermoluminescent Determination of Paleoindian Heat Treatment in Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 48:793–799.Google Scholar
Perkins, Louis R. III 1985 Experiments in Heat Treating West-Central Mississippi Chert. Mississippi Archaeology 20:19–40.Google Scholar
Picka, Craig M. 2012 Heat Treatment of Ozark Cherts: An Archaeological Experiment in the Effects of Heat Treatment on Toolstone Flaking Properties. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Missouri State University, Springfield.Google Scholar
Purdy, Barbara A. 1974 Investigations Concerning the Thermal Alteration of Silica Materials: An Archaeological Approach. Tebiwa 17:37–66.Google Scholar
Rafferty, Milton D. 1980 The Ozarks: Land and Life. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 1982a The Effects of Heat Treatment on Cherts from the Truman Reservoir. The Missouri Archaeologist 43:67–85.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 1982b A Test for the Quality and Quantity of Chert Nodules in Stream Deposited Chert Sources. Lithic Technology 11:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 1983 A Study of Ordovician and Mississippian Chert Resources in Southwest-Central Missouri. The Missouri Archaeologist 44:109–131.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 1998 Chert Resource Availability and Utilization. In The 1997 Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426) in Southwest Missouri, edited by Neal H. Lopinot, Jack H. Ray, and Michael D. Conner, pp. 221–265. Special Publication No. 2. Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 2005 Chert Availability and Use. In Regional Research and the Archaic Record at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426), Southwest Missouri, edited by Neal H. Lopinot, Jack H. Ray, and Michael D. Conner, pp. 284–323. Special Publication No. 4. Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 2007 Ozarks Chipped-Stone Resources: A Guide to the Identification, Distribution, and Prehistoric Use of Cherts and Other Siliceous Raw Materials. Special Publications No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Springfield.Google Scholar
Ray, Jack H. 2010 Paleoindian and Archaic Chert Use at Big Eddy. The Missouri Archaeologist 71:41–77.Google Scholar
Rick, John W. 1978 Heat-Altered Cherts of the Lower Illinois Valley: An Experimental Study in Prehistoric Technology. Northwestern Archaeological Program, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Rick, John W., and Chappell, Sylvia 1983 Thermal Alteration of Silica Materials in Technological and Functional Perspective. Lithic Technology 12:69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmus, Gene L., and Woods, James C. 1991 Fluted Points from the Snake River Plain. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Karen L. Turnmire, pp. 119–132. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Texas.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew, Bright, Jason, and Rogers, Alan 2003 When is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilke, Philip J., Jeffery Flenniken, J., and Ozbun, Terry L. 1991 Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13:242–272.Google Scholar