A RE,SEARCH DESIGN FOR INVESTIGATING NOVACULITE QUARRY SITES IN THE OUACHITA MOUNTAINS Mary Beth Trubitt, Thomas Green, and Ann Early Arkansas Archeological Survey The Ouachita National Forest (U.5. Forest Sentice) and the Arkansas Archeological Sur-vey entered into a cost-share agreement in 1996 to develop a detailed research design.for investigating the novaculite quarry sites on lands in the Ouachita National Forest. As part of this agreement, a workshop brought together experts in lithic quarries research and archeologists from the Forest Service and Arkansas Archeological Survey for discussions and field trips. Out of this effort came the outline of a novaculite research design. This final report presents a plan for a long-term research program that will address basic questions about novaculite quarry sites in the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The research design is presented as a series of questions and ways in which they may be answered, laying the foundation for future research and identifiing a series of discrete projects or tasks that archeologists working in this region can tackle. Novaculite quarry sites are the physical remains of toolstone procurement activities in this area over thousands of years. These sites are situated in a broader context. In the theoretical framework used here, raw material acquisition, techniques and organization of production and distribution, the objects, and the people who made and userl them, are linked together as components of systems of novaculite tool production and exchange. BACKGROUND AND GOALS The purpose of this paper is to outline a long-term :esearch program that will address basic questions about rovaculite quarry sites in the Ouachita Mountains in .\rkansas and Oklahoma. This research design or plan tresents a series of questions and ways in which they may re answered, laying out the context for future research and .dentifying a series of discrete projects or tasks that :rofessional archeologists, avocational archeologists, and :ther researchers in Arkansas and Oklahoma can tackle' \\hat is Novaculite? "cherts" are microcrystalline .edimentary rocks that fotm as chemical precipitation of .iliceous minerals, and include novaculite, chert, flint, :halcedony, hornstone, and jasper. There are numerous '" ariables that affect the formation of cherts in terms of .olution and precipitation of silica along with impurities, Jiagenesis and lithification, and sometimes alteration :hrough metamorphism, leading to the macroscopic. ricroscopic, and chemical variation seen in different !f,urces (Luedtke 1992). In a specific regional sense, In a general sense, 'novaculite" is used to denote the variety that outcrops in :e Ouachita Mountains, as distinct from various identified :herts from the Ouachitas and Ozarks.l ,-,',nte 43 The Arkansas Novaculite formation is a Devonian and Mississippian age deposit that outcrops along the BentonBroken Bow Uplift of the Ouachita Mountains along a 50mile wide, 200-mile long band extending from west of Little Rock, Arkansas, to Broken Bow, Oklahoma, with isolated outcrops at Potato Hills and at Black Knob Ridge in southeastern Oklahoma (Figure 1; Holbrook and Stone 1979). Arkansas novaculite is thought to have formed through precipitation of silica, possibly from volcanic sediments, in marine settings, and then altered through diagenesis and metamorphosis during the formation of the Ouachita Mountains (Holbrook and Stone 1979; Keller et at.1985; Steuart et al. 1984). The folding and faulting of mountain-building tilted the layers of rock, resulting in fracturing and jointing of the novaculite beds and the exposure of erosion-resistant novaculite on mountain ridges and spines (Banks 1984:86-88; Griswold 1892; Holbrook and Stone 1979). The Arkansas Novaculite formation, up to 950 ft thick, has been divided into three divisions in the central and southern Ouachitas. The thick Lower Division novaculite is described as "white, gray, or light brown, with black and reddish-brown beds in a few places. Near the base of the division the massive novaculite is often slightly calcareous" (Holbrook and Stone 1979:3). The Middle Division contains interbedded chert and shale. The Upper Division novaculite is a "massive novaculite that when fresh is light gray to bluish black and generally resembles the 17 Figure 1. Major Arkansas Novaculite outcrops in the Ouachita Mountains (redrawn after Holbrook and Stone 1979: Fig. 7',Keller et al. 1985:Fig. 15). novaculite of the Lower Division. In much of the area' however, the Upper Division novaculite is calcareous' and it has weathered to a light-brown or buff-colored punky rock with a gritty texture giving it the appearance of a porous siltstone" (Holbrook and Stone 1979:4). In the northerrt Ouachitas, theArkansas Novaculite formation is thinner and contains novaculite, chert, shale, conglomerate' and sandstone. novaculite could be derived locally from (1) riverbed cobbles from rivers flowing out of the mountains, or (2) from gravel deposits in Pleistocene terraces (e.g., Hemmings 1982:219-224; Mallouf 1976:4I-45; Perino and Bennett 1978 31-33; Perttula 1984; Waddell and King 1990). Novaculite showing up on sites away from the Ouachitas may also have come from the bedrock outcrops in the mountains, either through direct procurement or though exchange. Novaculite has been defined as "ahomogenous, mostly white or light-colored rock, translucent on thin edges' with a waxy to dull luster, and almost entirely comprised of microcrystalline quartz" (Holbrook and Stone 1979:2). II contains "\'ery few" fossils (conodonts, sponge spicules, radiolarians. spores) (Holbrook and Stone 1979:3). \ovaculite varies in color (from white and gray to pink' red. tan. and black) and in texture and luster (from the hard t-rne--rrained "Arkansas stone" and more porous "Ouachita stone" used for stone tools and whetstones, to the weathered calcareous novaculite or "tripoli" used now as an abrasive [Griswold 1892:5]-58,89-95, 103; Holbrook and Stone 1919:4-5D. Novaculite's translucency is seen Locally, novaculite was used as a toolstone over a long time. It is ubiquitous on archeological sites in the Ouachita Mountains and common on sites in adjacent areas of the Gulf Coastal Plain in southwest Arkansas and southeast Oklahoma (e.g., Early 1988; Schambach 1998; Waddell er al. 1995; Wyckoff 1968a). While novaculite use in southwest Arkansas spans the archeological sequence (e.g., Schambach 1998), it appears to have become a preferred raw material only by the Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-3000 B.C.; Banks 1984:88; Early 2000:91) and was widely used during the LateArchaic (ca. 3000-600 B.C.) in part through as the Poverty Point exchange system (Jeter and Jackson 1994). characteristic (e.g., Jeter and Jackson 1994:160), but this varies as well (Luedtke 1992:69, Appendix B) and translucency is a trait not limited to novaculite. Early (1988:7) suggests that there was use but perhaps not active quarrying during the Caddo period (ca. A'D. 900- How was Novaculite Used? centuries (Griswold 1 892; Whiftington In the Ouachita Mountains, novaculite was procured (1) directly from bedrock outcrops or from talus deposits below outcrops, or (2) in the form of cobbles from river gravels (Coleman 2002; Coleman et al. 2000 ; Martin 1982: Waddell et al. 1995). Away from the Ouachitas in southcrn Arkansas, eastern Oklahoma, and northeastern Texas, some 1B 1700). Quarrying novaculite for whetstones was an important local industry in the nineteenth and twentieth 1 969) and novaculite and tripoli are still mined commercially in the Ouachita Mountains today (Steuart et al. 1984). History of Novaculite Quarries Research Novaculite quarries in the Ouachita Mountains were noticed in the early 1800s as American settlers explored The Arkansas Archeologist -Vkansas after the removal of Native Americans fiom the :erritory. New quarrying began as part of the whetstone -rdustry that first developed in the Hot Springs area by at :ast 1 8 1 8 (Griswold 1892:19 ; Whittington 1969 :226-227 ). Schoolcraft (1819, cited in Griswold 1892:20) mentions rovaculite, although his 1818- 1 B I 9 trip through the Ozarks :id not take him near Hot Springs. Featherstonhaugh's 1968[1844]:110) travels did take him to Hot Springs in S34, and he described the local novaculite "which they -sed as hones fbr their razors." Enlisting a guide to show -.in where it was obtained, he walked over ridges of "a :eautiful novaculite of a pearly semitransparent nature, .:rdeed quite opalescent in places" (Featherstonhaugh - 968: I l0). He then described ancient quaffy features found -:arby, providing us with an early published discussion of ,ris site type and its regional importance (Featherstonhaugh 968: 11 to white Carara marble and to chalcedony, and described whetstone quanying activity near Hot Springs. The most ambitious description of the novaculite deposits was by L. S. Griswold (1,892), whose report focuses on the geology of novaculite and the economics of whetstone quarrying of aboriginal (quarry pits ringed with debitage, toolstone quarrying quartzite hammerstones, and marks from fire on novaculite outcrops) at "Spanish diggings" near Magnet Cove and near Hot Springs, mainly to dismiss geologist T. B. Comstock's claim that novaculite originated through precipitation from hot springs (Griswold 1892:175-I76'). To bolster his argument for Indians as agents of the pitting at these sites, Griswold (1892:176) cites William H. Holmes, of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology, and production. He mentions evidence as an authority. 1): Ascending a very lofty hill composed entirely of this mineral, we found several large pits. resembling inverted cones, some of which were from 20 to 30 feet deep and as many in diameter, the insides and bottoms of which were covered with chips of this beautiful mineral, some white, some carmine, some blue, and many quite opalescent. In and near these pits round and long pieces of hard greenstone - which I had seen in place about 1B miles distant - were scattered about, but none of them too large for the hand. These were undoubtedly the quarries from whence the Indians, when they possessed the country, obtained the materials for making their arrowheads and spears, for those which I had In 1890, Holmes became the first archeologist to visit the novaculite quamies in Arkansas. He published (1891) a brief description of a quarry site near Hot Springs (3G422) in American Anthropologisr, and encouraged W. P. Jenney of the U.S. Geological Survey to visit and publish (Jenney 1891) on the quanies near Magnet Cove (3GA4B/3HS i58/ 3HS433). These novaculite quanies were later used as examples in his treatise on the principle aboriginal North American stone quarries (Holmes l974Ll9I9l:196-200). Holmes (.1914 see Figure 2) published maps that can still be used to locate features at the two quarry sites (compare with Trubitt 2003a:Fig. 6; see Figure 3). At 3GA22, Holmes (1891:314) described circular quaffy pits (the largest 150 ft diameter and 25 ft deep) cut into the novaculite ridgetop, with quantities of debris piled around them. Extraction of the toolstone was done using hammers of quartzite and fire (he observed "blackened patches" on some undercuts, Holmes 1891 :3 15). He illustrated a series of rough bifaces from the quarry and bifacial preforms and finished dart found in the ploughed field in Magnet Cove were made of this mineral. The pieces of hard greenstone were the tools the Indians worked with, and the rough mineral when procured was taken to their villages to be manufactured: I had many opportunities subsequently of feeling assured of this, upon finding, amidst the circular holes and roughing out of blanks was done there and final tool mounds where their now fallen lodges once stood, finishing took place elsewhere. prodigious quantities of these chips and arrowheads that had been broken in the act of making them. In the mid-1880s the Arkansas Geological Survey :nitiated studies into resources in the state with potential --ommercial value, including surveys in the Ouachita \Iountains that located novaculite with potential for '.rhetstone production. Owen (1860:23, 104) compared lovaculite (or "Ouachita oilstone," "Arkansas whetstone") \blume 13 points from other sites in adjacent valleys (Holmes 1891:Plate III). Based on the refuse at the site, he concluded that, like at other quarry sites he had observed, preliminary Jenney (1891) described the quarry pits near Magnet Cove as trenches dug to expose novaculite strata or seams, with quantities of debris surrounding and filling them, leaving shallow pits. Jenney (1891:317) also noted the quarrying tools at the site: three sizes of hantmerstones made of syenite, granite, or quartzite obtained from streambeds several miles away. Impressed u'ith the ertent of the quanying, he suggested that quan-l features ertended fr-rnher than the mile and a half of rid-ee top that he had vualked. t9 {:j'ffr i,i{/fi 'rfrffi i{,,#!;ra,* Figure 2. Quarry fearures at3GA22, Holmes map (Holmes 1914:Fig.11). 450 Figure 3. Quarry features at3GA22, Trubitt map (Trubitt 2003a:Fig. 6). 20 : -^ Archeological S ociety's annual training program (Coleman, Gardner et al. 1999; Hilliard 1995). Evidence of quarry -riter this initial description of the quarries, little ,.-on was paid to them by professional archeologists -ne i970s. Afew articles did appear in the interim. documented. Quarry features included battered, exposed bedrock, a trench, and large piles of waste flakes and hammerstones. Two lx1 test units were excavated' Battered bedrock was encountered at 20 cm in both units, but thousands of pieces of debitage were recovered from these two units. Unfortunately, a complete analysis of the recovered debitage, broken bifaces and broken :, " -:: -* .stimated that Indians had excavated at least 100,000 i ards of material from this location. :. quarry at Indian Mountain in --:-. J. Lemley visited the - ': rnd made a collection, and published a short -: ::-piion of this and the Magnet Cove quarries (Lemley --- Whittington (1969) published an overview of the " , , r of novaculite quarrying. While mentioning Indian - -::r-,.s only briefly, Whittington's article is an important -:;e of information on the people and places associated : the Hot Springs whetstone industry at its height during "-: :te-1800s to mid-1900s. In 1913,the Arkansas Archeological Survey conducted --- .:cheological reconnaissance of Hot Springs National : ;.: ,Baker 1974,1982). In addition to revisiting 3GA22, . ,;ral other quarries and lowland lithic scatters were ":--.rded on NPS property (Baker 1974:1-12). Local . - rmants directed Baker to quaries near Caddo Gap, : .:larck, Malvern, and Lake Catherine, which he recorded *, l.lrt of his University of Arkansas M.A. thesis research. -., ihe "spanish Diggings"2 near Magnet Cove, Baker j-l:i5-28, 1982:318-324) excavated a 1 x I m test unit - rn area of quarry pits and debris piles. Excavation to :-:th of 1.5 m uncovered stratified deposits, including a and quarry -Jden deposit containing novaculite debitage :::ris, bifaces and pretbrms, flake tools, fragments of ..nmerstones, and a dart point similar to the Nliddle-to-:re Archaic Marshall type. An impressive quantity of -L:terial was recovered. Forced to sample the material in .r: 1x1 unit, Baker (1914 19) estimated that just the 30 cm ,:rdden layer containedZ25 kg of material. Limited analysis i the excavated artifacts was done, and hammerstones from , surface collection were analyzed (Baker 1974:20-28, 1.982.:324-331) . Since the 1970s new information about the character :nd distribution of novaculite quarries has come from rrcheological surveys sponsored by the U. S. Forest Service rn response to federal historic preservation laws, and from research projects conducted by the Arkansas Archeological Survey in conjunction with Arkansas Archeological activity extending 500 meters along the ridgetop was hammerstones has not yet occurred, and would make a good research project. Several projects provide indirect information about toolstone procurement and manufacturing activities at sites away from the quarries. In the southern Ouachita Mountain area, three projects are especially useful: the Fancy Hill project (Martin 1982; Thomas et al. 1982), a survey and testing project of 1900 acres near the South Fork of the Caddo River; the Shady Lake project (Coleman, Gardner et at. 1999; Stewart 1995), which tested five prehistoric sites on the Saline River in Polk County; and the Winding Stair project (Early, ed., 2000; Early et al. 1999), which excavated and tested 3 sites with prehistoric components on the Little Missouri River. Multiple novaculite quarry sites have been recorded of surveys of Ouachita National Forest lands. For as part example, a 1990-1991SPEARS, Inc. survey of nearly 8000 acres recorded ten novaculite qualry sites in the Arkansas portion of the project area (Waddell and Waddell 1992)- A 199l-1992 survey of over 7000 acres by New South Associates recorded eight novaculite quarry sites (Williams at. 1993'). A1992-1993 SPEARS,Inc., survey of nearly 9000 acres recorded three additional novaculite quary sites (Waddell et al. 1995). These recent surveys have added to the literature on novaculite procurement and use by discussing site distribution in relation to novaculite resources, classification ofsite function based on types and quantities of lithic tools and debitage, the patterning of et reduction activities at sites across an area, and procurement of novaculite from outcrop versus cobble sources (Waddeltr and \Vaddell 1992: Waddell et al. 1995;Wllliams et Ql' 1993). of Forest Service archeologists have been actively documenting novaculite quaffy and workshop sites in the Ouachita National Forest (Coleman 2001' 2002, 2003a' 2003b: Etchieson 1997). Coleman's (2001. 2002. 2003a. 2003b) test excavations at t$'o noYaculite u'orkshop sites Mena was mapped and tested during the Arkansas in Montgomery Count,v evaiuated models of nor aculite use Society's annual training program. Patterns of novaculite procurement, use, and exchange have been an important research focus in this work. In 1993, a novaculite quany site (3PL349) south Vtlume 43 2l and reduction strategies in an environment of abundant raw material. Meeks Etchieson, Heritage Program Manager for the Ouachita National Forest, summarized the existing knowledge about novaculite quarrie s in a 1997 paper' After revisiting most of the recorded quarry sites, Etchieson (lgg7) documented the types of large-scale features that chatacterize ridge-top novaculite quarries. To date, 1 23 novaculite quarry sites have been recorded in Arkansas (Tabie 1). The majority of these (65) are on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Others are on National Park Sen'ice lands (7), State of Arkansas lands (2),privatelands (12), or ownership is not specified on the site form (37). Background and Project Goals 1996, the Ouachita National Forest (U'S' Forest Service) and the Arkansas Archeological Survey entered into a cost-share agreement to develop a detailed research design for researching the novaculite quaffy sites on lands in the In Ouachita National Forest in the southern Ouachita Mountains. Through this agreement, funding was provided to hold a three-day workshop where experts in the field of lithic quarry complexes in North and Central America could come together for consultation with Forest Service and Arkansas Archeological Survey archeologists on novaculite quarry issues. The workshop was held in December, 1996, and included discussions and field trips to quarry sites on two mountains in Montgomery and Garland counties' Workshop participants were: Sherri Avery, Roger Coleman, Meeks Etchieson. and Barbara Williams from the Ouachita \ational Forest;Ann Early, Tom Green, Jami Lockhart, and \Iartha Rolh-eson from the Arkansas Archeological Survey; Robert G. Elston (Intermountain Research, Nevada), an expert on quarries in the western U.S.; James Hatch (Pennsylvania State University), an expefi on quarries in the eastern U.S.; Fred Limp (University of Arkansas), an expeft on remote sensing in archeology; Harry Shafer (Texas eAU University), an expert on Maya quarries in Central America and lithic technology; and Gene Titmus and Jim Woods (College of Southern Idaho), experts on lithic technology and fl int!'-rraPPi ng. Based on the discussions at the workshop and in collaboration withAnn Early, Tom Green drafted an outline novaculite quaffy research design and circulated it among colleagues for review and comments' With mounting administrative duties taking his research time, he turned the project over to Mary Beth Trubitt, who fleshed out the 22 final version. A final report on the novaculite quarries research design was submitted to the U'S' Forest Service in February of 2004. The major goal of novaculite quaffy research is to understand the context of novaculite extraction and procurement, distribution, and use as a toolstone' Basic information is needed concerning: 1) the types of tools made from novaculite, the demand or need for novaculite and novaculite objects, and how people used these tools; 2) novaculite as a raw material, the geographic distribution ofnovaculite and variation in its characteristics over space (to source toolstone), the technology of novaculite extraction and the nature of the quarries that resulted from this activity, why one novaculite deposit was chosen over another, when/how long quarrying took place, and estimates of the volume of raw material removed during different periods in the Past; 3) the technology of novaculite tool production, including manufacturing techniques and reduction strategies and the spatial and social organization of tool production, how production activities were distributed across a region' what strategies were chosen in the production and kinds of tools, how access to resources was restricted or controlled, how raw material acquisition and production activities were embedded into other aspects of life, and whether production was specialized and the economics of novaculite tool production; 4) the gender, age, status, ethnicity of the people who made novaculite tools, the size and structure of the work group involved in production, and the social identity of the people who 'consumed' the novaculite tools; 5) the exchange of novaculite and novaculite tools, including the geographical and temporal distribution of novaculite tools in the Ouachita Mountains and beyond, and the mechanisms for the distribution or exchange of novaculite; and 6) how to develop management strategies to preserve significant quarry sites, nominate them to the National Register of Historic Places, and identify activities that would or would not adversely affect these sites, including land uses and public interPretation. Novaculite quarry research need not take place in a vacuum. Many projects conducted in North America and elsewhere have addressed the research potential and applicable methods used on quarry sites (quarry research designs are made explicit in Ataman, Carambelas, et al' The Arkansas Archeologist Table l. Novaculite Quany Sites Recorded in the AMASDA Database. (Listine includes sites with historic and prehistoric components, current as of 12/2003.) County Garland: Site # 3CA0048 Ownership NPS NPS private private 3GAO105 3GA0132 Site # Ownership ,| 3GAO834 1 3GAO143 l 3GAO835 1 3GA0206 ONF 3GAO836 ? 3G40476 ONF 3GAO837 1 private? 3GA0478 ONF 3GAO838 1 l 3GA0s0l ONF 3GAO839 l 3GA0133 ,) 3GA0565 NPS 3GAO840 3GA0134 ? 3GA0586 NPS 3GA084i ? 3GAO1 35 ? 3GA0587 NPS 3GA0842 1 3GAO136 l 3GA0621 ONF 3GA0843 1 3GA0r 37 ? 3GA0759 NPS 3GA0844 ? 3GA0'762 NPS 3GA0845 1 3GA0811 ONF 3GA0846 ? 3GA0832 ,! 3GAO847 1 3GA0022 3GA004s 3GA0047 3GAO138 3GA0139 ? 3GAO140 Hot Spring: 3GAO14t ? 3GA0833 l 3GA0848 ? 3HS0065 private 3HS02 1 3 ? 3HS0433 private 3HS0069 State 3HS02r4 ? 3HS0448 private 3HS0231 1 3HS0495 State 1 3HS0070 Montgomery: Ownership 3GAOI42 Site # ,| 3HS0082 pnvate 3HS0232 3HS0158 private 3HS0393 1 3MN0055 ONF 3MNO328 ONF 3MN0906 ONF 3MN0056 ONF 3MN0476 ONF 3MN0907 ONF 3MN0069 ? 3MN0477 ONF 3MN0910 ONF 3MN0571 ONF 3MN09l1 ONF 3MN0111 3MN0112 ONF 3MN0620 ONF 3MN1128 ONF 3MN0l13 ONF 3MN062r ONF 3MNl34r ONF ONF 3MN0622 ONF 3MN1528 private 3MN0116 ONF 3MN0623 ONF 3MN1709 ONF 3MN0175 ONF 3MN0624 ONF 3MN19l3 ONF 3MN0176 ONP 3MN0628 ONF 3MN2150 ONF 3MN0177 ONF 3MN0634 ONF 3MN2382 ONF 3MN0178 ONF 3MN0700 ONF 3MN2402 ONF 3MN0282 ONF 3MN0747 ONF 3MN2412 ONF 3MNO288 ONF & private 3MNO872 ONF 3MN2413 ONF 3MNO306 ONF 3MNO877 ONF 3MNO896 ONF 3MN0115 3MNO327 ONF Pike: 3Pr0083 private Polk: 3PL00s7 ONF 3PL0100 ONF 3PL0344 ONF 3PL0073 ONF 3PL0 I 03 ONF 3PL0349 ONF 3PL0094 ONF 3PL0105 ONF 3PL0170 ONF 3PL0096 ONF 3PL0280 ONF 3PLO837 private 3PL0099 ONF 3PL0281 ONF 3PLO857 private Saline 3SA0248 ONF Scott: 3SC0834 ONF 3SC l 230 ONF 1992; Elston, Ingbal et al.1992; Hatch 1994;Loendorf et al. 1984; and Shafer 1993). It is clear that a regional perspective is essential. While our focus is on stone emphasize that many other archeological sites with novaculite debris have the potential to contribute to the issues raised here. procurement and tool production at novaculite quilries, we Volume 43 23 or base camps in order to examine social complexity in Late Archaic hunter-fisher-gatherer groups in New York' RECONSTRUCTING SYSTEMS OF NOVACULITE TOOL PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE Archeologists studying lithics are interested in exploringnotjustthemanufactureanduseofstonetoolsin atechnologicalsense,butthesocial,economic,andpolitical aspects of stone tool production, distribution' and use' How organization of craft production and specialization' inctuding variability in control of labor (e'g', independent and attached specialists), and how elites use or control weretoolsincorporatedintothelivesofpeopleinthepast? Severaltheoreticalframeworkshavebeenemployedinthe lithic technologY literature. Discussions of the organization of production have A large literature has developed analyzing links betweenhunter_gatherermobility,settlementpatterns' resourceavailability,andtechnologicalstrategiesorchoices ofrawmaterialused,oftheformsinwhichtoolstonewas transportedandcachedorstockpiled,oftheformsoftools themselves and whether or not they were hafted (e'g'' Amick 1984;AmickandCarrlgg6;Andrefsky199l;Bamforth /1986:Binfordlg7'7,1979,1980;Bleed1986;Canl994a; '/ More broadly, archeologists have explored the social at. 1996; Keeley 1982; Lurie 1989; Morrow 1997;Odell1994;PatyandKelly1987;Walthalland Hayden et Holleylgg'7).Thisdomainhascometobeknownasthe 'organizationoftechnology,"definedbyNelson('1991:57) aS..thestudyoftheselectionandintegrationofstrategies for making' using, transporting, and discarding tools and thematerialsneededfortheirmanufactureand maintenance.,'organizationoftechnologyshouldalso include the "economic and social variables that influence thosestrategies,"(Nelson1991:57;seealsoCarrI994b: HaYden et at. 1996; Sassaman 1994)' Stone tools, like other kinds of material culture, pass throughtrajectoriesofrawmaterialacquisition' manufacture' distribution' use and recycling' ending in discard and deposition (see Schiffer 1972)' By reconstructingthisoperationalsequence,termedchaine oplratoirebyFrencharcheologistAndr6Leroi-Gourhan' \,\'e can address the strategies or choices made by people in Pfaffenbergerlg88)'Thistheoreticalperspectiveis explicitlygearedtoexamine..technologyinthebroader social,economicandsymbolicculturalcontext,''SoaS..to understand how people use technology in a manner that manipulatesorrespondstothesocialworldaroundthem.', (Dowd 1998a: 11, 19)' Using this perspective' Dowd (1998a,1998b)analyzedrawmaterialprocurementandtool 24 broadened to include consideration of the gender and status of craftworkers, of households as production units, and of distribution of the crafted products (Arnold and Munns Feinman and Nicholas 1 994; Costin and Wright, eds., 1 998 ; 2000; Mills 1995; Moholy-Nagy 1995; Trubitt 1996)' Recently, Costin (2001) defined "production systems" in terms of several key components - the people, objects' and techniques, mechanisms and organization of production and exchange and the interrelationships between them' - Breaking a production system into its components allows us to archeol,ogically investigate: ( I ) the "objects" or crafted items, and their functions and meanings; (2) the "means of production," the raw materials and their procurement' and the techniques and production strategies; (3) the "organization of production," including both spatial and social aspects ofproduction organization; (4) the "atlisans" and the "consumers", in terms of their social identities (gender, age, status, ethnicity), and whether craft producers ar" sp"ciuiists; and (5) the organization or "relationships of distribution," including the movement of goods from one place to another and the social mechanisms for their circulation (Costin 2001). These components are interrelated; production, distribution, producers and consumers are linked. To understand novaculite quarries, we need to situate specificsocialcontexts(Dobreslggg"Gracen'd';Holm 1994;Simek1994:119-120)'Comingoutofarenewed interestinmaterialculturebysocioculturalanthropologists is the "anthropology of technology" (Lemonnier 1986; reductionsequencesacrossquarry,workshop'andhabitation crafted products to increase their power (Brumfiel and Earle 1987;Clark 1995; Costin 1991; Sinopoli 1988; Stein 1996)' these sites in the broader context of novaculite tool production and exchange systems. In this research design' each of these five components will be addressed' Each section includes research questions, an overview of methods used to investigate these questions in other regions, and a discussion of relevant research specifically on novaculite' Objects: What was made from Novaculite? ulit e obiects used? How many were needed? Novaculite was used primarily for utilitarian or practical pulposes, to make What was mad e from n ov ac ul it e ? H ow w e re nov ac The Arkansas Archeolo gist rpped stone tools needed for everyday activities by people. -:. the Ouachita Mountains and adjacent areas of the Gulf , basic toolstone -- - rstal Plain to the south. novaculite was the -.:d for dart and arrow points, scrapers, knives, and drill :..> (e.g., Early 1988; Martin 1982; Schambach 1998). - ,rher away, novaculite was one of several raw materials -.:d. and people may have crafted certain types of tools on - aculite in preference to local materials. Further stili : n the source, novaculite arlifacts may have been used '. ::-\tige objects for display and exchange. If this is the -::e . novaculite artifacts may have ended up in special kinds . Jeposits at sites far from the Ouachita Mountains. The -.-'s of the objects will influence the demand for them and - rsequently the ways their production is organized. Additional documentation is needed on the types of rls that were made from novaculite and their distribution ilme and space. There may be utilitarian and symbolic -.:s of the toolstone (see Shafer 1993) and of the tools e mselves. For example, Sassaman (1994:1 1 2- 1 1 3) -nphasized the role of bifacial tools like Early Archaic Kirk -- rmer-Notched points in South Carolina Coastal Plain : '.!-hanges that both created social alliances and dispersed --.ric materials. Arkansas novaculite was apparently used -:. the production of some of the oversized bifaces that : -rr-ulated in the Middle Archaic Benton interaction sphere r \Iississippi (Brookes 1999, 2002). Were there limitations on the size or type of artifacl -;,iit could be craJied.frorn novacwlite? Can big bifuces be ':tde from novaculite or does the presence of microfractttre,s ,. ttovaculite or brittleness limit the overall siz.e of blanks? , ,--'r example, large "Gahagan blades" were not made of :,-rvaculite at Spiro (Brown 1996), but one large biface of : rvaculite was found in a ritual context at George C. Davis, \lound C (Shafer 1973:232-233, personal communication lr-)03). Why were hoe blacles not usually mode .from ' ,t'sculite? Hoes made fiom Mill Creek and Dover chert ere used by Mississippian peoples in the Central \Iississippi River Valley, while the Caddo peoples in ,'. :-ruthwestArkansas seem to have preferred hoe blades made -rom pierced mussel shells or deer scapula bones. These :references may have to do with the nature of the toolstones lerhaps the toughness of Mill Creek and Dover cherts --ompared withArkansas novaculite) or could involve socio:olitical issues (ethnic or political boundaries restricting :ccess), or could be due to ecological variables (such as reavier Mississippi Valley soils versus lighter soils in the Gulf Coastal Plain). Different types of tools require Jitferent lithic characteristics, for example, coarse-grained \blume 43 material used for hide-scraping tools (Hayden et al. 1996:29-32). Whcrt is lhe overull demand Jbr novaculite through time and space? Luedtke (1984) attempts to estimate the annual household demand for lithic material, taking into consideration the number of tools needed and the amount of material required to make them. This kind of estimation could have some utility when compared with estimates of the amount of stone removed annually from a quarry (Luedtke 1984:11). Her calculation of 50 kg (110 lb) of toolstone per family each year for a Late Woodland Michigan case study aff-ects reconstructions of the time and effort needed to procure toolstone from local or distant sources (Luedtke 1.984:74-75). Estimating the demand for novaculite or the pref'erence for novaculite as a toolstone has a spatial aspect (distribution in different localities and regions) and a temporal aspect (the volume of novaculite used during different time periods) (see Wyckoff 1969 for discussion of lithic pref'erence analysis). It seems to be "common knowledge" among archeologists working in the Lower Mississippi River Valley and Western Gulf Coastal Plain regions that novaculite use was greatest during the Middle and Late Archaic periods, both in volume and geographical distribution. Empirical verification of this pattern - and the exceptions to it - is needed. How do we identifi novaculite consumption? To identify the consumption and use of novaculite tools, we need to be able to distinguish tool production residues (e.g., aborted preforms/bifaces, macroblades, cores, hammerstones, see Johnson I 984, 1989; Shafer l 993) from tool use residues (recycled tools, rejuvenation flakes, evidence of edge-wear and use damage, distinctive breakage patterns, see Dockall and Shafer 1993; McAnany 1989; Shafer 1983). Consumption and use may be gleaned from functional analyses using use-wear (e.g., Keeley 1980) and experimentation that distinguishes tool use breakage from manufacturing breaks (e.g., Titmus and Woods 1986). Means of Production: Raw Materials and Their Acquisition Sourcing Novaculite. Can we source novaculite? What is the range of variatictn in novaculite chemistry, texture, color, and knapping characterislics w'ithin and between quarrie,; (e.g., Etchieson 1997)? Understanding the range of novaculite variation is important fbr sourcing novaculite found on sites away from the quanies. especialll' material found in Mrssissippi. Louisiana. and Teras. -\rkansas 25 novaculite outcrops in a25 to 50 mile wide band from near Little Rock, Arkansas, to near Broken Bow Oklahoma, a distance of about 200 miles (Holbrook and Stone 1979; Keller et al. 1985). Sourcing novaculite to specific quarries means we would be able to track toolstone from extraction to production to consumption sites across the region. Knowing the quarry area that was the source for particular tools will provide insights into the residential mobility of different social groups, their social organrzation, and their patterns of exchange (e.g., Cameron and Sappington 1984; Dowd 1998a; Jones et a\.2003). How is sourcing done? Potential methods include macroscopic (color, texture), petrographic/microscopic (thin section, mineralogy), and chemical techniques (trace element studies like neutron activation analysis and others). Heat treatment may change the characteristics of novaculite (e.g., Flenniken and Garrison 7975), so experimental replication is needed to document these alterations and identify when heat treatment occumed in the production process. Geologists and archeologists use macroscopic, petrographic, and chemical techniques to describe and differentiate siliceous stones. Macroscopic characteristics such as color, texture, luster, and the presence of certain fossils have proved diagnostic for some toolstones (e.g., Ferguson and Warren 1992;McBkath and Emerson 2000). Internet publishing has been a boon to archeologists as well as others interested in distribution of graphics and information. One example of a virlual lithic comparative collection is FlintSource.NET, produced by Elburg and van der Kroft (n.d.). with descriptions and high quality color photographs of cherts and flints from west and central European sources. \{ineralogical examinations of cherts through thin-section and surface microscopy (including scannins electron microscopy) have proven useful for identiflin-e toolstone types (e.g., Daniel and Butler 1996; Tankersley 1984). A variety of chemical chatactetization techniques to identify impurities and trace elements have been used to source cherts. Luedtke (1978,19921'Luedtke and Meyers 1984) made extensive use of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) of trace elements to differentiate cherts (see also Hatch and Miller 1985; Ives 1984; Nance 2000). She emphasizes that samples must be large enough to address variation within source areas due to differences in conditions of formation and later alteration, in order to reliably discuss variation between sources (for sampling considerations, see also Beardsley and Goles 2001; Shackley 2002). Electron-spin resonance spectroscopy has been used, identify the use of heat treatment on chefis (Dowd 1998a; Rowlett et al. 1974; Skinner and Rudolph 1996). It also shows promise as a chert chatacletization technique' as Dowd (1998a) shows in her study of Hudson River Valley (New York) cherts. There may be other characterization techniques that may be useful for differentiating novaculite from other cherts and for sourciug novaculite (e.g., ultraviolet fluorescence, Lyons et al. 2003; induced thermoluminescence and cathodoluminescence, Akridge and Benoit 2001). Novaculite differs macroscopically in color, texture, and luster. Color ranges from white and gray to pink, red, tan, and black. Variation in color is due in parl to impurities; Griswold (1892) described impurities seen in novaculite thin sections that resulted in specific colors. The different colors of novaculite may have a geographical distribution: Etchieson (1991) suggests that black novaculite is more typical of the eastern quarries while Banks (1990:40) found eastern quaries to have more unifotm color and western quarries to have more mottled novaculite. Verification of these impressions is needed through controlled collections from quarries throughout the area. Not only may color vary between sources, but people may have preferred tooistone of particular colors (e.g., McElrath and Emerson 2000:231). Initial results of a novaculite tool and debitage analysis by type and color suggests selectivity in the use of novaculite by groups in the DeGray Lake area (gray novaculite used preferentially by Archaic and Woodland period groups, white and pink novaculite by Caddo) (Perttula and Nelson 2000:146-147). Translucency is often described as a characteristic (diagnostic?) of novaculite. For example, Jeter and Jackson (1994:1 60) write: "Archaeologists in and near Arkansas tend to believe that they (we!) can often readily distinguish novaculites from cherts by the 'eyeball' method. If identification is not obvious from macroscopic color and texture, we use hand lenses to see whether the characteristic semi-translucence is present on the margins of flake scars or natural fractures. ... one of us (Jeter) has had some success in getting amateurs to identify hand samples as novaculite and chert consistently in controlled comparisons'" Because of this, Luedtke's (1992:68-69) discussion of quantifying translucency (using a method proposed by Ahler 1983) is interesting. Basically the method is to standardize the light source and measure flake thickness at the point where the material changed from translucent to opaque' Luedtke (1992:App. B) finds differences in measured translucency between cherts, as well as variation between samples of like thermoluminescence, as a dating technique and to 26 The Arkansas Archeologist \rkansas novaculite, with translucency decreasing with rLgher iron content (ibid p. 69). Petrographic analysis by geologists (Griswold 1892; :':11er et al.1995) suggests chemical similarity and some :rtural differences between novaculite from different rcalities. Thin section descriptions of novaculite have been ::ovided by Griswold (1892:133- I 3B) by specific collection - ,cation, with notes on trace inclusions resulting in :-fierences in color and cavities related to texture. In thin : j.tion, some novaculite has fine-grained silica grains with : rnte Small cavities where calcite had leached; sometimes .::se cavities have secondary silica (Griswold 1892:92). A :;ent study characterized one source ofArkansas novaculite -: rriore crystalline (i.e., larger quarlz grain sizes) than the -,zark Mountains cherts sampled (Akridge and Benoit . activation analysis of cherts included samples of Arkansas novaculite, and the results can be a starting point for comparisons of novaculite with other cherts. Interestingly, she found variation within the novaculite formation as well, with samples from Caddo Gap showing "higher proportions of all the elements identified in the Michigan project except iron, uranium, and antimony" as compared to the recrystalized samples from Magnet Cove (Luedtke 1992:60). "Thus, hydrothermal activity apparently resulted in rather thorough flushing of many elements from Arkansas -'t)l:146-147). novaculite, but enrichment of some metals," (Luedtke 1992:60, see also p.69). A productive avenue for novaculite research would be the application and comparison of muitiple techniques of chemical characterization to come up with replicable, practical methods of identifying novaculite and for differentiating specific sources within the formation. Keller et al. (1985') used scanning electron microscopy , e ramine samples of novaculite systematically collected -. tm sources across the Arkansas novaculite formation. Effects of Heat Treatment. How does heat-treating affect novaculite characteristics? According to flintknappers (e.g., Titmus and Woods, personal communication, 1996) -:ei, describe textural differences between I nrnetamorphosed novaculite (with anhedral ptocrystalline quafiz grains) and metamorphosed :crystalized with a distinctive polygonal, "triple-point" --,:iure). The metamorphosed novaculite was found in a ,rd between Broken Bow, Oklahoma and Little Rock, :-rkensas, corresponding to the Broken Bow-Benton Uplift {:1ler er tzl. 1985:Fig. l5). Within this band, crystal sizes :re smaller in the central area (Shady Lake area of ::', --r{ansas to the Oklahoma border) and larger towards the :.!l (Little Rock) and west (Broken Bow). To the south.i ::>i ?rld north/west of this band, the novaculite had - ,. ptocrystalline texture indicating it had not been '=trmorphosed. In addition, locations (e.g., near Magnet - ,. e. Arkansas) with larger-sized crystals were identified r:re rocks were heated by igneous intrusions. Kellet et 1985: 1362) estimate that recrystallization occurred -,ugh past heating to temperatures in the 200-300' C. "-:,qe. with coarsest textures indicating temperatures up to - 'r-760'C. (It is not clear whether humanly heat-altered - ', aculite would have different effects on metamorphosed -.- : nonmetamorphosed stone, or what pre- and post: ' :erimentally heat-treated novaculite looks like in - r-rparison.) -- ninum, iron, manganese, titanium, calcium. m agnesium. jium, and potassium (Griswoid 1892:90; Holbrook and i,-.ne 1979:B). Luedtke's (1992:55-58, I25) neutron 'yrne 13 to heat treating and experimentation should be done on different novaculite sources or varieties. Where wos the rock heated? Researchers might look for heat-treated flakes, bifaces with flake scars exhibiting differential lusters, and hearths or fire pits at quarries, at workshops on the mountains, or in camps and settlements in the river valleys. For example, evidence of heat treatment of jasper at quarry sites in eastern Pennsylvania came from heat-altered flakes, especially from later stage reduction, and a hearlh feature in a quarry pit at the Vera Cruz site (Hatch and Miller 1985.276: Hatch 1994:32; Schindler et al. l9BZ). Some analysts differentiate heat treated from non-heat treated novaculite based on attributes like pinkish or reddish coloration and glossy luster (e.g., Cooper et al. 1998:I-3; Williams et al. 1993:85). This is problematic given the natural range of color and texture at novaculite outcrops. Color change on heating depends on the amount of iron oxide impurities present in siliceous stone, and color changes often occur at lower temperatures than are required Various chemical analyses of Arkansas novaculite -:ntify it as over 99Vo s1lica, with trace quantities of -- novaculite is a tough, hard rock that needs to be heat treated before it flakes easily. Don Dickson (type collection notes, see also Banks 1990:122) says that heat treating some varieties of novaculite ruins its knappability. This suggests there may be some variability in how novaculite responds to alter luster or "workability" (Purdy 1974; Purdy and Brooks 1971; Rick 1978). A relative increase in luster (especially non-lustrous and lustrous flake scars on the same piece) is a better indicator of heat treatment since it is related to the change in the structure and texture of the stone that 27 improves workability or knappability (Crabtree and Butler 1964; McCutcheon 1991). While there is disagreement about the specific cause of this luster change, it is agreed that heat treated stone acts like a more homogenous material and when flaked, breaks across microcrystals rather than around them (Mandeville 1973; Purdy 1974; Rick 1978)' in a siliceous material upon heating differ from one raw material to another' Since the changes that occur experimental replication is critical to identification of heat treatment. Flenniken and Garrison (1975) conducted experiments on prefotms of white Arkansas novaculite, and found no color changes, but a luster change to a glossier appearance at 450 "C. When flaking the heat-treated novaculite, they found that less force was needed to break the stone, fewer step and hinge fractures were produced, and longer more controlled flakes were produced' Microscopic examination of the surface of the heat-treated material revealed an "agranular appearance due to an increased density of microfractures" (Flenniken and Garrison 1975:128). The higher density of microfractures would directly affect the flakeability of the heat-treated stone. A second experiment in heat-treating novaculite was conducted by J. B. Sollberger (Bennett 1986:69-73'). Here, samples of white novaculite were heated to 620 "F 1327 "Cl, resulting in a color change from white to pink or red' and an increase in luster. Knapping comparisons with unheated and heated samples used to create dart points indicated that the heat-treated stone was "much easier to work. Platform crushing and flake snap terminations were greati) reduced in comparison with the untreated examples' The tlakes carried furrher and produced well-feathered terminations thus producing thinner, more servic[e]able tools." t Bennen 1986:71). Recently. McCutcheon (1997) included samples of black and gray Arkansas novaculite in a series of heat treatment experiments. His findings include (1) the "microfractures" noted by Flenniken and Garrison (1975) could not be seen with scanning electron microscopy on surfaces of novaculite heated up to 650 "C or in other chert used as indication of heat treatment in archeological samples. For novaculite, this criterion will be more useful when the range of natural novaculite texture/luster is better documented. Additional heat treatment experiments on a range of novaculite colors/textures could confirm these reported results. The samples from outcrops or quarries should be gathered in such a way that statistical techniques can be used to verify any pattems observed. Novaculite Procurement. How was novaculite procured? What were the different kinds of novaculite sources used for toolstone? How can we distinguish these dffirent sources? In the Ouachita Mountains, novaculite was procured directly from outcrops, from surfaces of talus slopes below outcrops, and in the form of cobbles from river gravels (Coleman et al. 2000; Martin 1982; Waddell et al. 1995). Different procurement strategies were used for these different sources. If not coming to the Ouachitas, people in southern Arkansas, eastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas may have found novaculite locally from riverbed cobbles from rivers flowing out of the mountains or from gravel deposits in Pleistocene terraces (e'g', Hemmings 1982; Perttula 1984; Waddell and King 1990)' At the outcrops, what kinds of extractive techniques were used to get stone at quarries (and what were byproducts in terms of tools, debris, andfeatures)l Methods that might be used include detailed survey and mapping to see the extent, scale and range of features, and excavations to understand the scale of subsurface quarrying, the types of tools and debris discarded and carried away, and the range of time periods represented. Field investigation of novaculite quarry sites has included description, mapping at several sites (e.g., Etchieson 1997:8,11- 15; Holmes 1891; 1974:196-200; Jenney 1891; Baker 1974, 1982: Hilliard 1995; Trubitt 2003a, 2003b), and limited test excavations at two quarry sites (Baker 1974 Hilhatd 1995). Etchieson (1991:6-1) has described large-scale features found at Ouachita Mountains novaculite outcrops. What is the geographic distribution of dffirent kinds of extraction features? Why are quarry sites situated where they are within the Arkansas novaculite formationT Were these sites most workable outcrops, with samples; (2) infrared analysis and thermogravimetric easiest to get to, or ones with or with rivers available nearby analysis suggested a pattem of increasing water loss with water sources on ridges, increasing heat treatment, although the novaculite samples for transport? showed less change than cherts; and (3) microindentation Beginning with William H. Holmes's (I914) coverage analysis of heated materials showed a variable pattern of in his treatise on aboriginal decreasing fracture toughness with experimental heating, of quarry sites and features numerous archeologists have although novaculite samples did not produce measurable American lithic industries, described the large-scale and quarry sites indents (McCutcheon l99l:49-120). McCutcheon investigated stone for (1997:182-189) argues that heat treatment causes loss of cultural alterations from quarrying and mining material varies in packaging (e'g', water in rock, and suggests that flake scar luster should be tools. Since lithic raw 28 The Arknnsas Archeolo gist - Jules, massive layers), quaffy sites range from massive -:Jrops with evidence of pits, trenches, and debris piles, Joncentrations of worked and unworked nodules in : ' :osed in colluvial deposits or stream gravels. Where cherl - jules, gravels, or talus deposits are exposed and available ' : .'ollection in streambeds or erosional cuts, the quarrying mning efforts would have been less intense and fewer '::.ureS would be expected. Where raw material sources :ie not exposed or readily available, mining to get access eiirs or deposits would result in pits or trenches. - .:ri'here, examples include Gramly's (1984) description , :uarry pits and an adit (or horizontal mine trench) in a "- .-iiite quarry in New Hampshire, Stocker and Cobean's -:-l) description of debitage talus and horizontal mine ..its and tunnels into obsidian flows on the side of a ---ano in Veracruz, Mexico, vertical mine shafts and belled - -.rr)' pits that are found at European flint mines (e.g., : .,-ker 1951;Bosch I979;LechandLech 1984), and Hatch -, : \Iiller's (1985; Hatch 1994) discussion of quany pits 'Jraters" at jasper quanies in eastem Pennsylvania. At -. \ era Cruz site in Pennsylvania, jasper was obtained in -. form of nodules exposed on the surface or buried in ." ::rr-nent. Excavations showed that old quany pits had been ,:d in with debris from later quarrying, so the open quaffy , .. r'isible at the site represent only the most recent activity :r,tch and Miller l9B5:222: Hatch 1994:32; see also Ahler -. : VanNest 1984:185: Elston and Dugas 1992). Hatch '91:41-42) models quarry site types as a developmental ::uence of surface collection of nodules, shallow qualry : ,. to locate buried nodules, and then excavation of deeper , ,. to locate jasper at greater depths (along with increasing .:;ration of early and late stage reduction activities ::.,\ een quaffy and workshop zones). A situation similar to the Ouachita novaculite quarries . -ound at the Crescent Hills quarries in Missouri (Ives --5. 1984), where chert bedrock outcrops on ridge tops - j quarrying was done to get unweathered material, --,llting in numerous quaffy pits. Chert nodules or blocks ::e also quarried from soil matrix. Over 600 quarry pits -- -r0 ft diameter, 1-5 ft deep) are known from the 44 square -.-ie Crescent Hills quarrying area (Ives 1975:5), ::resenting three quarying techniques (vertical pitting, ' rzontal pitting, and trenching; Cottier and Ives 197 5 a:39'1. -,. the Etzold site. excavations were done in a quarry pit - .J a workshop area. The categories of lithic artifacts -;overed from these two excavation areas were very similar -,-J indicated tool manuf-acture and use in both locations - es 1975:5-8). Etchieson (1991) describes several types oflarge-scale '-rtures found at novaculite quarries in the Ouachita '. iunte 43 Mountains. Several are features left by novaculite extraction: quarry plls (mining for fresh rock left large depressions that are often surrounded and filled with quaffy debris); trenches (extraction of a seam of high-quality novaculite left a debris-filled linear hoTe); surface stripping (removal of soil overburden to expose novaculite boulders or debris often created an artificial bench); bedrock boulders/outcrops (evidence of surface battering on exposed outcrops or large rocks); and undercurs (linear areas along outcrops from the removal of novaculite, often with quarry debris downslope). In addition, shelters and caves are natural overhangs or crevices in bedrock that may have been enlarged through quarrying and/or contain habitation or workshop debris. Trailshave been identified on mountains that may be ancient paths to ridges or quarries (Etchieson 1991:6-7). These features have been identified and in several areas of the Ouachita Mountains (at described 3MN1341. 3MN327/3MN328, 3MN476, 3MN477, and 3MN134i) (Etchieson 1991), and have been documented by mapping projects at several sites: 3GA22 (Holmes 1891, 191 4:196-200; Trubitt 2003a, 2003b); 3GA48/3HS158/ 3HS433 (Holmes 7914:196-200; Jenney 1891; Etchieson 1991:7-9; site form); and 3PL349 (Coleman, Gardner et al. 1999; Hilliard 1995). Additional documentation of quaffy features and sites through mapping should be an important component of future novaculite research in the Ouachitas. What is the chronological distribution of these .features? Which extraction techniques produced the most toolstone? How is novaculite exposed on the surface? What is the geographic distribution of such exposures? Are the extractionfeatures related to the type of novaculite outcrop? Etchieson (1991) suggests that large pit features are more common in the eastern quarries and the other features are more common to the west. This distribution appears to be related to the nature of the novaculite exposure in different localities. What is the relationship between novaculite quarries and environmental factor s s uch as v e g etation, topo g raphy, and water sourcesT lves (1984:190) notes that a slight preference for quarrying the south-facing slopes of ridges at the Crescent Hills Quarries in Missouri, that may be due to seasonality (with south slopes protected from winds in winter, exposed to breezes in summer). Jami Lockhart (1996) has done preliminary geographic information systems (GIS) work to build models of environmental conditions and the distribution of novaculite quarry sites. and predict areas in the Ouachitas with high potential for quaffy sites (Figure 4 shows the distribution of novaculite J-+- \ V" Ns,vaculite Quarry Sites in Arkansa$ fr''t^s'j '*\''r '^""\r,,,^^^..-.-^-./'t ti r.tit.*:l:it i..44urutft.sint - i,1u*.*!it.tt't; +r \ .:\ *rj r}' 1 a \ \n 60km sites against phvsiographic provinces (map produced by Jami i'"t'ff"i,H*:llHffi,.r:'rilJff;'u'quanv quanl' sites against phr siouraphic pro'inces in ,\rkansas). repiication of heat treatment emphasizes the need forgradual He finds Lr.iou n quaq\ site s rend to be tbund in hieh. steep temperature changes and indirect heat to reduce undesirable lt,-.::,tns ,.'" i:h i,:iih-rn Lrr southern aspect. and cracking, crazing,and potlidding (Crabtree and Butler 1964; - -l:.1 -.t:t_: .,....'t :,tr ..rllti:irC ..ltCSOfie.. ThiS Mandeville purdy I973; tbl+;, however, , .__:_-.j,- r_ -i-t :_ *.:J irt ;r3ili nodels and rhe to predict characteristics of heat-spalled quany blocks and heat-treated ...; _, -;_r,_:ts tn the OLi:;hrra \Iountains. quarry What :.'. ..' i',,:a,-:_-. . i],;i] g6,-. .,,..ere brottqlt bt prehistoric tools should be identifiably different. Is there evidence of fire at quarry sites that clan be linked to activities other t-{,;''r-, ;,, .- .;. : i : ;;iE.l., U. S. Forest Sen-ice personnel making than toolstone procurement? For example, fires may have ri:iC.,,isirs to quan] areas on nor.aculite ridge_tops hav! been used for heating and cooking in rock overhangs that nLrred unusual r e-eetation patterns such as disturbed_habitat served as temporary campsites. Forest fires (from species IEtchreson natural 1997 :12). trVhat were the specific extrctction techniques usecl causes or, more recently, controlled burns) may also blacken at or spall surface rock at quarry sites. quarries, such as fire, levers, wedges, and hammerstones / Hammerstones have been noted at novaculite Ws timber shoring usecl in deep pitsZ The use quarry of fire has sites (e.g., Baker 1974; Holmes 1g91; Jenney f Sqf i. been suggested as an aid in breaking aparl stone at quarries Quartzite and sandstone appear to be the most common '(1974) (Gregg and Grybush 1976:191.t, and Holmes type of hammerstones occurring at novaculite specifically refers to evidence of fires at novaculite quarry sites. quany Is this true across the Ouachitas? What otier types of sites. If fire was used in quarrying, Gregg and Grybush hammerstones were used? Where do they come (r976:191-192) argue,hear-arrer;d from? Are rion" .J,lto be rhe resulr they hard or soft? were quartzite hammerstones heat not of intentional heat treatment for the purpose of improving flakeability but inadvertent. Experimental to make them treated softer? What other kinds of qwarrying tools might have been used? Elsewhere, arctreotogists have 30 The Arkansas Archeologist suggested quarrying tools were made from woocl or bone. Gramly (1984:16) found large heavy-duty scrapers and adzes that were interpreted as tools to make wooden shovels and wedges used in quarrying at the Mount Jasper, New Hampshire, rhyolite workshops, large mammal rib and scapula fragments were interpreted as bone quarrying tools at a Knife River Flint, North Dakota, quany (Loendorf er al. 1984:11), and bone scoops and wedges were recovered in excavations at several quaffy sites at the Tosawihi quanies in Nevada (Botkin et al. 1992; Leach et at. 1992). Another issue to consider in terms of quarry sites is the possibility that quarrying was an activity that involved not just practical extraction of raw material, but also ritual .rctivity. The risk involved in quarrying stone led to rehaviors linked with maintaining ritual purity during quaffy erpeditions among the Tungei in papua New Guinea (Burlon 1984:240), Cave arr in the form of petroglyphs in a for mining chert nodules suggests Tennessee cave utilized !ome ceremonialism accompanying toolstone quarrying Franklin 2001). \Iethodological Issues at Ouarry Sites. What ctre the best ,,:ethods for locating and mapping novaculite quarries? numerous novaculite quarries are known and recorded database, new quarry sites are located every "\ttile the AMASDA -n _,-ar. Daniel and Butler (1996) provide an example of a - r:id survey of North Carolina rhyolite quarries that relied - n cunent geologic maps showing outcrops that were then --:ld-checked for indications of quarrying. Novaculite are typically large and situated in ruggecl terain. -.-curarely mapping the sites is a challenge. Hatch (Igg4) ::-.orts on mapping of topography and quarry features at -sper quarry sites in eastem pennsylvania, where a total : :tion was used for measurements done during winter :.onths when visibility was greatest. An Arkansas -icheological Survey mapping project at 3GA22 in F;bruary-March, 2002, used three mapping techniques: :::ording global positioning system (GpS) points at quarry ,:.rrures for site location mapping, using a total station to ::iate a topographic map (see Figure 3), and using tape :,:asures to map individual quany pits (Trubitt 2003a, - -',t3b). Based on this project, the mosl efficient way to r,rp these sites might be to use detailed topographic :rpping for features and concentrations of features, while --'ricting the size, scale, and elevation of the sites using a :,rany sites : :,nbination of high-resolution aerial photography and GpS ::"Jings on the ground. Aerial photography techniques and :lS modeling have good potential and need to be pursued ,:ther as methods for identifying and mapping novaculite : -,Lrry' sites. , 'iwne 4-J HC" ';'. , itt lr tllllrll,lliL, ' -.. terain) ere use j *-r.r _ I-: ._ _ ide ntily conccnrrili, ,:. North Dakota lloentlon . Aerial phor,,::*; _ , lll liut , r.r - al. 1970r. These quary .r_--. _. : to define boundaries: "Site bo'-,r-.i--. -, by the absence of artifactual ciebn,s. v, ::_ : r,r : :- : to identify. Some sites were found ro J... -i .. :: ., square mile," (Loendorf et al. I9B4:9). AuSe:_,::_-:._i : -. used to identify boundaries between two adjacen: _,..j:t*, er sites based on densities of subsurface artifacts ( Loenrltrr-' r. al. l9B4:9). These sites are large, the distribution of quarn pits or surface debris may be spotty, and subsurface debris may be rnore or less continuous between adjacent sites. The largest of the Knife River Flint quarry siies is some 690 acres in area (nearly 280 ha) (Loendorf et at. I9g4:11. 20). When recording novaculite quarry sites, should each isolated quarry pit be designated as a separate site, sltould historic whetstone or tripoli mining pits and aboriginal toolstone quarrying pits be designatecl as separate sites, or should the site boundaries include an entire mountain ridge vvith its various quarrying features? Ground-penetrating radar and magnetometer surveys done at the Flint Ridge quarries were not successful in identifying anomalies below the surface (Lepper et al. 2001:60). Neverlheless, there might be potential to using subsurface remote sensing methods to investigate quary sites (for example, to identify depth of debris deposits). Methods vary for documenting surface debris at quany sites. Torrence (1984:51-52) surveyed obsidian quany/ workshop sites at Melos, Greece, by describing obsidian outcrops and estimating the density of obsidian covering the ground in different areas of the sites. Mapping of quany sites in New Zealand involved making transects across a site and estimating debris density at 5 m intervals (Jones 1984). At a Polish quarry site, a sysrematic surface collection was done in conjunction with piece-plotting to create a detailed map of the types and horizontal distribution of debris (Lech and Lech 1984). Surface collections were also made at Pennsylvania jasper quary/ sites; differences in reduction activities (based on flake characteristics) were seen at an intrasite level by comparing flake types from different controlled sur{'ace collection units (Hatch 1991:42_ 43). Dating periods of quarrying acriviry is difficult because of the paucity of diagnostics t1,pica1l1, found ar this r),pe ol site. Hatch (1994:44-15) examrned diagnostic projectile points from two sites with the largest collections. and 3I showed the data both as raw counts per period and as a "points/1000 years" calculation (see also Hatch and Miller 1985:221-228). Loendorf and colleagues (1984) describe the spatial distribution of Knife River Flint artifacts beyond samples in quarry features (Botkin et al. 1992; Elston and Dugas 1992;Leach et al. 1992). From backhoe trenches through quarry features, profiles were drawn to record the quarries in western North Dakota, and in doing so provide evidence for the range of time periods that this resource was used both locally and furlher from sources. Similarly, the distribution of artifacts made on Flint Ridge flint and found elsewhere has been used to describe the temporal range of the use of the quaries (Lepper et al. 2001:59-60). There, researchers also used points and other diagnostics, made on Flint Ridge flint and other raw materials, recovered from the Flint Ridge quarry site to reconstruct the time periods of use. From a methodological perspective it is interesting that Lepper and colleagues (2001) found that Paleoindian, Archaic, Late Woodland, and Late Prehistoric groups discarded points and retooled at the quarries using an embedded strategy for lithic procurement, while Early and Middle Woodland groups used the quarries more intensively but with a direct procurement strategy that did not involve discarding diagnostic points at the site. dating, and bulk samples were collected for debitage analysis (Leach et al. 1992:342; Schmitt et al. 1992:35- Excavations can and have been used as a technique for investigating quarry sites (for additional examples, see Fladmark 1984; Franklin 2001; Jones 1984; Lech and Lech 1984). Excavations of quarry pits at the Vera Cruz site in Pennsylvania was done by cross-sectioning quaffy features, and resulted in the identification of a complex stratigraphy from past quarn,in-e episodes prior to visible pit (Hatch and \Iiller 1985:lli-lllt. On this proJect. I r I m test units ',,..:3 ;1so rl:r.-:d in the quarn pit bottom and top (backditt :rr j H:t;h .ii \1i1le r i 9S-<:ll-1 i. Trenches u'ere also 31..;'. :tic -fr- :-r quam pits at the Krule Rir er Flint quafl)r s.".:. rj:a :r3:e rs:rn there $ a,. a compler stratigraphy with ::-i.i.: ,:f -'.:her pits br later quanl ing acti\ iq. so the surface re:r.rr:s ;-re liom the most recent actiritl' at site (Loendorf .r .;i. 198-+:-. 9.ll t. Both hand tools and a backhoe were used in testin-e the sites (Loendorf et al. 1984:8, 11). At both the Pennsylvania jasper quanies and Knife River Flint quarries, toolstone takes the form of cobbles or nodules in a soil matrix. Bedrock sources of opalite were exploited as 41). The stratigraphic profiles of quarry pit features allowed interpretations of the sequences of extractive activities and different techniques through time (Elston and Dugas I99Z). Because of the size of the quarry features and the extent of the sites investigated, backhoe trenches proved to be an important excavation technique for the Tosawihi project. Use of heavy equipment might not be possible in some of the mountain terrain where novaculite quarries are found, but there may be situations where it can be employed. Because of the density of lithic debris typically encountered during quaffy sites excavations, there is a real need to develop strategies for sampling the quarry material brought back to the lab as well as standardized methods for analyzing flake debitage in the field (see Ataman, Botkin, et al. 1992; BeckandJones 1994; Shafer 1993:57-59). For example, using a sampling strategy, surface debitage from large obsidian quarry/workshop sites on Melos, Greece, was analyzed and recorded in the field by Torrence (1984:52). 'Grab samples' were also collected for further analysis in the laboratory. Similarly, controlled sutface collections were made from a large Edwards Plateau cherl quarry site in Texas (collecting all lithic debris within 1 m diameter circles at 25 spots at the site, Mesrobian et al. 1993). For the Tosawihi quarries project (Elston and Raven 1992a, 1992b), lithic samples were collected from both surface and subsurface contexts. Over 900,000 pieces of debitage were analyzed from sites peripheral to the rnain quarry zone, using both mass analysis and technological analysis techniques to characterize reduction strategies used (Bloomer and Ingbar 1992). During the mitigation project at one locality at the Tosawihi Quarries site itself, debitage samples were collected (e.g., random sampling was used to guide surface collection units), but in-field lithic technology analysis was also employed (e.g., field assessment of stratigraphic units recorded on profiles of backhoe trenches through quaffy features, Ingbar et al. 19921' Schmitt et al. 1992). toolstone at the Tosawihi quarries and associated sites in Nevada, where a large-scale survey, testing, and mitigation project was driven by planned exploitation of mineral resources on Bureau of Land Management lands (Elston and Raven 1992a, I992b). Quany pits were tested at a number of sites by hand-excavated and backhoe trenches, revealing stratigraphic deposits and producing datable charcoal 32 stratigraphy, numerous charcoal samples were taken for C14 A final methodological issue includes the use of experimentation in quarry sites analysis. Experimental replication was employed for the Tosawihi project, not only to replicate the debitage generated by different reduction strategies to compare to archeological sarnples (Bloomer and Ingbar 1992), but also to reconstruct the processes and excavation rates required to quarry opalite from bedrock The Arkansas Archeolo gist r ---:: Elston 1992a). Experimental replication of One valuable research line would be to document the history of novaculite mining in this recent period ,,, - -*-,,ne tasks can be an important component of (nineteenth-twentieth centuries), including locations of tuli -r:-',:rdiflg extraction techniques, the tools needed, and quarries and characteristics of the features and debris lltrr -:::is produced. ricAlodern Mining and Use of Novaculite. Cherts ir pically mined in modern United States. aside from * :iavel operations and more recent marketing to = - -::- tlintknappers. Novaculite differs in this respect ' r - : -:3 it is a resource that continues to be commercially i[irs,n,riif :- .- - "' --- ln investigating past novaculite use, researchers have rr: :'.i, &ro of the continuing use of this rock for whetstones -"i iher products up to the present day. How do we - ,, - :,rislt ancientfrom modern quarrying? Angular pieces - , ', :culite debris make up the bulk of both natural talus *- - : -lrural waste piles. Differences should be apparent in :'. : l;rrying tools and techniques (hammerstones and fire * ! \ ersus metal tools and drill marks for black powder . -r. -.:::s) and the quarrying debris (conchoidal flaking versus blocky whetstone debris, although see Martin *.JS -* -:l:110 for a cautionary tale). - There are descriptions from as early as 1818-1819 of - --r ing and mining of novaculite for whetstones by Euro- * (Griswold 1892; =ncans near Hot Springs, Arkansas ';,-:ttington 1969). The whetstone industry in this area :-, :1oped during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, .-h several firms mining the stone locally and shipping it ', -. of state (or even out of the country) for cutting and =,slring (Griswold 1892;Whittington 1969). In the mid' ,":ntieth century, two companies (Hot Springs Oilstone -,:npany, Hiram A. Smith Whetstone Company) were ,-ning whetstones locally (Whittington 1969). For the ,, retstone industry, novaculite was graded into harder to . - Iler (rilore weathered) stone: Hard Arkansas Stone; Soft tkansas Stone; and OuachitaAVashita Stone (Griswold -i92; Holbrook and Stone 1979; Whittington 1969). -ripoli, a particulate, friable form of weathered Upper Dir ision novaculite, is currently mined by the Malvern \linerals Company near Hot Springs and marketed as ,brasives and other products (Holbrook and Stone 1979; Steuart et al. 1984). Novaculite has been crushed fbr rock rsgregate used in construction, and other marketable uses and products from the novaculite formation have been investigated (Steuarl et al. 1984). Modern quarrying of novaculite includes marketing to an expanding flintknapper community (Dan's Whetstone Co., Inc.. 1999; Magnet Cove Stone Co., 1999). Modern flintknappers testing novaculite at quanies would produce debris identical to ancient debris, and could cause contamination if produced. Publications by Griswold ( 1 892) and Whittington (1969) (see also Blaeuer 1995; McElwaine 1985) provide a good starting point for this line of research. Ouarrv Sites and Preservation Issues. What quarry sites are listed on the National Register of Historic PLaces, and what criteria were used? Relatively few quarry sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and many of these were nominated in the 1970s. For example, Flint Ridge State Memorial in Ohio (Lepper et a|.2001) was listed on the National Register in I970, four districts of the Crescent Hills Quanies in Missouri were listed in 1974 (Cottier and Ives 1975a, 1975b: Ives and Cottier 1975a, 1975b), and the West Athens Hill quarry/workshop site and the Flint Mine Hill Archeological District in Greene County, New York, were listed in 1973 and 1978 (Dowd 1998a: 183, 190- 19 1 ; Parker 1925) . More recent quaffy site nominations have more in-depth discussions of site significance. The Knife River Flint quanies in North Dakota were proposed as a district but not placed on the National Register because of landowners' opposition; the nomination, however. used the wide distribution of Knife River Flint artifacts in time and space to argue for national significance of this quaffy complex (Loendorf er al. 1984:15). The Moruow Mountain rhyolite quarries in the Uwharrie Mountains of North Carolina (Daniel and Butler 1996') are not listed on the National Register, but the associated Hardaway workshop and habitation site was nominated and listed as a National Register Landmark under NR criterion D and NHL criterion 6, citing the importance of the site in the definition of Paleoindian and Early Archaic period culture history and in the development of the science of archeology (Barnes 1e89). Currently there is only oneArkansas Novaculite quany site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This is 3HS69, a source of fine-grained black novaculite near Lake Catherine with quarry pits and worked outcrops, recorded in 1913 by C. M. Baker (1914:14-15) and listed in 1975. Recently, Mark Blaeuer (1995) has for 3GA22, a novaculite quany nomination prepared a draft on NPS property near Hot Springs, but concerns with the definition of site boundaries and determination of the chronological placement of quarrying activity have hampered the listing of this site. on the NR done on archeological sites. Volume 43 -) -l r- Is it necessaryt to list novaculite quarry sites on the National Register rather than pursuing a simpler determination of eligibiliry? Listing a site on the NR does not necessarily increase protection to the site or ensure its preservation. It would, however, raise awareness of the significance of novaculite quarries in the historic preservation community and, to some extent, to the public. A multiple property nomination based on the most impofiant novaculite quaries might accomplish this goal. Organization of Production: Investigating the Spatial and Social Organization of Novaculite Production In this section, we address the organization of production, including spatial, technological, economic, and sociopolitical aspects of organization. What was made at quarries and in what form was toolstone taken away? Where do quarries fit in the production or reduction sequence? Researchers need to make detailed analyses of debris at quaffy sites to understand what stages took place there, and the changes over space and time. Were quarrying and tool production spatially separated or were a variety of activities done at quarry or workshop sites? How was production organized in terms of control of production and access to lithic resources? Was quarrying and making stone tools something that every household in the area did for itself or did only certain groups visit quarries? How did toolstone procurement fit into the seasonal round and task schedules? It is important to look at other sites in a region for ansu-ers to these questions. and there is a pressin-e need for sourcing studies to lintri specific quan"]'. u'orkshop. and h:bitetion sites. E:i.us: nie:ii t.-tcls har e repiaced stone t]iT,-:3> rr, rrrlS-, st'i--ieties. ihere are fe$ tools for most ethno-Sraphic J-ra,-rp,r"". t f i..ol:tone procurement and tooi production. B-:--,-,ii end O'Ctrnne1l r 198-1 t describe an instance of quinzit: quarr\ ing b1 \ustralian Aborigines, done in r.sponse to the anthropolo-eists' request for a demonstration ol maliing of men's knives. They observed men digging boulders for unweathered raw material, breaking a large boulder into several pieces using fire, preparing a core from which blades were struck at the quarry to be carried back as blanks for men's knives, reducing cores to be carried back for expedient flake tool production at home, and animal hunting as part of a single trip. Burton (1984, 1989) interviewed Tungei men who had quarried stone from the Tuman quarries and made axe-blades used for both subsistence pulposes and to exchange as wealth earlier in the 20th century in Papua New Guinea, providing information on the techniques of toolstone extraction, the 34 I I size and organization of the quarrying groups andhow often they visited the quarries, clan ownership of quarries, and ritual accompanying quarrying expeditions (see also McBryde 1984 for ethnographic information on quaffy access and ownership of greenstone quarries in Australia). In the absence of ethnographic observation of or interviews about quarrying behavior, archeologists have relied on the analysis of tools and the by-products of their manufacture at quaries and at workshop sites to understand how raw materials were procured, in what form the material was carried out, where tools were made and used, and how stone tool production, exchange and use fit into people's cultural systems. Quarry or extractive sites cannot be examined in isolation, but need to be studied as parl of a larger technological system that included workshops and residential sites as well (Elston and Raven 1992a,1992b; Holmes 1974 lves 1984; Johnson 1984). The Cache River Archeological Project in northeastern Arkansas gave House (1975) the opportunity to examine the use of toolstone from Crowley's Ridge and the Ozark Highlands sources, based on the identification and analysis of material from quanT sites, workshop sites, and other habitation sites. Differences in reduction strategies and distribution of toolstone from these two sources (Crowley's Ridge gravel and Ozark Pitkin cheft) were identified. Different lithic manufacturing stages could take place at different types of sites (quarry, workshop, habitation), or raw material could be taken directly to nearby habitation sites for reduction into stone tools (Cottier and Ives 1975b:46). We might expect a size reduction as we move further from quarries, with initial stages of decortication and biface manufacture at the sources with later stages at workshop or habitation sites (Birmingham 1984: Stoltman et al. 1984; Johnson 1981, 1984; Hatch 1994: Hatch and Miller 1985). Differences in debris patterning across a locality allow us to reconstruct the spatial organization of production, and begin to understand the social organizatron of tool production. Tool Production at Ouarries. at Workshops. and at Habitation Sites. What was made at the quarries? What was made at the workshops and at habitation sites? Archeologists have expectations that there will be differences in the discarded lithic artifacts and debitage at different site types that reflect spatial separation of tool manufacturing stages. In general, the assumption is made that earlier stages in the lithic reduction sequence took place at or near quarry sites, while later reduction stages and finished tool production took place farther from quarries at or near habitation sites. How is this patterning recognized? Reduction at or near quarries is expected to produce larger The A rkan so s Arc heol o g i st --ritage, more shatter, hard hammer percussion flakes, ,:!tiage with cortex, few biface thinning flakes, few - -'Jetions of heat treatment, and bifaces discarded in earlier of reduction (Ahler and VanNest 1984; Birmingham -:+: Hatch 1994; Hatch and Miller 1985; Johnson 1981, -:1. l9B9; Stoltman et al. 1984'l. These expectations have .:r been met. For example, the majority of the chipped . :.e collected from two Pennsylvaniajasper quarries (887o) ':,- lnto the "core" (angular irregular worked pieces and , -;-r-rrm fragments) and "shatter" (irregular worked pieces) . -.:Jories (Hatch 1994:36, 40-41). :.is There are numerous examples of studies that have ;,rpted to identify difTerences in tool production between - - -nes, workshops, and habitations. Methodologically, - :der to examine these patterns, we need both trajectory " *-.. sis of cores/bifaces (see Johnson 1984) and individual - :,lute analyses and mass analyses of flaking debitage -:ler 1989; Bradbury 1998; Dockall and Shaf-er 1993). - .--;ting studies using debris from quany sites have been - :: in several cases to reconstruct the stages in reduction - -..-'rCeS that took place at quarries (Becker 1951; Franklin - ' i : Jones 1984). Birmingham (1984:143,148) measured -:ri.i1,9e and found that the greatest variation between ":-,rd and floodplain sites (closer to and farther from i ,-ne chert sources in the Upper Midwest) was in the - -:- rutes of flake length, width, and thickness, with larger -',,:s found at upland sites, closer to the sources. Ahler - --: VanNest (1984) examined temporal changes in -: l.r.-tion of Knife River Flint at quaffy and workshop sites :: rechnological comparisons of cores, bifaces, and flakes. ..mer and Ingbar (1992) used both mass analysis and . - rnological analysis of debitage to characterize reduction ::tesies and their use at sites closer and farther from source --".'s. If raw material was transported from quarries in the : '.:l of bifaces used as cores rather than in the form of r.hed tools, sites away from the quarries should show .,s macie on flakes with bifacial striking platforms .lrrrow \991). index distributions, a production effor typology, and a typology of biface manufacturing stages based on flake characteristics (hard versus soft hammer flake scars and glossy flake scars), he identified different site types based on different manufacturing activities. Henry (1989) identified the transporl of blade blanks from piedmont sites near raw material sources to lowland sites in Epipaleolithic assemblages in southern Jordan, based on blank-to-core ratios and debitage measurements. Similarly, metric comparisons from late prehistoric lithic assemblages from the Hominy Creek drainage in northeast Oklahoma indicated transport of finished tools from grassland sites (near raw material sources) to woodland sites. In both regions, the sites closer to and farther from the chert/flint sources were seasonal occupations linked within the settlement systems (Henry 1989). The need for a regional perspective when analyzing toolstone procurement and tool production is clear. Were activities other than toolstone procurement done at quarries? Ives (1975:l-2) and Johnson (1984:225) contrast Holmes' model of quarries as bifacial blank production areas with Bryan's model of quarry sites as factories for working bone and wood based on utilized flakes and broken bifaces found there. Bryan (1950) had argued that Holmes' broken blanks were tools used as axes, and that utilized flakes found at quarry sites indicated wood and bone working took place there. At the Vera Cruz site, a Pennsylvania jasper quarry, the emphasis seemed to be on core and preform production, but some later-stage thinned preforms and finished tools were also found. A small number of utilized flakes had edge-wear suggesting wood/ bone working, possibly from hafting projectile points newly manufactured at the quarry (Hatch and Miller 1985:226227; Hatch 199432). Discussion of whether quarry or workshop sites also included other habitation activities hinge on whether the discarded finished tools represent tool use or retooling. How have workshop sites been in,,estigated? The To measure reduction stage, Stoltman and colieagues :51:209-210) analyzed bifaces fiom controlled surface ,:ections at the Bass quarry/workshop site in southeastern ,;' rsconsin using Callahan's reduction stages, and found that '.- majority of bifaces discarded at the site were early stage - anaiysis of tool production frorn workshops is imponunr r.. understanding production systems. and there ;r- stages of thinning and tool -'nuf'acture occurred elsewhere. Johnson (1981, 1984) -.-,e1oped a biface thinning index (computed as artifact ,:rght divided by plan view area) to describe the biface Shafer 1984: Shafer and Hest;i -::-: : r: Colha. cherl nodules mi ::--:ir: ,i;r: *--: ' surlaceanderten.i'.i - ---:_ .-- :-'-'- i -- -: :'.;nufacturing trajectory from Fort Payne chert quarry/ rrkshop sites in northeastern Mississippi. Using thinnin_s u'ere brougl:: : oi ior::i'l ,. : -ices, indicating that later ', ,lune 13 . -- - : examples from other regions. The Colha ch::. '.,. i..-- : in northem Belize evidenced massir e rirr': !-r:: :rr l generated by Preclassic penod tool :i-- jl: - :, :j., ..: --- : Bilecial blunk. -n : -:r; -- - '- - -.- - : : locales (e.g., as isolated dumps, incorporated into construction fills, part of household middens) during different periods (Hester and Shafer 19g4:164; Shafer and Hester 1983:521-523, 1991:83). Schindler et al. (7982) analyzed the reduction of jasper nodules at sites in central Pennsylvania. Workshop debris was characterized by fiequent failed bifacial preforms and bifacial thinning flakes removed by percussion flaking, as opposed to the bifacial thinning flakes removed by pressure flaking and finished tools that characteized habitation sites. A wider range of raw materials was represented by finished tools, as compared with the debitage, suggested that mobile groups of people brought curated tools to the workshop site for retooling (Schindler et al. 1982:536,542). Several archeological studies from the southern Ouachita Mountains give preliminary results on novaculite tool reduction sequences and strategies. Evaluating novaculite use was an explicit part of the research design for the Fancy Hill project, a survey and testing project in southern Montgomery Counry (Martin 19g2; Thomas et al. Igg2). Since novaculite outcrops and streams with novaculite cobbles exist in the project area, it was hypothesized that novaculite quarries and workshops would be present, either at outcrops or along stream valleys (Martin 1982:Ch. 6). Further it was hypothesized (based on suggestions by Ann Early) that the reduction of raw materials from large pieces to finished tools should be identifiable spatially, with sites closest to the quames havin-e hi-eher percentages of early_ stage blanls. decortication flakes. and percussion flaking, ri hile sires more distant should contain iater-stage preforms, lnt-r-iLrr i-l.lkes. and ilnished rools. Durin_e the testing phase, ii 1. lunher hr pothesized that nor-aculite cobbles were lor novacuLite because they were easy to obtain from sfeambeds. u hile ridge-top bedrock quarries u ere onlr. used ibr lar-ee bifaces and specialty tools (Thomas er al. 1982:199,1. Expectarions included a high frequency ".,, ttirLe primari sLlurce of flake tools and cobble cortex on waste flakes, u fu.g" number of modified cobbles, and a high frequency of broken and discarded preforms and blanks due to the poor quality of novaculite obtained from cobbles. These were ambitious questions given the limited nature of the survey arca (ridge-tops were not included in the project area) and the testing of only seven of the 76 sites located. The prehistoric sites located during the project were identified as either base camps or specialized activity sites based on size, density, and variety of artifacts, and those that could be dated were assigned to the Archaic period. The tested sites included one initially identified as a base camp, five specialized sites, and one of undetermined 36 function (Martin 1982: Ch.7; Thomas et al. l9g2). Nevertheless, the project did answer a couple of key questions. First, cobbles from the creeks and rivers were a source of novaculite toolstone (based on tested cobbles found at several sites), but a minor one. For example, site 3MN220, located near a stream with plentiful novaculite cobbles, had evidence for both manufacturing and maintenance activities but very little evidence of cobble use (cobble cortex) was seen (Thomas et al. l9g2:275). It was suggested that the inhabitants were using novaculite obtained from ridge-top quarries outside the study area, perhaps from the top of Fancy Hill, Gap Mountain, or Sulphur Mountain (Martin 1982: I20- I22). Second, a higher frequency of broken preforms and cores to finished lithic tools suggested that lithic reduction was a primary activity at several sites (Martin 1982:Table 6; Thomas et al. 1982:273-276). David Waddell (1995; Waddetl and Waddell t992; Waddell et al. 1995) used survey data from sites in the Ouachita National Forest to expand on Martin's (19g2) functional classification of sites. Several types of lithic procurement and lithic manufacturing .activity sets, were defined based on ratios of decortication to interior flakes and bifacial thinning to interior flakes, and the presence of expedient flake tools. Waddell (1995) uses principal components analysis and cluster analysis to group the 3I2 sites into activity sets based on types of flakes, cores and bifaces, and tools. Lithic procurement activity sets were differentiated using evidence of testing/decortication of cobbles versus outcrop material, and lithic manufacturing activity sets were differentiated into sites for production oi bifacial blanks versus for reduction of blanks to finished tools. Novaculite procurement strategies differed in the survey arca;' at outcrops, stone was reduced to blanks, cores, or flakes for easier transportation, while novaculite in the form of cobbles or talus had to have cortex removed to test quality (Waddell 1995:106-115; see also Coleman200l, 2002 on outcrop versus cobble use). Finally, Waddell (1995:119-120) suggests that outcrops were the main source of novaculite raw material, and that both local and nonlocal groups obtained material from outcrops. Based on the diversity of tool types, Lithic Manufacture II sites may have been habitation sites where local groups manufactured tools from blanks, among other activities, while Lithic Manufacture I-III sites may have been workshops for the production of bifacial blanks that were used as base camps for limited times by nonlocal groups. The Shady Lake project (Coleman, Gardner et al. 1999) tested five prehistoric sites on the Saline River in The Arkansas Archeologist : -' [. County with evidence of use from Dalton times ..500 BP) to the Middle Caddo period (AD 1300), L---rding the ridge-top quanJ GPL349) mentioned earlier ,,,-Liard 1995). The vast majority of tools and debitage -,:r the sites were made from novaculite (84Vo) with the -r,r:inder coming from chert cobbles obtained from the - :: bed (Coleman, Gardner et al. 1999:. Stewart 1995). i .:..r ered from the excavations was a single Dalton point, 1 -:3rous Middle to LateArchaic dart points, and four arrow t, rtS. a1l made fiom novaculite. If nothing else, the Shady :r,i rese&rch demonstrates that novaculite was used :: ,:ghout the prehistoric occupation ofthe area. Hill Site (3PL343) provided more use procurement and -..iled information about novaculite - ,,leman. Gardner et al. 1999 Stewart 1995). Recovered One location, the the site were 9.966 lithic items of which 807o werc -', .1cu1ite and20o/a were cobble chefts. The 12 projectile --.i-r-, -, ,n.r indicated the site was occupied during Middle Archaic fairly large bifaces, biface fragments, blanks *-: preforms were recovered from the excavations. The - -:,1 pieces of debitage was classified as shattet (627a), .-.:ior flakes (24Vo), bifacial thinning flakes (]4Vo), and ::-.',rtication flakes (less than l%o, 50 novaculite and 3 - :rl). A size sorting of unmodified flakes and shatter ' ,,'"',ed that over 507a of novaculite flakes andover 60Vo - :t-rr aculite shatter, by weight, was2.54 cm (1") or latger, *. : that fl akes and shatter under l.2J cm (Vz" ) w ete a minor : - r tortion of the total weight, suggesting that earlier stages - ::duction rather than production of finished, pressure'l,,ed tools took place at the site. The site was clearly used -, ' location to reduce novaculite bifaces, most likely from . -,sh bifaces brought from the ridge-top quaffy (3PL349) -.. east of the site. Some habitation debris at the site -:rlized flakes, abraders) suggested that the site was as a - ,r,rt-term base camp used mainly for lithic reduction I,rleman, Gardner et al. 1999 Stewart 1995). -'.,:s. Over -- 70 :Jortunately, the repofi on the investigations at Shady Lake : l not attempt a detailed study of the lithics at either the .*rrry or the excavated sites along the Saline River. It -:pe ars that large pieces of novaculite were removed to the :.:-s along the river for further finishing, similar to what I.rtch (1994) observed at jasper workshop sites in eastern ?:nnsylvania. Amore detailed analysis of the debitage from 3PL349 quarry and the workshop/base camps in the Srady Lake area would provide a great deal of important .:formation about novaculite procurement and use during :e Middle to Late Archaic time period. ':: with diagnostic artifacts indicating use of the area in the Dalton, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic-Fourche Maline, and Caddo periods, and again during the nineteenth century. The mountains above the valley bear narrow ridges of exposed novaculite bedrock once quarried by Native Americans. To quote Early (1999:11): "One result of this quarrying activity was the creation of innumerable campsites andlor flintknapping stations in the narrow valleys surrounding the novaculite ridges. Terraces, ridge toes, and virtually every other flat surface in the locality have scatters of lithic debris and other arlifacts on them, the cumulative results of numerous periods of occupation and re-use through this long span of time. Al1 of the sites tested in 1995 have components related to this prehistoric endeavor." Novaculite comprised 98-997o of all toolstone at tested sites, but unfortunately it was impossible to assign a time period to most of the collection. The prehistoric component was sparse at the Old Phillips Place (3MN1006) and at the Blaylock Creek site (3MN383). At the Winding Stair site (3MN496), most of the novaculite tools and debitage came from contexts disturbed by the building of a Late Caddo house (Early 2000:86). Arrow points, dart points, a Dalton point, and both Fourche Maline and Caddo ceramics at the Bug Spot site (3MN979) were located in the plowed and unplowed A horizon, and features were associated with the Fourche Maline and Caddoan components (Guendling 2000). Nevertheless, the lithic assemblages from these sites do provide insights about the use of novaculite in the Winding Stair Locality. While the recovered arrow and dart points, drills/ perforators, scrapers, a spokeshave, gravers, utilized f'lakes, and nutting stones indicate that subsistence, maintenance, and manufacturing activities occurred, the lithic materials at 3MN383, 3MN979, and 3MN496 mainly reflect flintknapping activities (cores, hammerstones, biface fragments, flakes, and shatter). Of the 130,000+ novaculite flakes and shatter analyzed by size-sorling, the majority (by count) are small (1.27 cm or less). For example, flakes and shatter sized 1 .27 cm or smaller make up 92Vo of the total count for the 3MN383 and 3MN495 assemblages, and make up 99Vo of the total count for the 3MN979 assemblage (Coleman and Guendling 2000:Table 14, 15; Early 2000:Table 24; Guendling 2000:Tables 17-20). Native American residents of these sites seem to have obtained novaculite and initially reduced it at nearby bedrock quarries, and then tools were finished, used, and reworked at these Little Missouri River sites (Coleman and Guendling 2000:53; Guendling 2000:65). The Winding Stair project (Early, ed., 2000; Early et ;.. 1999) tested four sites in the Little Missouri River valley, ',|rlttme 43 -)/ These several examples show how analysis of workshops and habitation sites in the Ouachita Mountains can add to our understanding of the novaculite tool production and exchange systems. For example, although analytical methods were not strictly comparable, the debitage size distribution from Shady Lake 3PL343 contrasts with distributions from the Winding Stair sites (Figure 5). Reduction oftoolstone occurred in both areas, but if debitage size is any indication, the production of blanks and initial preforms was a more common activity at Shady Lake while the later stage reduction of preforms and finishing of tools was the focus at Winding Stair. Whether changes in strategies regionally or temporally cam,:, :,' answered at the present time. Further and more dE1 , :':I research on the lithic collections at the worksho: :' habitation sites in the stream valleys and at the ad,t::-:quarries will provide information to solve these ques:,' -. What was the role of workshop/habitation sites i''. ' " river valleys to the south of the Ouachita Mountains.' ," , -'r they produced by local groups making tools to r,-::,, downstream or by nonlocal groups visiting the Oua:' ','. Mountain quarries? Large multicomponent sites '.'' --t middens dense in novaculite debitage have been reccr::: in the Saline River and Ouachita River valleys that i:-: this difference is due to distance to quarries, seasonality, or 100 .:l :O o\ 6 o !r ,2 ,'-- ,/ BO 60 ,1"/ ,t c) .9 o = .rt 40 20 I' ( ," ,/ / '/ I ./ +3PL343 - -* -3MN4/5 -^ -3MN8 0 >1" <112" 1-112" Size Category 100 \o o o BO IL 60 tr o o o // -t .:/ 40 20 0 t.>1" r' / -t / '/ / .a"/ .-' -{ -o- sMNi+gO - -] - 3MN3B3 -L -3MN979 +'3MN4/5 1-112" <112" Size Gategory Figure 5. Comparisons ofnovaculite debris size sorting for Shady Lake (3PL343, Stewart 1995), Winding Stak (3MN383 , 49A, n9, Coleman and Guendling 2000; Early 2000; Guendling 2000), and Lake Ouachita (:lviN4/5, 8, Wright and Trubitt 2003; Trubitt and Wright, in prep.). JB The Arkansas Archeologisr for reducing bifaces obtained from the aculite quarries or from local residents (Harrington -lr-t:103-109; Jeter and Early 1999:47; Jeter and Jackson -:+-1:150). Test excavations at one of these sites, Jones '[-]l (3HS28), revealed a stratified site dating to Archaic r:rugh Caddo periods (Bennett 1986). A thick midden L:'- e been camps ri-'. *: to 65 cm in depth) overlay several other artifact-bearing ,;:ta. Numerous features were recorded in a large block :r-:avation that was mechanically stripped of midden, L:,:iuding remains of three circular structures identified from :,, 'rmold patterns, as well as hearths, pits, and burials Sennett 1986:40-48). Based on the artifact analyses, i,{rddle Archaic Tom's Brook and Crystal Mountain phase ,c:upations occurred in submidden zones, there was some ,:.":ication of Late Archaic period occupation, and a major - :,urche Maline and a minor Caddo period occupation was -::resented by the midden and features. The Jones Mill :.:3 is now listed on the National Register of Historic places. liere remains a need for more thorough analysis of material :-'m this testing project (to examine changes in flake ::.racteristics and reduction strategies). New excavations .: rhis imporlant site could lead to better understanding of ,,:e function, seasonality of occupation, and the composition - groups (local, nonlocal) that were using or exchanging ::,r'aculite and other resources in this area. . fraft Specialization. Were local groups making blanks 'n tools for exchange with residents beyond the Ouachita \fountains? Production of novaculite bifaces or tools in :r-lantities exceeding local needs suggests exchange of slrpluses and some degree of craft specialization (e.g., Llostin 1991:3-4: Shafer and Hester I991 79). Did :,irticular social groups own certain raw material sources 'r restrict access to quarries, and how can this be :ennnstrated or disproved using archeological evidence ,,. the absence of oral history or ethnography (Arnotd :987a; Burton 1984; McBryde I9B4)? Did residents prefer .,-,olstone from the closest quarry or was a more clistant :ource used because ofaccess to o closer source was denied Dowd 1998a)? In other areas of the world, craft .pecialization is inferred from evidence of standardized, or .killful production, control over sources or technologies, he sheer quantities of tools and debris found at workshop .ites, and patterns of distribution and consumption (e.g., \rnold 1987a,1987b; Costin 1991; Cross 1993; Shaferand Hester 1991;Torrence 1984;Yerkes 1991). While this issue has yet to be addressed by research on novaculite quarries, several examples from other areas point to directions this research might take. Volume 43 Torrence's (1984) analysis of Bronze Age obsidian quarry/workshop sites on theAegean island of Melos tested contrasting hypotheses of direct access to obsidian sources by consumers versus monopolization of the obsidian supply by craft specialists. The monopolizationhypothesis in this case was rejected on the basis of: a lack of evidence of housing for specialist labor or even of temporary residential occupation of the sites; finding simple rather than specialized quarrying tools; identifying skilled but relatively variable production based on analysis of rejected macrocores and the debris from producing them; estimating relatively low production rates, and finding generalized spatial patterning at outcrops rather than and organized use of space with different production stages in separate locations (Torrence 1984). Speciaiized production of stone tools is often argued on the basis of large quantities of workshop debris and high estimates of production output. For example, obsidian workshops were identified at Teotihuacan in central Mexico based on debris concentrations in surface collections (Santley 1984; Spence 1981, 1984, 1986; see critique by Clark 1986). At the Preclassic Colha (Belize) chert workshops, excavated samples of workshop debris deposits resulted in very high estimates of debitage (960,000 g per m3) and estimates of numbers of finished tools that would be in excess of local domestic needs (Shafer and Hester 1983, 1986, 1991; see critique by Mallory 1986). Craft speciahzationin chipped stone tools has also been examined from the perspective of the "consumption" of these tools at sites in the widerregion. Finding tools made from Colha chert at other contemporaneous settlements in northern Belize was inferred to represent consumption of artifacts produced by knappers at Colha (Shafer and Hester 1983:536-537). Finding tool maintenance debitage and worn/recycled tools at residential sites supports this interpretation (Dockall and Shafer 1993; McAnany 1989; Shafer 1983; Shafer and Hester 1991:90-92). Similarly, chipped stone hoe blades, along with recycled fragments and flakes with use-polish, of Mill Creek chert from southern Illinois are frequently found in the American Bottom region, but primary reduction debris is not, suggesting that the hoes anived as finished tools (Milner 1998:82; see also Cobb 1989, 2000). Finding lithic craft specialization is perhaps not surprising in state-level societies such as those in Mesoamerica, but specialization occurred in complex hunter-gatherer societies as well (e.g., Arnold 1987a,1987b, Arnold and Munns 1994). It is more useful to examine the range of production variability rather than focus on the 39 F 1991, Many discussions of hunter-gatherer mobility and 2001). For example, standardized biface production has been noted for several North American Archaic period cases (e.g., Cross 1993;Dowd 1998a; Johnson 1996). Novaculite acquisition and tool production in the Ouaehita Mountains has not been characterized as craft specialization, but this literature provides methods for identifying controlled access to raw material sources, workshop sites and the formation access to raw materials for tool production rely on ecological presence or absence of specialization (e.g., Costin models of optimization, optimal foraging, or cost-benefit analysis (e.g., Lurie 1989; Morrow and Jefferies 1989; Tonence 1989). Consideration has also been made of the costs and benefits of extraction or procurement and transportation of different toolstones from different sources (Dowd 1998a; Findlow and Bolognese 1984). Elston and of debris accumulations, and manufacturing sequences and colleagues (Ataman, Carambelas et al. 1992; Ataman, byproducts, that may prove helpful for novaculite research. Carambelas, and Elston 1992; Elston 1992a,1992b; Elston, Ingbar, et al. 1992) explicitly modeled the costs of toolstone procurement using different procurement techniques and Organization of Technology. How was novaculite procurement and tool production organized in terms of explored how mobility patterns, task group scheduling and group mobility, acquisition of other resources, and tool the organization oflabor, and tool design and recycling can curation strategies? In a series of articles on hunter-gatherer affect procurement costs. In the case of the Tosawihi adaptations, Binford (1917, 1979, 1980) contrasted the quarries where bedrock deposits of toolstone were quarried, higher residential mobility of "foragers" with the logistical minimizing the direct costs of procurement seems not to strategy of "collectors," contrasted lithic raw material have been as important as maximizing returns of useable procurement regularly "embedded" in regular subsistence toolstone. While several procurement strategies were activities with "direct" or purposeful procurement of raw considered feasible, the likely one involved direct and materials, and contrasted "expedient" technologies where intensive toolstone procurement at the quarries during the gear was made, used, and discarded in one place with spring season from residential base camps located near food "curated" technologies where gear was carried with people and water resources (Elston 1992a). and maintained over time. These different strategies can Coleman's (2001, 2003a,2003b) analysis of the lithic affect the lithic patterns seen on archeological sites. Groups with higher mobility (foragers) and an embedded pattern assemblage from 3MN2075, interpreted as an early Middle of toolstone procurement might have access to a wider Archaic period novaculite workshop site in the Ouachita diversity of lithic raw materials atrelatively 'low cost' (Lurie Mountains, tested ideas about mobility patterns, 1989; Morrow and Jefferies 1989). Availability of raw technological organization, and the availability of novaculite materials may affect the degree to which toolstone is toolstone. He posits several alternatives: did the Middle consen'ed and tools are curated and rejuvenated (Bamforth Archaic occupants of the site rely on multipurpose bifacial 1936: Custer 1987: Odell 1989: \\iant and Hassen 1984). tools (or specialized bifaces or multipurpose expedient flake Pan] and Kellr r1987t make a link betu'een increasing tools), were tools curated (rather than used expediently and sedentism and the appearance of expedient core discarded), and was a curated technology due to high technologres in \orth -\merica. as opposed to the formal mobility of foragers (or to lack of available toolstone)? core technologies (e .-e.. lar-ee bifaces) that characterize Most of the cores in the assemblage were formal ("prepared" earlier Paieoindian and Archaic period populations. cores that included unidirectional, alternately flaked, and Specrficaill'', they link formal core technologies with the bifacial forms) rather than informal ("minimally flaked or logistical strategy (collectors) whereas expedient core tested") (Coleman 2003b:37-34). It appears that workshop technoiogies are found with higher residential mobility activities included production of thick bifaces to be carried (foragers) as well as with sedentary communities (but see away from the site, as well as maintenance, reworking, and Amick and Carr 1996;Car: 1994a). Expedient tools would use of curated tools as evidenced by late stage reduction debris. Despite the availability of novaculite raw material, be made, used, and discarded at the use location, but curated from Coleman finds that the focus was on curated rather than locations separate tools would have repair/reworking use locations (Binford 1917 :34-36, 1979:269-270). expedient tools at 3MN2075, and links the occupation with Retooling of hafted knives or spears should take place where a mobile group of hunter-gatherers (see also comparisons lithic raw material is abundant (e.g., at quarries or with 3MN1708 and 3MN2181, Coleman 2001,2002, workshops), leaving a signature of discarded points of 2003b). These studies establish a foundation for nonlocal raw material in amongst local lithic debitage investigating the organi zarion of novaculite procurement, processing, and tool production, and exploring variation in (Keeley 1982:804). past strategies. 40 The Arkansas Archeologist Froducers and Consumers Who were the people involved in the raw material :;tisition, tool production, and distribution and tool use? - '': producers and consumers are probably the least -:::i.rched component of the whole system. The social :.ndrv of craft producers, in terms of gender, age, status, "-r ethnicity (e.g., Costin and Wright 1998), is a research ,:,i that has yet to be investigated for novaculite tool ,:,, :r:--Juction. The assumption that men were always or were - :-:ally the makers of stone tools has been questioned (e.g., --;:., 1991; Walthall and Holley 1997), and Gero (1991) :r;Lircally raises gender in terms of quarrying activities, -,.- rf local sources of toolstone, the making and using of ' ,::lal tools versus expedient flake tools, and the context/ ,:,rion of tool use. Cobb and Pope (1998) identified tool kits in mortuary features at the late l,'.issippian King site in Georgia, associated primarily "r,,.: rrlder males; the social status associated with these r:--',iduals was not clear. Thomas (2001) postulated that r, =:. Guarried Mill Creek chert in Illinois and knapped hoe "'' ,--rkrapping - ::i) on a seasonal basis when the demands of subsistence :i:! \\'ere lighter. Did the gender of the people involved i, " ,'.ttculite quanlting and knapping depend on season -i'r,-. , ! .:rjA scheduling? \I-lnt were the gender, age, status, and ethnicity of the -.i,"oners' of stone tools? Did people make and use the , :ircr needed for their various dai$ activities or was : -€ tentporal and spatiol separation of tasks that ;i,-"',entiafed producer from consumerT While there has "rr-r some effort to identify producer and consumer sites : . . Dockall and Shafer 1994; McAnany 1989; Shafer : :,: . and some discussion of the consumers or patrons , : : r:ceive the products of craft specialists (e.g., Brumfiel ;: Earle 1987; Sinopoli 1988; Spence 1981; Stein 1996), r.r;. :ociol identity of the consumers who used stone tools l;: f rrt been a particular focus for investigation. -t'n eanization of Novaculite Distribution How, was novaculite distributed through the region7 tool distribution and how ,t,i,: . . c I tnn g e throu g h time ? Identification and interpretation [ '"-;; ',f a.r the extent of novaculite , ' :e spatial patterning of discarded novaculite tools is :,:;;rtiol to understanding the social organization of 'r , ;!-ulite exchange, both within the local area and beyond. r'=,:es from the manufacture of novaculite tools and their -,:: resharpening and refurbishing litter the landscape. We - -- rdentify the finished products, their uses, and the places ,i,:--'re they were used and discarded. Do we see "riue 43 a directionality in the distribution of novaculite? Novaculite seems to be more common on archaeological sites to the south of the Ouachita Mountains than to the nofth, perhaps because of differences in demand, because of transportation routes, or because of social boundaries. From the spatial distribution of novaculite tools, can we reconstruct the patterns of distribution and the mechanisms for their exchange? How can we distinguish between direct access to novaculite quarries and the trade or exchange ofpackets of novaculite blanks or finished tools? Answers to these questions will come primarily from data gathered from sites outside the Ouachita Mountains (through literature searches, use of comparative collections and identification keys, discussions with other researchers). Toolstone may be carried from quarry to consumer site in different ways. A group may go directly to the source, either as a special trip for that purpose or as paft of a seasonal round of subsistence chores, or the toolstone may be obtained indirectly through a trade or exchange network. In one case study, use of local and nonlocal cherts by residents of the Black Earth site in southern Illinois was expected to differ if nonlocal cherts were more costly because they were obtained through trade or direct trips (Monow and Jefferies 1989:30). The researchers found similar pattems of local and nonlocal cherl use (in flake characteristics, tool-to-flake ratios, percentages of unfinished bifacial tools, diversity of tools made, percentages ofexpedient flake tools, and incidence oftool recycling) at Black Earth, and concluded that an embedded procurement pattem was employed to get cherts from both local and nonlocal sources (Morrow and Jefferies 1989). Hatch and Maxham (1995) examined the "coarsegrained" spatial distribution ofjasper in Pennsylvania using counts of archeological sites containing jasper by county, and proportions of jasper artifacts and diagnostic jasper projectile points in lithic assemblages recorded in the state site files. The resulting spatial patterns generally conformed to "distance-decay" expectations (more sites with jasper near source areas, more jasper use at sites nearer sources) with some influence by river drainages, and the temporal patteming suggested the two Pennsylvania jasper sources were heavily used during different periods (Hatch and Maxham 1995). Similarly, Sassaman (1994:106-107) used results of a survey of private collections in South Carolina to calculate distances between county find locations of diagnostic bifaces and the raw material source (theAllendale chert quarries) for several time periods, using the spatial distributions as proxies for hunter-gatherer ranges at different times in the past. 4T F In Sourcing studies need to be part ofthis line ofresearch, since interpretation of exchange mechanisms will be influenced by variables such as uniformity versus diversity of sources represented by toolstone at a distant site. Several decades ago, Renfrew (19'75; Dixon et al. 1972') posited relationships between artifact distributions and exchange southeastern Oklahoma, the diversity and availability of toolstone other than novaculite (Banks 1 984) (and distance from major novaculite quarries?) results in lower proportions of novaculite at sites in the Ouachita Mountains (e.g., Broken Bow Reservoir, Wyckoff 1965:100-106. 1968a:159-169: Pine Creek Reservoir, mechanisms, and then plotted Near Eastern obsidian Wyckoff 1968b:184-185, 195,215; McGee Creek frequencies against distances from sources as fall-offcurves to reconstruct Neolithic trade patterns. This kind of analysis offers one way of inferring exchange mechanisms (see Brown et al. 1990; McBryde 1984; Muller 1991; Cabb 2000). Braswell and Glascock (2002) provide a recent example of study where obsidian sourcing was used to study distributional patterns and inteflrret exchange mechanisms in the Yucatan Peninsula. The investigation of regional and inter-regional exchange is a topic of continuing interest to archeologists working in the Southeast, Plains, and Southwest (e.g., Baugh 1998; Brown 1983;Lafferty 1994;Muller 1997; Schambach 1999). While lithic materials exchanged were typically used for utilitarian purposes, exchange of wealth itetns or prestige goods made of stone may have been important in some contexts (Burton 1984,1989; Cobb 1989, 2000; Jeter and Jackson 1994). Prestige goods often moved over long distances and circulated for extended periods of time, so their final deposition may have been far removed from location of production. What is the geographical and temporal distribution novaailite.? A svstematic rer,ierv of the Literature, looking at ke) sites u'ith large samples of lithics, is needed to assemble information on the geo-eraphic and temporal distribution of novaculite. For example. in the Ouachita \Iountains in Arkansas. novaculite was used for most chipped stone tools and is prevalent in the lithic assemblages (e.g.. Cande andLafferty 1990; Coleman 2001, 2002;Early 1988; Early, ed., 2000; Thomas et al. 1982). Novaculite use declines in favor of cherts and silicified sandstone in the western Ouachitas (e.g., Cooper et al. 1998:99). Proportions of novaculite remain high in lithic chipped stone assemblages at sites immediately south of the Ouachita Mountains (e.g., Bennett 1986; Schambach 1998;Williams 1993), with lower to minor percentages of novaculite at sites in southern Arkansas (e.g., Hemmings 1982; Jeter and Jackson 1994:16l-166; Rolingson 1981; Weinstein and Kelley 1984), eastem Arkansas (e.g., House 1975:81-82) o.f and northem Louisiana (e.g., Hunter 1991), and occasionally in Mississippi (e.g., Brookes 1999,2002; Williams and Reservoir, Perttula 1994:15I-155) and Coastal Plain (e.g., Viper Marsh site, Bobalik 1917 41-48,64-68). Novaculite is found is minor quantities in lithic assemblages from sites in the Coastal Plain of nofiheast Texas (e.g., Brewington er al. 1995; Mallouf 1976:51-61 Perttula 1984). Novaculite is used along with cherts and silicified sandstone/quafizite in the northern Ouachita Mountains (e.g., Coleman, McGrath et al. 1999:57), but is low on sites north of the Ouachitas in both Arkansas and Oklahoma (e.g., Wister Valley in OK, Gdm and Flynn 1978:149-153; Spiro site in OK, Brown 1983, 1996:646-641). Is the relative lack of novaculite on archeological sites north of the BentonBroken Bow Uplift because there are toolstone alternatives in the valleys draining north into the Arkansas River Valley, or was there some social boundary preventing novaculite from moving north? Information on novaculite use in the Arkansas River Valley to the east of the Ouachita Mountains comes from primarily from research at Toltec Mounds and the Plum Bayou phase in east-central Arkansas (e.g., Hoffman 1998; Nassaney 1996), or is scattered in various CRM publications from the region. Novaculite was not the primary toolstone used by Plum Bayou peoples. The lithic assemblage from Mound D at Toltec contained about 8Va novaculite, with chert cobbles, presumably from the Arkansas River and its tributaries, forming the vast majority of the toolstone (Hoffman 1998). Nassaney (I996i) explores the relationship between toolstone acquisition, labor allocation, and the intensification of production trying to determine whether Plum Bayou elites controlled access to tooistone or tool production (his conclusion is that they were not able to control access to toolstone or production of tools, with the exception of quartz crystal tools). As part of his discussion of lithic raw material acquisition, Nassaney (1996:Table 1, 2) compiles figures on novaculite use at central Arkansas sites ranging from4-407o of total chipped stone assemblages by count and from 2-35Vo by weight. The variation in novaculite percentages suggests "that mechanisms other than direct access or down-the-line exchange were established to acquire novaculite among contemporaneous Plum Bayou culture sites," (Nassaney 1996:195). Brain 1983). 42 The Arkansas Archeologist What are the toolstone alternatives in the Owachitas nd in neighboring regions? What options did people have irt a poor lithic terrane3 (Elston 1992b) such as the \lississippi Delta and the Gulf Coastal Plain for cutting ,irtd piercing tools? Gravels from the major riverbeds are i,ire iocal sources of stone in the Delta and Coastal Plain' \\-ere other more perishable materials (e'g', hardwoods, .he11, cane, bone) used for tools, and can we detect their use? Were other Ouachita Mountain stone types (quartz ;r-t'stal, shales, igneous rock, turquoise, sandstonefor celts) ,-,iso collectedwhile visiting the novaculite quarries? What :s fue distribution of other useable stone in the Ouctchitas see Rolingson and Howard 1997)? Locally, the use of novaculite spans the range of :rehistoric periods (e'g., Schambach 1998), with some :. idence that the heaviest use was during the Archaic period ;.g.. Baker 1974:28-29). During the Late Archaic period' rLr\ aculite was included in the Poverty Point exchange 1994)' r1. stem (see discussion in Jeter and Jackson for several fomparing cherl-to-novaculite debitage ratios 'rr.r. H"*toings (1982:242-244) notes that novaculite use ,s higher at pre-Mississippian period than at Mississippian ..nod sites in the Felsenthal region (Ouachita River Valley southern Arkansas), a pattern generally supported by K:lley's (1984) research (see also Nassaney 1996 for central l .-rrkansas). In southeast Oklahoma, temporal changes in novaculite Broken Bow Reservoir area' -se are documented for the ','" ith some novaculite use all through the sequence at Broken 3,:u' but changing proportions (Wyckoff 1967); e 'g'' :rr aculite is 60-807o of assemblages for Late Archaic :.rmponents at Lamas Branch, Beaver, and E' Johnson sites :'rmpared to 307o for earlier "Intermediate Archaic" :-.mponent at Callaham site (Wyckoff 1967:85)' Perttula novaculite as one of the nonlocal - 98i) identifies Arkansas raw materials from excavated sites in the Lake Fork --:hrc R;servoir in northeastern Texas, where it is used throughout prehistoric occupational sequence' Since Ouachita \tountain materials appear in gravel deposits closer to the .:tes than the outcrops, the presence of novaculite artifacts j:es not necessarily mean that novaculite quaries were the .,rurce.a In this study, nonlocal lithics (inctuding novaculite) ::d a low frequency in the Archaic period assemblages' :'! en lower frequencies were seen in Early Ceramic period \D 1-800) components, and highest frequencies were ,-.und in Caddo contexts (Perttula 1984:131-139)' This :rrt-ers from the Middle/Late Archaic period emphasis seen :e r -\rkansas. t; r'tlume 43 In addition to systematic literature reviews' information on the geographic and temporal distribution of novaculite can also be obtained by sending letters to key researchers in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana' Texas, Oklahoma' Missouri, Tennessee, and lllinois seeking information' Study collections, slides, videos, or web pages showing true color and texture ranges might be prepared so people not familiar with novaculite can better identify it. once spatial distribution data for novaculite is assembled, interpretations of exchange mechanisms will be on firmer ground' CONCI-USIONS ON THE POTENTIAL OF QUARRY SITES RESEAR.CH This research design provides a context for future study of systems of novaculite tool production and exchange' Previous research conducted on novaculite procurement' tool production, exchange, and use has been summarized' The discussion has included methods and approaches used elsewhere to investigate lithic quarries, the organization of lithic tool production, and lithic exchange systems' The research design takes the form of a series of research questions and suggested ways to answer them with new research projects. There are numerous logistical and methodological problems to deal with when investigating novaculite quarries, from visibility of quary features andrugged tenain encountered during recording and mapping, to the problem ofoverwhelmingquantitiesoflithicdebriswhenexcavation is attempted. Modern technology (total stations, high resolution aerial photography, global positioning systems) will be useful for recording and mapping quarry sites and their features. Since novaculite was intensively quarried in the 19th-20th centuries for rvhetstones, distinguishing ancient from historic quaffy features is a problem faced at novaculite quarries that is not usually a problem for chert quarries. while there should be distinctive and identifiable quarrying tools and technologies associated with these iifferent periods of use, altifact collection has depleted tools like hammerstones and diagnostics like projectile points' Trenching excavations of quarry pit features would produce data for interpretations of raw material extraction techniques and sequences, and may yield appropriate samples for C14 dating or Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) dating' Excavation may answer dating questions, but raises sampling issues and other logistical problems' Preservation of these important sites is difTicult due to the continued commercial use of novaculite' However' 4-1 - many of the recorded quaffy sites in the Ouachita Mountains are protected on federal property (belonging to either the tI. S. Forest Service or National Park Service). Despite the regional importance of novaculite and novaculite quarry sites, we cunently have only one novaculite quarry site on the National Register of Historic Places. Nominating and listing these resources would showcase their importance' Research into novaculite tool production and exchange systems holds great potential. Novaculite is ubiquitous on archeological sites in and south of the Ouachita Mountains over a long time period, so there are thousands of sites that might yield infotmation on one or more components of these production and exchange systems - quarry sites are but one part. By conceptualizing the procurement of novaculite as part of a larger system of tool production and exchange' we can refocus our attention from the artifacts left behind to the people who made and used these tools. The objects and their spatial distributions provide us with the material traces of relationships between people in the past. Since novaculite moved far beyond the Ouachita Mountains as raw material or as finished tools, we can use it to map out these relationships and interactions on a regional and interregional scale. Suggested Projects There has been substantial research on novaculite, but there is much work still to be done. In particular' we need more archeological investisation of Archaic and \Voodland in south\\est -\rkansas uith carelul collection and rr:i'- .ls .',i ln: hrh,cs. \\-e end tlu> r:scarch plan ri ith some su-:::.,:J:1,:re.-. 11.1 ','. luid:dd to our understanding of :,'. :; '-li- pr--'alr-n3l-' Cl:lfilUtit-rn' and uSe: site s - C,tncu:l a S\ SIe iratlc sourcins studl forArkansas \;',:;i-l-tl:. LrnlJne nor aculite tools and debns to specific qu:rnes rrr qu3m areas $'ithin the ouachita Mountains .houltl be a research priority. Instrumental neutron actir.ation anal1'srs has potential for differentiating novaculite from other resources and for differentiating novaculite varieties: other characterization techniques should be investigated as potential practical methods for sourcing novaculite. Sampling issues needto be considered, and sample locations recorded (e'g., with a global positioning system device). 2) Conduct additional heat treatment experiments to of past studies and to test results on other results confirm colors/textures and on materials from specific quanies. 44 3) Document the types of novaculite tools found on a variety of sites in and beyond the Ouachita Mountains' Are certain types or sizes of tools preferentially made on novaculite or on other raw materials? How were novaculite objects used in different areas? 4) Record and map additional quarry sites. Several quarries have been mapped or partially mapped, but more quarry sites need to be mapped in detail to document the occulrence of quarry features and the range of extractive techniques used in the past. 5) Document environmental changes caused by ancient quanying activities. Forest Service personnel can undertake botanical inventories to compare vegetation patterns at quarried areas as compared with other mountain ridges. 6) Assemble aerial photographic images of Ouachita Mountains and compare (resolution, film or spectrum type' digital manipulation) for visibility of quarry features and the utility of using remote sensing techniques as a method of quarry site identification and mapping. 7) Complete detailed analyses of tools and debitage from previous quarry excavations at3PL349 and at 3GA48/ 3HS158/3HS433 to investigate novaculite procurement and reduction sequences at quarries during the Middle to Late Archaic period. Analysis of material from these older excavations should be done prior to new quarry site ercavations. 8) New test excavations at a quarry site such as 3GA48/3HS158/3HS433 or 3MN327/3MN328 should include hand-excavation or backhoe trench cross-sectioning of a quarry pit feature to investigate the sequences of extractive activities and obtain dateable samples from stratigraphic contexts. 9) Nominate3GA22 and otherkey quaffy sites to the National Register of Historic Places as part of a multiple property nomination. Additional field work may be needed to map sites, document site boundaries, and define period(s) of quarry use. 10) Document the history of novaculite whetstone quarrying during the nineteenth-twentieth centuries, including locations of quarries, technologies used' principal companies involved in this industry. The Arkansas Archeologist 11) Analyze novaculite reduction strategies at quarries by comparing controlled surface collections from several quarry sites using several techniques of tool, biface and core, and debitage analysis (e.g., mass analysis, technological or stage analysis, individual flake attribute analysis). 12) Analyze novaculite reduction strategies at additional workshop sites in the Ouachita Mountains with surface collection or excavation data using several rechniques of tool, biface and core, and debitage analysis re.g., mass analysis, technological or stage analysis, individual flake attribute analysis). Compare results to _r\{N2075, 3PL343. 13) Analyze novaculite reduction/tool production strategies at additional habitation sites in the Ouachita \lountains and away from the Ouachitas with controlled :rcavation data (especially from well-dated feature Jontexts) using several techniques oftool, biface and core, .nd debitage analysis (e.g., mass analysis, technological or .ia-se analysis, individual flake attribute analysis), and Keller er al. I985:Fig.25) is lithologically related to the Arkansas Novaculite that outcrops in the Ouachita Mountains (Shafer, pers. coillm. 2003). There are also novaculites in the Central Texas Edwards Group (Pefttula, pers. comm. 2003). Kaolin chert is a translucent material from southern Illinois that is sometimes referred to as Illinois novaculite (Brown 1996:648). Griswold (1892:43,89) refers to whetstone novaculite from Georgia and North Carolina, but without furlher detail. 2. "spanish Diggings" near Magnet Cove is not the only toolstone quarry site enoneously thought to have originated from 16th c. Spanish mining. There are also 'Spanish Diggings' in Wyoming (see Holmes 1974) and in Oklahoma (see Bryan 1950). Hatch (1994:43) reports that during the 19th century, locals credited the Spanish with the pits at Pennsylvania jasper quarries as well. 3. Elston (1992b:35-36) uses the geological term "terrane" to refer to the area of occunence or distribution of a specific rock or toolstone. The availability of toolstone is high in a rich lithic terrane. ilrfl1pare results. 14) Reanalyze material from past test excavations at :HS28 to clarify the role of workshop/habitation sites in -:ie river valleys south of the Ouachita Mountains. New :rcavations at this or similar workshop/habitation sites .hould be geared toward analyzing reduction sequences of --'ol production and use, and investigating features to :rcument the range of residential and other activities. Were :riaces or tools produced for exchange? Is there evidence " r different groups coming to the site (e.g., trade fairs, ethnic ,nation in site occupations)? 15) Document use of novaculite through time in :-:ferent geographic regions. Compile listing of typed ::tnts by county, conduct reviews of regional literatures, ,:;ndardize counts/weights of novaculite and examine -semblages by distance to source(s). Verify impressions :.rt novaculite was not common on archeological sites norlh : the Ouachita Mountains. 16) Prepare study collections, slides/videos, or web :--. to show range of colors and textures so archeologists :. -,r familiar with novaculite can better identify it. 4. The problem of alluvial gravel deposits (rather than bedrock outcrops) as a source of lithic raw material is one that needs to be addressed through sampling and surveying. cautions Shackley (2002:56-59). Also, cherls may be altered both macroscopically and chemically as they are transported away from outcrops in alluvium (Shafer, pers. cofiim. 2003). Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Meeks Etchieson, Alan G. Newman, and Dan Nolan of the Ouachita National Forest (U.S.D.A. Forest Service), and thank them for their support and patience throughout this project. This research design was created through a process of consultation and discussion that began at the 1996 workshop on novaculite quarries. The authors thank the parlicipants of that workshop for their advice and expertise: Sherri Avery, Roger Coleman, Meeks Etchieson, and Barbara Williams (Ouachita National Forest); Ann Early, Tom Green, Jami Lockhart, and Martha Rolingson (Arkansas Archeological Survey); Roberl G. Elston (Intermountain Research, Nevada); James Hatch (Pennsylvania State University); Fred Limp (University of Arkansas); Harry Shafer (Texas A&M University); and Gene Titmus and Jim Woods (College of Notes Southem Idaho). The authors also thank many colleagues " There are other rocks known as novaculites in the south::-iiefir and southwestern U.S. The Caballos Novaculite that *:!-rops in southwest Texas (Holbrook and Stone 1979:2; who provided comments on draft versions at several stages in the preparation of this research design, including: Mark Blaeuer, Roger Coleman, Anne Dowd, Robert C. Dunnell. Robert Elston. Meeks Etchieson, John House, Marvin Jeter, '" ,"tune 43 45 David Kelley, George Odell, Tim Perttula, Martha Rolingson, Hany Shafer, Blake Smotherman, MarkWalters, Kate Wright, and Don Wyckoff. Andrefsky, W. I99l Inferring Trends in Prehistoric Settlement Behavior from Lithic Production Technology in the Southern Plains. North American Archae olo gy l2(2) : 129 - I 44. REFERENCES Arnold, J. E. Ahler, S. A. 1983 Heat Treatment of Knife River Tbchnology 12(1):1-8. 1984 MassAnalysisofFlakingDebris: Studyingthe Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, PP. 85-118. Archaeological Papers of the American Flint. Lithic Anthropological Association, No. 1, Washington, D.C. Ahler. S. A. and J. VanNest Temporal Change in Knife River Flint Reduction Strategies. In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second C onfe re n c e on P re h i s to ri c C he rt Exploitation, edited by S. C. Vehik, pp. 183-198. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 4, Southern Illinois University, 1981 Carbondale. Akridge, D.G. and 200I P. H. Benoit Luminescence Properties of Chert and Some Archaeological Applications. Journal of Archaeolo g,ical Scienc e 28:143-151. Designing and Testing a Model of Raw Material Variability for the Central Duck River Basin, Tennessee. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by B. M. Butler and E. E. May, pp. 161-184. Occasional Paper No. 2, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Amick, D. S. and P. J. Carr 1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Archaeology of the MidHolocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 4l-56. University of Florida Press. Orlando. 1987a Craft Specializ.ation in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, Calfornia. University of California Fress, Berkeley. I987b Technology and Economy: Microblade Core Production from the Channel Islands. In OrganiTation of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp.207-237 ' Westview Press. Boulder. Arnold, J. E. and A. Munns 1994 Independent or Attached Specialization: The Organization of Shell Bead Production in California. Journal of Field Archaeology 2l:413- 489. Ataman, K., S. Botkin, K. R. Carambelas, D. P. Dugas, R. G. Elston, E. E. Ingbar, and M. Leach I99Z The View from Locality 36: Recapitulation and Prospectus. In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part 3: The Perspectivefrom ktcality 36, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. 251-269. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, bY Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada. Ataman, K. K. R. Carambelas, and R. G. Elston l99Z The Economics of Toolstone Extraction and Processing. In Archaeolo gical Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part 3: The Perspective from Locality 36, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp.233-250. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, bY Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada' Ataman, K., K. R. Carambelas, R. G. Elston, E. E. Ingbar, M. Leach, and C. Raven 1992 Research Design. In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Paft 3: The Perspective from Locality 36, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. The Arkansas Archeologist I-14. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada. Baker, C. M. t974 A Study of Aboriginal Novaculite Exploitation in the Ouachita Mountains of South-Central Arkansas. Unpubl. M. A. Thesis, Deparlment of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. A Brief Study of the Arkansas Novaculite Quarries. In Fancy HiIl: Archeological t982 Studies in the Southern Ouachita Mountains, edited by A. M. Early and W. F. Limp, pp. 307-334. Research Series No. 16, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Prehistoric Stone Quarries in the South pacific. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:58159-5. Beck, C. and G. T. Jones 1994 On-Site Artifact Analysis as an Alternative to Collection. American Antiquity 59(2):3043 Becker, C. J. I95I Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. Americ an Antiquity 5 I ( 1 ):3 8-50. 1990 Norman. Barnes, M. R. 1989 National Historic Landmark Nomination (3 1St4), North Carolina. Unpublished nomination, U.S. Department of Hardaway the Interior, National Park Service. Baugh, T. G. 1998 I 52. Report No. 25, Archeological Assessments, Inc., Nashville, Arkansas. Binford, L. R. 1977 Lithic Resources and Quarries. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Bell, pp. 65-95. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Sources in the TransMississippi South, the Southem Plains, and the Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Memoir No. 4, 13 5 - Bennett, W. J., Jr., with contributions from B. Burnett, C. Clark, A. F. Gettys, R. Hollaway, M. Marks, J. Miller, L. Smith, J. B. Sollberger, R. Stewart, and J. Watkins 1986 Investigations at 3H528, the Jones Mill Site. Banks, L. D. 1984 Late-Neolithic Flint Mines at Aalborg. Acta Arc hae o lo g i c a 22: Bamforth, D. B. 1986 15. Forty-seven Tiips. In Stone Tbols as Cultural Markers : Change, Evolution and Complexie, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 24-36. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. r979 1980 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Joumal of Anthrop olo g ic al Re s e arch 3 5 (3) :25 5 -27 3. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter- Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Antiquity 45(l):4-20. American / , Binford, L. R. and J. F. O'Connell 1984 AnAlyawaraDay: The Stone Quaq'. Journal of Anthropolo gic al Re s earch 40:406-432. Birmingham, N. R. Regional Polities and Socioeconomic Exchange: Caddoan and Puebloan Interaction. 1984 Lithic Assemblages of the Moline Chert Source Area, Rock Island and Henry Counties, Illinois. In Lithic Resource Procurement: In The Native History of the Caddo: Their Place in Southeastern Archeology and Ethnohistory, edited by T. K. Perttula and J. E. Bruseth, pp. 145-158. Studies in from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation., edited by S. Archeology 30, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin. Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 4, Southern Illinois University, Proceedings C. Vehik, pp. I33-152. Center for Carbondale. Beardsley, F. R. and G. G. Goles 200t Volume 43 Sampling for Provenance: Tailings from 47 il I I .) Blaeuer, M. lgg5 in Ancient Maya World: Obsidian Exchange 3GAZZ. Arkansas' Unpublished draft of the nomination, on file at U'S' Department Springs Hot Interior, National Park Service' National Park, Arkansas' Bleed, P. 1986 In Terminal Classic Yucatan' Mexico' Draft National Register of Historic Piaces Nomination - Indian Mountain Quarry' The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability' American AntiquitY 5 I (4):7 31 -1 47' Bloomer, W. W. and E. E' rggz Ingbar Debitage Analysis. rn Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance pp' 33Exchange,edited by M' D' Glascock' 52. Bergin & Garvey' Westport' Connecticut' H' J' Shafer Brewington, R. L.' J. E' Dockall' and A Late Prehistoric 4lMX5: D65 Archaeology of Texas' Caddoan Hamlet in Morris CownQ' for Center Reports of Investigations No' 1' A&M Environmental Archaeology' Texas University, College Station' Brookes' S' O' rggg prehisroric Exchange in Mississippi' 10'000 Archaeorogicar InvestigationsatTosawihi:AGreatBasinB.C.-A.D.1600,InRawMaterialsand Quarry.Part]:ThePeriphery,editedbyR.ExchangeintheMicl-South,Proceedingsof G.ElstonandC.Raven'pp.229-210.Reportthe]6,hAnnualMid-SouthArchaeological preparedforBureauofLandManagement,Conference,Jackson,Mississippi-June3and l, iggs, edited by E' Peacock and S' O' andlvanhoe Gold company, Elko, Nevada, winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver City' Nevada' Bobalik, S. J. rg.71 The viper Marsh Site (Mc-205), McCurlain county, oklahoma. Bulletin o7|hn okloho*o 2002 Report Brookes' pp' 86-94' Archaeological Archives of No. 29, Mississippi Department and History, Jackson. Find The Herning Cache: A Middle Archaic 59'h the paper at presented in Mississippi. Annual Southeastern Archaeological Anthropologicalsociety26:l-98'Conference'NovemberS'2002'Biloxi' MississiPPi. Bosch, P. W. Brown' J' A' by A Neolithic Flint Mine' ScientiJic Atnerican Spiro Exchange Connections Revealed 1 983 In 2;t0(6): 126-132' Materials' Sources of Imported Raw Papers Southeastern Natives andTheir Pasts: by D' G' Botkrn. S.. D. P' Dusas' and R' G Elston Honoring Dr. Robert E' BelI, edited In 129-162' pp' 1991 -\rchaeologl of the Eastern Periphery' Wyckofi and J. L. Hofman, at To s aw ihi : A in .+rc hn e ob ! i c al I nt' e s ti g at i on s Okluhomu Archeological Survey Studies Peripheryt' The l: Part Basitt Great QLtart-t" Oklahoma's Past No. 11, Norman' pp' 443edited b1'R' G' Elston and C' Raven' The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The 1996 Land 562. n"fon prepared for Bureau of Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan of Management, Elko' Nevada' and Ivanhoe Culture in-Eaitern Oklahoma' Memoirs bY Nevada' Winnemucca' Gold ComPanY, the Museum of AnthroPologY No' 29' lntermountain Research' Silver City' Nevada' UniversitY of Michigan, Ann Arbor' Ig19 BradburY, A. P. tggsTheExaminationofLithicArtifactsfromanBrown'J'A''Kerber'R'A''andwinters'H'D' 1gg0 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Archaic Assemblage: Strengthening Early InferencesthroughMultipleLinesofRelationsattheBeginningofthe Mississippian Period' In The Mississippian of ruw"Le' vr Evidence. MidcontinentitL Journ'l D' Smith' pp'251Archaeorogy 23(2):263-2gg. Braswell, G. E. and M' D' Glascock 2002 The Emergence of Market Econonies in the B' 280. Smithsonian Institution Press' shington' D' C' Emergence, edited by The Arkansas Archeolo gist 48 American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. l-8. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Brumfiel, E. M. and T. K. Earle 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction. In Sp e cialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, J. E. Bryan, K. 1950 Flint Quarries -The Sources of Tools and, at 1986 the Same Time, the Factories of the American Indian. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 17, No. 3. Harvard University, Cambridge. Burton, Connecticut. J. 1984 Quarrying in a Tribal Society. World gy 16(2):234-247 . Repeng and the Salt-Makers: 'Ecological 1995 Archae olo 1989 From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of Teotihuacan's Obsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 2, Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, edited by B. L. Isaac, pp. 23-74. JAI Press, Greenwich, Trade' and Stone Axe Production in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. Man (n.s.)24(2):255272. Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Economic Anrhropolo gy 16:267 -294. Category. Research in Clayton, L. W. B. Bickley, Jr., and W. J. Stone l9l0 Knife River Flint. Plains Anthropologist 15(50):282-290. Cameron, C. M. and R. L. Sappington 1984 Obsidian Procurement at Chaco Canyon, A.D. 500-1200. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp.153-171. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 8, Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque. Cobb, C. R. 1989 An Appraisal of the Role of Hoes S outhe 2000 in Mill Creek Chert Mississippian Exchange Systems. aste rn Archae olo g "y 8(2 ;:7 9 -92. From Quarry to Cornfield: The Political Economy of Mississippian Hoe ProdLrction. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Cande, R. F. and R. H. Lafferty, III 1990 Cultural Resources Investigation on South Fork Watershed, Site I, and Intensive Testing at 3MN369, Montgomery CounQ, Arkansas. Report submitted to the Soil Conservation Service, Little Rock, by Mid-Continental Research Associates, Inc., Springdale, Arkansas. Carr, P. J. 1994a Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. 35-44. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 1994b The Organization of Technology: Impact and Potential. In The Organization of North \blume 43 Cobb, C. R. and M. Pope 1998 Sixteenth-CenturyFlintknapping Kits fromthe King Site, Georgia. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:l-18. Coleman, R. E. 2001 Novaculite Acquisition and Use at 3MN2075: An Early Middle Archaic Site, Montgomety County, Arkansas. Draft version. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 200, USDA, Forest Service. Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, Arkansas. 2002 Draft Reportfor Archaeological Investigation at Brier Creek (3MN2I8l), Montgomert County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 207. USDA. Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, Arkansas. 2003a Novaculite Acquisition and L-se at Lit:,: Missoun Falls t3\Nl0-,i r: -\rl E:ri', \{rJdie 49 126, prepared fbr Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Coraopolis, PA, by SPEARS, Inc., WestFork, AR. Archaic Site, Montgomery County, Arkansas. Paper presented at the 45'r'Annual Caddo Conference, February 22, 2003, Arkadelphia, Arkansas. 2003b Novaculite Acquisition and Use at Little Missouri Falls: An Early Middle Archaic Site in Montgomery County, Arkansas. Costin, C. L. l99I The Arkansus Archeologist 42 (for 2001):15-43. Coleman, R., P. S. Gardner, J. Hilliard, M. A. Pfeiffer, and J. Stewan 1999 Excavations in the Shady Lake Recreation 2001 Area and Vicinity, 1992-1993, Ouachita National Forest. The Arkansas Archeologist 38: I -54. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-56. University of Arizona Press. Tucson. Craft Production Systems. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price, pp. 273-327. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York. Coleman, R. E., R. McGrath, J. Hill, F. Woodral, K. Knight, and T. Williamson 1999 Archeological Assessment for Freedom Ecosystem Mcmagement Unit, Colcl Springs Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Scott County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 178, USDA, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Costin, C. L., and Wright, R. P. (editors) 1998 Crc$t and Social ldentity. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 8, Arlington, Virginia. Cottier. R. L. and D. J. Ives 1915a The Crescent Hills Quarry Area, Part A: Beaumont-Tyson. In The 1974-1975 Annual Report of the Museum of Anthropolog.r,, edited by L. H. Feldman and R. M. Rowlett, pp. 3842. University of Missouri, Columbia. Coleman, R. E. and R. L. Guendling 2000 Blal'lock Creek Site. In Foresr Fttnnsteucls: .1 ,\lilletutitnrt of Htttrtutt ()cr-ttpcttiott ctl \\'irttlitrg Stuir itt rlie OttucJtita .llotuttctirt.s. :;it:J r,,' {. \l Earlr. pp. lg-,i+. Research S::-:. -<-. \ii;nsas -\rcheological Survey, l9"l5b The Crescent Hills Quarry Area, Part D: Moder. In The 1974-1975 Annual Report of the Museum of Anthropology, editedby L. H. Feldman and R. M. Rowletl, pp. 46-47. University of Missouri, Columbia. F:":.la'lili. C,--lri:r;r-r. R E. R. Graham. C. Hill. T. McKay, and B. \ [.r6pheu :000 .\rcheological As.sessment.for Compartments 95-97, Linle Mis,gotrri Wotershed, Caddo Rattger District, Ouachita National Forest, Monlgomerlt County, Arkansos. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 187, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Crabtree. D. E. and B. R. Butler 1964 Notes on Experiment in Flint Knapping: 1, Heat Treatment of Silica Materials. Tebiwa 7:I-6. Cross. J. R. 1993 Craft Specialization in Nonstratified Societies. In Research in Economic Anthropology,YoT. 14, edited by B. L^ Isaac, pp. 6l -84. JAI Press, Springs, Arkansas. Greenwich. Connecticut. Cooper, J. H., T. N. Gannon, C. S. Spears, M. J. Guccione, Custer, J. F. and G. Cade 1998 An Archeological Survey Aligrunent of the U.S. oJ the Pre.ferred 198'7 Core Technology at the Hawthorn Site, 7I Relocation Project Newcastle County, Delaware: ALate Archaic Hunting Camp. In The OrganiTation of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. betvveen DeQueen and Interstctte 40 in Sevier Polk, Scott, Sebastian, and Crawford Cownties, Arkansas. Project Reports 125 and A. Morrow, pp. 45-62. Westview Press, Bouider, Colorado. 50 The Arkansas Archeologist Daniel, I. R. Jr. and J. R. Butler 1996 An Archaeological Survey and Petrographic Description of Rhyolite Sources in the Uwharrie Mountains. North Carolina. Mountain Environmenr. Research Series No. 29, Arkansas Archeological 1999 Research Goals. In Archeological Southern Indian Studies 45:I-37. Dan's Whetstone Company, Inc. 1999 "The Rock Gallery, Flint Knapping Material Source, Arkansas Novaculite." Web site http:/ /www. danswhetstone. com/flintknappin g/ flintknapping.html. 2000 Dixon, J. E., Cann, J. R., and Renfrew, C. I97Z Obsidian and the Origins of Trade. In Old World Archaeology: Foundations of Civilization, edited by C. C. Lamberg- Karlovsky, pp. 80-88. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Investigations at the Winding Stair Locality, Montgomery County, Arkansas, by A. M. Early, R. L. Guendling, R.E.Coleman, and M. L. Williams, pp. 7-ll. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Project 941 Final Report, Fayetteville. Winding Stair Site. In Forest Farmsteads: A Millennium of Human Occupation at Winding Stair in the Ouachita Mountains, edited by A. M. Early, pp. 68-92. Research Series 57, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Early, A. M., editor 2000 Dobres, M.-A. 1999 Technology's Links and Chatnes: The Processual Unfolding of Technique and Technician. In The Social Dynamics o.f Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, edited by M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman, pp. 124-146. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Survey, Fayetteville. Forest Farmsteads: A Millennium of Human Occupation at Winding Stair in the Ouachita Mountains. Research Series 57, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Early, A. M., R. L. Guendling, R. E. Coleman, and M. L. Williams 1999 Archeological Investigations at the Winding Stair Locality, Montgomery Couru!, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Project 941 Final Report, Fayetteville. Dockall, J. E. and H. J. Shafer 1993 Testing the Producer-Consumer Model for Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Latin American Edburg, R. and P. van der Kroft n.d. Antiquity 4(2):158- l7 9. materials." Dowd, A. S. Web site http:ll wwwflintsource.net/. 1998a Lithic Procurement and Social Complexity in New York's Hudson River Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. UMI, Ann Arbor. 1998b Operationalizing an Anthropology of Technology: Lithic Procurement and Tool Production among North American HunterGatherers. In Lithic Technology: From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production. edited by A. Antoniazzi, pp. 837-842. Proceedings of the XIII Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (held Septembet 1996 in Forli, Italy), vol. 6 T II, ABACO, Forli, Italy. Early, A. M. 1988 Standridge: Caddoan Settlement in \/olume 43 "Welcome to FlintSource.NEl The website dedicated to sourcing flint, and similar a Elston, R. G. 1992a Economics and Strategies of Lithic Production Tosawihi. ln Arc ha e o I o g i c al I nv e s t i g ati on s at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part I: The Periphery, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. 775-801. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada. 1992b Modeling the Economics and Organization of at Lithic Procurement. In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part l: The Periphery, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. 3I-47. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, 51 and Geological Notices. Harper Winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver CitY, Nevada' Elston, R. G., and D. P. Dugas lgg2 Stratigraphy and Chronology' In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part 3: A Perspective from Locality 36, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp.131-167. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada. Elston, R. G., E. E. Ingbar, M' Leach, C. Raven' K' Carambelas. and K. Ataman l9g2 Research Design. In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi: A Great Basin Quarry. Part l: The Periphery, edited by R' G. Elston and C. Raven, pp' 49-70' Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management' Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca, Nevada, by Intermountain & Brothers' Reprint edition, Negro lJniversities Press, Greenwood Publishing, New York' Feinman. G. M. and L. M. Nicholas 2000 High-IntensityHousehold-ScaleProductionin Ancient Mesoamerica: A Perspective from Ejutla, Oaxaca. In Cultural Evolution: Contemporary Viewpoinrs, edited by G' M' Feinman and L' Manzanilla, pp' 119-142' Kluwer AcademiciPlenum Publishers, New York. Ferguson, J. A. and R. E. Warren lgg2 Chert Resources of Northern Illinois: Discriminant Analysis and an Identification Key. Illinois Archaeology 4(l):l-3'7 ' Findlow, F. J. and M. Bolognese 1984 Economic Aspects of Prehistoric Quarry Use: A Case Study in the American Southwest' In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A' Purdy, pp' 7'7 -82. Cambridge University Press, Research, Silver CitY, Nevada' Cambridge. Elston, R. G. and C. Raven, editors 1992a Archaeological Int'estigatiorts at Tosavihi' A Great Basin Quart-t'. Part l: Tlte Peripltert' - *.1: Fladmark, K. R. 1984 Mountain of Glass:Archaeology of the Mount Edziza Obsidian Source, British Columbia, Canada. World Archaeolog,y 16(2):139-156' Report PrePared for Bureau of Land \lanage me nr. Elko. \er ada' and Ivanhoe GtLJ Conirnr. \\innemucca. \erada. by I::;rn,r.lnt.rir Re se.rrch. Silrer Citl' Nevada' Flenniken, J. J. and E. G. Garrison Ig75 Thermally Altered Novaculite and Stone Tool .i'- ;;-;;1-,,s:qi ::;l ltt,, esrigatiotts at Tosav,ihi, A Manufacturing Techniqtes. Journal of Field G-;.;; B.;,.iri Quarrt' Part 3: A Perspective ArchaeologY 2:125-13I. irlt', l-1 t;6lin -16. Report prepared for Bureau of Land \fana-uement, Elko' Nevada, and Ilanhoe Gold Company' Winnemucca' Franklin, J. D. \evada. by Intermountain Research, Silver 2001 City, Nevada. Archae olo gY 26(2):199 -217 Etchieson, M. l9g1 Prehistoric Novaculite Quarries in the Ouachita Mountains. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, TN' Web published at http //www. fs. fed. u s/oonf/histor y I nov al novaculite.htm. : Featherstonhaugh, G. W. 1968 Excavating and Analyzing Prehistoric Lithic Quarries: An Example from 3'd Unnamed Cave, Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal of Excursion through the Slave States, frrtm Washington on the Potomac to the Frontier . Galm, J. R. and P. FlYnn lg78 The Cultural Sequences at the Scott (34Lf11) and Wann (34Lf'27) Sites and Prehistory of the Wister Valley. Research Series No' 3, Archaeological Research and Management Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman' Gero, J. M. lggl Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool of Mexico; with Sketches of Popular Manners 52 The Arkansos Archeologist Production. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J' M' Gero and M. W' Conkey' pp' 163-193' Basil Blackwell, Oxford' Grace, R. The 'Chaine Opdratoire'Approach to Lithic Analysis. Web-published paper, available at n.d. opchainpaper.htm' accessed 112012000' Gramly, R. M. ifl}+ Mount Jasper: ADirect-Access Lithic Source Implications for the Antiquity and Scale of Regional Exchange' Archaeology of Eastern N o r th Ame ri c a 23 :23 I -245' Hatch, J. W. and P. E. Miller 1985 Procurement, Tool Production' and Sourcing Research at the Vera Cruz Jasper Quany in Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:219-230. Hayden, B., N. Franco, and J' SPafford 1996 Evaluating Lithic Criteria' into Human Prehistory,editedby G' H' Odell' New York' PP' 9-45. Plenum Press, Area in the White Mountains of New Hampshire' In Prehistoric Quarrie s and Lithic Production, edited by J' E' Ericson and B' A' Purdy, pp. I I -21. Cambridge University Press' Cambridge. Hemmings, E. T. lg82 M. L. and R. J' GrYbush Gregg, - lg76 Thermally Altered Siliceous Stone from Prehistoric Contexts: Intentional versus Unintentional Alteration' American Antiquity 4t(2):r89-192. Griswold, L. l8g2 S. Whetstones and the Novaculites of Arkansas' Volume IlIof Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas for 1890' by John C' Branner. Press Printing Co', Little Rock' AR' Guendling, R. L. 2000 Site. \n Forest A. M. Early' pp. 55-68' Research Series 57' Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville' Harrington, M. R. Indian of the Museum MonograPhs, Notes and New Foundation' American Indian, Heye York. tgZO Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas' F{atch. J. W. 1994 The Structure and Antiquity of Prehistoric Jasper Quarries in the Reading Prong' Pennsylvania. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archae olo g1t 1 0:23-47' I{atch. J. W. and M. D. Maxham 1995 '' 'tiLttlrc 1-1 Henry, D. O. lgSg Human Adaptations in the Grand Marais Lowland. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No' 17, Fayetteville' Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns' In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analt'sis' edited bi D' O. Henrl' and G' H' Odell' pp' l-r9-155' Archaeolo-sica1 Papers of the -\rn'eriian Anthropologr'-al -\:Str'-i3tion \o 1' \\astungton. D'C' Hester. T. R.. and H. J. Shat-er 1984 Expioitation of Chert Resources b1 the Farmsteads: A Millennium of Human Occupation atWinding Stair in the Ouachita Mountains, edited by Bug Spot Strategies and Design In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights Jasper-BeanngAssemblagesinPennsylvania: Ancient Maya of Northern Belize' Central America' World Archaeologl' 16(2):157 -173' Hilliard, J. E. l9g5 A Preliminary Report on 3PL349' A Novaculite Quany Site near the Shady Lake Recreation Area' Polk County' Arkansas' In Archeological Investigations in the Southern Ouachita Mountains: Excavations at the Shady I'ake Recreation Area and Vicinity'by J. H. Stewart, R' E' Coleman, J' E' Hilliard' M. A. Pfeiffer, M' Etchieson, C' R' Ewen' B' Williams, and P' S' Gardner' pp' 67-72' Arkansas Archeological Survey Project Repon 856, FaYetteville' Hoffman, T. L. 1998 TheLithicAssemblage' InTbltec Mounds and the Plum BaYou Culture: Mound D Excavations, by M'A' Rolingson'pp' 54-79' 53 Research Series Archeological Survey, Holbrook, D. F. and C. G. Stone 1979 Arkansas Novaculite No. 54, Arkansas Fayetteville. _ Ives. D. J. 1975 The Crescent Hitls prehistoric euarrying Area. M:useum of Anthropology, Museum Brief No. 22, University of Missouri, A Silica Resource. Arkansas Geological Commission, Rock. Columbia. Little 1gg4 The Crescent Hills Prehistoric euarryingArea: More Than Just Rocks. In prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by B. M. Butler and E. E. May, pp. I87 -195. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional paper 2, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Holm, L. 1994 Stone Artefacts as Transmitters of Social Information: Towards a Wider Interpretation with a North Swedish Example. Ctrrent Swedish Archaeology 2: 15 I _ 15g. Ives, D. J. and R. L. Cottier Holmes, W. H. 1891 1975a The Crescent Hills euarry Area, part B: Boland. lnThe 1974-1975 Annual Report of Aboriginal Novaculite euarries in Garland County, Arkansas. American Anthropologist 4 (old series):313_316. the Museum of Anthropology, edited,by L. H. Feldman and R. M. Rowlett, pp. 43_44. University of Missouri, Columbia. Ig75b The Crescent Hills euarry Area, part C: Boemler. InThe 1974-1975 Annual Report of the Museum of Anthropology, edited,by L. H. Feldman and R. M. Rowlett, pp. 45. 1974 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities, part I, Introductory, The Lithic Indu s tri e s . Smithsonian Institution, B ureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 60, Washington, D.C., reprinted 19j4, Burt Franklin. New York, Ny. House. J. H. 1975 Prehistoric Lithic Resource Utilization in the Cache Basin: Crou.lev's Rid_se Chert and Quartzite and pitkrn Chert. In The Cache Ri.. er Arciteo!osical prri.iecr.. .ln Erperiment :,: C,t,"1,";,r -)r-_iig,;,j,-,q;". e,lited br \I. B. S;i,,Lt-:: J F{ H,:,u_.e. ;r. S 1_91 , Research ":rJ S;1.:s F --:- I \ , !. tl;a:r:.:_s-hheoltrgical Jenney, W. Jeter. M. D. and A. M. Early 1999 Sun,er. Clarksires, edited by D. B. Kelley. pp. 61_g4. Research Series No. 51, Arkansas Archeological Fayetteville. Ingbar, E. E., K. Ataman, and M. W. Moore 1992 Survey, Ancient Novaculite Mines near Magnet Cove, Hot Springs County, Arkansas. American Anthropologist 4 (old series):3 i6_3 1 g. Prehistory of the Saline River Drainage Basin, Central to Southeast Arkansas. In Arkansa.s Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Dan and Phyllis Morse, edited by R. C. Mainfort, Jr., and M. D. Jerer, pp. 31_63. University of Arkansas press, Fayetteville. Lrrhrc -{rlaii-sis. in Ttro Cacldoan Farmsteads irt rite Red River \hllet: The Archeotogy of r]rc ,\fcLelland and Joe P. 1891 t- 1i9- 54 University of Missouri, Columbia. Jeter, M. D. and H. E. Jackson 1994 Poverty point Extraction and Exchange: The Arkansas Lithic Connection. In Exchange in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Contiguous Areas at II00 8.C., edited by J. Gibson. Louisiana Archaeolo gy 2I :133_206. Debitage. InArchaeological Investigations at Tbsawihi: A Great Basin euarry. part 3: Johnson, J. K. A Perspective from Locality 36' edited by R. 1981 Lithic procurement and (Jtilization G' Elston and c' Raven' pp' 49-82' Report Trajectories: Anarysis, yellow creek Nuclear prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Power plctnt Site, Tishomingo county, Elko' Nevada' and lvanhoe Gold companv. Mississippi, vorume 11. Tennessee valley winnemucca' Nevada' by Intermountain Authority publications in Anthropology No. Research' Silver city' Nevada' 28, andArchaeological papers of the center The Arkansas Archeologist of the (Jpper Felsenthal Region: Cultural Resou'ce Investigations in the Calion Navigation Pool' South-Central Arkansas' B' Kelley' edited by R' A' Weinstein and D' pp' 585-589' Report submitted to the U'S' for Archaeological Research' No' 1' University of Mississippi' University' lg84 MississiPPi' in Measuring Prehistoric Quarry Site Activity Chert Northeastern Mississippi' In P rehistoric District' ,Lrmy Corps of Engineers' Vicksburg Rouge' Baton Inc'' by Coastal Environments' Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent' pp' edited by B. M' Butler and E' E' May' Center 225-235. Southern Illinois University 19 89 for Archaeological Investigations' Occasional PaPer 2, Carbondale' Modeling The Utility of Production Trajectory Louisiana' In as a Framework for Regional Analysis' Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis' pp' edited by D. O' Henry and G' H' Odell' the 119-138. Archaeological Papers of No' 1' American Anthropological Association Washington, D'C' 1996 Lithic Analysis and Questions of Cultural Complexity: The Maya ' In Stone TooLs: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistorl' Plenum edited by G. H' Odell, pp' 159-119' Press, New York' |gg4PrehistoricExchangeintheLowerMississippi in Valley. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems and J' North America, edited by T' G' Baugh New Press' E' Ericson, pp' 111-2I3' Plenum York' Leach, M., D. P. Dugas' and R' G' Elston lg92 and R' E' Hughes Jones, G. T., C. Beck, E' E' Jones' Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging iAoZ Jones, K. L. tgg+ Territories in the Great Basin ' American Antiquitv 68(1):5-38' Polynesian Quarrying and Flaking Practices Argillite at the Samson Bay and Falls Creek New Zealand' World Quarries, Tasman Bay' Arc ha e o o gY | 6(2) :248 -266' I Keeley, L' H. 1980 III Lafferly, R. H., ToolExperimental Determination of Stone of University (Jses: A Microwear Analysis' Chicago Press, Chicago' on the lg82 Hafting and Retooling: EffectsAntiquity In Archaeology of the Western Periphery' A Archaeoblical Investigations at Tosawihi: Periphery' The l: Great Basin Quany' Part pp' 335edited by R' G' Elston and C' Raven' 442. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko' Nevada' and Ivanhoe b1 Gold Company' Winnemucca' Nevada' a'Ja' \er lntermountain Research' Sih er Ciq ' Lech. H. and J. Lech \\'i:z:i:' 'Z:l:' i-' -\ C ase Studr from Pol;nC 'ri'' '; 198+ The Prelustonc FlLnt 1 6t '4'rclne olo.qt Lemley, H. J. lg42 Lemonnier, 198-1 Littuc Re gl '-l 3 (2): 13 - 1 5') Toward The Study of Material Culture Today: an Anthropology of Technical Systems' Archaeology J ournal oi Anthropological 5:147 -186' W' H' Pickard Lepper, B. T., R. W' Yerkes' and 2001 at Prehistoric Flint Procurement Strategies Ohio' CountY' Flint Ridge, Licking gy Mictcontinintal Journal of Archaeolo 260):53-78' Lockharl. J. scur'-e Utilization in the Felsenthal l: -:'- ;:';' '- i'-';'" utid Paleogeographt E6-l0l' P. 1986 96:1353'1363' Re 1 Arkans as Arche olo gi s t Geological Society of America Bulletin Keile.v. D. B. r: Arkansas' Prehistoric Novaculite Quarries of Texas Archeological and Paleontological in the Society 14:32-37 ' (Reprinted in 1962 Archaeological Record' American 47(4):-t98-809' Hoersch Keller, W. D., C. G. Stone, and A' L' 1985 Textures of Paleozoic Cherl and Novaculite in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma and Their Geological Significance' I \line ;t 1996 J. (Very) Preliminary GIS Analysis for Lithic Research rn the Ouachita Mountains' Quan1v 55 Mallory, J. K. Paper presented to the Novaculite Quarries 1986 Forest' Workshop, Ouachita National Arkansas' December, 1996' Hot Springs' D' Davidson Loendorf, L. L., S. A' Ahler, and in the 1984 The Proposed National Register DistrictCounty' Dunn in Knife River Flint Quarries from North Dakota' Reprinted as pamphlet number 4' North Dakota Histiry (volume 5l' of North Fall, 1984), State Historical Society Dakota, Bismarck' Luedtke, B. 1g7g E. Analysis chert Sources and rrace-Element American Antiquity 43(3):413-423. N{allouf, R. . lg'7 6 'lrj.tr*r*,6; tu cambridgeUniversitv A the Production of Maya Chert Tools: American Response to Shafer and Hester' Antiquiry 5 1 (1): 1 52- 1 58' J. Proposed Big Archeological Investigations at and Red River Pine Lakle, 1974-1975' Lamar gical Sur"rey Repotl C o unti e s, Te xa s'Archeolo Austin' Texas Historical Commission' 18. andeville'' M' D' lqir: e consideration of the Thermal Pretreatment of chert. prains Anthropologist 18(6r):17-l202' 1984 Lithic ft'fut"'iuf- Demand and Quarry ;r;:i;';'n,:,:,::;I::i;;3:#::::""# in "Workshops" and "specialized Production" Marrin, w *"'1l'*, A , with contributions bv AM Earrv and B aBarite AnrntensiveArcheologicatsurveyof County' Mining District in Montgomery Flint' Unil'ersitl'ofCalifornialnstituteofArkansas.InFancyHill:Archeological 1991 .\rt Archaeolo-elsr s Guide to Clrcrt arLcl ruur) t(esearurr Archaeology.ArchaeologicalResearchToolsStudiesintheSouthetnouachitaMountains, 7, Los Angeres ;ti" P"l"#;r"f:t"3lg.ilt1Xi.ll;l; Fayetteville' survey' Archeological Meyers A1 ,,r. Variation in Burlington Chen: ''ii"OV' 1984 Trace Element A' In Prehistoric Chert McAnany' P' Stone-Tool a C"'" Production and Exchange in the lggi) Midcontinent, the Exploitation: studies from Lowlands: The Consumer E' Mav' pp' :":l-:li'y"va edited bv B' M' Butler and E' perspective irom pulltrouser Swamp, Berize' Archaeological for _2gg. center 2g7 Amirican Antiquity 54(2):332-346' 2' Southern Investigations' Occasional Paper Illinois University' Carbondale' I. Luedtke, B. E. and J' T' McBryde, Lurie, R. Greenstone Quarries: The Social for contexts of Production and Distribution the Mt William Site' World Archaeology 16(2):261-285' 1984 Kulin Strategies' In Time' The Koster Site Middle Archaic' by R' Energy, and Stone Tools' edited " University McCutcheon' P' T' ToT eni", pp' 46-56' Cambridge Stone Tool Press. Cambridge' lggl Archaeological InvestigationsinofSoutheastern Heat-Treaiment Technology and P' J' Mehringer' Jr' Ph'D' Glascock' D' M' H.' W. Lyons, Missouri: AnExperimentalApproach' uitraviolet Site: to Sources From Anthropology' Silica of 2003 dissertation, Department Identify UMI' Ann Fluorescence and rrace Elements university of washington' Seattle' oregon, Southeastern cherls fromLostDune, Arbor' USA' Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1139-1159' McElrath' D' L' and r' E' Emerson rv 2000 Toward an "Intrinsic characteristics" co. Stone cove Magnet r c .-,--^+r^'^,, onrl Approach to Chert Raw Material Information" and Co' Stone Cove "Magnet lggg ..Products.',Websitehttp:llClassification:AnAmericanBottomExample. 1989 Lithic Technology and Mobility www.magnetcovestone' com' 56 The Arkansas Archeologist Midcontinental Journal of Archaeolo gt Materials from Western Kentucky and Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal o.f 25(2):215-244. Archaeolo gy 25( 1):83- 1 00. McElwaine, R. B. 1985 Evaluation of Mineral lnterest, Tracts No. 05130 and 05-156, Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas. Unpublished report prepared for National Park Service, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Nassaney, M. 1996 The Role of Chipped Stone in the Political Economy of Social Ranking. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. I8I-224. Plenum Mesrobian, A., R. Merrill, M. Freeman, and D. Carlson 1993 Press, New York. ArchaeologicalandArchivallnvestigations. In Archaeological Site Testing and Evaluation on the Henson Mountain Helicopter Range AI4ISS Project Area, Fort Hood, Texas, edited by D. L. Carlson, pp.23-44. Research Report Nelson, M. C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. No. 26, Archaeological Resource Management Series, United States Army Fort Hood. Odell, G. H. Mills, B. 1989 J. 1995 Gender and the Reorganization of Historic Zuni Craft Production: Implications for Archaeological Interpretations. Journal of Anthrop olo gic al Re se arc h 5 I (2) : I49 - I7 2. Fitting Analytical Techniques to Prehistoric Problems with Lithic Data. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, pp. 159-182. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Milner, G. R. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian 1994 No. 1, Washington, D.C. Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Archaeology 13:57-73. Moholy-Nagy, H. 1995 Shells and Society at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 37: 3-13. Ivlorrow, C. A. and R. W. Jefferies 1989 Trade or Embedded Procurement?: A Test Case from Southern Illinois. InTime, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by R. Tonence, pp. 27-33. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Owen, D. D. 1860 Second Report of a lB59 and 1860. C. Sherman & Son, Philadelphia. Parker, A. C. 1925 Morrow, J. E. 1997 End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22(t):76-9t. Geological Reconnaissance of the Middle and Southern Counties of Arkansas, Made During the Years The GreatAlgonkin Flint Mines at Coxsackie. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Arc he o lo gic al As s o c iation 4(4): 105 - 125. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1981 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The OrganiTation of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, Muller, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder, J. 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Nance, J. D. 2000 Volume 43 Elemental Composition Studies of Lithic Colorado. Perino, G. and W. J. Bennett, Jr. I978 Archaeological Investigations at the Mahaffey Site, CH-1, Hugo Reservoi4 Choctaw County, 57 S' Rick' J' W' Oklahoma' Report prepared for the U' 1978 Heat-Altered cherts of the Lower lllinois by Army Corps of Engineerr, tut* oirtrict, Prehistoric Records No' 2' Vatley' ruouvr' Idabel' rvEr' River' Red the of the Museum Northwestern university Archaeological oklahoma' Program, Evanston, IL' Perttula, T. K. lgs4PatternsofPrehistoricLithicRawMaterialRolingson,M.A. Artifacts: Lithics' In iq8 f The Western Utilization in the Caddoan Area: The Shallow Lake Site GulfCoastalPlain'lnPrehistoricChert(3UNg/52)anditsPlaceinRegional F. Prehistotll, by M. A. Rolingson'and F. Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, editedbyB.M.ButlerandB.E.May,pp.Schambach,pp.l3-99'ResearchSeriesNo' 12, Arkansas Archeological Survey' l1g-t4g. center for Archaeologi-al Investigatio"', Ottu'ional Paper No' Z' Southern Illinois University' Carbondale' rgg4 Excavations at the euince sii- is+erlsll. Fayetteville' Rolingson, M. A. and J' M' Howard iggl Igneous Lithics of Central Arkansas: Vol.V.Pt.2.InstituteofAppliedSciences,Identification,sources,andArtifact Distributio n' Southeastern Archaeology Universitv of North Texas' Denton' Texas' McGeeCreekArchaeologicalProjectReports 16:33-50. P:r.,;i". T K and B, \eison ' r ', I -{;;i; carr.-glci;1 Mandeville, and E' J'Zeller o'f 1608 Acres at Rowlett, R. M., M. D. Ig14 The lnterpretation and Dating of Humanly Cotutties' De G'r't): L,ltke ' C idrk and Hot Sprirtg Worked Siliceous Materials bY 39' ,{i'ir;rl-r.i-q. Repon of investigations No' s of Thermoluminescent Analy sis' P roc e e ding \-o1. l. prepaied for U'S Army Corps of the Prehistoric SocieQ 4037-44' Engineers' Vicksburg District' Ouachita Project Management Office' Mountain Pine' Sttt't al Arkansas, bY Archeological and Environmental Consultants' Austin' Texas' Santley, R. S' f qg+ Pfaffenberger, B. 1938 t*tul'n?oo Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology' M an (n.s) 23 (2):236-252' Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification' in the and the Evolution of Complex Society in Basin of Mexico' ln Tracle and Exchange pp' Hirth' G' K' Early Mesoamerica,editedby University of New Mexico Press' 43-86. Albuquerque' Sassaman, K. E. Investigations concerning the Thermal Alteration of Silica Minerals: An (I):31Archaeological Approach' Tebitva l7 I9g4 P. J. Carr, pp' gg-lll ' International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological of Series 7, iJniversity of Michigan Museum Purdy, B. A. and H. K' Brooks Renfrew, C. lg75 An Thermal Alteration of Silica Minerals: July ArcheologicalApproach ' Science 173(23 I97l):322-325' AnthroPologY, Ann Arbor' Schambach, F. F. 1998 Pre-Caddoart Cultures in the of Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions Ancient In lntegration and Communication' Sabloff Civilization andTrade' edited by J' A' and C. C' Lamberg-Karlovsky' pp' 3-59' UniversitY of New Mexico Press' Albuquerque' 5B the Soulh Carolina Coastal Plain' In The Organization of North Amerir:an Prehistoric by Chipped Stone Tool Technologies' edited 66. lg71 in Changing Strategies of Biface Production Trans' No' 53' Mississippi South' Research Series Fayetteville' Rrtansas'q'rcheological Survey' lggg Spiro and the Tunica: A New Interyretation History of the Role of the Tunica in the Culture A'D' of the Southeast and the Southern Plains' Essays Archaeology" 1 100- 1750' In Arkanscts The Arkansas Archeologist in Honor of Dan and Phyllis Morse, edited by R. C. Mainfort, Jr., and M. D. Jeter, pp. 169-224. University of Arkansas Press' Fayetteville. Shafer. H. J. and T. R. Hester 1983 1986 Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Context. American Antiquity 37 Systemic (2):156-1 65. lgg1 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519-543. Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize: Reply to Mallory. American Antiquity 5 1(1): 1 58- 166' Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution Schindler, D. L., J. W Hatch, C. A. Hay, and R' C. Bradt Ig82 Aboriginal Thermal Alteration of a Central Pennsylvania Jasper: Analytical and Behavioral Implications . Ame rican AntiquiQ lgg4 Archaeological A Great Basin at Tosawihi: Investigations More than Exchange: Pre-Ceramic through Ceramic Period Obsidian Studies in the Greater North American Southwest' In Geochemical Evidence for Long- Distance Exchange, edited by M. D. Glascock, pp. 5387. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut' Shafer, H. J. Ig73 1983 lgg3 Lithic Technology at the George C' Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Depaflment of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. UMI' Ann Arbor. The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlements and Fields. In P ulltrous er Swamp : Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northem Beliz,e, edited by B' L' Turner II and P' D' Harrison, pp. 212-245' UniversitY of Texas Press, Austin. Research Potential of Prehistoric Quarry Sites' InArchaeological Site Testing and Evaluation on the Henson Mountain Helicopter Range AI4ISS Project Area, Fort Hood, Texas, edited by D. L. Carlson, pp' 45-59. Research Report The Organizatton of Lithic Technology and Evolution: Notes from the Continent' InThe Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. J. Carr, pp. ll8-122. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, University of Michigan Museum of Igg2 Field Methods. In 2002 . Simek, J. F. Schmitt, D. N., K. Ataman, K. R. Carambelas, E. E. Ingbar, M. Leach, and C. L. Rogers Shackley, M. S. Colha,BeIize' World Archaeolo gY 23(l ):7 9 -97 47(3):526-544. Quarry. Part 3: A Perspectivefrom Locality 36, edited by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. 25-47. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, and Ivanhoe Gold Company, Winnemucca' Nevada, by Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada' at the Maya Site of AnthroPologY, Ann Arbor. Sinopoli, C. M. 1988 The Organrzation of Craft Production at Vijayanagara, South India' American Anthropolo glsr 90(3):580-591 . Skinner, A. F. and M. N. RudolPh 1996 Dating Flint Artifacts with Electron Spin Resonance: Problems and Prospects' In Archaeological Chemistr:': Organic' Inorganic, and Biochemical Analvses. edited by M. V. Orna, pp. 37 -46.American Chemrcal SocietY, ACS SYmPosium Series 625' Washington, D.C' Spence, M. W. 1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan 788. . American Antiquity 46(4):7 69- 1984 Craft Production and Polity in Early Teotihuacan . InTrade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by K. G. Hirth, pp' 87- tl4. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque' 1986 Locational Analysis of Craft Specialization Areas in Teotihuacan. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 2, Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico,edited by B. L. Isaac, pp. 75-100' JAI Press, Greenwich' Connecticut. No. 26, Archaeological Resource Management Series, United States Army Fort Hood. Volume 43 59 Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Stein, G. J. 1996 Producers, Patrons, and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from 5500-3100 B.C. In Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordan Childe, edited by B. Wailes, pp. 25-38. University Museum Monograph 93, University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Thomas, L. 2001 The Gender Division of Labor in Mississippian Households: Its Role in Shaping Production for Exchang e. In Archaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United c. B. Pres of pp.27-56. University Rodning, states, edited by J. M. Eastman and Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Florida, Gainesville. Steuart, C. T., D. F. Holbrook, and C. G. Stone 1984 Arkansas Novaculite: Indians, Whetstones, Thomas, P. M., Plastics, and Beyond. Proceedings of the 19th Forumonthe Geology of Industrial Minerals, Swanson 1982 Stewart. J. H. 1995 Excavations at Shady Lake Recreation Area. : in the Fancy Hill Area, Montgomery County, Arkansas. In Fancy Hill: Archeological Studies in the Southern Ouachita Mountains, edited by A. M. Early Paper 114:156-167. Southern Ouachita Mountains T. Fancy Hill: Part II: Archeological Testing at Seven Sites Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous In Archeological Investigations in L. J. Campbell, C. S. Weed, and M. and W. F. Limp, pp. 183-306. Research Series No. 16, Arkansas Archeological the Survey, Fayetteville. Excavations at the Shady Lake Recreation Area and Vicinity, by J. H. Stewart, R. E. Coleman, J. E. Hilliard, M. A. Pfeiffer. M. Etchieson. C. R. Ewen. B. Williams. and P. S. Gardner. pp. 4l -65.Arkansas Archeolo-eica1 Survel' Project Report 856. Fal etteville. Titmus, G. L. and J. C. Woods 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of Calfornia and Great Basin Anthropology 8(I):37 -49. Torrence, R. L. and R. H. Cobean igSr Preliminan Report on the Obsidian Mines at Prco de Onzaba. \eracruz. In Prehistoric Q-,r,irries and Lithic Prodttction, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. PurdY, PP. 83-95. Stocker. T. Cambnd-se University Press, Cambridge. Stoltman. J. B.. Jeffery A. Behm, and Harris A. Palmer 198-+ The Bass Site: AHardin QuanyAVorkshop in Southwestern Wisconsin. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation : Studie s from the Midc ontinent., edited by B. M. Butler and E. E. May, pp. 197 -224. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 2, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1984 Monopoly or Direct Access? Industrial Organization at the Melos Obsidian Quarries. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy, pp. 49-64. Cambridge University 1989 Trubitt, M. B. D. 1996 Household Status, Marine Shell 1984 60 Mineralogical Properties of Wyandotte Chert as anAid toArchaeological Fingerprinting. In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by S. C. Vehik, pp. 251-264. Occasional Paper No. 4, Center for Bead Production, and the Development of Cahokia in the Mississippian Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Tankersly, K. B. Press, Cambridge. Tools as Optimal Solutions. InTime, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by R. Tonence, pp. 1-6. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IL. UMI, Ann Arbor. 2003a Archeological Mapping at a Novaculite Quarry Site (3GA22) in Hot Springs National Park. Limited distribution report submitted to the National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center (ARPA Permit No. MWR-02-1), by the Arkansas Archeological The Arkansas Archeologist Morttgomery, Perry, Scott and YeLl Counties in Arkansas. Project Report No' 66 prepared for the Ouachita National Forest' Hot Springs, Survey, Henderson Research Station' ArkadelPhia. 2003b Archeological Mapping at an Arkansas AR, bY SPEARS' Inc., West Fork, AR' Novaculite Quarry. Poster presented at the 61" Annual Plains Anthropological Conference, October 22-25 FaYetteville, Arkansas. ' 2003 ' Walthall. J. A. and G' R' HolleY 19g'l Mobility andHunter-GathererToolkitDesign: AnalYsis Trubitt. M. B. D. and K. Wright in prep. A Final Report on Archeologicol Test Excavations at Two Sites at Lake Ouachita, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, S outhe as t e Upper Felsenthal Region: Cultural Resources Investigations in the Calion Navigation Pool' Sowth-Central Arkansas' Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, by Coastal Environments' Inc'' Baton Chapter 9, Prehistoric Activity Patterning in the Ouachita Mountain Uplands' In An Archeological Survey of 8,939 acres in the Winona. andWomble Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Garland, Hot Spring' Montgomery' Perry, Scott and Yell Counties in Arkansas,by D. B. Waddell, E" Z' Waddell, K. Hoffman, M. Hughes, and A' Moerbe, pp' 53-120. Project Report No' 66 prepared for the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR, bY SPEARS, Inc., West Fork' AR' Waddell. D. B. and K. A. King 1gg0 Rouge, Louisiana. Whittington, D. B. 1969 Arkansas' Oldest lndustry' H i s t o r ic al Quart Fayetteville. Waddell, D. B., E. Z. Waddell, K. Hoffman, M' Hughes and A. Moerbe An ArcheologicaL Sunel' o.f 8,939 acres in the Ig95 Caddo, Cokl Springs' Fottrche, Jessieville' Winona, andWomble Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Garland, Hot Spring' Volwne 43 rly C. Vehik. pp. 101-lil Ceuter 't-l Archaeological Inr-estigations' Occasionrl Paper No. 4, Southern Illinois Unirersitr' Carbondale. Williams, 1993 Waddell. D. B. and E. Z. Waddell lggT An Archeological Survey of 7,985 acres in the Winona, Womble, Caddo, Mena, Kiamichi' and Choctaw Districts oJ' the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma' Project Report No. 41 prepared for the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR' bY SPEARS,Inc., West Fork, AR' e Arkansas 28(3 ) :223 -230' Wiant, M. D. and H. Hassen 1984 The Role of Lithic Resource Ar''ailabilit-v- and Accessibility in the Organization of Ltthic Technology' In Lithic Re source Procuretrtertt " Proceedings fiom tlte Secottd Cort'ier€ttte ''ti: Prehistoric Chert Erploitttiotr" edrte'i br S The Other Artifacts from the Bangs Slough Site. In Coles Creek and Mississippi Period Foragers in the Felsenthal Region on the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by F' F' Schambach, PP. 63-84' Arkansas Archeological survey Research Series No' 39' ol o gy I 6(2):1 52- 1 62' 1984 Archaeology and Paleogeography of the Waddell. D. B. Cadtto, Cold Springs, Fourche, Jessiet'ille' rn Arc hae Weinstein. R. A. and D. B. KelleY Henderson Research Station, Arkadelphia' lgg5 of a Dalton Lithic Cache' G. I., Jr. Lithic, Bone, Shell, and Historic Artifacts' In Caddoan Saltmakers in the Ouachita Valley, edited by A. M. Early, pp. 119-144. Research Series No. 43, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Williams. 1993 M. B. Reed, L. E. Abbott, and J. W. Joseph An Archeological Survey of 7,711 Acres in the Cacltlo, Cotd Springs, Fourche, Poteau, and Womble Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Scott, Yell, Garland, and Montgomera Counties, Arkansas' Technical Report 147, submitted to Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas, by New South Associates, Stone Mountain. Georgia. G. 1., 7' Williams. S. and J. P. Brain 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo CounQ, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 7 4, Harvard University, Cambridge. Wright, K. and M. B. Trubitt 2003 Archeological Testing at Lake Ouachita: A Descriptive Summary of Lithics Recovered. Paper presented at the 45'h Annual Caddo Conference, Arkadelphia, Arkansas, February 22,2003. Wyckoff, D. 1 965 G. The Biggham Creek Site of McCunain CounQ, Oklahoma. Archaeological Site Report No. 3, Oklahoma River Basin Survey Project, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman. 1961 1 r 968a 968b The Archaeological Sequence in the Broken Bow Reservoir Area, McCurtain County, Oklahonta. Oklahoma River Basin Survey Project, University of Oklahoma Research Institute and Stovall Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman. The Beaver Site and Archaeology of the Broken Bow Reservoir Area, McCurtain County, Oklahoma. Archaeological Site Report No. 9, Oklahoma River Basin Survey, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman. The Bell and Gregory Sites: Archaeological Chronicles of Prehistory in the Pine Creek Reservoir Area, Southeast Oklahoma. 1969 Archaeological Site Report No. 11, Oklahoma River Basin Survey, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman. Prehistoric Lithic Preferences: Aids to Site Analysis. Session II, November 8, 1968, of the Twenty-Fifth Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 9, edited by B. J. Broyles, pp. 17-21, Morgantown, West Virginia. Yerkes, R. w. r99t Specialization in Shell Artifact Production at Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: from the Periphery, edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 49-64. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2, Prehistory Press, Views Madison, Wisconsin. 52 The Arkansas Archeologist ,.F "-r !i'J THH i- ,*4+'' l{ .,!,; 4/L RffiSAS RTHffi*L*GgST VspEaasffi* 43 f*r ?{}#2 KFasfuBfsEee$ €eE 2S#4 1t