Laserfiche WebLink
Therefore, the lithic surface assemblage is most likely not representative of materials that <br />make up the occupant’s tool kit nor does it provide an accurate accounting of the materials <br />being utilized. A better assessment of those materials would be an analysis of the percentages <br />exhibited by cast off tools. <br />Flake size was categorized based upon the maximum lengths: micro = 1 – 9 mm, small <br />= 9 – 18 mm, medium = 18 – 25 mm, large = 25 – 35 mm, extra large = 35 – 50 mm, very <br />large = 50+ mm. Flakes that exhibit some attrition or retouch were characterized as utilized, <br />although such characterization must be tempered with the understanding that flakes in surface <br />contexts that have been stepped on by animals or humans, or redistributed by sheet wash or <br />other post-depositional processes can exhibit similar characteristics as those that are <br />categorized as “utilized.” Documentation of such discrepancies is found in the analysis of <br />flakes derived from excavations at Cedar Siding Shelter in Emery County, Utah. The results <br />of that analysis documented that of the “92 utilized flakes collected, 43 flakes (47%) came <br />from the surface collections, although only 3.6% of the debitage was from the surface.” It <br />was concluded that domestic sheep sheltering in the overhang had created the “utilized” flakes <br />in surface contexts (Martin et al. 1983:106). <br />In-field identification of lithic material types and their colors is important for the <br />preliminary assessment of procured local versus imported lithic material(s). Accurate <br />description and identification of lithic materials adds significant data to site interpretations <br />providing information concerning routes traveled or whether these lithic materials were <br />obtained through trade. In some instances, prehistoric lithic material preferences may indicate <br />the manufacture of certain artifact types. Misidentifications can seriously skew the <br />interpretations. For example, non-volcanic glass, formed in burning coal seams is usually <br />identified as obsidian; while the former is local, the latter is exotic. Accordingly, lithic <br />material categories considered during this inventory include the following: opalitic chert <br />(semi-translucent and non-translucent), quartzite, porcellanite (siltstone and claystone), basalt, <br />crystalline quartz, obsidian, and non-volcanic glass. Color is also an important consideration. <br />On lithic scatters where flakes are the only artifact type the combination of material type, size, <br />and color may prove to be “diagnostic” of a particular culture or temporal period (notably <br />Numic). A better approach to lithic material identification is based on geological features and <br />fossil inclusions, and can frequently identify bedrock (primary) sources, and with an <br />understanding of bedrock and Quaternary geology, define materials from diamictites and <br />gravel sources (Miller 1992, 1996, 2010). <br />Documentation of Fire-cracked Rock <br />The documentation and distribution of fire-cracked rock (FCR) was also given due <br />diligence. It is often one of the largest cultural object(s) on a site. Even so, they can be and <br />often are easily redistributed by post-depositional processes. In an archaeological context <br />FCR is defined as a rock that has been altered and/ or split as a result of deliberate heating. It <br />is differentiated from thermally altered stone which generally exhibits little physical <br />modification or discoloration (Rapp et al. 1999). In many cases, fire-cracked rock resulted <br />when stones used to line hearths were heated to provide a longer-lasting heat-source. Boiling <br />50