The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan

156 Pages·13.175 MB·English

by  by Michael J. Shott

MEMOIRS
MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NO. 25
THE LEAVITT SITE
A
PARKHILL PHASE PALEO-INDIAN OCCUPATION IN
CENTRAL MICHIGAN
by
Michael J. Shott
with a foreword by Henry T. Wright
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
1993
© 199b3yt hRee geonftt hsUe n iveorfMs iicthyi gan
ThMeu seuomfA nthropology
Alrli grhsetesr ved
Prinintt ehdUe n itSetda otfAe mse rica
ISBN 09-7981-5703-32-6 (paper)
ISBN 978-1-951538-01-9 (ebook)

Covdeers ibgyKn a theCrlianhea ssey
TheU niverosfiM tiyc hiMguasne uom f Anthropcoulrorgeypn utbllyi tshhreese
mongoar­ph seriAenstr:ho pol oPgaipceaMrlesm,o iarns d,T echnRiecpaolr Wtes .
haev ovesre venttiyti l nepsr inFto.ra complectaaetl owgri,te toM useuomf
AnthropPoulibocltgaiy­o 4n0s0,M9 u seuBmusi ldAinnnAg r,b oMrI4, 8 109-o1rca0 ll7 9,
[phone]
LibroafCr oyn grCeastsa loging-iDna-tPau blication
ShoMtitc,h ael.
ThLee avsiit:tt eP a a rkphhialpslae l eo-Indian
occupaitnc ieonntM riaclh i/Mg iacnh JaS.ehl o ;tw ti tah
forewboyHr edn rTy.W right.
p.c m.-(MemMouisresuo mfA/ n thropology,
UniveorfMs iicthyi ;ng oa2.n5 )
Inclbuidbelsi ogrreafpehriecnacle s.
ISB0N- 91570(3a-l3k2.- 7p aper)
1.LeavSiit(ttMe i c2h.P. a)l eo-Indians-Michigan­
ClinCtoounn 3t.Sy t.o inmep lements-Michigan-Clinton
Coun4t.Cy l.i nCtoounn (tMyi ch.)-AnItT.ii qtuliet.i es.
IIS.eriMeesm:o iorfts hM eu seuomfA nthropology,
UniveorfMs iicthyi ;ng oa2.n5 .
GN2.M5nso 2.5
[E78.M6]
30s6- dc20 92-42187
[977.4'24] CIP
Thpeap eurs eidnt hpiusb licmaetetithosren e quireofm ents
ANSSIt andZa3r9d. 48(-P1e9r8m4a onfPe anpceer )
Contents
List of tables v
List of figures VII
Foreword, by Henry T. Wright ix
Acknowledgments Xl
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND NARRATIVE OF INVESTIGATION 1
Introduction 1
Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Systematics 1
Site Setting 3
History of Investigation 4
Overview of Report 8
Chapter 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT OF OCCUPATION AT LEAVITT 11
Introduction 11
The Paleoenvironment, 11,000-10,000 B.P. 11
Chert Sources 14
Chapter 3 SITE STRATIGRAPHY 19
Feature Discovery 19
Feature 4 20
Dating Feature 4 21
Discussion 22
Chapter 4 CORE AND FLAKE DEBRIS 25
Cores 25
Flake Debris Analysis 28
Comparative Analysis 33
Interpretations of Flake Debris 34
Discussion 39
Chapter 5 UNIFACES 41
Introduction 41
Uniface Attributes 42
Bifacial Reduction 50
Nodular or Tabular Core Reduction 56
Miscellaneous Artifacts 65
Unifaces of Other Material 65
Conjoinable Fragments 67
iii
Assemblage Characteristics 68
Evidence for Hafting 70
Form and Function of End Scrapers 74
Conclusion 77
Chapter 6 BIFACES 79
Introduction 79
The Biface Assemblage 79
Tool Descriptions 80
Small Bifaces 88
Broken Bifaces 92
Later-Period Diagnostic Bifaces 92
The Biface Reduction Trajectory 94
Continuous Variation in Fluted Bifaces 101
Conclusion 103
Chapter 7 ASSEMBLAGE FORMAn ON PROCESS 105
Introduction 105
Discard Processes 106
Implications of Discard Processes 107
Analysis 108
Conclusion 109
Chapter 8 SPATIAL ANALYSIS 111
Spatial Analysis in Forager Sites 111
Spatial Analysis in Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Sites 112
Spatial Distributions and Structure at Leavitt 112
Conclusion 124
Chapter 9 CONCLUSION 127
Introduction 127
Cultural Approaches in Paleo-Indian Studies 127
Scale of the Paleo-Indian Record 128
Scales of Data Recovery 129
An Organizational Approach 129
Conclusion 130
Appendix ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS FROM THE LEAVITT SITE 131
Kathryn Egan
Bibliography 133
iv
Tables
3.1 Summary data on Parkhill phase features 21
3.2 Feature-provenience flake debris from Leavitt and Thedford 23
3.3 Feature density at Parkhill phase sites 23
4.1 Metric attributes of cores 26
4.2 Flake debris by class and material 30
4.3 Bayport debris by class and provenience 31
4.4 Non-Bayport chert by class and provenience 31
4.5 Channel flake and fluted biface frequencies at selected Parkhill phase sites 32
4.6 Flake debris assemblages by excavation block 32
4.7 Feature 4 flake debris assemblage 32
4.8 Metric attributes of Feature 4 flake debris 32
4.9 Platform metric attributes of measured flake debris 32
4.10 Relative frequencies of flake debris classes at Leavitt and Thedford 33
4.11 Relative frequencies of diagnostic flake debris classes at Leavitt and Thedford 34
4.12 Ethnoarchaeological data on end scrapers and associated debris 36
4.13 Comparison of Leavitt and ethnoarchaeological end scrapers 36
4.14 Debris density by excavation area at Leavitt 38
4.15 Flake debris density at selected Parkhill phase sites 38
4.16 Debris:tool ratios 39
4.17 Debris weight at Leavitt and Thedford 39
5.1 Uniface flake blank attributes 43
5.2 Uniface haft attributes 44
5.3 Uniface bit design attributes 45
5.4 Uniface bit functional attributes 47
5.5 Summary data on uniface flake blanks 48
5.6 Mean metric attributes of end scrapers and side scrapers 69
5.7 Attributes of biface core and tabular core end scrapers 70
5.8 End scraper hafting at Shawnee Minisink and Leavitt 71
5.9 Comparison of blank and depleted end scraper 73
5.10 Attributes of used Leavitt and ethnographic end scrapers 73
5.11 Attributes of unused end scrapers 73
5.12 Rates of reduction in ethnographic and Leavitt endscrapers 73
5.13 Composition of morphological classes by functional attributes 76
6.1 Biface flake blank attributes 80
6.2 Biface haft attributes 81
6.3 Biface fluting attributes 81
6.4 Biface use-wear attributes 82
6.5 Attributes of later-period diagnostic bifaces 93
v
6.6 Rates of failure in fluted biface production 97
6.7 Small fluted bifaces from Leavitt, Thedford and Middle Park 98
6.8 Metric data on stages of small fluted biface production 99
6.9 Comparative degree of reduction in the fluted biface production process 100
6.10 Metric trends in Great Lakes fluted biface assemblages 102
6.11 Assemblages ranked by attribute 102
7.1 Discard processes in the Leavitt and Barnes assemblage 108
8.1a Correlation of debris classes in Block 1 119
8.1b Correlation of debris classes in Block 2 120
8.2 Distance between conjoinable fragments at Crowfield and Leavitt 120
8.3 Mean class frequencies by cluster in Blocks 1 and 2 120
vi
Figures
1.1. Location of the Leavitt site in Clinton County, Michigan 2
1.2. Local relief in the Leavitt site vicinity 4
1.3. View of the Leavitt site from the southwest 5
1.4. 1978 UMMA collection grid and summary of results 6
1.5. 1984 UMMA collection grid showing the location of Stage 1 units 6
1.6. Flake debris distribution across Stage 1 units 7
1.7. Plan of 1984 excavations at Leavitt 8
1.8. Correspondence of Stage 1 flake debris distribution and block excavations 9
1.9. Correspondence of 1978 collection grid and 1984 excavations 10
2.1. Location of Bayport chert sources in Michigan 17
3.1. Surface elevations and plow zone depth across the site 20
3.2. Feature 4, plan and profile with flake distribution 22
5.1. Uniface variables 49
5.2. Functional attributes of unifaces 51
5.3. Reduction sequence for biface core blanks 52
5.4. Unifaces from biface core blanks: 88263-16, 88263-A, 88263-20, 88261-22,
85-27-255 53
5.5. Unifaces from biface core blanks: 85-27-324, 85-27-169, 85-27-1-4, 85-27-16,
85-27-37,85-27-85,85-27-1-5,88260-4, 85-27-268, 88261-18 54
5.6. Unifaces from biface core blanks: 88261-15, 88273, 90211 57
5.7. Malkin U niface 2 59
5.8. Reduction sequence for tabular core blanks 60
5.9. Unifaces from tabular core blanks: 88263-12, 90213, 88235, 88260-3, 88224 61
5.lD. Unifaces from tabular core blanks: 88260-10,85-27-87,85-27-69,85-27-143,
85-27-317, 90212, 90209, 90208 62
5.11. Unifaces from tabular core blanks: 85-27-126, 88269-14, 90210, 88261-15,
88261-14, 88268, 85-27-15 64
5.12. Miscellaneous unifaces 66
5.13. Distribution of end scraper metric values 69
5.14. Distribution of end scraper angular values 70
5.15. Distribution of end scraper depletion-ratio values 75
6.1. Biface variables 83
6.2. Reduction sequence for bifaces 84
6.3. Bifaces 90074, 88259, 85-27-292, 88290, 90073 85
6.4. Bifaces 85-27-100,90072,90070,88264-5,88255/88216, 85-27-334-1, 85-27-48 86
6.5. Bifaces 85-27-8, 88280, 88286, 85-27-8, 85-27-309, 88264-7, 90071, 85-27-334-4,
85-27-1-35, 85-27-334-1 90
6.6. Malkin Bifaces 1 and 2 91
vii
6.7. Later-period diagnostics 93
7. I. Biface discard processes in the Leavitt and Barnes assemblages 109
7.2. Uniface discard processes in the Leavitt and Barnes assemblages 109
8.l. Distribution of piece-plots from the 1984 surface collection 113
8.2. Distribution of tools in excavation units 114
8.3. Distribution of biface retouch flakes in Block 1 116
8.4. Distribution of uniface retouch flakes in Block 1 116
8.5. Distribution of faceted platform flakes in Block 1 117
8.6. Distribution of flat platform flakes in Block 1 117
8.7. Distribution of channel flakes in Block 1 118
8.8. Distribution of non-Bayport flake debris in Block 1 118
8.9. Distribution of Bayport biface retouch flakes in Block 2 119
8.10. Distribution of Bayport uniface retouch flakes in Block 2 119
8.1l. Distribution of Bayport faceted platform flakes in Block 2 121
8.12. Distribution of Bayport flat platform flakes in Block 2 121
8.13. Distribution of conjoinable fragments 122
8.14. Frequency distribution of distance between conjoinable fragments 123
8.15. Running mean results of cluster analysis, Blocks 1 and 2 124
viii
Foreword
Henry T. Wright
University of Michigan
Recently, the Museum of Anthropology has made two major contributions to the study
of the first colonists in the Great Lakes region. In 1992 we published as our Memoir No.
24 a monograph entitled Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable Watershed of Southwest
ern Ontario, by D. Brian Deller and Christopher J. Ellis. This was the first full site report
on a campsite of the Parkhill phase, the material manifestation of a people who established
themselves in what is now southwestern Ontario and southern Michigan about 11,000
years ago. We now present a second monograph on a related site in lower Michigan, by
Michael Shott.
What we term the Leavitt site was long known to members of the Leavitt family as one
of the places on their farm where chipped stone tools could be found. Unbeknownst to
other members of the family, Mildred Leavitt Malkin had found several Paleo-Indian tools
on the site decades ago. In 1973, her sister, Elsie Leavitt Moore, went out with her grand
son Peter Sanford "to find a fluted point." Imagine the surprise of Peter's mother, Donna
Hebert, when he returned with a magnificent complete fluted biface (Fig. 6.4c). The site
came to my attention in 1977 when Mrs. Hebert brought their collection to the Museum
of Anthropology. The subsequent events and the narrative of his own exemplary excava
tion and analysis are recounted by Michael Shott in the following pages.
Throughout the successive years of fieldwork and analysis, the Leavitt project has
profited from frequent contact with our Canadian colleagues working on manifestations
of the same culture in nearby Ontario. Originally, it was intended that we publish the two
monographs in a single volume, but circumstances prevented that. Nonetheless, the
reader will note frequent cross-referencing between the two volumes, a testimony to the
close communication which has stimulated all of us in our efforts to understand the earliest
occupants of the Great Lakes region.
This monograph has a number of strengths, some of them innovations in the area of
forager archaeology in general, and Paleo-Indian studies in particular.
-Every well-preserved retouched tool, rather than merely a selected sample, is de
scribed, and detailed measurements are presented. Most are illustrated at life size. Unit
by unit, aggregate statistics are given for the debitage. The reader should be able to use
these data to evaluate a wide range of propositions other than those considered here.
-Rather than forcing all the chipped stone items into a single unified reduction se
quence, or chaine operatoire, Shott argues conservatively for three discrete reduction se
quences for Bayport chert-nodulelblock core reduction, biface core reduction, and biface
reduction per se-and leaves their integration to a future time when samples are available
from sites where the primary working of nodules was common.
ix