Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Women and hide-working at the Little John Site (KdVo-6), Yukon Territory : a feminist application of… Handley, Jordan Danelle 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2020_november_handley_jordan.pdf [ 7.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0394157.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0394157-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0394157-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0394157-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0394157-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0394157-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0394157-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0394157-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0394157.ris

Full Text

  i  WOMEN AND HIDE-WORKING AT THE LITTLE JOHN SITE (KDVO-6), YUKON TERRITORY: A FEMINIST APPLICATION OF USE-WEAR ANALYSIS  by JORDAN DANELLE HANDLEY B.A. (hons.), Simon Fraser University, 2014  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Anthropology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   November 2020  © Jordan Danelle Handley, 2020  ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Women and hide-working at the Little John site (KdVo-6), Yukon Territory: A feminist application of use-wear analysis  submitted by Jordan Danelle Handley in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts  in Anthropology  Examining Committee: Andrew Martindale, Anthropology Supervisor  David Pokotylo, Anthropology Supervisory Committee Member  Susan Rowley, Anthropology Additional Examiner     iii  Abstract Amongst the Indigenous peoples of northern North America, hide-processing is dominated by female labour. The toolkit used is technologically variable and frequently expedient in nature. Indigenous groups from throughout northern North America were reviewed that demonstrate this gendered division of labour. This thesis examines whether archaeological hide-working toolkits are also characterized by variability and expediency, and whether detailed analyses of hide-production activities using stone tools as proxies can illuminate the roles and contributions of women in the deep past. I examined an assemblage of 219 stone artifacts from the Little John site (KdVo-6), Yukon Territory, Canada, recovered from the Chindadn component, dating from the Late Bølling Allerød Interstadial to the Younger Dryas (14,300-11,900 RCYBP). A multi-stage lithic functional analysis was conducted to isolate hide-working tools. This analysis proceeded through: Stage I—application of ethnographic analogy to inform the sample selection and provide functional inference, Stage II—use-wear analysis to identify used tools, and deduce the use motion and worked materials of those tools, and Stage III—macroscopic analysis to attain additional functional reasoning and classify the identified toolkit. A hide-working toolkit consisting of two formal and seven expedient tools was identified. The results support the ethnographic observation that lithic hide-working toolkits can be characterized by both variability and expediency. Consistencies between the ethnographic record and the Little John Chindadn assemblage support the argument that regionally, women were likely responsible for hide-production activities in the distant past. Using a feminist-approach to use-wear analysis, this thesis was able to uphold inferences depicted and derived in the ethnographic record of northwestern North America by isolating a hide-working toolkit while also illuminating the roles and contributions of women in eastern Beringia from approximately 14,300-11,900 RCYBP.  iv  Lay Summary Using a feminist approach, this thesis identifies a hide-working toolkit in an archaeological assemblage of stone tools from the Little John site (KdVo-6), Yukon Territory dating to 14,300-11,900 years before present. An ethnographic literature review suggests that hide-working activities during this time: a) were likely the responsibility primarily of women, b) required a stone toolkit characterized by expediency, and c) utilized a range of different tool types. Inferences were addressed with a multi-stage lithic functional analysis that included ethnographic, microscopic, and macroscopic analytical components, resulting in the identification of a hide-working toolkit composed of nine specimens. The resulting toolkit includes a range of tool types characterized by expediency and variability. The results of this research identified a hide-working activity area at the Little John site.  The expediency of the toolkit helps explain the limited visibility of women in the archaeological past and the variability conforms with a larger pattern in eastern Beringia.     v  Preface This thesis is an original, unpublished, intellectual product of the author, Jordan Danelle Handley.     vi  Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Thesis Organization .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Archaeological Background ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 A Brief Overview of Eastern Beringian Archaeology .......................................................... 5 2.2 The Little John Site ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Chrono-stratigraphy of the Chinadan Component ....................................................... 10 3 An Ethnographic Review of Women and Hide Production in North America .................. 13 3.1 Women and Hide-Production ............................................................................................. 15 3.2 The Hide-working Process and Toolkit .............................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Arctic Hide-working Toolkit ....................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Western Subarctic Hide-working Toolkit .................................................................... 22 3.3 Conclusion: Archaeological Implications for the Little John Site ...................................... 24  vii  4 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Stage I: Ethnographic Analysis and Sample Selection ....................................................... 27 4.2 Stage II: Microscopic Analysis ........................................................................................... 27 4.2.1 Sample Preparation ...................................................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Comparative Experimental Assemblage ...................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Microscopic Use-wear Methods and Materials ........................................................... 29 4.3 Stage III: Macroscopic Lithic Analysis .............................................................................. 31 5 Data, Analysis, and Results ..................................................................................................... 31 5.1 Stage I—Ethnographic Analysis ......................................................................................... 31 5.1.1 Data and Sample Selection .......................................................................................... 31 5.2 Stage II—Microscopic Analysis ......................................................................................... 32 5.2.1 Data and Sub-Sample Selection ................................................................................... 32 5.2.2 Analysis and Results .................................................................................................... 32 5.3 Stage III—Macroscopic Analysis ....................................................................................... 39 5.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 42 5.4.1 Formal Hide-working Toolkit ...................................................................................... 42 5.4.2 Expedient Hide-working Toolkit ................................................................................. 43 6 Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 44 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 49 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 51 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 60  viii  Appendix 1: The Little John Site Radio Carbon Chronology................................................... 60 Appendix 2: Hide-working Use-wear Experiment ................................................................... 61 Appendix 3: Use-Wear Characteristics for Inferring the Method of Use-Expanded................ 73 Appendix 4: Use-Wear Characteristics for Inferring the Worked Material ............................. 74 Appendix 5: Variables Used to Infer Function ......................................................................... 75 Appendix 6: Data—Tool Identification .................................................................................... 76 Appendix 7: Data—Active Part Identification ......................................................................... 80 Appendix 8: Data—Use Motion Identification......................................................................... 84 Appendix 9: Data—Worked Material Identification ................................................................ 90 Appendix 10: Data—Artifact and Use-Wear Images ............................................................... 98 Appendix 11: Data—Macroscopic Lithic Analysis ................................................................ 116     ix  List of Tables Table 1. Stone tools with ethnographically observed functions in hide-working......................... 18 Table 2. Ethnographically observed tools functioning in hide production activities. .................. 20 Table 3. Use-wear characteristics for inferring methods of use relevant to hide processing. ...... 30 Table 4. Use-wear characteristics for inferring hide materials. .................................................... 31 Table 5. Microwear results of the hide-working toolkit from the Chindadn component at the Little John site. ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 6. Macroscopic analysis—classification, raw material, and dimension data...................... 40 Table 7. Macroscopic analysis—active parts data. ....................................................................... 41  x  List of Figures Figure 1. Regional and situated location of the Little John site (Courtesy of N.A. Easton). ......... 9 Figure 2. Arial photograph of the Little John site identifying site lobes (Easton et al. 2020). ....... 9 Figure 3. Stratigraphic profile representative of the west lobe (Courtesy Michael Grooms) . .. 11 Figure 4. Stratigraphic profile representative of the east lobe (Courtesy Michael Grooms). ....... 11 Figure 5. Summed probability distributions for radiocarbon dates of the Little John site, Yukon-Alaska borderlands region, and Tanana River Basin (Courtesy Thomas J. Brown). ................... 13 Figure 6. Dull greasy polish observed on experimental obsidian scraper (225x). ........................ 28 Figure 7. Edge rounding, unifacial scarring, and dull greasy polish observed on experimental basaltic scraper (50x). ................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 8. Macro- and micro-photographs of KdVo-6:96 .............................................................. 34 Figure 9. Photograph of the hide-working formal tool assemblage.............................................. 43 Figure 10. Photograph of the hide-working expedient tool assemblage. ...................................... 44     xi  Acknowledgements I begin by acknowledging the communities of Beaver Creek, Tetlin, and Tanacross who continue to enrich and guide my work through the gifts of their knowledge, friendship, land, and collaboration since my initial field season at Little John in 2011. I have been graciously welcomed and taught by many members of these villages, most specifically the Johnny Family. Thank you to my advisory committee, Dr. David Pokotylo who supported me as a supervisor until his retirement, wherein my existing committee member Dr. Andrew Martindale later filled this role.  Thank you to my external examiner Dr. Susan Rowley. My mentor Norman Alexander Easton has supported me through this process both personally and professionally, for which I am eternally grateful.  I have received invaluable technical and conceptual support on varying aspects of this research from my colleague Michael Grooms and peer Thomas Brown. Lab support from Nicole Lamb and Heidi Swierenga contributed substantially to the analytical process. Ty Heffner, Greg Hare, Valerie Mahon, and Christian Thomas of the Yukon Heritage Branch have provided various supports and plenty of patience. Financial support for my research has been provided through research stipends from Yukon University, University of British Columbia-Department of Anthropology, and the Canadian Northern Studies Trust of the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, as well as a sponsorship grant from the Philanthropic Educational Organization Sisterhood (AE Chapter—Vancouver).  Lastly, I would be remiss not to thank my family and friends who have contributed to the success of this work.     xii  Dedication I dedicate this work to two people—Little John, a man whose legacy I aspire to honour, and Little Johnny, the man I am aspiring to raise.  1  1 Introduction The archaeological record of eastern Beringia has received minimal analytical attention towards assessment of the presence, roles and contributions of women to past lifeways. It has been demonstrated in the discipline generally that gendered analyses are typically avoided, yet archaeological interpretation remains beset by gendered assumptions, particularly evident in the emphasis on male activities and their assumed male signatures (Brumbach and Jarvenpa, 1997: 45; Spencer-Wood, 2007: 29-30; 2011: 4). Whether inadvertent or inherent, this form of androcentrism has been prominent within the archaeology of big-game hunting societies (Jarvenpa and Brumbach, 2006, 2009; Miller, 2014; Waguespack 2005; Whelan 1995), including the overrepresentation of Pleistocene mega-fauna hunters that is entrenched in the interpretive narrative of eastern Beringia (Heppner 2017: 1).  Lithic analysis throughout the region has maintained a focus on hunting strategies and weapon systems to establish a cultural chronology for the earliest occupations dating to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene transition (Easton et al., 2007, 2011; Holmes, 2001; Potter et al., 2014; Rasic, 2011; Wygal, 2016). However, the resulting inter- and intra-site variability suggests that microblade and projectile point technologies may not be culturally diagnostic, supporting a re-evaluation of archaeological constructs in the region (Potter et al., 2007, 38). At the forefront of this re-evaluation is further documentation of the nature of variability through detailed studies of lithic assemblages including formal and expedient tool types (Goebel and Buvit, 2011, 23; Potter et al. 2007, 38). Some have addressed this variability through technological and typological analyses at the inter- and intra-site levels (Heidenreich, 2012; Younie and Gillespie, 2016), but such analyses remain limited within the region (Wygal, 2018: 294). Additionally, culturally diagnostic tools or toolkits functioning in subsistence activities beyond food procurement have not  2  received comparable attention. A gendered approach to lithic analysis, including functional analyses of non-hunting lithic technologies, remains an underutilized approach from which regional understandings of technological organization and cultural adaptations in early eastern Beringia may be advanced. Archaeology relies on material proxies to make inferences about cultural and natural phenomena not directly observable, including but not limited to identity constructs such as gender. The archaeology of gender and hide production has gained significant traction as a research pursuit by feminist scholars within precontact North American archaeology (Kehoe, 2005; Klokkernes, 2010; Rielly, 2015; Ruth, 2013; Ryan, 2016; Schieber, 2005). Although both the direct evidence of gender, as well as the products of hide production, are largely absent in the archaeological record, their associated toolkits can serve as proxies for exploring the activities of women, furthering our understandings of gendered activities and the role of women in the formation of archaeological assemblages. A lithic form and function analysis, informed by the ethnographic record, of formal and expedient tools has the potential to address current regional interests while also documenting the under-represented contributions of women to hunter-gatherer-forager lifeways. Such an endeavour continues to develop the archaeological methodology needed for social identity categories such as gender, and in this case women specifically, to be accepted amongst the array of inferential and abductive inquiries into the otherwise unobservable aspects of past human organization and behaviour within the discipline.  The Little John site (KdVo-6) is located in the southwestern Yukon Territory in a region unglaciated at the end of the Pleistocene. Human occupation of the site has been recorded from approximately 14,100 cal BP, by a founding population of highly mobile hunter-gatherers, through to the present-day Upper Tanana-speaking Dineh (Easton et al., 2018). A diverse assemblage of  3  faunal remains and lithic artifacts recovered within a fine-scale chronology suggests it was a multi-component seasonal camp wherein a range of subsistence activities were carried out, making it an ideal case study for the application of a gendered lithic analysis for both the documentation of women in the region’s distant past and the exploration of hide-processing technology to advance our understanding of its technological organization in Eastern Beringia.  1.1 Research Objectives  Ethnographic literature detailing hide-working activities in northwestern North America suggests that a wide range of stone tools, some formal and others expedient in nature, functioned in varying stages of production both within and between cultural groups. This range of tools aligns with Shott’s proposal (1995: 54) to reconceptualize hide-working as a “class of activity” encompassing a diverse “subset of specific actions” requiring a variable toolkit. However, this larger hide-working toolkit, including detailed analyses of expedient technology, has not received the same technological attention archaeologists have applied to hunting toolkits.  My thesis will address this important gap in lithic analyses.  My thesis examines whether a hide-working toolkit, as documented in the ethnographic literature of northwestern North America, can be identified within the lithic assemblage of the regionally defined Chindadn component—dating from the Late Bølling Allerød Interstadial to the Younger Dryas (14,300-11,900 RCYBP)—at the Little John site. My approach was to assess the general nature of this toolkit and whether it is characterized by technological variability, as suggested by the ethnographic literature, and the subsequent implications of the archaeological visibility of hide-working activities. I then assessed whether this toolkit could be used to further understandings of the technological organization and activities taking place during the Chindadn  4  occupation. Lastly, I explored whether this toolkit can be used to illuminate and document the roles and activities of women within eastern Beringia’s most distant past.  1.2 Thesis Organization The following Section 2 presents the archaeological background of this study. It begins with an introduction of the site within the larger eastern Beringian context followed by background on the Little John site including the surrounding landscape, glacial history, site layout, proposed chronology for the early occupations, and the chronostratigraphy. Section 3 is an ethnographic analysis of gendered practices in hide production. It relies on homoplastic inference, a type-level analogical inference linking the co-occurrence of specific traits between two or more groups to establish confidence in the likelihood of a shared feature, or cultural phenomenon (Currie, 2016) to assess the potentiality of hide-processing activities as a female enterprise in the distant past.  The review is comprised of Indigenous populations from throughout the Arctic and western Subarctic regions of North America. Section 4 presents the methods for the subsequent three-stage functional lithic analysis proposed to achieve the objective of identifying a hide-working toolkit within the Chindadn sub-assemblage at the Little John site. This includes: ethnographic analogy (Stage I), lithic use-wear analysis (Stage II), and form-function macroscopic lithic analysis (Stage III). Section 5 presents the data selection process, as well as the subsequent analysis and results. Section 6 is an interpretive discussion of the results, and Section 7 presents concluding remarks on the contributions of the study and of continued feminist archaeological research in Eastern Beringia.  2 Archaeological Background  The Little John site (KdVo-6) is a multi-component seasonal camp located 12 km northwest of the village of Beaver Creek, Yukon Territory, and 2 km east of the international  5  boundary with Alaska. It is located on the upper reach of Cheejil Niik (/grayling creek/ English Mirror Creek) – the easternmost headwaters of the Tanana River drainage. Although the cultural significance of Little John has long been locally recognized, the archaeological antiquity of the site was only acknowledged in 2002. As part of a multi-disciplinary initiative, the Scottie Creek Borderlands Culture History Project led by Norman Alexander Easton of the Yukon College, with a cohort of field-school students, and White River First Nation member Joseph (Tommy) Johnny—eldest son of the late Little John (a resident Upper Tanana elder), began archaeological survey of the region, which included initial testing of Little John’s hunting camp. Subsequent intensive archaeological investigations through to 2017 established the initial cultural occupation of the site from ca. 14,300 cal BP by a founding population of eastern Beringian hunter-gatherer-foragers, through to the present-day Upper Tanana-speaking Dineh (Easton et al., 2018). It is recognized as the second oldest site in northern North America (Easton et al., 2011; Potter et al., 2014, 2017), with the basal level and assemblage leading to new hypotheses on the technological organization of the earliest known archaeological culture occupying eastern Beringia (Easton et al. 2020). 2.1 A Brief Overview of Eastern Beringian Archaeology  Geographically, Beringia is the ancient landmass encompassing unglaciated areas of northeast Asia, northwest North America, and the land bridge between, now mostly inundated by the Bering Sea that connected the two during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) between ca. 30,000 to 12,000 cal. BP (Goebel and Buvit, 2011). Eastern Beringia of Alaska and Yukon is a area of migration into and subsequent peopling of the New World (Goebel and Buvit, 2011, Potter et al., 2014, 2017).  Archaeological research in eastern Beringia has been impeded by the vast and remote  6  northern landscape and by the small group size and highly mobile nature of these early peoples. As such, understandings of the overall cultural chronology, including technological organization and adaptations during the terminal Pleistocene remain equivocal and contested within the discipline. One general consensus, amidst efforts to define a culture-historical framework, is the high degree of technological variability exhibited in the region during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene transition (Goebel and Buvit, 2011: 23; Potter et al., 2007: 38). The earliest widely recognized evidence of human occupation is from chronozone (CZ) 4b of the Swan Point site on the Tanana River at Shaw Creek dated to 14,200-13,800 cal. years BP (Graf et al., 2019; Holmes, 2007). Within CZ-4b—a microblade technology comparable to the Diuktai Culture of western Beringia has been recovered. This uses the Yubetsu technique of producing microblade cores on a prepared biface, unlike later North American microblade industries (Gómez Coutouly, 2011; Holmes, 2011). Above this lie two components assigned to the Chindadn complex dating 13,500 - 12,000 cal. years BP. Originally defined by Cook (1969) at the Healy Lake site, the Chindadn complex is typified by the presence of tear-drop bifaces, the absence of microblade technology, and a general emphasis on bifacial technology. This complex also has western Beringian antecedents found at Berelekh and Nikita Lake 1 (Pitulko, 2016).  Additional diagnostic materials include triangular and subtriangular shaped bifaces, blades, end-scrapers, side-scrapers, wedges, perforators, and large cobble tools. Sites exhibiting these temporal and typological requirements have been identified in the Nenana Valley (where they are designated the Nenana Complex (Hoffecker et al., 1988) at Dry Creek (Powers et al., 2017), Moose Creek (Pearson, 1999), and Walker Road (Goebel et al., 1996); the Tanana River Valley at Healy Lake (Sattler et al., 2011, Younie and Gillespie, 2016), Broken Mammoth (Holmes, 1996), Swan Point (Potter et al., 2014), Little John (Easton and Mackay, 2008), and the Teklanika Valley at Owl  7  Ridge (Hoffecker et al., 1996).  The Denali complex, dating to 11,500-9,500 years ago (i.e., late/post Younger Dyas), was originally defined by West (1967) based on sites from the north Alaska Range (Donelly Ridge, Teklanika, and Campus, the latter subsequently identified as middle Holocene in age, see Mobley, 1991). It is characterized by microblade technology including wedge-shaped cores and transverse “Donelly burins”. In addition to the river valleys occupied during the Chindadn/Nenana complex, the Denali complex is well-known from the Brooks Range, where similar assemblages at Onion Portage were the basis for the definition of the American Paleoarctic Tradition (Anderson, 1968, 1970, 1988), and have come to be additionally recognized in a large range of ecological contexts throughout the region including maritime, transitional, interior, montane, northern, central, and coastal Alaska and Yukon (Easton, 2015: 46). Importantly, Denali microblade cores, although sharing a similar morphology with earlier Yubetsu microcores (i.e., wedge-shaped when exhausted) are produced on unifacially modified flakes, a method unique to North America (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes, 2018). The relationship between the two “complexes” remains at the forefront of archaeological research in the region today. Some maintain that the two “complexes” are temporally continuous and should be lumped together within a larger singular tradition (Holmes, 2001; Potter, 2008; Potter et al., 2013; West, 1996; Wygal, 2018). Others suggest that the Chindadn/Nenana and Denali are distinct, either contemporaneous or separate, and that the technological variability is therefore, culturally significant (Ackerman 2007, 2011; Dixon, 1999). Research addressing variability includes approaches such as land-use strategies, seasonality, manufacturing techniques, and hafting styles. The refined chrono-stratigraphy of the Little John site, outlined in the following section, supports a technological and temporal distinction between the Chindadn and Denali  8  complexes (Easton et al. 2011) and suggests further distinction of an earlier component that is contemporaneous with but technologically distinctive from Swan Point’s CZ-4b (Easton et al. 2020). 2.2 The Little John Site Measuring approximately 55 x 65 m2, the Little John site is situated on a knoll with a north-to-south vantage point of the Mirror Creek Valley and the Nutzotin and Wrangell-St. Elias Mountain chain to the south (Figure 1). The knoll feature is geologically complex and archaeological materials have been recovered from the overlook, the eroding hillsides, and the deep sedimentary basins surrounding it, resulting in discontinuous and variable stratigraphy across the site. The nature of this formation has resulted in distinctive chrono-stratigraphic descriptions specific to five defined areas (Figure 2) within the site and has elicited a series of dating techniques, including a rigorous radiocarbon chronology for one of the predominant areas, to establish temporal correlations across the overlook.  The site overlays a basal regolith comprised of the contact between metasedimentary rocks of the Triassic Mirror Creek Formation and mafic intrusive rocks assigned to the Triassic Snag Creek suite. The Snag Creek rocks are resistant to weathering and form a linear NW-SE trending ridge that defines the SW edge of the site. Above this bedrock is sparse glacial till assigned to “the Mirror Creek glacial advance (corresponding to the central Yukon’s Reid and North American Illinoian glacial events), variously dated to the Late Illinoian – MIS 6, c. 140,000 BP (Bostock, 1965; Krinsley, 1965) or the Early Wisconsin – MIS 4, c. 70,000 BP (Denton, 1974; Hughes et al., 1989). However, the Late Wisconsin advance of glacial ice, identified locally as the McCauley glacial advance (corresponding to the central Yukon's McConnell and the North American Wisconsin glacial periods), ended at McCauley Ridge, some 50 kilometers southeast, and began a  9  rapid recession at about 13,500 BP; by 11,000 BP the region was ice-free to at least the White River, some 150 kilometers to the southeast (Rampton 1971)” (See Easton, 2012:13).   Figure 1. Regional and situated location of the Little John site (Courtesy of N.A. Easton).  Figure 2. Arial photograph of the Little John site identifying site lobes (Easton et al. 2020). The basal cultural sediments are post LGM loess deposits of Allerod, Younger Dryas, and Milankovich Thermal Maximum in age. Above the loess are brunisol soils, ranging from 10 - 20 cm in depth, that may be interceded by deposits of volcanic ash, currently presumed to date to the  10  second eruption of the White River Volcano approximately 1,200 BP1. The stratigraphy is then capped by an organic O/A horizon of variable depth from 2 to 3 cm of organic mat to 30 cm of sphagnum organics in shaded areas.  The site has been divided into stratigraphic zones that recognize the variable depositional processes across the site defining differential stratigraphic sequences (Figure 2). To the north is the swale lobe (SL) capped by an estimated 50 to 60 ft of loess between bedrock and the brunisol horizon. The permafrost lobe (PL), where permafrost is encountered mere centimeters below surface, is the north-facing slope of the knoll. The apex lobe (AL) exhibits large cobbles throughout the brunisol and loess deposits and is centrally located, running north-to-south. The west lobe (WL), situated on the southwestern hillside, is comprised of conflated deposits ranging from 5 to 40 cms in depth (Figure 3). Lastly, the east lobe (EL) is the central portion of the site grading into the deep swale lobe (Figure 2). The loess below brunisol in this area is interspersed with a series of undulating paleosol strata, designated the Paleosol Complex (Figure 4). Cultural materials are concentrated in the west and east lobes. The majority of lithic artifacts have been recovered in the former with faunal remains and bone artifacts in the latter.  2.2.1 Chrono-stratigraphy of the Chinadan Component  The Little John site presents temporally and stratigraphically distinct Chindadn complex type artifacts below characteristic Denali complex artifacts (Easton et al., 2011), evidenced by a series of 46 radiocarbon dates (Figure 3; Appendix 1; Easton et al., 2018, 2020). The Denali Complex dates to the post Younger Dryas Occupation Period (OP) III (11,100 – 10,500 cal. BP). In the west lobe, it is recovered in the lower B2 stratum and in the east lobe from Paleosol 1 (P-1) and the upper Paleosol Complex 1 (PC1-P2). Classic Chindadn Complex (Chindadn Bifaces Type  1 Research to definitively associate the ash deposit to one of the two White River Volcano eruptions is currently in.   11  1 and 2) technology is found in OP I-b (13,080 – 12,000 cal. BP), while a single late Chindadn Type 3 biface lies within the OP II deposits (12,000 – 11,200 cal. BP) (Homes, 2014). In the eastern lobe, OP I-b is associated with the Late Allerod and Early Younger Dryas climatic period. It is limited to the Loess Below Paleosol Complex stratum, which also holds an Early Allerod OP I-a dated to c. 14,000 cal. BP. OP II, from the Late Younger Dryas to the post Younger Dryas (12,000-11,000 cal. BP) is limited to Paleosol Complex 2 and 3 (PC2-P3 and PC3-P4) dating from 11,190-11,400 cal. BP. The extensive Chindadn technology found in the basal loess strata of the West Lobe can be grouped with the East Lobe OP I-b dates based on morphological grounds.   Figure 3. Stratigraphic profile representative of the west lobe (Courtesy Michael Grooms) .   Figure 4. Stratigraphic profile representative of the east lobe (Courtesy Michael Grooms).  12  OP I-a is the earliest dated occupation at the site, consisting of artifacts and fauna in the East Lobe Loess Below Paleosol Complex stratum and dated to the early Allerod Interstadial Four OP I-a radiocarbon dates range from 13,730-14,156 cal. BP. These dates are comparable to the earliest component at Swan Point (Figure 5)2. Associated cultural materials are exclusively expedient and include a flake core, retouched split pebbles, utilized flakes, cobble choppers, hammerstones, and culturally modified bison and wapiti faunal remains. Given that the OP I-a assemblage lacks diagnostic materials, cultural associations remain equivocal. Considering the wide 2-sigma distribution of the earliest dates, Easton et al. (2020) argue that they are best interpreted as representing an occupation ca. 14,000 Cal BP, reasoning it is at this point that the tails of distribution best overlap. In addition, they suggest three hypotheses to account for the cultural nature of OP I-a (Easton et al. 2020): 1. Based on similarity of dates of occupation, OP I-a is an ephemeral expression of basal Swan Point Dyuktai, lacking evidence of microblade technology. 2. The basal West Lobe Loess assemblage represents a deflated mixed assemblage of formed tools deposited during both OP I-a and OP I-b, indicating that the Chindadn complex at Little John spans the Early and Late Allerod. 3. The OP I-a assemblage represents a unique currently unrecognized cultural complex. The remainder of this study seeks to isolate a hide-working toolkit within the Little John Chindadn assemblage recovered from OP II-b (Basal Loess/PC2-P3 and PC3), OP IIa (Basal Loess/Loess below Paleosol Complex-P5) and conservatively includes the materials from OP I-a and b (Basal Loess/Loess below Paleosol Complex-P6), but excludes the Denali materials (OPIII).  2 A standard phase model using OxCal v4.2 was applied in the construction of a summed probability distribution for the Little John radiocarbon dates which was compared to available dates from the Yukon-Alaska borderlands and the Tanana River Basin regions respectively (See Brown et al.2019).  13  It will also evaluate the inference that this was likely a female enterprise in the distant past. While my research will not resolve the Chindadn-Denali debate, it presents an alternative approach to lithic analyses in the region from which technological variability can be further defined and detailed while simultaneously illuminating the roles and contributions of women to eastern Beringian lifeways.   Figure 5. Summed probability distributions for radiocarbon dates of the Little John site, Yukon-Alaska borderlands region, and Tanana River Basin (Courtesy Thomas J. Brown).  3 An Ethnographic Review of Women and Hide Production in North America A division of labour wherein women were predominantly or dominantly responsible for the production of hides is characteristic of North American Indigenous populations exhibiting subsistence practices dependent on procurement of large game (Driver and Massey, 1957:343-344; see also Albright, 1984, Pokotylo and Hanks, 1989). Using ethnographic inference, I suggest that this was a characteristic of such societies in the distant past. Furthermore, I argue that the material culture used in hide production activities as ethnographically reported is a useful proxy to investigate the roles and contributions of women in the archaeological past within the North American context.  14  Analogies are based on the premise that if two things are similar in one or more contexts, they are likely to be similar in others (Deal 2017, 35). The application of ethnographic analogies to make inferences on archaeological subjects has received substantial critique (Lyman and O’Brien 2001, Schmidt 2010), with analogies being acknowledged to degrade as the antiquity of the archaeological subject increases. From even a critical perspective, however, it is typically maintained that ethnographic analogies are useful in the formation of testable hypotheses. Contra to criticism, it has been suggested that used in a strategic or controlled manner, ethnographic analogy is not inherently faulty and maintains inferential value beyond hypothesis formation (Jarvenpa and Brumbach 2015; Wylie 1985, 1988, 1989). Further, Currie (2016) reports that the application and reliance of comparative data within archaeology is not unlike other sciences such as biology. He attributes the primary difference in the application of analogy to the high degree of internal skepticism confronted by the former.  In consideration of this, I structure my argument and application of ethnographic analogy using homoplastic inference–a type-level analogical inference linking the co-occurrence of specific traits between two or more groups to establish confidence in the likelihood of a shared feature, or cultural phenomenon (see Currie 2016).  The feature of this analysis is hide production as a set of activities carried out predominantly or exclusively by women. The traits that overlap to link the archaeological context—occupants of the Little John site dating to the Chindadn component, to the ethnographic context—analogous Indigenous groups from northern North America, include; 1) climatic context; 2) subsistence strategy; 3) geophysical landscape, and; 4) cultural affinity and/or relatedness.  The following subsections review the ethnographic literature of hide working amongst Indigenous peoples from two geographic regions: 1) the Arctic—Inuit and Yup’ik and 2) the  15  western Subarctic—Dene. Inuit and Yup’ik are viable cultural analogues to past Little John occupants based on the mutual compatibility of trait one—a northern climate and trait two—a subsistence strategy focused on the procurement of large mammals. The Dene territory and past occupants of Little John exhibit traits one through four to varying degrees of likeness. The Dene inhabit comparable environments, are large-game hunting societies, occupy the same or similar geophysical landscapes and may be ethnically related to the occupants of the Little John site.  I argue that it is reasonable to infer that female occupants at the Little John site between 14,300-11,900 RCYBP were predominantly, if not solely responsible for processing hides. I also demonstrate that hide-working toolkits are more diverse and variable than often depicted in traditional approaches to archaeology. Exploration and documentation of this variation has the potential to reveal significantly more knowledge on the technological organization of eastern Beringia generally, and hide-working practices and contributions of women to these lifeways, specifically.  3.1 Women and Hide-Production The Arctic physical environment is dynamic due to its longitudinal expansiveness across northern North America which includes numerous subzones characterized by combinations of sea and tundra. Three geophysical factors are suggested to define the climatic boundary of this region—average July temperatures of 10 ° C, the boreal forest treeline, and continuous permafrost (Stager and McSkimming 1984, 27). These are the result of low heat energy and correspond with paleoclimatic features of the study area during the terminal Pleistocene. The Arctic climate delimits the degree of plant food gathering opportunity, in turn heightening dependencies on hunted animal foods. Traditionally, Inuit and Yup’ik utilize marine and terrestrial mammals, while the subsistence of past Little John occupants relied heavily on terrestrial game evidenced by the  16  abundance of medium and large faunal remains recovered (Yesner et al. 2011). Dependency on hunted migratory game is a marked feature of Arctic peoples in general, and past Little John inhabitants. Much of the ethnographic literature explicitly describes hide processing as practiced principally by women (Aksaajuq Otak 2005; Arima 1984; Balikci 1984; Boas 1888, Collins et al., 1945, Giddings, 1952:Lantis 1984: Larsen and Rainey, 1948; Murdoch 1967; Murdoch, 1892, Oswalt and Vanstone 1967: Vanstone 1989). The Subarctic Dene share many common traits with past occupants of the Little John site. Most notably, the physical landscape connects those of the past to contemporary descendant populations—most evident for the Upper-Tanana speaking Dene and neighbouring relatives. While the current subarctic climate differs from the terminal Pleistocene paleoclimate, regions of markedly uniform environment suggest that some aspects transcend time. These include permafrost and tundra (although discontinuous), extreme seasonal fluctuations, and considerable aridity (Gardner, 1981).  Hunting of large migratory game is the primary feature of the subsistence economy for past and present populations. The traditional subsistence economy of contemporary peoples also includes the gathering of plant resources that would not have been available in this region in the preceding late Pleistocene/early Holocene. The biological relatedness of contemporary northern Dene and the eastern Beringian population (see Potter et al., 2017) that occupied Little John between 14,300-11,900 RCYBP is inconclusive. However, mounting genetic (Fraught, 2017; Llamas et al., 2016, 2017; Raghavan et al., 2015; Reich et al., 2012; Skoglund and Reich, 2016; Tamm et al., 2007) and linguistic data (Ives et al., 2010; Vajda, 2010) strongly support the possibility of a descendent relationship between contemporary Dene of North America and an east Asian population. A detailed review of this literature is beyond the scope of the current analysis.  17  Therefore, recent research supports analogical relevance between modern Dene populations and early occupants of Little John in terms of cultural affinity. The ethnographic literature for the Dene indicates that women held primary responsibility for hide processing (Albright 1984; de Laguna and McClellan 1981; Helm and June 1961; Honigmann 1946, 1949; Janes 1983; Lane 1981; McKennan 1959; Murdoch 1967; Osgood 1937, 1940, 1971; Pokotylo and Hanks 1989; Reilly 2015).  3.2 The Hide-working Process and Toolkit This ethnographic review also suggests that though techniques and tools used in hide-working often vary (Table 1), the overall process bears marked similarities, and activities can be grouped into three general stages (Table 2)3. The initial stage includes the immediate preparation of skin including the removal of the skin (skinning) and subsequent removal of flesh from the skin (fleshing). The intermediate stage consists of thinning the skin to an even thickness and dehairing of the hide, if desired. The final stage is dominated by the softening of the skin which is achieved in two ways, a cyclical process of soaking, drying and smoking the skin, and the scraping of a dry skin. Additionally, the maintenance and manufacture of hide-products can be included in this final stage.  Presently, hide-working is accomplished predominantly by use of metal tools and much of the ethnographic literature reports on this metal hide-working toolkit. Traditionally, however, this toolkit consisted of stone and bone tools. Table 1 reports on descriptions of the stone tools used in hide-working activities for various Indigenous peoples across North America from ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological literature that acknowledges the role as the dominant processors of hide.4 3 For a detailed account from a traditional perspective see Tom (1981) and an ethnoarchaeological perspective see Albright (1984).  4 See Hepner 2017 for a detailed feminist analysis on the bone hide-working toolkit from the Broken River site.   18  Table 1. Stone tools with ethnographically observed functions in hide-working. Tool Described Use/Function Reference Culture Group Quotation Adze Scraping De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena In our discussion of planing adzes (p. 121) we mentioned five blades which might have been used for scrapers or fleshers, and it is also possible that some of the other small blades described as adze blades would not have been used as scrapers (128)  Scraping De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena In addition to the seven scrapers from Bonasila, there is also a very large scraper or cleaver of andesite, with curved edge, measuring 29 x 19 cm (Pl. Xii, 3) (128).  Fleshing De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena As a flesher . . . the Tena use a bent or straight iron blade, sometimes with a notched edge, hafted in a curved wooden handle (Pl. XVII, 3-6). The corresponding tool, used before the introduction of steel is represented by the thin adz-like scraper blade (see p. 121) and by chipped end scrapers (127).  Scraping De Laguna 1947 Eskimo Of fifteen blades, eleven were probably for adzes and four, for either small adzes of scrapers (150).  . . . the specimen is usually roughly finished, the cutting edge generally shows a good polish. With two exceptions, the blades are flat. One of these has a high facetted back (Pl. XXV, 23, R) like the specimen from Hologochaket (Pl. XI, 5); the other is a fragment of an adze or scraper blade with slight facets (150). The Adz-like character of the Eskimo scraper is further exhibited by the fact that exactly the same type of small celt may be used for both the scraper and the adz (187).  Scraping  De Laguna and Horton Old Bering Sea  Those of the Old Bering Sea Culture are of hard rock, shaped like a planing adz blade, except that polished edge meets the lower surface at an abrupt angle, sometimes almost at a right angle (186). Whetstone Scraping De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena A whetstone from Old Fish Camp, with one end roughly chipped, was also mentioned as a possible scraper (128).  Softening Murdoch 1892  Iñupiat This is then rubbed down with a flat piece of sandstone or gypsum, and finally chalk, so that when finished it seems like pipeclayed leather. All furs are prepared in the same way (300). “Chi Tho”; ulo-shaped scraper; hide softener; tabular biface Scraping De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena Two ulo-shaped scrapers of chipped slate come from Jackson Creek on the Yukon above Tanana. One of these is a roughly worked oval slab (Pl. XIII, 19), the other is neatly chipped with a curved scraping edge and a straight back (Pl. XIII, 17) (39). These are chips and sharp-edged slabs of andesite picked up on the beach and often utilized without further shaping. The crude workmanship of those that have been retouched, of which Hrdlicka secured a number, suggested at first that they might have belonged to an early culture at the site. I believe, however, that they are no different from other ulo-shaped scrapers of the Tena (128). These tools [ulo-shaped scrapers] were used unhafted, or, according to Jette, were hafted in an ulo handle (187).  Fine skin work Osgoode 1940 Ingalik Small ulus with thin blades are used on fine skin work, etc. (90).  Softening McKennan 1959 Upper Tanana After being soaked and wrung out, the skin is hung over a transverse pole and scraped and worked thoroughly with an ulu shaped implement of slate. This scraping is the most important part of the process for upon it depends the ultimate softness of the leather. When the skin has been worked dry it is put to soak after which it is given another scraping. After this has been repeated several times, the skin assumes an exceedingly soft texture (83). A second and cruder form is used for working skins. The latter is often a semicircular piece of thin slate without a handle of any kind (66).  Softening/ Dressing Albright 1984 Tahltan This tool is usually made from a coarse-grained basalt pebble, the manufacture of which is described below. The dressing tool is used with two hands, one grasping the hafted stone pushes with some force against the skin, the other hand grasping the end of the handle pulls towards the body as illustrated in Figure 21. The tool is worked against the hide in a downward or sideways motion (56-57). All tools have cortex remaining on their dorsal surfaces. The manufacture of a new tool takes about ten minutes (57). Dressing stones appear to have a long life span. Two or three hides can be dressed with a tool before it requires resharpening (57-58). Although the stone material is abundant and the method of manufacture fairly simple, many stone dressing tools appear to be highly curated. Several tools observed in 1979 and 1980 were reputed to be 100 years old (58).  Softening Reilly 2015 Kaska This is a tool that is used to soften hides (Figure 2-5). Often constructed from a tabular stone, it is bifacially worked along one or more margins by removing flakes from both the dorsal and ventral (top and bottom) faces, typically resulting in a characteristic D-shape. The stone scraper is usually inserted into a wooden haft; and is worked over the hide, stretching and  19  scraping, until the hide takes on a soft and somewhat “fluffy” texture (18).  Fleshing  Rainey 1939 Upper Tanana One of the native women at Gulkana obligingly made several for us in the following manner: a flat oval pebble selected from the beach was struck so that a thin, discoidal flake was detached; the edge of the flake was then battered against another stone to produce a blunt, retouched edge. In the Upper Tanana dialect these tools are called tchi-tho (360).  Drying Honigmann 1946 Slave After having been smoked once, the hide was again washed and the water pressed out with a stone finishing stick made by hafting a piece of soft stone in a long wooden handle (53).   Softening Honigmann 1949 Kaska The skin is now again lashed to a stretching frame and softened by being scraped with a chipped stone or dull axe blade set in a wooden handle. . . . The stone end is then rubbed against the hide with as much pressure as possible (Pl. 8,D) (78).   Softening Osgoode 1940 Ingalik -It is simply a piece of rock or stone found on a beach, either river-borne or a piece broken off from the bluff. …perhaps 6 inches long. It is used just as found, except for a piece of tanned skin, which serves as a holder to save the hand (81).  -The flat rough side of the stone is rubbed over the skin, which is laid over the work board. The stone is rubbed back and forth . . .The skin being tanned is dry, and the stone as it rubs back and forth makes a loud noise (81).  End-Scraper Fleshing  De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena As a flesher . . . the Tena use a bent or straight iron blade, sometimes with a notched edge, hafted in a curved wooden handle (Pl. XVII, 3-6). The corresponding tool, used before the introduction of steel is represented by the thin adz-like scraper blade (see p. 121) and by chipped end scrapers (127).  Fleshing Murdoch 1892  Iñupiat For removing bits of flesh, fat, etc., from a “green” skin, and for “breaking the grain” and removing the subcutaneous tissue from a dried skin, the women, who appear to do most if not all of this work, use a tool consisting of a blunt stone blade, mounted in a short, thick haft of wood or ivory, . . . . The skin is laid upon the thigh and thoroughly scraped with (294) this tool, which is grasped firmly in the right hand and pushed from the worker (295). This specimen is very neatly made and polished, and all the edges are rounded off (295).  Scraping Osgoode 1940 Ingalik This tool is made from a black, slate-like stone found on the beach (argillite), spruce root (near the trunk), babiche lashing line, and a piece of caribou skin (79). When scraping heavy caribou skins or fish skins, the action of the tool sounds like a steel file on metal (80).  Side-Scraper Not listed (Inferred “scraping”) De Laguna and Horton 1947 Tena Some of the largest end scraper blades, especially those which are rather poorly made, cannot easily be distinguished from the large side scrapers which I discuss below as ulo-shaped scrapers (186).  Not listed Rainey 1939 Campus Site . . . semi-lunar side scrapers retouched on one face only, . . . (383). Cobble Scraper Not listed (Inferred “scraping”) Nelson 1989 St. Michael, Norton Sound . . . rounded, boulder-like piece of granite about 5 inches in its longest diameter for rubbing and softening skins; the lower surface is smoother and polished by use (116). Flake Tool Softening small skins/ Resoftening existing hide Albright 1984 Tahltan However, within every woman’s workbag or collection of tools there are one or two smaller stone dressing tools which are best described as cortex spall or flake tools. These are hand held and used for dressing smaller kills, which require little work to soften them. They are also used to resoften articles of clothing or robes after washing or cleaning (58). Knives Fleshing Reilly 2015 Kaska Stone implements such as knives can be used for removing flesh from hides in addition to bone fleshers (personal observation 2012), though they are more commonly thought of as tools used for butchering (124).  Not Listed  (hide-working; general) Murdoch 1892  Iñupiat With these tools and their knives, they do all the work of preparing skins for clothing, boat covers, etc. (299).  20  Table 2. Ethnographically observed tools functioning in hide production activities. Stage Initial Stage: Processing/ Preparation Intermediate Stage: Processing Final Stage: Processing/ Maintenance Other Activity Butchering Fleshing Dehairing Thinning Softening Working Existing Hide Products Working Small Skins Scraping-Generalized Not specified Adze  X  X    X  Cobble Scraper X X X      X Endscraper  X X   X X X  Flake Tool        X  Hide Softener X X X  X   X  Knives X X       X Sidescraper         X Whetstone     X   X  (after Reilly 2015 and Shultz 1992)  Tables 1 and 2 supports multifunctionality as another characteristic of hide-working tools wherein a tool may have been used to accomplish multiple tasks within the hide-working process. Additionally, culturally dependent applications of specific tools throughout the hide-working process is another possible factor contributing to the variable use of individual tool types. As such, the remainder of this section focuses on the technological organization of the lithic hide-working toolkit as it is reported on in the ethnographic literature.  3.2.1 Arctic Hide-working Toolkit The hallmark of Inuit and Yup’ik women’s toolkits is the ulu, often referred to by early ethnographers as the woman’s knife. Cross-culturally and temporally, the ulu has many variations in raw material, size, shape and haft style. However, they are generally semi-lunar knives. Prior to European contact the blades were usually manufactured from stone with wood, or bone hafts. Ulus are multifunctional tools used in multiple stages for diverse functions such as cutting hair, working snow and ice, and processing fish (Frink et al. 2003). In hide working they are used for skinning animals, dehairing skins, and cutting skins. Boas (1888: 517-518) described the ulu amongst the Central Inuit as used in initial hide production stages, and the preparation and cleaning of skins, while Frink (2005: 94) notes its utility amongst the Central Alaskan Yupik primarily for the  21  processing of marine mammals. The remaining lithic hide-working toolkit is markedly variable particularly in scraper types. Two main classes of scrapers, two-handed scrapers, often manufactured from bone, but also taking the form of stone bits hafted to transverse poles, and one-handed scrapers exhibiting a higher degree of variability are used.  The Central Alaskan Yupik employed expedient coarse-grained stone scrapers or “boulder chips” to scrape the inner surface of fresh hides and for hair removal (Oswalt and Vanstone, 1967: 97). They also employ flaked scraper blades, including both end- and side-scrapers. Such scrapers are made of “flint” and are un-hafted, while ground stone and metal scrapers are hafted (Oswalt and VanStone, 1967: 97). Sandstone scrapers are specifically used to process fish skin (Oswalt and VanStone, 1967: 97). Vanstone (1989: 32) identifies the use of slate end-scrapers in the first stages of hide preparation amongst the Nunivak Cup’ig with wood and bone scrapers being used to soften skin in later stages. Two detailed technological accounts of hide-working come from literature on the Iñupiat. Larsen and Rainey (1948: 48) note various kinds of scrapers used in the preparation of skins by the Tikigagmuit, maintaining that scraper variability is reflective of craft specialization. They begin by noting that stone is used in both single- and two-handed scrapers, and that the latter had multiple functions throughout the hide-working process (Larsen and Rainey, 1948: 89-90). Four types of end-scrapers are also identified: snub-nosed scrapers, “long slender” scrapers made on flakes, and two rare forms—the spatula-shaped scraper and S-shaped scraper. Larsen and Rainey (1948: 104-106) report the largest variety of scrapers are amongst side-scrapers, and hypothesize that some were used for hide processing, but the majority were used to process bone and wood and belonged to men. The final lithic tool class Larsen and Rainey (1948: 105) describe are discoidal blades; some are classified as knives, and others scrapers, the latter identifiable by subtriangular or oval  22  outlines. Larsen and Rainey (1948: 88) maintain that what are traditionally identified as discoidal knives are actually and “obviously” skin scrapers (see also Fewkes, 1898).  Lastly, the material culture of the Kobuk River Iñupiat are reported as being more similar to northern Dene than Arctic peoples (Giddings, 1952: 1). Giddings (1952: 82) states “The cutting and preparing of skins for the making of clothing was undoubtedly accomplished in part by means of the tools that also had uses in other processes. . .”. This is evidenced by the prevalence of the tci-tho, a crude stone scraper generally attributed to hide softening in the subarctic but, widely documented as multifunctional, including use as a whetstone, grinding stone, and/or cutting implement. Giddings (1952: 80) describes the tci-tho among the Kobuk River Iñupiat as averaging 3 inches in diameter, ground flat on each face and crudely flaked by means of direct hard-hammer percussion. They can be made of schist, slate or igneous rock, and are typically oval to sub-oval in outline (Giddings, 1952: 80). 3.2.2 Western Subarctic Hide-working Toolkit The Dene hide-working toolkit exhibits considerable technological variability in its entirety and also between sub-populations. A variety of scraper forms are present with any combination of bone or stone, hafted or un-hafted, single- or double-handed use along a continuum of expediency to formality. The ulu is also prevalent among multiple Dene-speaking groups. De Laguna and Horton (1947: 128) report ulu scrapers from the Koyukon manufactured from slate, sandstone, or andesite, varying in size from 8-10.5 cm x 10-16 cm, and oval to sub-oval in outline, used for skin softening and for finishing work of soft and fine skins (De Laguna and Horton, 1947: 127-128). Ulu scrapers are also reported for Deg Xinag by Osgood (1940: 89-90) for fine skin work and are often hafted to spruce root handles either by slotting or lashing with babiche. A typical ulu blade measures roughly 8 cm x 9 cm, with 6.4 cm extending beyond the handle (Osgood, 1940: 89-90). He reports that a woman will have about three ulus of varying shape and  23  size (Osgood, 1940: 89-90). Lastly, McKennan (1959) documents the ulu scraper among the Upper Tanana. He does not provide comparable metric data but details its function as a softener, stating this is the most critical part of the process (McKennan 1959: 84).   Rainey’s (1939) report on the Upper Tanana, does not mention the ulu scraper but instead focuses on the tci-tho. The tci-tho is most commonly known for its application in the softening stage of hide-production and has many names throughout the literature, including linguistically differentiated terms like tsētél (Reilly, 2015: 18), or tthete (Pokotylo and Hanks, 1989: 56). Technomorphologically it is referred to as a tabular biface (Le Blanc, 1984; Workman, 1978). Rainey (1939: 360) describes the manufacture of this tool: “. . . a flat oval pebble selected from the beach [was] struck so that a thin, disc-like flake was detached; the edge of the flake was then battered against another stone to produce a blunt, retouched edge”. Pokotylo and Hanks (1989: 56) similarly describe the tthete as hafted cortex spall flakes with marginal bifacial retouch. Albright (1984: 58) describes two varieties of cortex spall flake tools, one hafted for the softening of skins and the other un-hafted, used to dress smaller skins and resoften existing garments.   While the tci-tho has been argued to also function as a fleshing knife (Reilly 2015: 119), it is mostly closely associated with later stages of production, predominantly the softening stage. Ethnographic descriptions of the ulu scraper suggest there may be overlap between these scraper types particularly in their outline morphology, function within the hide-working process, and morphological diversity within the tool type. It seems possible that they may be cultural variants of an antecedent tool type (see discussions by De Laguna and Horton, 1947: 182-186; McKennan 1959: 66-67).   The least referenced scraper type in the subarctic literature is the end-scraper. De Laguna and Horton (1947: 127) report an adze-like scraper used to remove fat and dehair frozen hides  24  among the Koyukon, suggesting utilization during intermediate stages of hide production. The desire for haired products, such as blankets, winter clothing, robes and moccasins, may reflect the low frequency of end-scrapers, including the ethnographic observation of their use and the material recovery of them in subarctic archaeological contexts (Reilly, 2015: 119). One last tool type described for the Koyukon is a whetstone said to be used for hide-working (De Laguna and Horton, 1947: 127). The utilization of whetstones in hide production remains archaeologically unverified but, would clearly serve a necessary purpose of re-sharpening bone and ground stone edge scrapers.   The toolkit associated with Dene hide-working highlights the tci-tho and the ulu. Both are archaeologically recognized as typifying the late prehistoric period while such characteristic scraper implements are lesser described for earlier complexes. Further investigation of scraper variability in the distant past has the potential to better illuminate hide-working activities and tools among earlier cultural complexes. 3.3 Conclusion: Archaeological Implications for the Little John Site   This review of the ethnographic record aligns with Driver and Massey’s (1957) proposition that female oriented hide production is characteristic of Indigenous peoples throughout North America, as well as with recent investigations into the correlation of environment and subsistence strategies with gendered divisions of hide production (Ruth 2013). I sought to demonstrate in the current review that gendered divisions of labour in the processing of hide is a practice that extends into the distant past, particularly within the current study region, is a reasonable argument. The glacial conditions which define the terminal Pleistocene and the dependence upon migratory mega-fauna support the proposition that early occupants of the Little John site would have employed strategic divisions of labour in regards to hide production similar to the historical and  25  contemporary peoples occupying the region today and in historic times.   While this review identified a strong pattern of female-dominated hide production, it also illuminated considerable inter- and intra-cultural variability, particularly in hide production practices and associated technology. This review suggests a wide range of stone tools were used in various stages of hide production. Archaeologically, however, identification of hide processing activities has often been reduced to the presence or absence of end-scrapers (Shott, 1995) and is presented as static through time and cross-culturally. Hide-working technological variability has received little attention in the recent and distant past. Not only does the analytical investigation of hide production have the potential to give prominence to the contributions of women to hunter-gatherer lifeways while also expanding understandings of these activities in the past, but it also signifies an additional avenue to investigate the technological variation which currently characterizes the archaeology of Eastern Beringia.  4 Methods Technological approaches to and the reliability of lithic use-wear analysis were entrenched in debate in its early years (Keeley 1974, Newcomer et al. 1986, Odell 1975) but it is now acknowledged as an analytical technique within archaeology useful for the interpretation of tool function.  Researchers support the use of all lines of evidence available for functional interpretation (Odell, 2001: 50), including the combination of low- and high-powered techniques (Hodgson, 2017; King, 2018; Latoree et al., 2017; Lemorini et al., 2016; Miller, 2014; Stevens et al., 2010, Wiederhold and Pevny, 2014). Analysts also maintain that macroscopic and microscopic approaches to lithic analysis are complementary for functional interpretations of stone tools (Grace, 1996; LeMoine, 1997; Odell, 1979, 2001; Shott, 1995).   I conducted a multi-stage functional analysis implementing three lines of analytical  26  evidence with a concentration on lithic use-wear analysis, with the objective of assessing whether a hide-working toolkit existed within the Chindadn component of the Little John site. This analysis was designed to explore the wide range of tool types indicated by the ethnographic record to have functioned within hide-working activities and to alleviate preconceived functional connotations imbedded in traditional lithic classification systems.  Beginning with Stage I—Ethnographic Analysis and Sample Selection, I applied the ethnographic evidence presented in Section 3 in the creation of a comprehensive sampling strategy wherein all analyzed samples5 from OP I and OP II were organized into broad artifact classes (bifacial tools, cores, flakes,, flake tools, and modified pebbles and cobbles). This strategy circumvents potential functional assumptions associated with typological or technological sampling approaches. The following Stage II—Microscopic Analysis, constitutes the most substantive component of the analysis. I first applied low- and high-powered magnification using a hand-held digital microscope to microscopically identify used tools within the study sample and define the used edges or areas of the identified tools. Following this, I conducted a detailed use-wear analysis on the resulting tool sample to identify specimens exhibiting evidence of having functioned in hide-working activities. In the final stage, Stage III—Macroscopic Analysis, I analyzed and recorded form-function variables at the macroscopic level for three interrelated reasons: to explore additional functional evidence visible at this level; to assess the potential utility of macroscopically visible attributes in the identification of hide-working toolkits, and to characterize the overall nature of the resulting hide-working toolkit. This analysis employed microscopic use-wear characteristics as the primary dataset to interpret tool function and identify  5 The timing of the sample selection for this analysis corresponded with the establishment of the recent chronostratigraphy. As such, not all lithic materials had been reassigned into updated occupation periods. This study sampled from all analyzed artifacts reflective of the current site chronology. It is maintained that the study includes the vast majority of these materials and is nonetheless reflective of the assemblage.   27  potential hide-working tools. Ethnographic analogues and macroscopic variables serve as corroborative or complimentary data, generally. Individual methodologies for the three stages are detailed in the remainder of this section.  4.1 Stage I: Ethnographic Analysis and Sample Selection The ‘end scraper’, a tool exhibiting steep-angled unifacial retouch on the distal margin, has long maintained a functional connotation within archaeology as morphologically typifying hide-working (Shott, 1995: 53). The potential hide-working toolkit variability suggested in Section 3 and in Table 1 is addressed in the sample strategy by analyzing a wide range of lithic artifacts, including formal and expedient tools, as well as modified pebbles and cobbles, cores, and a sample of debitage. This strategy addresses and circumvents pre-existing assumptions associated with stone tool function and explores aspects of hide-working as it is documented in the ethnographic record.  4.2 Stage II: Microscopic Analysis 4.2.1 Sample Preparation In preparation of microscopic analysis, the study assemblage was first cleaned using a hand-held Cavitron Ultrasonic to remove sediments and residues adhering to tool surfaces and working edges. The duration of cleaning time was dependent upon the size of the artifact and ranged from 5-15 minutes. The study sample was then left to air dry.  Latex gloves were used during this stage to avoid the potential accumulation of handling residues, which can obscure micro-wear patterns, particularly polish.  4.2.2 Comparative Experimental Assemblage The interpretation of microwear relies on comparative lithic tools of known function. I manufactured three stone scrapers, two of basalt and one of obsidian, and conducted a hide-scraping experiment. Using push and push-pull motions I used the scrapers to soften commercially  28  tanned hide for 90 minutes each6. Tools were analyzed at 15-minute intervals at varying magnifications, and the accumulation of microwear was photographed and recorded using a handheld-digital microscope (Appendix 2). The results of this experiment are comparable to the results of others (Brink, 1978; Hodgson, 2017) and form the diagnostic criteria used to identify wear amongst the study assemblage. The predominant use-wear characteristics observed include: 1) dull to moderately-dull greasy polish (Figure 6); 2) extensive edge rounding—most prevalent on projections, arrises, and within flake scars (Figure 7), and 3) unifacial scarring on the non-contact surface (Figure 7).   Figure 6. Dull greasy polish observed on experimental obsidian scraper (225x).   Figure 7. Edge rounding, unifacial scarring, and dull greasy polish observed on experimental basaltic scraper (50x).   6 The experiment was constrained to available lithic and hide materials at the time of study.  29  4.2.3 Microscopic Use-wear Methods and Materials The two main objectives of use-wear analysis are to: 1) determine if an artifact has been used as a tool; and 2) infer the function of that tool including a) method of use (use motion) and b) contact material (worked material). The first objective was accomplished by identifying used edges using low-powered magnification (10-100 x); the second objective was addressed using both low- and high-powered magnification (100-200 x). The intent was to infer whether or not a tool was used in hide production and thus, I focused on traits characteristic of associated activities within that process. This analysis was carried out using a Dino-Lite Premier AM4113T, a digital microscope with up to 250 x optical magnification. The resulting microphotographs were analyzed at an image quality of approximately 1.3 megapixels and interpreted based upon their independent characteristics and comparison to the experimental specimens and diagnostic characteristics agreed upon within the literature (Hayden, 1979; Hodgson, 2017; Miller, 2014; Schultz, 1992).  4.2.3.1 Identification of Used Stone Tools—Working Edges  To identify whether an artifact was or was not used as a tool, I applied low-powered magnification to address regularly recurring attributes that constitute edge damage. The determination of edge damage as a result of use followed standards developed by Grace (1989) and applied by others (Wiederhold and Pevny, 2014). These criteria are: 1) fractures on edges with potential to be working edges, and the absence of fractures on low potential and/or prominent edges; 2) fractures on a potential working edge exhibit a clustered pattern, and; 3) corroborating evidence of use-wear (i.e., rounding, polishing, and/or striations). Such criteria are less applicable on tools exhibiting intentional retouch given the challenge of distinguishing between fractures resulting from manufacture and maintenance versus tool use. However, retouch is an evidently strong indicator of a working edge and determination of use of that edge relied on the presence of corroborating use-wear evidence.  30  4.2.3.2 Identification of Hide-Working Tools—Method of Use and Contact Material  Artifacts exhibiting evidence of use were analyzed at varying magnifications to document the presence or absence of use-wear traits to identify the method of use and the material worked, which were used to infer whether the tool was employed in hide processing activities. In alignment with the proposition that hide-working encompasses a range of activities, I analyzed the method of use independently of the contact material. The method of use is defined as the physical motion applied during tool use. Methods of use relevant to hide working-activities potentially include: 1) cutting; 2) sawing/slicing; 3) scraping/planing; 4) graving; 5) adzing, and 6) abrading (Odell and Odell-Vereecken, 1980). Determination of use method relies primarily on two types of wear—scarring and striations, including: their location; direction; nature and extent. Table 3 presents use-wear characteristics diagnostic of methods of use typical of hide-working (Appendix 3). Table 3. Use-wear characteristics for inferring methods of use relevant to hide processing.  Method of Use Use-Wear Characteristic Striations Scarring Cutting Located near working edge with a parallel distribution  Located on both surfaces of working edge Sawing/Slicing Unifacial and slanted or diagonal working edge Located more heavily on one surface Scraping/Planing If present, perpendicular to working edge and opposite scarred surface  *Planing; more abrasive wear on contact surface Exclusively unifacial, typically occurs over a wide area *Projections are worn first and extensively Graving May be longitudinal, transverse or both, is exclusive to a working tip as opposed to an edge Scarring is highly variable Adzing Unifacial and perpendicular working edge Unifacial scarring Abrading N/A *Wear is primarily abrasive and located on surface, not working edge (after Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980)  Identification of the worked material relied largely on the analysis of polish including lustre, texture, and extent. Additional attributes analyzed include: 1) striations; 2) edge damage; 3) contact area, and 4) fracture type. Use-wear characteristics for inferring hide materials relied on criteria originally summarized by Miller (2013), derived from observations made by Keeley (1980) and Yerkes (1983) and further supplemented by Brink (1978). These criteria are provided in Table 4 (Appendix 4).   31  Table 4. Use-wear characteristics for inferring hide materials.  Use-Wear Characteristic Worked Material Meat/Fresh Hide Dry Hide Polish Lustre Relatively Dull Dull Polish Texture Rough bumpy polish  Greasy polish  Polish Nature unknown Includes pits 50x larger than bone polish Extent of Polish  Over entire surface Over entire surface Striations Few narrow, deep striations Diffuse shallow striations Edge Damage Minimal edge damage Extensive rounding of edge Contact Area Broad Broad Fracture Type Bending Bending (after Miller, 2013; see also; Brink, 1978; Keeley, 1980; Yerkes, 1983)  4.3 Stage III: Macroscopic Lithic Analysis The microwear analysis was complimented by a macroscopic component to measure a suite of morphological form-function variables following Andrefsky’s (2005) analytical approach to identifying and/or measuring attributes potentially related to function. Only tools confidently assigned or remaining ambiguous following microwear analysis were macroscopically analyzed. This component of the analysis varied between tool classes, however, broad categories of related attributes examined include: 1) overall shape and size of each tool; 2) working edge(s) of tools, and 3) raw material qualities (Appendix 5). The macroscopic component served to further explore attributes potentially indicative of function maintained in the preceding microscopic analysis and informed the technological range of tool types in the resultant hide-working toolkit. Additionally, artifact classification vis-à-vis macroscopic analysis will illuminate the general nature of the hide-working assemblage. 5 Data, Analysis, and Results 5.1 Stage I—Ethnographic Analysis 5.1.1 Data and Sample Selection  My sample selection process began with a visual examination of the Chindadn assemblage recovered at the Little John site. The assemblage had been previously catalogued and analyzed for  32  various research objectives over the past 18 years. To account for potential incommensurability between existing artifactual classification and ethnographic descriptions of hide-working tools, the possibility of misidentification, and the hypothesized variability of the potential hide-working toolkit, my study sample consisted of a wide range of lithic artifact types. To accomplish this, I first recategorized these artifacts into five general artifact classes: 1) bifacial tools (n=14, 6.4%); 2) cores (n=6, 2.7%); 3) flakes7 (n=103, 47.0%); 4) flake tools (n=44, 20.1%), and; 5) modified pebbles and cobbles8 (n=52, 23.7%). The flake class was sampled based on size—all flakes over 2 cm in length were included, for a total sample of 219. The flake sample allowed me to address whether any flake tools had been misidentified as flakes vis-à-vis traditional macroscopic approaches when the assemblage was first catalogued (Young and Bamforth 1990).  5.2 Stage II—Microscopic Analysis 5.2.1 Data and Sub-Sample Selection  The initial study sample was comprised of 219 artifacts, ranging across broad classes of tool- and non-tool artifacts. I refined this sample into a used-tool sub-sample by applying the methodology outlined in Section 4 (sub-section 4.2.3.1). I analyzed each artifact for corroborating use-wear traits characteristic of used tools. This resulted in a tool sub-assemblage of 60 artifacts, or 27.4% of the initial study sample (Appendix 6). At this stage, I identified the number of active parts (APs)9, otherwise referred to as used edges or employable units, present on each artifact, and defined their location(s) (Appendix 7) for all 60 tools identified.  5.2.2 Analysis and Results I then conducted the functional use-wear component of the analysis on the 60 used tools,  7 The flake class includes both flake fragments and complete flakes. 8 The modified pebble/cobble class excludes hammerstones. 9 The term “active part” is used after Claude et al. 2015 Lemorini et al. 2016 Rotts and Plisson 2014   33  inferring the method of use and the contact material (Appendices 8 and 9). A total of nine (15.0%) tools comprise the resulting hide-working assemblage. Seven show evidence of having been applied solely in a scraping/planning method evidenced by a general pattern consisting of the presence of striations perpendicular to tool edges on the surface opposite unimarginal retouch/scarring.  One is inferred to be a combination tool being applied in two methods, graving and sawing/slicing. The final tool is also a combination tool used to scrape/plane and saw/slice. The graving function is inferred generally by the absence of striations and scarring with the active parts bearing a manufactured projection. One is interpreted as being used to scrape/plane and saw/slice based upon the presence of striations both parallel and perpendicular to the working edges. Variations of the general use method pattern are presented per individual tool in the following sub-section. As stated, it is inferred that all nine tools processed hides generally. Specifically, seven have characteristics consistent with the processing of dry hide and two of fresh hide. Tools used to process dry hides typically exhibit dull greasy polish, long, shallow, and/or diffuse striations, and edge rounding, rounding of projections with extensive removal of flake scars. Alternatively, wet hide processing leads to moderately dull polish with a pitted or rough appearance and moderate edge rounding, rounding of projections and removal of flake scars. Table 4 summarizes the use-wear results of contact material and method of use for the hide-working toolkit identified.  5.2.2.1 KdVo-6:96 KdVo-6:96 exhibits three active parts. AP1 is defined as the distal margin, AP2 as lateral margin 1 (left) and AP3 as lateral margin 2 (right). Use-wear characteristics observed on all three active parts are consistent with a scraping method of use and a worked material of dry hide (Figure 8; Appendix 10—Figures 10.1 and 10.2). All three active parts exhibit polish that is dull and greasy  34  in appearance on both faces. Edge damage, including edge rounding, rounding of projections, and the removal of flakes is consistently interpreted as extensive in nature. Scarring is unimarginally present on the dorsal surface of AP1 and AP2 and discontinuously bimarginal on AP3. Striations are visible on the ventral surface of AP1-3 with variations of direction and appearance. AP1 exhibits few, shallow striations perpendicular to the working edge. AP2 striations are also few and shallow, but parallel and diagonal the working edge. AP3 exhibits striations that are few, deep and diagonal to the working edge.   Figure 8. Macro- and micro-photographs of KdVo-6:96 (a. greasy dull polish, extensive edge rounding, rounding of projections/flake scars (50x) b. perpendicular striations, edge rounding, rounding of projections and flake scars (220x) c. striations perpendicular/diagonal the working edge (50x)) Given these characteristics, it appears KdVo-6:96 was utilized on both the convex end and opposing pointed end with slightly different motions for the singular purpose of processing hide.  AP1 shows evidence of having been used in longitudinal push-pull motion, and AP2 and AP3 show evidence of use in a semi-circular scraping motion. The direction of wear is most apparent on AP2, where the point is more heavily rounded on the left margin with prominent rounding up and towards the point, suggesting that this AP was more heavily used.  35  Table 5. Microwear results of the hide-working toolkit from the Chindadn component at the Little John site. Catalogue No. Context AP No.  Striations   Polish (dull and greasy) Edge damage Lobe Unit Depth Rounding Projection Rounding Removal of Flake scars Scarring KdVo-6:96 west  S10W17  19 cm dbs 1  few, shallow, perpendicular, on ventral  yes-on ventral and dorsal extensive extensive extensive unimarginal  2 few, shallow, parallel/diagonal, on ventral yes-on ventral and dorsal extensive extensive extensive unimarginal 3  few, deep, diagonal, on ventral yes-on ventral and dorsal extensive extensive extensive bimarginal KdVo-6:139 west S08W17 34 cm dbs 1 parallel/perpendicular, on ventral edge yes-on edge and ventral extensive extensive extensive unimarginal step on dorsal 2 few parallel/ many perpendicular, on ventral edge yes-on projections and ventral surface extensive extensive moderate unimarginal step on dorsal; bimarginal near point KdVo-6:146 west S09W30 56 cm dbs 1  absent Yes extensive extensive n/a unimarginal on ventral 2 absent Yes extensive extensive n/a unimarginal on ventral 3  few, shallow, perpendicular Yes extensive extensive n/a unimarginal on ventral KdVo-6:388 west S10W18 19 cm dbs 1 many, shallow, perpendicular Yes moderate moderate moderate unimarginal step and feather KdVo-6:746 west S10W14 26 cm dbs 1 shallow, perpendicular moderately dull- pitted/rough, minimally developed moderate moderate modertae unimarginal on dorsal, few irregular scars on ventral 3  shallow, perpendicular and diagonal moderately dull-pitted/rough, minimally developed moderate moderate moderate  unimarginal on dorsal, few irregular scars on ventral KdVo-6:750 west S09W15 13-50 cm dbs 1 absent moderately dull-pitted/ rough extensive extensive moderate unimarginal step and feather 2 absent moderately dull-pitted/ rough moderate moderate minimal bimarginal step and feather KdVo-6:1486 west S18W09 27 cm dbs 1 long, diffuse, shallow, perpendicular yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive minimal bimarginal step and feather 2 absent yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive minimal unimarginal step and feather 3 few, long, shallow, diffuse, perpendicular yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive minimal bimarginal step and feather 4 long, diffuse, shallow, perpendicular yes-on surface and edge extensive n/a n/a absent KdVo-6:2063 east N17W09 80-90 cm dbs 1 absent yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive minimal unimarginal step and feather KdVo-6:2789 west S14W14 19 cm dbs 1 few, long, diffuse, shallow, perpendicular yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive n/a absent  2 few, long, shallow, diffuse, parallel yes-on surface and edge extensive extensive n/a absent 3 absent yes-minimally developed extensive extensive moderate unimarginal  36  5.2.2.2 KdVo-6:139 Two active parts were identified on KdVo-6:139. AP1 is the straight margin and AP2 is the convex margin. Both show evidence of use in a scraping motion, and possibly a cutting or sawing motion, to process dry hide (Appendix 10 Figures 10.3 and 10.4). AP1 exhibits striations parallel and perpendicular near the working edge of the ventral surface. Dull greasy polish is present on the edge and ventral surface. Edge rounding, projection rounding and removal of flake scars are interpreted as extensive; scarring is unimarginal and characterized by step terminations located on the opposing surface of striations. AP2 exhibits some differences. Striations are primarily perpendicular but some parallel striations are observable. Projections and the ventral surface exhibit dull greasy polish. The rounding of the edge and of projections is extensive while the removal of flake scars is moderate. Scarring is predominantly unimarginal with bimarginal scars occurring towards the outer margins. Additionally, the edges of both active parts potentially bear bright polish. Without a larger experimental program, the causal contact material (or materials) resulting in the bright polish cannot be conclusively determined. However, its presence indicates a multi-functional aspect to the tool, and the parallel striations may be related to non-hide-working activities.  5.2.2.3 KdVo-6:146 KdVo-6:146 exhibits three active parts; AP1 is the left lateral, AP2 is the right lateral, and AP3 is the distal margin. Striations are not visible on AP1 or AP2 but are exhibited as few, shallow and perpendicular to the working edge of one surface on AP3. Dull greasy polish is observed on all the three active parts. Edge and projection rounding are consistently interpreted as extensive for AP1-3. Scarring is unimarginal and located on the surface opposite the striations (as visible on AP3) while flake scar removal is absent, which may be the result of raw material properties. The  37  use-wear characteristics are more substantive on AP3 than AP1 and AP2 suggesting that the distal end was used more intensively. Cumulatively, all active parts identified on KdVo-6:146 are consistent with scraping dry hide (Appendix 10—Figure 10.5). 5.2.2.4 KdVo-6:388 One AP was identified on KdVo-6:388 located on the left lateral margin, which exhibits use-wear traits characteristic of scraping dry hide (Appendix 10—Figures 10.6 and 10.7). Characteristics include shallow striations perpendicular to the working edge, dull and greasy polish moderately developed within flake scars. Additionally, edge damage consists of moderate edge rounding, rounding of projections and removal of flake scars. 5.2.2.5 KdVo-6:746 Three active parts were identified on KdVo-6:746. AP1 is one portion of the right lateral margin (right lateral 1). AP 2 is a secondary portion of the right lateral margin (right lateral 2). AP1 and AP3 show evidence of having been used to scrape fresh hide, while AP2 shows characteristics suggestive of haft wear (Appendix 10—Figures 10.8 and 10.9). AP1 exhibits shallow striations perpendicular the working edge and minimally developed polish that is moderately dull and greasy with a rough and pitted appearance. Edge damage, including rounding of edges, rounding of projections and removal of flake scars are all interpreted as moderate. Continuous unimarginal scarring is exhibited on the surface opposite striations where a few irregular scars are present. The edge damage and polish on AP3 directly compares to AP1. Striations exhibited on AP3, however, are both perpendicular and diagonal the working edge.  5.2.2.6 KdVo-6:750 KdVo-6:750 exhibits two active parts. AP1 is located on the left lateral margin and AP2 on the right lateral. Similar to KdVo-6:746, both active parts present use-wear evidence consistent  38  with fresh hide scraping (Appendix 11—Figures 10.10 and 10.11). Both AP1 and AP2 lack visible striations and exhibit a moderately dull polish with a rough and pitted appearance. However, the edge damage somewhat differs between the two. AP1 exhibits unimarginal scarring, edge rounding and rounding of projections that is extensive and moderate removal of flake scars. Edge damage on AP2 exhibits bimarginal retouch, moderate edge rounding and rounding of projections and minimal removal of flake scars. These differences may result from AP1 being used more intensively or edge damage may have accumulated at a slower rate on AP2 due to a sharper working edge resulting from bimarginal as opposed to unimarginal modification.  5.2.2.7 KdVo-6:1486 Four active parts were identified on KdVo-6:1486: AP1 is the left lateral, AP2 is the right lateral, AP3 is the modified (distal) end and AP4 is the unmodified (proximal) end. All four active parts bear evidence consistent with dry hide scraping (Appendix 10—Figures 10.12 and 10.13). All four active parts exhibit polish that is dull and greasy in appearance. AP1 exhibits striations that are few, shallow, diffuse, and located perpendicular the working edge. Edge damage consists of edge rounding and rounding of projections that is interpreted as extensive and the removal of flake scars as minimal. Visible scarring on AP1 is limited to bimarginal macro-flake removal. AP2 does not exhibit visible striations, and edge damage is consistent with AP2 except for scarring which is unimarginal. AP3 also exhibits striations that are few, shallow, diffuse, and located perpendicular to the working edge. Edge rounding and rounding of projections are extensive while removal of flake scars is minimal. Scarring presents as macro-flake removal and is bimarginal. Lastly, AP4 exhibits striations that are few, shallow, diffuse, and located perpendicular to the working edge. Edge rounding is considered extensive, and an absence of post-detachment modification to this margin results in the absence of projection rounding, removal of flake scars,  39  and scarring.  5.2.2.8 KdVo-6:2063 One AP was identified on KdVo-6:2063, defined as the split or modified edge and face of the tool. Striations and flake scars are absent on this tool, making the presence of wear minimal or marginal. However, edge rounding and rounding of projections is extensive and polish that is dull and greasy is present (Appendix 10—Figures 10.14 and 10.15), supporting its function as a hide-working implement.  5.2.2.9 KdVo-6:2789 Three active parts were identified on KdVo-6:2789.  AP1 is lateral margin one, AP2 is the opposing lateral margin, and AP3 is a projection on the same lateral margin as AP1. AP1 and AP2 show evidence of sawing or slicing dry hide, indicated by striations both perpendicular and parallel the working margin, and characterized as few, shallow and diffuse. Additionally, both AP1 and AP2 exhibit extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, an absence of scarring and the removal of flake scars, and the presence of dull greasy polish (Appendix 10—Figures 10.16 and 10.17). Alternatively, use-wear observed on AP3 is consistent with graving, indicated by the lack of striations, discontinuous unimarginal flake scars, dull greasy polish, and extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections on both surfaces, and a moderate removal of flake scars.  5.3 Stage III—Macroscopic Analysis The following subsection analyzes macroscopic form-function attributes to characterize the nature of the proposed toolkit and for additional evidence, which may aid microscopic functional interpretations. Artifact class frequencies include five within the flake tool class and four within the pebble/cobble tool class. Of the flake tools, two are complete retouched obsidian flakes, one is manufactured from basaltic flake shatter (Figure 9), and two are formally modified  40  basaltic flakes unifacially modified with continuous unimarginal and discontinuous bimarginal retouch (Figure 8). Of the pebble/cobble tool class, two are retouched pebble/cobble flakes, one is a modified split pebble, and one is a unifacially modified cobble (Figure 9).  The size and nature of the resulting hide-working toolkit (n=9) limits overall toolkit patterning, however, some observations are apparent. Three of the flake tools (Kdvo-6:746, KdVo-6:750, and KdVo-6:2789) are relatively small and range closely in size from 28.4-34.3 mm in length, 21.2-46 mm in width, and 5.7-7.8  mm in thickness. One of the basaltic flake tools (KdVo-6-139) is substantially larger than all other hide-working tools measuring 153.6 mm in length and 77.1 mm in width. The pebble/cobble tools range in length from 49.2-122.2 mm, in width from 33.7-47.7 mm, and in thickness from 10.7-19.2 mm. Table 6 summarizes data on classification, raw material properties and dimensions for the hide production tools (see Appendix 12). Table 6. Macroscopic analysis—classification, raw material, and dimension data.  Classification Raw Material Dimensions Artifact Artifact Class Artifact Type Raw Material Cortex  Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (gms) KdVo-6:96 Flake tool Uniface w/bimarginal retouch Basaltic absent 67.1 39.9 13.1 31.4 KdVo-6:139 Flake tool Uniface w/bimarginal retouch Basaltic absent 153.6 77.1 15.6 222 KdVo-6:146 Pebble/cobble tool Retouched pebble flake Unknown present 71.3 40.6 10.7 30.3 KdVo-6:388 Pebble/cobble tool Retouched pebble flake Greenstone present 70 33.7 16.7 46.5 KdVo-6:746 Flake tool Retouched complete flake Obsidian absent 29.8 28.3 7 4.7 KdVo-6:750 Flake tool Retouched complete flake Obsidian absent 34.3 21.2 5.7 3.8 KdVo-6:1486 Pebble/cobble tool Cobble w/bimarginal retouch Unknown present 122.2 47.7 18 150.8 KdVo-6:2063 Pebble/cobble tool Modified split cobble Unknown present 49.2 41.8 19.2 56.1 KdVo-6:2789 Flake tool Retouched combination tool Basaltic absent 28.4 46 7.8 10.7  The microscopic analysis identified 22 active parts on the 9 tools; 21 of these exhibit characteristics associated with hide-processing activities. Macroscopic analysis of these active parts revealed additional variability (Table 7, Appendix 11). The highest frequency in the number   41  Table 7. Macroscopic analysis—active parts data. Artifact AP No. Edge Morphology Edge Length Edge Angle Retouch Location Retouch Type Retouch Pattern KdVo-6:96 1 convex 73.9 44 unimarginal on dorsal surface combo.; primarily step, few feather continuous 2 straight 48.5 50 unimarginal on dorsal surface combo.; primarily step, few feather continuous 3 straight 46.1 44 combination; bimarginal and unimarginal  combo.; primarily step, few feather continuous KdVo-6:139 1 straight 148.7 47 unimarginal on dorsal surface combo.; primarily step, few feather continuous 2 convex 258.9 37 bimarginal feathered combo.; continuous feather, discontinuous step KdVo-6:146 1 straight 64.1 94 absent feathered continuous 2 straight 61.3 64 bimarginal feathered continuous 3 convex 51.3 47 bimarginal feathered combo.; continuous unimarginal on ventral; discontinous bimarginal on medial portion  KdVo-6:388 1 concave 35.8 38 unimarginal on ventral Feathered continuous KdVo-6:746 1 straight 33.5 67 combo.; primarily unimarginal on dorsal, small bimarginal area feathered combo.; continuous unimarginal; discontinuous bimarginal  3 convex 35.8 43 unimarginal feathered continuous KdVo-6:750 1 straight 34.3 36 bimarginal feathered continuous 2 convex 35.8 43 unimarginal feathered continuous KdVo-6:1486 1 straight 78.3 70 bimarginal feathered discontinuous 2 straight 36.9 81 unimarginal combo.; feather and step continuous 3 convex 59.2 70 bimarginal combo.; feather and step combo.; continuous on ventral, discontinuous on dorsal 4 convex 122.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a KdVo-6:2063 1 flat 76 n/a n/a n/a n/a KdVo-6:2789 1 convex 19.8 32 unimarginal feathered continuous 2 straight 13.9 33 unimarginal feathered continuous 3 convex 11 40 unimarginal feathered discontinuous  of active parts per tool is 3 (n=4), followed by one and two (n=2, respectively), and lastly, 4 (n=1). The active edge morphology includes an equally high frequency of straight (n=10) and convex (n=9) edges. One active part has a concave edge and the final active part is a flat face (as opposed to an edge). Both the concave edge and flat face are pebble/cobble tools. Retouch is typically unimarginal (n=10), followed by bimarginal (n=6). Combination uni- and bi-marginal retouch accounts for edges, which are continuously unimarginal with discontinuous bimarginal retouch. Two active parts bear combination retouch. Lastly, three active parts do no exhibit retouch. Edge length measurements reflect the convexities and concavities of the edge and range from 11.0-258.9  42  mm. The average edge length is 57.7 mm10. A total of 12 active parts fall within a length range of 20 mm from 34.3-64.1 mm. Edge angles in this assemblage range from 33-94° with a concentration occurring between 32-47° (n=13, 68.4%). 5.4 Results  The macroscopic analysis provided multiple observations from which the overall nature of the toolkit can be generally characterized and further assessed from a functional perspective. First, all hide-working tools are represented by two tool classes, flake tools (n=5) and pebble/cobble tools (n=4). Second, only two artifacts exhibit significant post-detachment modification (KdVo-6:96 and KdVo-6:139). Both are formal tools: “stone tools made as a result of extra effort in their production” (Andrefsky 2005, 256), often made to conform to design requirements. The remaining seven tools are informal or expedient: “stone tools made in a casual manner with only minor design constraints.” (Andrefsky 2005, 256). The following sub-section describes each of the resulting formal and expedient toolkits.  5.4.1 Formal Hide-working Toolkit KdVo-6:96 and KdVo-6:139 are both unifaces, exhibiting areas of bimarginal retouch manufactured from flakes of a fine-grained basaltic stone (Figure 9). KdVo-96 has a tear-drop outline and KdVo-6:139 is semi-lunar in shape. Both are regionally-defined as diagnostic artifacts of the Chindadn complex, and exhibit nearly identical use-wear patterning. They have extensive edge damage including edge rounding, rounding of projections, and all but one AP exhibits extensive removal of flake scars. Additionally, both exhibit well-developed polish on tools edges and faces and comparable locations, directions, and appearance of striations. Comparatively, they appear to have been used intensively. Microscopic data suggest that, in addition to processing hide,  10 Two active parts identified on pebble/cobble tools do not have associated edges/edge angles.  43  KdVo-6:139 was a multi-functional tool, although additional functions are beyond the scope of the current analysis. KdVo-6:96 was used for the singular purpose of processing dry-hide.    Figure 9. Photograph of the hide-working formal tool assemblage. (from left to right-KdVo-6:96, KdVo-6:139)  5.4.2 Expedient Hide-working Toolkit A total of seven artifacts within the resulting hide-working toolkit are defined as expedient tools; four are pebble/cobble tools and the remaining three are edge-modified flakes (Figure 10). Compared to the formal toolkit, the expedient toolkit exhibits more variation in use-wear patterns. Striations range from a combination of absent and present (n=2), absent (n=2), to present (n=3). Edge rounding and rounding of projections have equal distributions, including a combination of extensive and moderate (n=1), extensive (n=4) and moderate (n=2). Scarring is the most variable, suggesting this attribute is not a good characteristic for identifying hide working. Two tools exhibit bimarginal scarring and five have unimarginal scarring. The removal of flake scars range from absent (n=2), moderate (n=3), minimal (n=1), to a combinations of the three (n=2). Difference in raw material types is likely the primary explanation for differential accumulation and/or visibility of use-wear traits. This is best evidenced by KdVo-6:749 and  44  KdVo-750, both of which were manufactured from obsidian and account for much of the observed overall variability of use-wear traits within the assemblage. Additionally, both tools were interpreted as scrapers of fresh or wet hide suggesting that the condition of the contact material also affects the development of visible use-wear, and that raw lithic material affects tool design and use. Finally, the expedient nature of these tools suggests their use-life as a tool may have been shorter and possibly more variable than the intensively used tools in the formal toolkit assemblage.    Figure 10. Photograph of the hide-working expedient tool assemblage. (from left to right- KdVo-6:750; KdVo-6:749; KdVo-6:388; KdVo-6:2789; KdVo-6:2063; KdVo-6:146; KdVo-6: 1486) 6 Discussion A hide-working toolkit including expedient as well as formed tool types, as documented in the ethnographic literature of northwestern North America, was identified within the lithic assemblage of the Chindadn component—dating from the Late Bølling Allerød Interstadial to the Younger Dryas (14,300-11,900 cal. RCY—at the Little John site. The resulting hide-working toolkit furthers our understanding of the technological organization and activities during the Chindadn occupation. Of the total Chindadn tool assemblage identified in this analysis (n=60),  45  15.0% are attributed to hide-working activities. Eight of these tools were recovered in the west lobe and one from the east lobe. Located on a south-facing bluff, the west lobe would have provided ample sunlight and aridity for processing hides. Past research (Yesner et al. 2011) indicates that the east lobe was a locus for butchering and meat processing, where such activities were sheltered from the elements. Preliminary interpretations of the west lobe suggest that it functioned as a game lookout where an undefined range of day-to-day activities were carried out. This inference is supported by the presence of small hearth features and a diversity of lithic tools and debitage recovered in higher quantities than in other lobes. The results of this study definitively associate the west lobe knoll with hide-processing activities, during the Chindadn occupation.  The toolkit is characterized by technological variability. It is primarily expedient (n=7), but formal tools are also present (n=2). The expedient toolkit is comprised of three specimens from the flake tool class and four from the pebble/cobble tool class. A range of expedient tool types is recognized as well, from split cobbles and retouched pebble/cobbles and pebble/cobble flakes to retouched complete obsidian flakes and retouched flake shatter. Microscopic wear patterns are quite variable as well. This may be attributed to raw material differences and to likely differences associated with tool use duration and specificities of the hide-working activity. The formal toolkit, although consisting of only two specimens, show differences in size and morphology but similarities in raw material, post-detachment modification and microwear development. Raw material consistencies are noted and suggested here to correspond with reduction techniques, however, the sample is too small to test the significance of this observation. KdVo-6:746 and KdVo-6:750 are both small complete flakes exhibiting marginal retouch on the dorsal surface of lateral margins and both were manufactured from Wiki Peak obsidian, a source located approximately 60 km from the site (Reuther et al. 2011). Additionally, comparable manufacturing  46  techniques were exhibited between KdVo-6:96 and KdVo-6:139. Both are manufactured from large prepared flakes, exhibit unifacial modification and predominantly unimarginal retouch, with smaller portions of one tool edge exhibiting bimarginal retouch. Further, both were manufactured from a single basaltic source material with an unknown location, tentatively designated Andesite Group A (Handley 2012).  Several implications for the archaeological visibility of hide-working activities were noted. Initial cataloguing of the Little John assemblage, following traditional approaches to lithic analysis, identified six “scrapers” in the total Chindadn assemblage (KdVo-6:146, KdVo-6:149, KdVo-6:746, KdVo-6:750, KdVo-6:1732, and KdVo-6:2920). Half of these were identified here as having functioned in hide-working activities, indicating alternative materials (i.e., bone, wood, or antler) were also be scrapped. Microwear analysis identified an additional five artifacts as used in scraping/planning activities related to hide-processing. Notably, no formal end-scrapers were identified in the identified hide-working toolkit or the Chindadn assemblage. The ethnographic record maintains end-scrapers were utilized in the removal of hair and/or the thinning of hides. It is possible that hair was a desirable feature for products being manufactured at that time.  While edge angle is a commonly used characteristic for identifying function (Andrefsky 2005, Wilmsen 1970), others have challenged the effectiveness of this measure to identify hide-working (Siegel 1985). This analysis challenges the use of edge angle for the identification of hide-working tools and activities.  Only one AP exhibits an edge angle conforming to the 75-90° range proposed by Andrefsky to typify hide-scraping, (2005,160), while three active parts have edge angles within the 46-55° range maintained by Wilmsen (1970, 71). Edge angles in this assemblage range from 33-94° (see Table 6, with a concentration occurring between 32-47° (n=12, 63.2%). Traditional macroscopic analysis was able to identify possible relationships between raw  47  material source, lithic reduction techniques, and hide-working activities following microscopic analysis. I maintain that when utilized independently, traditional approaches to lithic analysis are ineffective in the identification hide-working tools, but nevertheless useful in the classification of such tools and toolkits. The results of this analysis suggest that functional inferences of tools, as well as explorations of site activities (where stone tools serve as proxies for subsistence activities), should be conducted in conjunction with microscopic use wear analysis. Lastly, the ethnographic record has provided an integral line of functional reasoning and its application in the sampling process was vital to establishing the visibility and identification of this toolkit archaeologically.   The identification of this toolkit is a beginning to the illumination and documentation of the roles and activities of women in the deep past. The consistencies in the ethnographic review and the resulting lithic toolkit characterized by expediency and variability, specifically scraper variability, supports a degree of deep continuity in hide-working practices. Specific tool types were also reflected both archaeologically and ethnographically. This is best evidenced by the semi-lunar multifunctional specimen (KdVo-6:139), a tool form referenced throughout the ethnographic literature as part of the female toolkit with one primary function being hide-production (Boas 1888, 517-518, de Laguna and Horton 1947, 39). Additionally, many of the general tool types reported in the ethnographic literature, otherwise under- or unacknowledged within contemporary archaeology, were identified in this analysis such as side-scrapers, flake tools, pebble/cobble flakes or spalls, and cobble scrapers.  The teardrop Chindadn point (KdVo-6:96) is most referenced as a point in regional literature. However, several researchers have hypothesized alternative functions for this tool type. For instance, Dixon (1999, 171) hypothesized their potential use as knives, with the convex margin being the active margin. He describes this tool type as generally small and occasionally ground on  48  one lateral margin for hafting (Dixon 1999, 171). Goebel and Pontti (1991) hypothesized the teardrop-shaped bifaces functioned as perforators or knives. The Little John specimen differs morphologically from other regional variants in that it is unifacially retouched, exhibits steep edge angles, and is larger. Both macro- and microscopic evidence indicates this particular specimen was used on both the pointed and beveled margins for scraping hides. These findings warrant comparative analyses of other tear-drop bifaces in the region. This study has demonstrated marked continuity of hide-working tool function through time suggestive of long-standing traditional practices within hide-production. Simultaneously, the identification of formal artifacts within the hide-working toolkit at the Little John site suggests that temporally and/or culturally specific tool-types are also present. This supports the proposition that perhaps projectile point and microblade technologies are not culturally diagnostic (Potter 2007, 38) at least independently, and that alternative activities, such as hide-working may reflect practices of tradition wherein cultural identifiers may be distinguishable. Hide-working tools, including the ulu and chi tho, are regarded as culturally diagnostic for the late prehistoric periods of the Arctic and Subarctic respectively. Further, they have been generally accepted as parts of the female toolkit as a result of direct ethnographic observation. Similar associations between women’s tools as signatures for archaeological cultures are lesser recognized or otherwise absent in interpretations of the distant past. De Laguna and Horton (1948) and McKennan (1959) hypothesized antecedent tool types for both the ulu and chi tho, respectively. I suggest that that there are functional and morphological consistencies between Kdvo-6:139 and the ulu as well KdVo-6:96 and the chi-tho that support this hypothesis and warrant detailed analytical comparisons.  Using ethnographic inference, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the subset of  49  activities related to hide-production was normatively a female-dominated activity in ancient eastern Beringian lifeways. This analysis illuminates the range of tools used by women in the deep past to include modified pebbles and cobbles, formal tools, and flake tools, manufactured on a variety of raw materials. The visibility of women in the deep past has been in part limited by minimal attention towards expedient technologies as well as the functional assumptions relating stone tools with seemingly bifacial qualities and pointed outlines to activities associated with the procurement of game as opposed to the processing of its products.  Hide-working toolkit variability has also been said to imply specialization (Larsen and Rainey 1948, 148), which would suggest that the hide-producers during the Chindadn occupation at Little John were indeed specialized within this craft. This analysis has illuminated a hide-working activity area in the west lobe of the Little John site wherein, specialized hide-working activities were occurring, likely by women, 14,000 years ago.  7 Conclusion Conkey and Spector (1997:415) suggested that the value of feminist archaeological research begins with recognition of the broad range of activities associated with female labour. This research has illuminated a diverse group of tools that attests to the broad range of activities and possible specialization associated with hide-production in the archaeological past. It has also enhanced our understandings of female labour and contributions at the Little John site approximately 14,000 years ago. With the identification of a hide-working toolkit, I was able to locate a hide-working locus at the site. Archaeological understandings of hide-working must conceptualize it is a technology-producing activity encompassing a complex subset of activities and requiring a diverse toolkit.  The results of this analysis indicate that non-hunting subsistence technology in eastern  50  Beringia is also characterized by technological variability. Additionally, the ethnographic record depicts hide-working activities and to some extent, technology, as culturally and temporally specific. The presence of formal diagnostic artifacts suggests that female toolkits should be further analyzed and considered within regional debates on the culture sequence and technological organization of the late Pleistocene/early Holocene transition within Eastern Beringia. The expedient hide-working toolkit identified and described in this research challenges our current assumptions of tool function from the macroscopic level and attests to the interpretive value in their detailed study. Further functional analyses of hide-working toolkits will help to determine if these toolkits are culturally diagnostic and their contribution to the variability characterizing this time period, as is proposed here.  Women were undoubtedly significant economic contributors to big-game hunting societies (Waguespack 2005, 674). The significance of hide, including its procurement, transport from kill sites to camp sites, investment of time and resources in its processing, and overall vitality, is underacknowledged in the region. It is from the illumination of women’s roles within the Beringian subsistence economy, that we can begin to recognize the implications such work had on mobility and habitation patterns as well as the formation of archaeological assemblages. Future work should continue to emphasize hide-working but also expand into similarly detailed analyses of alternative perishable products and technologies. The application of the feminist approach in eastern Beringia has only been preceded by Heppner’s analysis of osseous tools from the Broken Mammoth site (2017). I maintain that continued feminist efforts in the region will challenge and confront our embedded archaeological assumptions and it will holistically strengthen both the integrity of our shared investigation as well as the interpretative narrative of eastern Beringia and understandings of early technological organization.   51  Bibliography Ackerman, R.E. 2011. Microblade Assemblages in Southwestern Alaska: An Early Holocene Adaptation. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I. (Eds.), From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 289-307.             2007. The Microblade Complexes of Alaska and the Yukon: Early Interior and Coastal Adaptations. In: Kuzmin, Y.V., S.G. Keates, Shen, C. (Eds.), Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America. 147-170. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, BC, pp. 147-170. Aksaajuq Otak, L. 2005. Iniqsimajuq: Caribou-skin Preparation in Igloolik, Nunavut. In: King, J.C.H., Pauksztat, B., Storrie, R. (Eds.), Arctic Clothing of North America-Alaska, Canada, Greenland, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Quebec and Kingston, pp. 74-83. Albright, S. 1984. Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology. Publication No. 5. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.  Andrefsky, W. Jr. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York. Anderson, D. D. 1988. The Archaeology of a Stratified Site from the Kobuk River, Northwest             Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 22(1-2): 1-163.             1970. Akmak: An Early Archeological Assemblage from Onion Portage, Northwest Alaska. Munksgaard, København.             1968. A Stone Age Campsite at the Gateway to America. Scientific American 218(6):24 33. Balikci, A. 1984. Netsilik. In: Dumas, D. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic. Vol.5. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 476-507. Birket-Smith, K. 1936. The Eskimos. Methuen and Co., London. Boas, F. 1888. The Central Eskimo. The 6th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.  Bostock, H.S. 1965 Notes on Glaciation in Central Yukon Territory. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 36. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa. Brink, J. 1978. An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. Unpublished MA Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta.  Brown, T.J., D.M. Gilmour, P.S. Solimano, and K.M Ames. 2019. The Radiocarbon Record of the Western Stemmed Tradition on the Southern Columbia Plateau of Western North America. American Antiquity 84(3):471-494. Brumbach, H.J., and R. Jarvenpa. 1997. Ethnoarchaeology of Subsistence Space and Gender: A Subarctic Dene Case. American Antiquity 62(3):414–436. Claude, E., M. Deschamps, D. Cologne, V. Mourre, C. Thiebaut. Experimental and Functional Analysis of Late and Middle Paleolithic Flake Cleavers from Southwestern Europe (France and Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 62:105-127. Collins, H.B., A.H. Clark, and E.H. Walker. 1945. The Aleutian Islands: Their People and Natural History (With Keys for the Identification of the Birds and Plants). War Background Studies No. 21. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.  Conkey, M.W. and J.D. Spector 1997. Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411-437. Cook, J.P.1969 The Early Prehistory of Healy Lake Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, University of  52  Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Currie, A. 2016. Ethnographic analogy, the comparative method, and archaeological special pleading. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 55E:84-94. de Laguna, F. and C. McClellan. 1981. Ahtna. In: Helm, J. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Subarctic.Vol.6. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 641-663. de Laguna, F., and D. Horton. 1947. The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen from the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology No. 3.  Denton, G.H. 1974. Quaternary Glaciations of the White River Valley, Alaska, with a Regional Synthesis for the Northern St. Elias Mountains, Alaska and Yukon Territory. Geological Society of America Bulletin 85, pp. 871-892.  Dixon, J.E. 1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Driver, H. E. and W. C. Massey, (Eds.) 1957. Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 47(2):165-456.  Easton, N. A. 2007. Excavations at the Little John Site (KdVo-6). Submitted to the White River First Nations, Yukon Heritage Branch, and Archaeological Survey of Canada (Yukon-Canada Archaeological Sites Regulation Permits 03-5ASR, 04-10ASR). Northern Research Institute of Yukon College, Whitehorse.              2012. Archaeological Excavation at the Little John Site (KdVo-6), Southwest Yukon Territory-2011. Permit Report on file with the Yukon Heritage Branch.              2015. Archaeological Excavation at the Little John Site (KdVo-6), Southwest Yukon Territory-2014. Permit Report on file with the Yukon Heritage Branch.  Easton, N. A. and G. R. MacKay. 2008 Early Bifaces from the Little John Site (KdVo-6), Yukon Territory, Canada. In: Carlson, R., Magne, M. (Eds.) Projectile Point Sequences of Northwestern North America, Simon Fraser University Press, Burnaby BC, pp. 263-282. Easton, N. A., G. R. MacKay, P. B. Young, P. Schnurr, and D. R. Yesner. 2011. Chindadn in Canada? Emergent Evidence of the Pleistocene Transition in Southeast Beringia as Revealed by the Little John Site. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I. (Eds.), From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 289-307.  Easton, N. A., R. Sattler, M. Grooms, and J. Handley. 2018. Summary of Radiocarbon Dates and Cultural Components from the Little John Site and their relationship to the prehistory of the Yukon-Alaska Borderlands. Poster presented at the 45th Annual Conference for the Alaska Anthropological Association. Anchorage, Alaska. Easton, N. A., M. Grooms, and J. Handley. 2020. 2019 Update on Analysis of the Borderlands Culture History Project. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Fairbanks, Alaska.  Fewkes, J. W. 1898. Archaeological expedition to Arizona in 1895. 17th Annual Report for the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Fraught, M. K. 2017. Where was the PaleoAmerind standstill? Quaternary International 444: 10-18. Frink, L. 2005. Gender and the Hide Production Process in Colonial Western Alaska. In: Frink, L., Weedman, K. (Eds.) Gender and Hide Production. Weedman, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 89-104. Giddings, J. L. Jr.. 1952. The Arctic Woodland Culture of the Kobuk River. The University Museum, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.  53  Goebel, T. and I. Buvit (Eds.) 2011. Introducing the Archaeological Record of Beringia. In: Goebel, T. and I. Buvit (Eds.), From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 1-32. Goebel, T. and L. Pontti. 1991. The Chindadn Point: A New Type Fossil for the Beringian Paleolithic. In: Circumpolar Modeling of Climate Change, Occasional Paper No. 4, University of Alaska Museum, Alaska Quaternary Center, Fairbanks, AK., pp. 65-66. Gómez Coutouly, Y.A. 2011. Identifying Pressure Flaking Modes at Diuktai Cave: A Case Study for the Siberian Upper Paleolithic Microblade Tradition. In: Goebel, T., Buvit I., (Eds.), From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 75-90. Gómez Coutouly, Y.A. and C.E. Holmes. 2018. The Microblade Industry from Swan Point Cultural Zone 4b: Technological and Cultural Implications from the Earliest Human Occupation in Alaska. American Antiquity 83(4):735-752. Grace, R. 1989. Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. BAR International Series, No. 474. Oxford, England.              1996. Review Article Use-Wear Analysis: The State of the Art. Archaeometry 38(2):209-229. Graf, K.E., A.K. Gore, J.A. Melton, T. Marks, L. DiPietro, T. Goebel, M.R. Waters, and D. Rhode. 2019 Recent excavations at Owl Ridge, interior Alaska: Site stratigraphy, chronology, and site formation and implications for late Pleistocene archaeology and peopling of eastern Beringia. Geoarchaeology 1-24. Handley, J.D. 2013. An Exploratory pXRF Analysis of Non-Vitreous Igneous Artifacts from the Little John Site, Yukon Territory. Undergraduate Thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.  Heidenreich, S.M. 2012. Lithic Technologies, Functional Variability and Settlement Systems in Late Pleistocene Beringia: New Perspectives on a Colonization Process. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Erlangen, Nuremberg. Helm, J. and N.O. Lurie. 1961. The Subsistence Economy of the Dogrib Indians of Lac La Martre in the Mackenzie District of the Northwest Territories. Northern Co-ordination and Research Centre, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa.  Heppner, A. 2017. A Feminist Archaeological Approach to the Analysis of the Osseous Tool Suite from the Broken Mammoth Site, Interior Alaska. Published Masters Thesis. University of Alaska, Anchorage.  Hodgson, T. 2017. Early Pre-contact use of organic materials within the North Superior Region: Indirect evidence through use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12:257-271. Hoffecker, J.F., C.F. Waythomas, and W.R. Powers. 1988. Late Glacial Loess Stratigraphy and Archaeology in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 5:83-86.  Hoffecker, J.F., W. R. Powers, and P. G. Phippen. 1996. Owl Ridge. In: West, F.H. (Ed.) American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 353-356. Hoijer, H. (Ed.). 1963. The Athapaskan Languages. In: Studies in the Athapaskan Languages. University of California Publications in Linguistics.  University of California Press,  54  Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 1-29. Holmes, C.E. 2014. New Evidence Pertaining to the Early Archaeological Sequence at Swan Point, Central Alaska. Poster presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Fairbanks, Alaska.              2011. Swan Point: Technology of the Beringian Period, Alaska. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I.  (Eds.), From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 123-456.             2001. Tanana River Valley Archaeology Circa 14,000 to 9,000 B.C. Arctic Anthropology 38 (2):154-170.             1996. Broken Mammoth. In: West, F.H. (Ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 312-318. Honigmann, J. J. 1946. Ethnography and Acculturation of the Fort Nelson Slave. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 33. Yale University Press, New Haven.             1949. Culture and Ethos of Kaska Society. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 40. Yale University Press, New Haven. Hughes, O.L., N.W. Rutter and J.J. Clague. 1989. Yukon Territory. In: Fulton, R.J. (Ed), Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland, Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, pp. 58-62. Ives, J.W., S. Rice and E.J. Vajda. 2010. Dene-Yeniseian and Process of Deep Changes in Kin Terminologies. In: Kari, J., Potter, B.A. (Eds.) The Dene-Yeniseian Connection. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska. Volume 5 New Series, Numbers 1-2. University of Alaska Department of Anthropology and Alaska Native Language Center, Fairbanks, 223-256. Janes, R.R. 1983. Archaeological Ethnography Among Mackenzie Basin Dene. The Arctic Institute of North America Technical Paper No. 28. The University of Calgary, Alberta. Jarvenpa, R. and H.J. Brumbach. 2006. Revisiting the Sexual Division of Labor: Thoughts on Ethnoarchaeology and Gender. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16:97-107.             2009. Fun with Dick and Jane: Ethnoarchaeology, Circumpolar Toolkits, and Gender ‘Inequality.’ Ethnoarchaeology 1(1):57-78. Keeley, L.H. 1974. Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies: a Critical Review. World Archaeology 5:323-336.             1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.  Kehoe, Alice B. 2005. Expedient Angled-Tang Endscrapers: Glimpsing Women’s Work in the Archaeological Record. In: Frink, L., Weedman, K., (Eds.) Gender and Hide Production. Weedman, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, pp. 133-142.  King, M.M. 2018. Not Your Average Flake: A Morphological and Functional Analysis of an Expedient Flake Tool Industry from the Mussel Beach Site (40MI70). Lithic Technology 43(1):2-17. Klokkernes, T. 2010. Women’s Work: Skin Processing in Northern Hunter-Gatherer Settlements and the Archaeological Context. In: Hardy, K. (Ed) Archaeological Invisibility and Forgotten Knowledge Conference Proceedings, Lodz, Poland, 5th-7th September 2007. BAR International Series 2183. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 144-153. Krinsley, D.B. 1965. Pleistocene Geology of the Southwest Yukon Territory, Canada. Journal of  55  Glaciology 5:385-397.  Lane, R.B. 1981. Chilcotin. In: Helm, J. (Ed.) Handbook of North American Indians: Subarctic. Vol. 6. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 402-410. Lantis, Margaret. 1984. Nunivak Eskimo. In: Dasmas, D. (Ed.) Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic. Vol. 5. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 209-223. Larsen, H. and F. Rainey. 1948. Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. Vol. 42. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.  Latorre, A., A. Masclans, A. P. Perez, J.F.G. Bao, G.R. Zamora, D. Gomez-Gras. 2017. Use-wear analysis of Neolithic polished axes and adzes: The site of “Bobila Madurell-Can Gambus-1-2” (Northeast Iberian Peninsula). Quaternary International 427:158-174. LeBlanc, R. J. 1984. The Rat Indian Creek Site and the Late Prehistoric Period in the Interior Northern Yukon. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 120. National Museum of Man Mercury Series., Ottawa.  LeMoine, G.M. 1997. Use-Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR International Series, No. 679. Oxford, England. Lemorini, C., L. Bourguignon, A. Zupancich, A. Gopher, R. Barkari. 2016. A scraper’s life history: Morpho-techno-functional and use-wear analysis of Quina and Demi-Quina scrapers from Qesem Cave Israel. Quaternary International 368:86-93. Llamas, B., L. Fehren-Schmitz, G. Valverde, I. Soubrier, S. Mallick, N. Rohland, S. Nordenfelt, C. Valdiosera, S.M. Richards, A. Rohrlach, M.I. Barretto Romero, I. Flores Espinoza, E. Tomasto Cagigao, L. Watson Jimenez, K. Makowski, I.S. Leboreiro Reyna, J. Mansilla Lory, J.A. Ballivan Torrez, M.A. Rivera, R.L. Burger, M. Constanza Ceruti, J. Reinhard, R. Spencer Wells, G. Politis, C.M. Santoro, V.G. Standen, C. Smith, D. Reich, S.Y.W. Ho, A. Cooper, W. Haak. 2016. Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances. 2: e1501385.  Llamas, B., K. Harkins, and L. Fehren-Schmitz. 2017. Genetic studies of the peopling of the Americas: What insights do diachronic mitochondrial genome datasets provide? Quaternary International 444: 26-35.  McKennan, R.A. 1959. The Upper Tanana Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 55. Yale University, New Haven.  Mobley, C.M. 1991. The Campus Site: A Prehistoric Camp at Fairbanks, Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.  Miller, G.L. 2013. Illuminating Activities at Paleo Crossing (333ME274) Through Microwear Analysis. Lithic Technology 38(2):97-108.             2014. Lithic Microwear Analysis as a means to infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 49:292-301. Murdoch, G.P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburg. Murdoch, J. 1892. Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Newcomer, M. R. Grace, R. Unger-Hamilton. 1986. Evaluating Microwear Analysis with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:203-218. Odell, G.H. 2001. Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):45-100.             1979. A New and Improved System for the Retrieval of Functional Information from Microscopic Observations of Chipped Stone Tools. In: Hayden, B. (Ed.) Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York, pp. 329-344.  56              1975. Micro-wear in Perspective: A Sympathetic Response to Lawrence H. Keeley. World Archaeology 7:226-240. Odell, G.H., and F. Odell-Vereecken. 1980. Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by ‘Blind Tests’: The Low-Power Approach.  Journal of Field Archaeology 7(1):87-120. Osgoode, C. 1936. Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 14. Yale University Press, New Haven.             1937. The Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 16. Yale University Press, New Haven.             1940. Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 22. Yale University Press, New Haven.             1971. The Han Indians: A Compilation of Ethnographic and Historical Data on the Alaska-Yukon Boundary Area. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 74. Yale University Press, New Haven. Oswalt, W.H., and J.W. VanStone. 1967. The Ethnoarchaeology of Crow Village, Alaska. Bulletin 199. Bureau of American Ethnology: Smithsonian Institution, Washington Pearson, G.A. 1999. Early Occupations and Cultural Sequence at Moose Creek: A Late Pleistocene Site in Central Alaska. Arctic 52(4):332-345.  Pitulko, V.V., E.Y. Pavlova, and A.E. Basilyan. 2016. Mass accumulations of mammoth (mammoth ‘graveyards’) with indications of past human activity in the northern Yana-Indighirka lowland, Arctic Siberia. Quaternary International 406:202-217.  Pokotylo, D.L., and C.C. Hanks. 1989. Variability in Curated Lithic Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Case from the Mackenzie Basin, Northwest Territories, Canada. In: Amick, D.S., Mauldin, R.P. Experiments in Lithic Technology. BAR International Series 528. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 49-65.  Potter, B.A. 2011. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Assemblage Variability in Central Alaska. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I. (Eds.) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 289-307.             2008. Radiocarbon chronology of central Alaska: technological continuity and economic change. Radiocarbon 50(2):181-204. Potter, B.A., P. Bowers, J.D. Reuther, and O. Mason. 2007. Holocene Assemblage Variability in the Tanana Basin: NLUR Archaeological Research, 1994-2004. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(1):23-42. Potter, B.A., C.E. Holmes, and D.R. Yesner. 2014. Technology and Economy among the Earliest Prehistoric Foragers in Interior Eastern Beringia. In:  Graff , K.E., Ketron , C.V., Waters, M.R. (Eds.) Paleoamerican Odyssey. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 81-103. Potter, B.A., J.D. Reuther, V.T. Holliday, C.E. Holmes, D.S. Miller, N. Schmuck. 2017. Early Colonization of Beringia and Northern North America: Chronology, routes and adaptive strategies. Quaternary International 444:36-55.  Powers, R.W., R.D. Guthrie, and J.F. Hoffecker. 2017. Dry Creek: Archaeology and Paleoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting Camp. Goebel, T.E.  (Ed.) Texas A & M University Press, College Station. Raghavan, M., M. Steinrucken, K. Harris, S. Schiffels, S. Rasmussen, M. DeGiorgio, A. Albrechtsen, C. Valdiosera, M.C. Ávila-Arcos, A.S. Malaspnas, A. Eriksson, I. Moltke, M.  57  Metspalu, J.R. Homburger, J. Wall, O.E. Cornjo, J.V. Moreno-Mayar, T.S. Korneliussen, T. Pierre, Morten Rasmussen, P.F. Campos, P. de Barros Damgaard, M.E. Allentoft, J. Lindo, E. Metspalu, R. Rodríguez-Varela, J. Mansilla, C. Henrickson, A. Seguin-Orlando, H. Malmstrom, T. Stafford Jr., S.S. Shringapure, A. Moreno-Estrada, M. Karmin, K. Tambets, A. Bergstrom, Y. Xue, V. Warmuth, A.D. Friend, J. Singarayer, P. Valdes, F. Balloux, I. Leboreiro, J. Luis Vera, H. Rangel-Villalobos, D. Pettener, D. Luiselli, L.G. Davis, E. Heyer, C.P.E. Zollikofer, M.S. Ponce de León, C.I Smith, V. Grimes, K. Pike, M. Deal, B.T. Fuller, B. Arriaza, V. Standen, M.F. Luz, F. Ricaut, N. Guidon, L. Osipova, M.I. Voevoda, O.L. Posukh, O. Balanovsky, M. Lavryashina, Y. Bogunov, E. Khusnutdinova, M. Gubina, E. Balanovska, S. Fedorova, S. Litvinov, B. Malyarchuk, M. Derenko, M.J. Mosher, D. Archer, J. Cybulski, B. Petzelt, J. Mitchell, R. Worl, P.R. Norman, P. Parham, B.M. Kemp, T. Kivisild, C. Tyler-Smith, M.S. Sandhu, M. Crawford, R. Villems, D.G. Smith, M.R. Waters, T. Goebel, J.R. Johnson, R.S. Malhi, M. Jakobsson, D.J. Meltzer, A. Manica, R. Durbin, C.D. Bustamante, Y.S. Song, R. Nielsen, and E. Willerslev. 2015. Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans. Science 349: 6250 Rainey, F. 1939. Archaeology in Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 36(4). The American Museum of Natural History, New York. Rasic, J.T. 2011. The Earliest Alaskan Archaeological Record. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I. (Eds.) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. Texas A & M University Press, College Sation, pp. 128-164. Reich, D., N. Patterson, D. Campbell, A. Tandon, S. Mazieres, N. Ray, M.V. Parra, W. Rojas, C. Duque, N. Mesa, L.F. García, O. Triana, S. Blair, A. Maestre, J.C. Dib, C.M. Bravi, G. Bailliet, D. Corach, T. Hunemeier, M.C. Bortolini, F.M. Salzano, M.L. Petzl-Erler, V. Acuna-Alonzo, C. Aguilar-Salinas, S. Canizales-Quinteros, T. Tusié-Luna, L. Riba, M. Rodríguez-Cruz, M. Lopez-Alarcón, R. Coral-Vazquez, T. Canto-Cetina, I. Silva-Zolezzi, J.C. Fernandez-Lopez, A.V. Contreras, G. Jimenez-Sanchez, M.J. Gómez-Vázquez, J. Molina, À. Carrcedo, A. Salas, C. Gallo, G. Poletti, D.B. Witonksy, G. Alkorta-Aranburu, R.I. Sukernik, L. Osipova, S.A. Fedorva, R. Vasquez, M. Villena, C. Moreau, R. Barrantes, D. Pauls, L. Excoffier, G. Bedoya, F. Rothammer, J. Dugoujon, G. Larrouy, W. Kiltz, D. Labuda, J. Kidd, K. Kidd, A. Di Rienzo, N.B. Freimer, A.L. Price, and A. Ruiz-Linares.  2012. Reconstructing Native American population history. Nature 488: 370-375.  Reilly, A. 2015. Women’s Work, Tools, and Expertise: Hide Tanning and the Archaeological Record. MA Thesis. Department of Anthropology: University of Alberta, Edmonton.  Reuther, J.D., N.S. Slobodina, J.T. Rasic, J.P. Cook, and R.J. Speakman. 2011. Gaining Momentum: Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Archaeological Obsidian Source Studies in Interior and Northeastern Beringia. In: Goebel, T., Buvit, I. (Eds.) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability In Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. Texas A & M University Press, College Sation, pp. 270-286. Rotts, V. and H. Plisson. 2014. Projectiles and the Abuse of Use-wear Method in a Search for Impact. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:154-165. Ruth, S. 2013. Women’s Toolkits: Engendering Paleoindian Technological Organization. PhD. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology: The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.  Ryan, S.R. 2016. Recognizing Paleoindian Hideworking Activity Areas on the Great Plains. PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology: University of Kansas, Lawrence.   58  Sattler, R.A., T.E. Gillespie, N.A. Easton, and M. Grooms. 2011. Linda’s Point: Results from a New Terminal-Pleistocene Human Occupation at Healy Lake Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 28:75-78. Schieber, L.L. 2005. Late Prehistoric Bison and Hide Production and Hunter-Gatherer Identities on the North American Plains. In: Frink, L., Weedman, K. (Eds.) Gender and Hide Production. Weedman, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 57-76.  Schultz, J.M. 1992. The Use-Wear Generated by Processing Bison Hides. Plains Anthropologist 37(141):351.  Shott, M.J. 1995. How Much is a Scraper? Curation, Use Rates, and the Formation of Scraper Assemblages. Lithic Technology 20(1):53-72. Siegel, P.E. 1985. Edge Angle as a Functional Indicator: A Test. Lithic Technology 14(2):90-94. Skoglund, P. and D. Reich. 2016. A genomic view of the peopling of the Americas. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 41: 27-35.  Spencer-Wood, S.M. 2007. Feminist Gender Research in Classical Archaeology. In: Milledge Nelson, S. (Ed.) Women In Antiquity: theoretical Approaches to Gender and Archaeology. Pp. 265-299. AltaMira Press, Plymouth, pp. 265-299.              2011. Introduction: Feminist Theories and Archaeology. Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 7(1):1-33. Stager, J.K. and Robert J. McSkimming. 1984. Physical Environment. In: Dasmas, D. (Ed.) Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic. Vol. 6. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 27-35. Stevens, N.E., D.R. Harro, and A. Hicklin. 2010. Practical quantitative lithic use-wear analysis using multiple classifiers. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2671-2678. Tamm, E., T. Kivisild, M. Reidla, M. Metspalu, D.G. Smith, C.J. Mulligan, C.M. Bravi, O. Rickards, C. Martinez-Labarga, E.K. Khusnutdinova, S.A. Fedorova, M.V. Golubenko, V.A. Stepanov, M.A. Gubina, S.I. Zhadanov, L.P. Ossipova, L. Damba, M.I. Voevoda, J.E. Dipierri, R. Villems, R.S. Malhi. 2007. Beringia Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829. Vajda, E.J. 2010. A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages. In: Kari, J., Potter, B.A. (Eds.) The Dene-Yeniseian Connection. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska. Vol. 5 New Series, Numbers 1-2. University of Alaska Department of Anthropology and Alaska Native Language Center, Fairbanks, pp. 33-99. VanStone, J. 1989. Nunivak Island Eskimo (Yuit) Technology and Material Culture. Anthropology New Series No. 12. Field Museum of Natural History, Fieldiana. Waguespack, N.M. 2005. What do Women do in Large-Game Hunting Societies? The Organization of Male and Female Labor in Foraging Societies: Implications for Early Paleoindian Archaeology. American Anthropologist 107(4):666-676. West, F.H. (Ed). 1996 Donnelly Ridge. In: American Beginnings, the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.              1967 The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an Early Core and Blade Complex in Central Alaska. American Antiquity 32(3):360-382. Whelan, M.K. 1995. Beyond Hearth and Home on the Range: Feminist Approaches to Plains Archaeology. In: Duke, P., Wilson, M.C. (Eds.) Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology and the Postprocessual Critique. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 47-96. Wiederhold, J.E., C.D. Pevny. 2014. Fundamentals in practice: a holistic approach to microwear analysis at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:104- 59  119. Wilmsen, E.N. 1970. Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: a Paleo-Indian Case Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona. No.6. Tuscon. Workman, W.B. 1978. Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon Territory. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Paper 74. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa. Wygal, B.T. 2018. The Peopling of Eastern Beringia and its Archaeological Complexities. Quaternary International 466:284-298.             2016. The peopling of eastern Beringia and its archaeological complexities. Quaternary International xxx:1-15.   Yerkes, R.W. 1983. Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48:499-518. Younie, A. and T.E. Gillespie. 2016. Lithic Technology at Linda’s Point, Healy Lake, Alaska. Arctic Institute of North America 69(1):79-98.    60  Appendices Appendix 1: The Little John Site Radio Carbon Chronology    61  Appendix 2: Hide-working Use-wear Experiment  Experimental Tools I began this experiment by manufacturing via hard hammer percussion three scrapers. The first, Obsidian Scraper 1, is an obsidian scraper with unimarginal retouch (Figure 1 and 2). The second, Basaltic Scraper 1, is a basalt scraper with unimarginal retouch (Figure 3 and 4). And the third, Basaltic Scraper 2, is a bimarginally retouched scraper (Figure 5 and 6). None of the tools were hafted.    Figure 2.1 Obsidian Scraper 1-dorsal surface Figure 2.2 Obsidian Scraper 1-ventral surface     Figure 2.3 Basaltic Scraper 1-dorsal surface  Figure 2.4 Basaltic Scraper 1-dorsal surface   62      Figure 2.5 Basaltic Scraper 2-face 1   Figure 2.6 Basaltic Scraper 2-face 2  Documentation of Tool-use and Use-wear Interval One (0-15 minutes) The first stage of use is a 15 minute interval (interval 1=0-15 minutes) of scraping a commercially tanned piece of hide/leather, per tool. Motion was decided intuitively based upon comfortability of individual tool morphology, however, includes either a push or a pull-pull motion. Basaltic Scraper 1: applied push- and push-pull- motions, away from body  - Observation w/out magnification: within the first 15 minutes of scraping, the scraper became visually polished and rounded along the working edge. But very constrained to the immediate working edge.  - Observation @ 50 x: projections are dulling and edges appear to be rounding; no striations; doesn’t appear to be polished - Observation @ 225 x: striations are absent; polish does appear to be forming along the entire working edge (extensive in length along edge of both surfaces but not invasive); edge rounding is apparent  63     Figure 2.7 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)    Figure 2.8 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1: applied push- and push-pull- motions, away from body - Observation w/out magnification: the scraper became visibly worn as well but, less obviously than the basaltic scraper - Observation @ 50 x: wear is becoming apparent, mainly rounding a long edge, less so on ventral surface than dorsal; ventral has sharp projections; striations and polish not obvious/apparent - Observation @ 225 x: the edge rounding is still apparent or even more apparent; no striations, polish is difficult to see (if any) because of iridescence of raw material    Figure 2.9 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.10 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2: applied push- and push-pull- motions, away from body - Observation w/out magnification: the scraper became somewhat visibly worn but less so than the other pieces - Observation @ 50 x: projections are still sharp; no obvious rounding or polishing; wear is nearly non-existent - Observation @ 225 x: neither polish nor striations have developed, however, edge rounding is more apparent at this magnification  64     Figure 2.11 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.12 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Interval Two (15-30 minutes): This stage applied the same use motions and piece of leather for an additional 15 minutes to all three tools.  Basaltic Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: not much change; slightly more dull and rounded along working edge on both surfaces - Observation @ 50 x: also no significant change; rounding is becoming more obvious, maybe more development of polish; no striations - Observation @ 225 x: same as above    Figure 2.13 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.14 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: slightly more edge rounding although many sharp protrusions along extent of working edge still - Observation @ 50 x: appears similar as to observations made w/out magnification  65  - Observation @ 225 x: more rounding present on certain parts of tool edge (i.e. the more convex part) but many projections still present; cannot visibly see polish or striations    Figure 2.15 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.16 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2:  - Observation w/out magnification: appears barely used (probably because it is bifacial and the working edge is much larger than the end scrapers (more use-life?); It is effectively removing hair - Observation @ 50 x: Slightly more edge rounding visible but no other attributes of wear i.e. striations or polish (?) - Observation @ 225 x: observations are similar as @ 50 x     Figure 2.17 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.18 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Interval Three (30-45 minutes): This stage applied the same use motions and piece of leather for an additional 15 minutes to all three tools. Basaltic Scraper 1:   66  - Observation w/out magnification: tool was becoming noticeably less effective - Observation @ 50 x: polish appears to be developing; edges above the working edge are more worn - Observation @ 225 x: areas beyond working edge are becoming worn    Figure 2.19 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.20 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: tool was still fairly effective, I thought the obsidian would wear faster but the sharp protrusions are still present along edge (not excessively) enough to aid in scraping and removing hair - Observation @ 50 x: edge rounding is still the most obvious evidence of wear - Observation @ 225 x: polish becoming apparent and more edge rounding    Figure 2.21 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.22 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2:  - Observation w/out magnification: tool was still fairly effective—most effective of all tools to remove hair; wear is still developing slowly compared to other tools, still think it’s because both surfaces are used interchangeably - Observation @ 50 x: edge rounding is developing slowly  67  - Observation @ 225 x: edge rounding is more obvious at this magnification (this is a good interval to compare the polish develop of B1 compared to the lack of polish developing on B2)    Figure 2.23 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.24 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Interval Four (45-60 minutes): This stage applied the same use motions and piece of leather for an additional 15 minutes to all three tools. Basaltic Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: some rounding and possible polish developing further up from the working edge - Observation @ 50 x: Polish appears to be developing; edge rounding is significant, working edge appearing straight with little to no undulations or projections - Observation @ 225 x: polish potentially developing along projections on surface    Figure 2.25 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.26 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1:   68  - Observation w/out magnification: the working edge looks dull and blunt; projections more rounded but some sharp points left - Observation @ 50 x: edge rounding is still the most obvious, however, microchipping is occurring along ventral surface of working edge - Observation @ 225 x: same as @ 50 x    Figure 2.27 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.28 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2:  - Observation w/out magnification: still has sharp edges and protrusions, wear developing slowly - Observation @ 50 x: rounding is present but protrusions still numerous and fairly sharp; no to little polish development - Observation @ 225 x: Edge rounding is more apparent, however, still few other observable traces of wear    Figure 2.29 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.30 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Interval Five (60-75 minutes): This stage applied the same use motions and piece of leather for an additional 15 minutes to all three tools.   69  Basaltic Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: observations are same as interval four, ventral surface wear seems to be increasing - Observation @ 50 x: edge rounding is appearing extreme or extensive, polish is accumulating noticeably  - Observation @ 225 x: still no evidence of striations    Figure 2.31 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.32 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: observations are same as interval four, visible changes in wear are plateauing  - Observation @ 50 x: edge rounding is also appearing extreme or extensive, not sure about polish - Observation @ 225 x: microchipping is evident in some areas of ventral surface and working edge  Figure 2.33 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.34 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2:  - Observation w/out magnification: possibly more edge rounding  70  - Observation @ 50 x: wear is accumulating slowly; some increased development of polish and edge rounding - Observation @ 225 x: observations noted at 50 x are slightly more apparent    Figure 2.35 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.36 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Interval Six (75-90 minutes): This stage applied the same use motions and piece of leather for an additional 15 minutes to all three tools.  Basaltic Scraper 1:  - Observation w/out magnification: tool was largely ineffective - Observation @ 50 x: no striations, polish has developed extensively on angled working edge and on ventral surface; projections are rounded and edge is rounded - Observation @ 225 x: no additional observations    Figure 2.37 Basaltic Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.38 Basaltic Scraper 1 (225x) Obsidian Scraper 1:   71  - Observation w/out magnification: tool also largely ineffective even though some projections along working edge still visible - Observation @ 50 x: polish development is difficult to measure but, it is still visible including on ventral surface; no striations; edge is well rounded  - Observation @ 225 x: projections appear rounded and polished    Figure 2.39 Obsidian Scraper 1 (50x)   Figure 2.40 Obsidian Scraper 1 (225x) Basaltic Scraper 2:  - Observation w/out magnification: tool was still useful - Observation @ 50 x: not as much wear as other two tools; edge is rounding however, and polish is developed (although not well-developed) - Observation @ 225 x: no additional observations    Figure 2.41 Basaltic Scraper 2 (50x)   Figure 2.42 Basaltic Scraper 2 (225x)  Results General Observations: the leading characteristic is extensive edge rounding, followed by rounding of projections; polish was quick to appear on edges and slowly developed along the contact surface  72  but, extent of development varied between tools; scarring is bifacial for the obsidian scraper and unifacial for the basaltic scraper. However, the dorsal surface bears more scarring; striations on the obsidian scraper are either absent or indistinguishable from raw material properties. Table 2.1 Results of Experimental Program and the Identification of Use Motion  Striations- Orientation Scarring- Location Basaltic Scraper 1 Perpendicular to working edge Unifacial (dorsal surface) Obsidian Scraper 1 Absent Bifacial (more frequent on dorsal surface) Basaltic Scraper 2 Absent Bifacial Table 2.2 Results of Experimental Program and the Identification of Worked Material  Polish- Luster Polish- Texture Polish- Extent Striations-Nature Edge Damage Contact Area Basaltic Scraper 1 Dull Greasy Edge and surface Shallow and diffuse Extensive edge rounding Broad Obsidian Scraper 1 Relatively Dull Greasy Edge and surface n/a Extensive edge rounding Broad Basaltic Scraper 2 Dull Greasy Edge n/a Moderate edge rounding Broad      73  Appendix 3: Use-Wear Characteristics for Inferring the Method of Use-Expanded Method of Use Use-Wear Attribute Striations Scarring Cutting -Located near working edge with a parallel distribution  -Located on both surfaces of working edge  Sawing/Slicing -Unifacial and slanted or diagonal working edge -Located more heavily on one surface Scraping/Planing -If present, perpendicular to working edge and opposite scarred surface  *Planing; more abrasive wear on contact surface -Exclusively unifacial, typically occurs over a wide area *Projections are worn first and extensively Whittling -If present, perpendicular to working edge and opposite scarred surface -Unifacial scarring; little to no edge crushing Graving -May appear as longitudinal, transverse or both but, is exclusive to a working tip as opposed to an edge -Scarring is highly variable Boring -N/A -Characteristic roughening of tip -Scarring emanates from tip, unifacially or bifacially Chopping -Diagonal to working edge -Heavy scarring, with well-defined terminations (hinged or stepped) -If asymmetrical, damage accumulates faster on one side of working edge  Adzing -Unifacial and perpendicular working edge -Unifacial scarring Wedging -Perpendicular to cutting edge -Similar to chopping -Pitting/chipping opposite the cutting edge Projectile -If present, parallel to long axis *Sometimes short axis, if hafted transversely -Either close or distant to working edge -Well-defined terminations Abrading -N/A *Wear is primarily abrasive and located on the surface, not working edge Pounding -N/A -Pitting and cracking on a surface, not working edge (after Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980)     74  Appendix 4: Use-Wear Characteristics for Inferring the Worked Material  Worked Material  Soft Plant Wood Bone/Antler Stone Shell Meat/Fresh Hide Dry Hide Polish Lustre Very Bright Very Bright Bright Moderately Bright Relatively Dull Dull Polish Texture Very smooth polish when well developed Very Smooth polish Micro pitted polish  Very Smooth  Smooth polish Rough bumpy polish  Greasy polish  Polish Nature  Curved with troughs and crests  Very flat Domed   Includes pits 50x larger than bone polish Extent of Polish    Confined to working edge   Over entire surface  Striations Filled-in and comet tail striations  Distinct broad and shallow striations Many deep and narrow striations Similar striation patterning to shell Unique striations in geometric pattern Few narrow but deep striations Diffuse shallow striations Edge Damage Minimal edge damage Moderate edge damage Extensive edge damage Extensive edge damage Extensive edge damage Minimal edge damage Extensive rounding of edge Contact Area Broad Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Broad Broad Fracture Type Bending Cone-initiated Cone-initiated Cone-initiated Cone-initiated Bending Bending (after Miller 2013; Keeley 1980; Yerkes 1983)     75  Appendix 5: Variables Used to Infer Function  Variable Description Metrics Maximum length Measured .1 mm  Maximum width Measured .1 mm  Maximum Thickness Measured .1 mm Measured .1 mm  Weight Measured .1 gm Working Edge(s) Number Number of working edges  Location Left/right lateral, proximal, distal  Edge morphology Pointed, straight, concave, convex  Edge length Measured .00 mm  Edge angle Acute (<30), Steep (>30)  Retouch Absent, present-unimarginal, present-bimarginal   Retouch type Feathered, stepped, smoothed  Retouch Pattern Clustered, continuous Raw Material Material type Variable  Cortex Absent, some, present  Patina Present, absent     76   Appendix 6: Data—Tool Identification Artifact # Artifact Class Tool Pre-Microscopic Analysis Post-Microscopic Analysis  93.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 95.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 96.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 97.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 123.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 125.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 127.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 129.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 139.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 146.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 147.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 149.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 264.00 Flake Flake  265.01 Flake Flake  265.02 Flake Flake  265.03 Flake Flake  279.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  287.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  300.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 348.00 Flake Flake Tool X 349.01 Flake Flake  349.02 Flake Flake  349.03 Flake Flake  349.04 Flake Flake  349.06 Flake Flake  351.00 Flake Flake  353.00 Flake Flake  357.00 Core Core  361.00 Flake Flake  366.00 Flake Flake  383.01 Flake Flake  385.01 Flake Flake  385.02 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  386.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  388.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 389.00 Flake Flake  413.00 Flake Tool Flake   466.00 Core Core  467.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  542.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 594.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  595.00 Flake Flake  640.00 Flake Tool Flake  651.00 Flake Flake  653.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 655.00 Flake Tool Flake  658.01 Flake Flake  664.00 Flake Flake  665.00 Flake Flake  716.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 736.00 Flake Tool Flake  737.01 Flake Flake  737.02 Flake Flake  746.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 750.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 751.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 808.01 Flake Flake  1054.00 Flake Flake  1124.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 1125.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 1126.00 Flake Flake   77  1128.00 Flake Flake  1182.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1183.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1184.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1300.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1357.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 1358.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1359.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1452.00 Core Core  1472.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1477.00 Flake Flake  1478.00 Flake Flake  1483.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 1486.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 1580.00 Flake Flake  1588.00 Flake Flake  1607.00 Flake Tool Flake  1732.00 Flake Tool Flake  1810.00 Core Core  1812.00 Flake Tool Flake  1813.00 Flake Flake  1814.01 Flake Flake  1814.02 Flake Flake  1816.00 Flake Tool Flake  1835.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  1963.00 Flake Tool Flake  1979.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 1983.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 2035.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2036.00 Flake Flake  2037.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2042.00 Core Core  2043.00 Flake Flake  2044.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2060.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2062.00 Flake Tool Flake  2063.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 2115.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2156.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 2159.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 2192.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2241.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2297.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 2482.01 Flake Flake  2483.00 Flake Flake  2542.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2544.00 Core Core  2574.04 Flake Flake  2577.00 Flake Flake  2586.00 Flake Flake  2593.00 Flake Flake  2615.00 Flake Tool Flake  2645.00 Flake Flake  2646.00 Flake Flake  2678.00 Flake Flake  2679.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2681.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2682.00 Flake Flake  2683.01 Flake Flake  2686.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2703.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2704.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 2710.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2714.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2766.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  2768.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble   78  2769.00 Flake Flake  2784.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 2788.00 Flake Flake  2789.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2791.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2806.00 Flake Flake  2813.00 Flake  Flake Tool X 2821.00 Flake Flake  2838.00 Flake Tool Flake  2841.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2861.00 Flake Flake  2920.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 2921.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 2973.01 Flake Flake  2974.01 Flake Flake  2974.02 Flake Flake  2974.03 Flake Flake  2974.04 Flake Flake  2974.05 Flake Flake  2974.06 Flake Flake  2974.07 Flake Flake  2974.08 Flake Flake  2978.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 3035.00 Flake Flake  3070.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3072.00 Flake Flake  3074.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 3107.00 Flake Flake  3108.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3134.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3136.00 Flake Flake  3139.00 Flake Flake  3140.00 Flake Flake  3143.00 Flake Flake  3146.00 Flake Flake  3148.00 Flake Flake  3165.01 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3282.00 Flake Flake  3283.00 Flake Flake  3288.01 Flake Flake  3313.00 Flake Flake  3443.00 Flake Flake  3474.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 3476.00 Flake Tool Flake  3503.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3508.00 Flake Flake  3512.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3514.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3518.00 Flake Tool Flake  3520.00 Flake Flake  3522.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3532.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3535.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3546.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3575.00 Flake Flake  3577.01 Flake Flake  3600.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3601.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3607.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3617.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3618.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 3619.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  3722.00 Flake Flake Tool X 3795.00 Flake Flake  3797.00 Flake Flake  3800.00 Flake Flake   79       3832.00 Bifacial Tool Bifacial Tool X 3862.01 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4080.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4100.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4104.01 Flake Flake  4106.00 Flake Flake  4110.01 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4110.02 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4125.00 Flake Flake  4127.00 Flake Flake  4128.00 Flake Tool Flake Tool X 4148.00 Flake Flake Tool X 4235.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble  4341.00 Flake Flake  4375.00 Flake Flake  4379.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X 4380.00 Flake Tool Flake  4381.00 Flake Flake  4384.00 Flake Tool Flake  4391.00 Flake Flake  4449.00 Flake Tool Flake  4451.00 Flake Flake  4455.00 Flake Flake  4456.00 Flake Flake  4458.00 Flake Flake  4470.00 Pebble/Cobble Pebble/Cobble X  80   Appendix 7: Data—Active Part Identification Artifact Active Part Type(s) of Wear Present # Location Description 95.00 1 lateral 1 - scarring, crushing, polish   2 proximal lateral 2 - scarring, crushing, polish   3 point - scarring, edge rounding, polish   3 distal lateral 2 - scarring, crushing, polish   4 distal  - scarring, edge rounding, polish 96.00 1 distal - scarring, edge rounding, striations, polish   2 left lateral point to medial section scarring, edge rounding, striations, polish   3 right lateral point to medial section scarring, edge rounding, polish 97.00 1 lateral 1 lateral margin to breakage point scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 proximal  break scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 lateral 2 lateral margin to breakage point scarring, polish, edge rounding 123.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 distal - scarring, polish, edge rounding   4 medial broken margin scarring, polish, edge rounding 125.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 medial - scarring   4 distal - scarring 127.00 1 right lateral - scarring, polish, rounding/removal of flake scars   2 left lateral - scarring, polish    3 distal - scarring, polish, rounding/removal of flake scars 129.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, polish, crushing   3 distal - scarring, polish, crushing 139.00 1 straight margin - scarring, polish, edge rounding, removal of flake scars   2 convex margin - scarring, polish, edge rounding, removal of flake scars 146.00 1 lateral 1 left/longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding/and of projections   2 lateral 2 right/shorter margin scarring, polish, edge rounding/and of projections   3 distal  - scarring, polish, edge rounding/and of projections 147.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 proximal - scarring, polish, multi-directional striations 149.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 distal - scarring, polish, crushing 300.00 1 right lateral proximal part (1/2 cortex, 1/2 not) scarring, polish   2 left lateral extent of margin scarring, polish   3 distal - scarring, polish, crushing  81  348.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 right lateral - scarring, polish   3 distal - scarring polish 388.00 1 left lateral small point scarring, polish, edge rounding 542.00 1 right proximal point oriented right scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 left lateral  - scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 distal  - scarring, polish, edge rounding 653.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 right lateral - scarring, polish   3 distal - scarring, polish 716.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 distal - scarring 746.00 1 right lateral (1) ventral edge scarring, edge rounding, possible striations   2 right lateral (2) dorsal edge scarring, edge rounding   3 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish 750.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 right lateral - scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 distal - scarring, polish  751.00 1 right lateral - scarring, polish   2 left lateral - scarring, polish 1124.00 1 left lateral - scarring   2 right lateral - scarring, polish   3 distal - scarring, polish 1125.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish, striations   2 right lateral - scarring, polish, striations   3 distal - scarring, polish, striations 1357.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 right lateral - scarring polish 1483.00 1 right lateral - scarring, polish, striations   2 distal - scarring, polish 1486.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, rounding   2 lateral 2  shorter margin scarring, polish, rounding   3 distal flaked end scarring, polish, rounding   4 proximal  unflaked end polish 1979.00 1 lateral 1 - scarring, possible polish, possible edge rounding 1983.00 1 right lateral - scarring, rounding of scars, poorly developed polish   2 left distal - scarring, rounding of scars, poorly developed polish 2063.00 1 surface 1 split surface polish, edge rounding 2156.00 1 lateral 1 right; oriented with crystalline surface up scarring, polish   2 lateral 2 left scarring, polish  82    3 point - scarring, polish, edge rounding 2159.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, polish, edge rounding   3 distal - scarring 2192.00 Unobservable -   2241.00 1 distal - scarring, edge rounding, polish 2297.00 1 right lateral - scarring, edge rounding 2703.00 1 right lateral - scarring, polish   2 left lateral - scarring, polish 2704.00 1 left lateral - scarring, striations, edge rounding   2 right lateral - scarring, polish, edge rounding 2710.00 1 right lateral refit proximal segement scarring 2714.00 1 left lateral oriented, point part up scarring, edge rounding, striations   2 right lateral - scarring, edge rounding, striations 2784.00 1 left lateral oriented, point part up scarring, edge rounding   2 right lateral - scarring, edge rounding 2789.00 1 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish   2 right lateral  - scarring, edge rounding, polish   3 graver on left lateral scarring, edge rounding, polish 2791.00 1 distal refit distal segment scarring, edge rounding, polish  2841.00 1 left lateral refit medial segment scarring, edge rounding, polish  2920.00 1 lateral 1 - scarring, polish, edge rounding 2921.00 1 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish   2 right lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish   3 proximal  - snap fracture   4 distal  - scarring, edge rounding, polish 2978.00 1 left lateral - scarring   2 right lateral  - scarring, striations   3 distal  - scarring 3074.00 1 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding   2 distal  - scarring, edge rounding 3474.00 1 left lateral - scarring, crushing, polish   2 right lateral  - scarring, crushing, polish 3618.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring 3619.00 1 lateral 1 - scarring, possible polish, possible edge rounding 3722.00 1 right lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish 3832.00 1 lateral 1 longer margin scarring, edge rounding, polish   2 lateral 2 shorter margin scarring, edge rounding polish 3862.01 1 left lateral  cortex distal scarring, polish   2 right lateral - scarring, polish   3 distal - scarring polish 4080.00 1 left lateral longer margin scarring, polish  83    2 right lateral  shorter margin scarring, polish 4100.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 right lateral - scarring, polish 4110.01 1 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish   2 right lateral  - scarring, polish 4110.02 1 left lateral - scarring, polish, edge rounding   2 right lateral - scarring, polish   3 distal/point - scarring 4128.00 1 left lateral - scarring, polish   2 right lateral  - scarring, polish 4148.00 1 right lateral - scarring, crushing, polish 4379.00 1 lateral 1  - scarring, edge rounding, polish 4470.00 1 left lateral - scarring, edge rounding, polish  84  Appendix 8: Data—Use Motion Identification Artifact AP Location Striations Use Method Scarring Use Method 95.00 1 lateral 1 diffuse parallel striations along edge, bifacial sawing/slicing flaking on both surfaces but more on one surface, edge rounding also present, including on projections,   sawing/slicing   2 proximal lateral 2 many parallel striations on both faces near edge sawing/slicing bifacial flaking, irregular placement and shape sawing/slicing   3 point multidirectional, but mainly along axis of the point graving scarring is variable, edge rounding is present along arrises and projections graving   4 distal lateral 2 very few, variably oriented striations ? bifacial flaking, irregular shape and size ?   5 distal  very few, variably oriented striations ? bifacial scarring but, edge damage is characterized by edge rounding and smoothing   96.00 1 distal few, shallow striations perpendicular to the working edge scraping ventral: edge rounding, little-no scarring on surface; dorsal: edge rounding of projections, removal/rounding of flake scars; scarring is unifacial  scraping   2 left lateral few, shallow striations parallel/diagonal to the working edge (ventral) sawing/slicing extreme edge rounding, scarring is unifacial (dorsal) scraping   3 right lateral few striations, deep, diagonal to the working edge (ventral) sawing/slicing extreme edge rounding, scarring is unifacial (dorsal) scraping 97.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a edge rounding/removal of flake scars on one surface/edge and retainment of scars on opposing surface/edge slicing/sawing or scraping   2 proximal  absent n/a large hinge fracture projectile   3 lateral 2 unifacial and diagonal cutting some edge rounding; flake scars largely intact cutting 123.00 1 lateral 1 short diffuse striations perpendicular the working edge on one face ? bifacial scarring, edge rounding ?   2 lateral 2 n/a n/a bifacial scarring, edge rounding ?   3 distal few, variably oriented striations hafting ? bifacial scarring, edge rounding hafting   4 medial n/a n/a large snap fracture projectile 125.00 1 lateral 1 possible diagonal striations on one face ? step fractures on both surfaces of edge projectile   2 lateral 2 possible perpendicular striations scraping/planing (?) step fractures on both surfaces of edge, edge rounding is prevalent and rounding of flake scars scraping/planing (?)   3 medial n/a n/a large hinge fracture projectile   4 distal few short deep multidirectional striations, mainly perpendicular ? large snap fracture, few microscars and edge rounding, particularly on corners ? 127.00 1 right lateral n/a n/a bifacial scarring but more edge damage on ventral surface sawing/slicing   2 left lateral n/a n/a scarred on both faces; retouch on dorsal and use damage on ventral sawing/slicing   3 distal on ventral surface perpendicular to edge; deep/short; opposite retouched surface scraping/planing scarred on both faces; retouch on dorsal and use damage on ventral sawing/slicing  85  129.00 1 lateral 1 areas with parallel and diagonal striations sawing/slicing bifacial scarring-highly variable size and terminations including; feather, snap, hinge, step fractures; edge rounding also extensive; lots of edge damage altogether sawing/slicing   2 lateral 2 possibly diagonal striations on one face unknown (possibly sawing/slicing) bifacial scarring-variable also but, dominated by feather terminations; little to no edge rounding but lots of breakage/crushing/sharp working edge; scarring/edge damage is equal on both faces cutting   3 distal absent n/a bifacial scarring, variable terminations; much less damage than lateral edges unknown 139.00 1 straight margin striations immediate working edge, parallel and perp. (non-retouched surface) scraping/planing unifacial scarring, extensive step fractures on one surface with feather termination, few microscars on opposing face; extensive edge rounding scraping/planing   2 convex margin striations immediate working edge, both parallel (few) and perp. (many) (non-retouched surface) scraping/planing unifacial scarring, extensive step fractures on one surface with feather termination, some microscars on opposing face but few; extensive edge rounding scraping/planing 146.00 1 lateral 1 n/a n/a unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding scraping/planing   2 lateral 2 n/a n/a unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding scraping/planing   3 distal very few shallow striations perpendicular working edge scraping/planing unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding scraping/planing 147.00 1 left lateral diagonal and parallel the working edge on both surfaces cutting bifacial scarring, somewhat irregular but largely small and feathered cutting   2 distal few multidirectional striations graving scarring is multidirectional and irregular but shallow feathered terminations prevalent graving 149.00 1 left lateral parallel striations on ventral and dorsal cutting scarring is bifacial, irregular scarring feather and step, on working edge cutting   2 proximal absent n/a scarring is unifacial, edge rounding present hafting 300.00 1 right lateral absent n/a scarring is bifacial, regular small feather terminated scars cutting   2 left lateral possible parallel striations n/a scarring is bifacial, regular small feather terminated scars cutting   3 distal absent n/a very few bifacial scars backing wear 348.00 1 left lateral striations perpendicular the working edge on ventral and dorsal surface scraping/planing unifacial scarring, both retouch and use, edge rounding also present-moderate scraping/planing   2 right lateral absent n/a unifacial scarring, retouch and use; scarring is on both faces but, retouch alternates faces and remains unifacial scraping/planing   3 distal absent n/a unifacial scarring, retouch and use; scarring is on both faces but, retouch alternates faces and remains unifacial scraping/planing 388.00 1 left lateral many shallow striations perpendicular the working edge scraping/planing unifacial scarring on contact surface/opposite the striations scraping/planing  86  542.00 1 right proximal parallel striations on one surface sawing/slicing retouch scarring on both faces, use wear scars on surface opposite striations, extreme edge rounding sawing/slicing   2 left lateral  absent n/a retouch scarring on both faces, more heavily worked on one side sawing/slicing   3 distal  absent n/a bifacial scarring and extensive edge rounding cutting 653.00 1 left lateral deep, slightly diagonal to working edge, more heavily located on dorsal surface sawing/slicing bifacial scarring, regular small and feathered, more heavily located on dorsal surface sawing/slicing   2 right lateral absent n/a bifacial, also regular but less frequent than opposing lateral margin sawing/slicing   3 distal few striations perpendicular to the working edge scraping/planing largely unifacial, some variability scraping/planing 716.00 1 lateral 1 potential striations that are few and multidirectional ? bifacial scarring well defined projectile   2 lateral 2 potential striations that are few and multidirectional ? bifacial scarring well defined projectile   3 distal absent n/a large hinge fracture, appears to be located below haft wear, broke within haft projectile/hafting 746.00 1 right lateral (1) shallow, perpendicular  n/a largely unifacial scarring on dorsal, with few irregular scars on ventral; edge rounding on working edge scraping/planing   2 right lateral (2) absent n/a bifacial scaring but heavier on ventral surface backing wear   3 left lateral shallow, perpendicular and diagonal n/a largely unifacial scarring on dorsal, with few irregular scars on ventral; edge rounding on working edge scraping/planing 750.00 1 left lateral unobservable (possibly perp. and para.) n/a unifacially worked on ventral but bifacial fractures on dorsal from use-consistent w/experimental obsidian scraper scraping/planing   2 right lateral unobservable (possibly perp. And para.) n/a unifacially worked on ventral but bifacial fractures on dorsal from use-consistent w/experimental obsidian scraper scraping/planing 751.00 1 right lateral absent n/a minimal bifacial scarring cutting   2 left lateral absent n/a minimal bifacial scarring cutting 1124.00 1 left lateral few, shallow striations diagonal to the working edge (dorsal) sawing/slicing bifacial-snap fractures, feather-terminated on scars  cutting   2 right lateral few, shallow striations diagonal to the working edge (dorsal) sawing/slicing dorsal/unifacial-snap fractures, feather-terminated on scars sawing/slicing   3 distal absent n/a dorsal: snap factures, feather-termination scars with polish developed within; some scarring on ventral surface (unifacial scarring) sawing/slicing 1125.00 1 left lateral many, shallow long striations parallel working edge, heavier on ventral cutting feathered termination on both faces cutting   2 right lateral few shallow, long striations parallel to working edge on ventral surface cutting feathered termination on both faces cutting   3 distal few shallow, long cutting feathered termination on both cutting  87  striations parallel to working edge on ventral surface faces 1357.00 1 left lateral deep perpendicular and diagonal on ventral surface (unifacial) scraping/planing feather-terminated scars, primarily on dorsal surface (unifacial scarring, opposing striations) scraping/planing   2 right lateral deep, parallel striations, bifacial cutting bifacial-feather-terminated scars (bifacial scarring) cutting 1483.00 1 right lateral parallel striations cutting bifacial scarring, appears heavier on dorsal but, likely retouch, and scarring is equally distributed cutting   2 distal absent n/a bifacial scarring, but more frequent on dorsal surface cutting 1486.00 1 lateral 1 long, shallow, diffuse, mainly perpendicular to working edge scraping/planing step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial scraping/planing   2 lateral 2  absent n/a step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial scraping/planing   3 distal very few long, shallow, diffuse, perpendicular to working edge scraping/planing step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial scraping/planing   4 proximal  very few long, shallow, diffuse, parallel to edge n/a n/a n/a 1979.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a unifacial on dorsal surface scraping/planing 1983.00 1 right lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring but, more extensive on ventral surface cutting   2 left distal absent n/a bifacial scarring but, more extensive on ventral surface cutting 2063.00 1 surface 1  absent n/a edge rounding  scraping 2156.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a bifacial scarring unknown   2 lateral 2 absent n/a bifacial scarring unknown   3 point multidirectional striations graving or projectile wear bifacial scarring projectile 2159.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a bifacial scarring, mostly feather and step terminated scars unknown   2 lateral 2 absent n/a bifacial scarring, mostly feather and step terminated scars unknown   3 distal absent n/a absent (some feather and step fractures but appear to originate from lateral margins or else transportation wear--probably NOT use-wear) unknown 2192.00 Unobservable         2241.00 1 distal absent n/a unifacial scarring scraping/planing 2297.00 1 right lateral  absent n/a unifacial scarring scraping/planing 2703.00 1 right lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring but, more frequent on dorsal surface; edge rounding of protrusions and flake scars scraping/planing   2 left lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring but, more frequent on dorsal surface; edge rounding of protrusions and flake scars scraping/planing 2704.00 1 left lateral  parallel working edge, more frequent on dorsal surface cutting unifacial scarring sawing/slicing   2 right lateral absent n/a unifacial scarring  sawing/slicing  88  2710.00 1 right lateral possible parallel striations on dorsal surface sawing/slicing unifacial scarring on ventral surface sawing/slicing 2714.00 1 left lateral diagonal striations on ventral surface sawing/slicing bifacial scarring but more damage on dorsal surface, ventral surface has irregular sized feather scars; edge rounding also present sawing/slicing   2 right lateral  diagonal striations on ventral surface sawing/slicing bifacial scarring but more damage on dorsal surface, ventral surface has irregular sized feather scars; edge rounding also present sawing/slicing 2784.00 1 left lateral some diagonal but mostly parallel bifacial striations  sawing/slicing bifacial retouch, more intensive on ventral surface; edge rounding also present sawing/slicing   2 right lateral  possible diagonal striations  n/a bifacial retouch, more intensive on ventral surface; edge rounding also present sawing/slicing 2789.00 1 1 lateral absent n/a unifacial retouch on dorsal surface scraping/planing   2 2 lateral  few perpendicular striations on ventral surface scraping/planing unifacial retouch on dorsal surface scraping/planing   3 graver absent n/a bifacial/multidirectional, but mainly on dorsal surface graving 2791.00 1 distal many shallow striations, perp. the working edge, concentrated on very distal portion scraping/planing unifacial scarring on dorsal surface, extensive edge rounding scraping/planing 2841.00 1 left lateral  many shallow striations, perp. the working edge scraping/planing unifacial scarring on dorsal surface, extensive edge rounding scraping/planing 2920.00 1 lateral 1  absent n/a few bifacial scars immediately on working edge chopping 2921.00 1 left lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring, well defined hinge/step fractures projectile   2 right lateral  absent n/a bifacial scarring, well defined hinge/step fractures projectile    3 proximal  absent n/a large hinge fracture projectile   4 distal  absent n/a bifacial scarring, well defined hinge/step fractures projectile 2978.00 1 left lateral absent n/a slight scaring on distal most point of lateral margin hafting   2 right lateral  diagonal and restricted to working edge on both faces cutting bifacial microscarring cutting   3 distal  absent n/a bifacial microscarring cutting 3074.00 1 left lateral absent n/a scarring is unifacial, edge rounding present scraping/planing   2 distal few perpendicular striations on ventral surface scraping/planing scarring is bifacial but heavier on dorsal surface scraping/planing 3474.00 1 left lateral  n/a n/a largely unifacial, edge rounding scraping/planing   2 right lateral  n/a n/a largely unifacial, more on ventral surface than left lateral exhibits, edge rounding present scraping/ planing 3618.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a bifacial scarring, feather terminated, more extensive on ventral surface cutting 3722.00 1 right lateral n/a n/a bifacial but more on dorsal surface, slight edge rounding present, microflaking minimal sawing/slicing 3832.00 1 lateral 1 few potential striations in diagonal direction consistent with projectile wear projectile bifacial scarring; inconsistent breakage-few feather scars, few snaps, edge rounding mixed with sharp edge projectile  89    2 lateral 2 few potential striations in diagonal direction consistent with projectile wear projectile bifacially worked; like lateral 1 few and variable microscars, feather and snap and sharp and rounded portions of the edge projectile 3862.01 1 left lateral  absent n/a bifacial but more on dorsal surface, edge rounding and rounding of scars sawing/slicing   2 right lateral parallel/diagonal to working edge, observed on ventral surface sawing/slicing bifacial but more on dorsal surface, edge rounding and rounding of scars sawing/slicing   3 distal absent n/a bifacial but more on dorsal surface, edge rounding more pronounced than other working edges, rounding of projections sawing/slicing 4080.00 1 left lateral few diffuse diagonal striations on both faces sawing/slicing bifacial but more pronounced on dorsal sawing/slicing   2 right lateral  few diffuse parallel striations on both faces cutting bifacial but more pronounced on ventral sawing/slicing 4100.00 1 left lateral few striations parallel and close to working edge, primarily on dorsal surface cutting bifacial scarring, use damage on both faces, retouch on dorsal cutting   2 right lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring, some edge rounding cutting 4110.01 1 left lateral very few striations parallel working edge cutting irregular bifacial scarring cutting   2 right lateral  diagonal striations primarily on ventral surface sawing/slicing irregular bifacial scarring cutting 4110.02 1 left lateral absent n/a unifacial scarring on dorsal surface, slight rounding sawing/slicing   2 right lateral absent n/a bifacial scarring, highly irregular size and termination types sawing/slicing   3 distal/point absent n/a multidirectional scarring on all angles of point graving 4128.00 1 left lateral  some parallel and some diagonal, more prominent on ventral cutting very few scars, bifacial  cutting   2 right lateral  few possible parallel striations on ventral surface cutting bifacial, similar to opposing edge but more scarring cutting 4148.00 1 right lateral  few shallow striations, parallel working edge cutting bifacial and irregular scarring cutting 4379.00 1 lateral 1 absent n/a steep scars, bifacial, but more extensive on steeper face unknown 4470.00 1 left lateral  absent n/a unifacial scarring on ventral surface; three large fractures/scars unknown   90  Appendix 9: Data—Worked Material Identification Artifact AP Greasy Polish Dull Polish Comments: Edge Rounding Projection Rounding Removal of Flake Scars Scarring Comments: Hide-working  95.00 1 N N discontinuous bright polish N N N bifacial bifacial retouch; edge is crushed  Other  2 N N discontinuous bright developed polish on working edge N N N bifacial bifacial retouch; edge is crushed  Other  3 N N discontinuous bright developed polish on working edge Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial  Other  4 N N discontinuous bright polish N N N bifacial bifacial retouch; edge is crushed  Other   5 N N bright spots Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial bifacial retouch on base, edge rounding is haft wear Other 96.00 1 Y Y greasy polish on both faces Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-extensive unifacial  extensive edge rounding including scars and projections Y-dry hide  2 Y Y greasy polish on both faces Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-extensive unifacial  extensive edge rounding including scars and projections Y-dry hide   3 Y Y greasy polish on both faces Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-extensive unifacial  extensive edge rounding including scars and projections Y-dry hide 97.00 1 Y N greasy polish, mostly on broken point, polish relatively dull Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial plenty of edge rounding, likely repurposed to cut hide or possibly meat Y-Meat/ Fresh Hide  2 Y Y hafting polish Y Y Y bifacial haft wear Other   3 N N moderately bright polish along both faces of edge Y-moderate Y-minimal N bifacial   Y-Meat/ Fresh Hide 123.00 1 N N moderately bright, patchy Y-moderate Y-minimal N bifacial characterized by discontinuous or patchy bright polish and edge rounding Other  2 N N moderately bright, patchy Y-moderate Y-minimal N bifacial characterized by discontinuous or patchy bright polish and edge rounding Other  3 N N moderately bright polish, with hafting bright spots Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial haft wear Haft wear   4 n/a n/a n/a N N N large snap fracture projectile wear Other  91  125.00 1 N N minimal polish development, primarily on distal portion Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial scarring dominated by step terminations Other  2 N N minimal polish development, primarily on breaks Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial scarring dominated by step terminations Other  3 N N moderately bright polish N N N absent one large hinge fracture Other   4 Y Y consistent with hafting Y-minimal N N absent one large hinge fracture Other 127.00 1 N N bright polish, patchy but on both faces and working edge Y-minimal N Y-minimal bifacial  primarily retouch on dorsal surface, but irregular microchipping on ventral Other  2 N N bright polish, patchy but on both faces and working edge; more developed than opposing lateral N N N bifacial irregular fracture types, sizes, and location Other   3 N N bright polish well developed on both faces and working edge N N N bifacial retouch on ventral surface but extensive irregular scarring on both faces (see left lateral description) Other 129.00 1 N N some bright polish mostly on arrises and within scars Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial  step, feather, and snap terminations, a lot of edge damage Other  2 N N some bright polish mostly on arrises and within scars Y-minimal N N bifacial step, feather, and snap terminations, edge damage; more feather and less other than opposing working edge Other   3 N N polish absent Y-minimal N N bifacial mostly feathered terminations Other 139.00 1 Y Y dull greasy polish observed on edge and ventral surface; potentially overlapping brighter polish Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-extensive unifacial unifacial scarring is stepped and steep on dorsal surface, some rounding of steps and polish on them  Y-dry hide   2 Y Y dull greasy polish on edge, projections, and face; potentially other polishes Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-moderate unifacial/bifacial bifacially worked toward point end, unifacial toward rounded edge; use wear appear unifacial along majority of tool Y-dry hide 146.00 1 Y Y looks like dull greasy polish but might be material Y-extensive Y-extensive n/a unifacial unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding Y-dry hide  2 Y Y looks like dull greasy polish but might be material Y-extensive Y-extensive n/a unifacial unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding Y-dry hide   3 Y Y looks like dull greasy polish but might be material Y-extensive Y-extensive n/a unifacial unifacial scarring on ventral surface; extensive edge rounding Y-dry hide  92  147.00 1 N N bright polish concentrated on working edge, but present on ventral surface also N N N bifacial bifacial scarring but, more prominent on ventral surface, termination dominated by feather Other   2 N N bright polish on all or most angles on point Y-moderate Y-minimal Y-minimal multidirectional multidirectional scarring and edge rounding and polish development Other 149.00 1 N N both bright and relatively dull polish N N Y-minimal bifacial irregular bifacial scarring Other   2 N N bright polish N N N unifacial  unifacial scarring, some crushing present Other 300.00 1 N N bright-very bright, primarily on ventral surface N N N bifacial irregular size and termination Other  2 N N bright-very bright, primarily along edge N N N bifacial irregular size and termination but, notable snap fractures Other   3 N N poor-no polish development N N N bifacial few Other 348.00 1 N N poor-no polish development Y-moderate N N unifacial retouch and use, edge rounding also present-moderate Other  2 N N poor-no polish development N N N unifacial retouch and use; scarring is bifacial but, retouch alternates faces and remains unifacial Other   3 N N poor-to no polish N N N unifacial retouch and use; scarring is bifacial but, retouch alternates faces and remains unifacial Other 388.00 1 Y Y dull greasy polish present Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate unifacial  minimal edge damage/rounding-probably reflecting minimal use Y-dry hide 542.00 1 N N polish not observed Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial edge damage looks like hide wear but there is no observable polish  Other  2 N N bright polish on face 1 and face 2, concentrated on working edge  Y-moderate Y-extensive Y-moderate bifacial one face heavily step fractured, other face feather-scars dominate Other   3 N N this edge appears greasier than lateral edges Y-moderate Y-extensive Y-moderate bifacial bifacial edge damage is visible, few step fractures Other 653.00 1 N N patchy discontinuous bright polish--more bright polish than right lateral Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial   Other  2 N N patchy discontinuous bright polish Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial  Other   3 N N bright polish Y-minimal Y-minimal Y-minimal unifacial  some bifacial scarring but minimal Other  93  716.00 1 Y N some areas look like greasy dull polish which is likely the raw material; wet greasy polish on parts of edge  Y-minimal N N bifacial bifacially worked, step fractures on one face, small microfractures on both faces on working edge Other  2 N N some areas look like greasy dull polish which is likely the raw material; wet greasy polish on parts of edge possibly  Y-minimal N N bifacial  bifacially worked, step fractures on one face, small microfractures on both faces on working edge Other   3 N N   N N N n/a one large hinge fracture Other 746.00 1 N N minimal polish development, moderately dull and pitted/rough Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-minimal unifacial  some bifacial scarring but minimal Yes-fresh hide  2 N N minimal polish development, moderately dull and pitted/rough Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-minimal bifacial  bifacial scarring appears ground for backing ?   3 N N relatively dull pitted polish, on ventral surface Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-moderate unifacial  some bifacial scarring but minimal Yes-fresh hide 750.00 1 Y Y pitted dull polish Y-extensive Y-extensive y-moderate unifacial unifacially worked on ventral, bifacial fractures on dorsal consistent w/experimental obsidian scraper Y-fresh hide  2 N Y pitted dull polish Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-minimal bifacial not invasive chipping; bifacial fractures on from w/experimental obsidian scraper Y-fresh hide 751.00 1 N N   N N N bifacial very minimal Other   2 N N   N N N bifacial very minimal Other 1124.00 1 N N poorly developed polish restricted to spots of working edge, bright Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial dorsal and ventral: snap fractures and feather-terminations Other  2 N N poorly developed polish restricted to spots of working edge, bright Y-minimal Y-minimal N unifacial  dorsal: snap factures, feather-terminated scars with polish developed within Other   3 N N poorly developed polish restricted to spots of working edge, bright Y-moderate Y-minimal N unifacial  dorsal: snap factures, feather-terminated scars with polish developed within; some scarring on ventral surface Other 1125.00 1 N N poorly developed polish restricted to spots of working edge, bright Y-minimal N N bifacial feather terminated scars dominate both faces Other  2 N N no polish observed Y-minimal N N bifacial feather terminated scars dominate both faces Other   3 N N no polish observed Y-minimal N N bifacial feather terminated scars dominate both faces Other  94  1357.00 1 N N poorly developed bright polish on parts of working edge Y-minimal N N unifacial  feather-terminated scars, primarily on dorsal surface  Other   2 N N poorly developed bright polish on parts of working edge Y-minimal N N bifacial feather-terminated scars Other 1483.00 1 N N discontinuous bright polish along working edge N N N bifacial bifacial scarring, appears heavier on dorsal but, likely retouch, and scarring is equally distributed Other   2 N N bright very smooth polish on dorsal surface; bright smooth polish on some parts of edge on ventral surface N N N bifacial bifacial scarring, but more frequent on dorsal surface Other 1486.00 1 Y Y dull greasy polish including surface and edge Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-minimal unifacial step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial Yes-dry hide  2 Y Y dull greasy polish including surface and edge Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-minimal unifacial step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial Yes-dry hide  3 Y Y dull greasy polish including surface and edge Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-minimal unifacial step and feather terminated macrofractures, largely unifacial Yes-dry hide   4 Y Y dull greasy polish including surface and edge Y-extensive N N absent n/a Yes-dry hide 1979.00 1 N N polish not observed n/a n/a n/a unifacial rounding is not observable: all edges appear rounded and material is very dense Other 1983.00 1 N N moderately bright, on edge and surface Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial bifacial retouch; mostly feathered terminations Other   2 N N moderately bright, on edge and surface Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial bifacial retouch; feathered and step terminations Other 2063.00 1 Y Y dull greasy polish on face and edge but not on opposing face Y-extensive Y-extensive n/a absent   Yes-dry hide 2156.00 1 N N no polish observed Y-minimal N N bifacial bifacial retouch w/feathered terminations Other  2 N N no polish observed Y-minimal N N bifacial bifacial retouch w/feathered terminations Other   3 N N moderately bright, shiny polish Y-moderate Y-moderate N bifacial bifacial retouch w/feathered terminations Other 2159.00 1 N N discontinuous bright polish Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial bifacial scarring, mostly feather and step terminated scars Other  2 N N spots of bright wet looking polish Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial bifacial scarring, mostly feather and step terminated scars Other   3 N N also some spots of bright wet looking polish-may be raw material Y-minimal Y-minimal N absent absent (some feather and step fractures but appear to originate from lateral margins or else Other  95  transportation wear--probably NOT use-wear) 2192.00 Unobservable  2241.00 1 N N moderately bright, poorly developed polish Y-minimal N N unifacial feathered terminations on ventral surface Other 2297.00 1 N N poorly developed bright polish confined to working edge Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial few feather terminations on dorsal surface Other 2703.00 1 N N bright polish along edge and projections Y-minimal Y-minimal N unifacial   Other   2 N N bright polish along edge and projections; less developed than right lateral Y-minimal Y-minimal N unifacial   Other 2704.00 1 N N poorly developed polish Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial dorsal surface Other   2 N N poorly developed polish Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial dorsal surface Other 2710.00 1 N N discontinuous bright developed polish on working edge Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial dorsal surface, very small,  Other 2714.00 1 N N bright, smooth but pitted polish N N N bifacial scarring on ventral surface from use, but unifacially retouched Other   2 N N bright, smooth polish  N N N bifacial scarring on ventral surface from use, but unifacially retouched Other 2784.00 1 N N polish not observed Y-extensive Y-moderate N bifacial   Other   2 N N polish not observed Y-extensive Y-moderate N bifacial   Other 2789.00 1 Y Y poorly developed dull greasy polish, mostly on ventral surface and in flake scars Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate unifacial largely unifacial but some bifacial flakes removed Yes-dry hide  2 Y Y poorly developed dull greasy polish, mostly on small portions of ventral Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-moderate unifacial largely unifacial but some bifacial flakes removed Yes-dry hide  3 Y Y poorly developed polish Y-extensive Y-extensive Y-minimal bifacial/multidirectional bifacial/multidirectional, but mainly on dorsal surface Yes-dry hide 2791.00 1 N N moderately bright or bright polish; discontinuous, most prevalent in larger flake scars Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial dorsal surface scarring Other 2841.00 1 N N moderately bright or bright polish; discontinuous, most prevalent in larger flake scars Y-moderate Y-moderate N unifacial dorsal surface scarring Other 2920.00 1 N N possible discontinuous bright polish on small parts of working edge, no other edges show same potential polish Y-moderate Y-minimal n/a bifacial few bifacial scars immediately on working edge Other  96  2921.00 1 N N polish not observed Y-moderate Y-minimal N bifacial   Other  2 N N polish not observed Y-moderate Y-minimal N bifacial  Other  3 N N polish not observed N N N one flake scar  Other   4 N N some shiny polish likely haft wear Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial   Other 2978.00 1 N N moderately bright present on ventral surface N N Y-minimal unifacial  scarring present on ventral surface Other  2 N N moderately bright present on ventral surface Y-minimal N N unifacial  scarring present on ventral surface Other   3 N N moderately to very bright polish present on ventral surface N N Y-minimal bifacial  Other 3074.00 1 N N polish not observed Y-minimal Y-minimal N unifacial   Other   2 N N polish not observed Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial scarring is bifacial but heavier on dorsal surface Other 3474.00 1 N N moderately bright-bright; more extensive on ventral Y-minimal N Y-minimal bifacial extensive edge damage; scarring is heavier on dorsal  Other   2 N N moderately bright-bright; more extensive on ventral Y-minimal N N bifacial extensive edge damage; scarring is heavier on dorsal  Other 3618.00 1 N N polish not observed Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial bifacial scarring, feather terminated, more extensive on ventral surface Other 3722.00 1 N N bright patchy shiny polish on both faces Y-minimal N N bifacial bifacial but more on dorsal surface, microflaking is minimal, suggesting soft material Other 3832.00 1 N N polish not observed; some possible greasy projections Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-minimal bifacial bifacial; inconsistent breakage--few micro feather chips, few snaps, edge rounding mixed with sharp edge Other   2 N N polish not observed; some possible greasy projections Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-minimal bifacial bifacial; like AP 1 few and variable microscars, feather and snap, sharp and rounded portions of edge Other 3862.01 1 N N bright to moderately bright Y-minimal N N bifacial edge damage is characterized by scarring and crushing Other  2 N N bright to moderately bright N N N bifacial edge damage is characterized by scarring and crushing Other   3 N N bright to moderately bright (wet appearance) Y-minimal N N bifacial more rounding on this margin then laterals Other 4080.00 1 N N moderately bright (almost dull) Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate bifacial edge damage is most noted by rounding Other   2 N N bright polish, appears better developed on this margin Y-moderate Y-moderate Y-moderate unifacial  scarring is bifacial but, more frequent on the ventral Other  97  surface 4100.00 1 N N less developed on left margin but same otherwise Y-minimal Y-minimal N bifacial edge damage is minimal and scarring is bifacial Other   2 N N bright polish on both surfaces and edge N Y-minimal N bifacial edge damage is minimal and scarring is bifacial Other 4110.01 1 N N bright to moderately bright polish, well-developed and extensive on both surfaces but, more on ventral Y-minimal N Y-minimal bifacial edge damage is less than other margin, scarring is inconsistent bifacial Other   2 N N moderately bright and poorly developed on both surfaces, discontinuous Y-moderate Y-minimal Y-minimal bifacial edge damage on both faces, crushing more prevalent than rounding characteristics Other 4110.02 1 N N moderately developed, very patchy Y-minimal N N bifacial edge damage is minimal, scarring is bifacial but, more frequent on dorsal surface Other  2 N N moderately developed, very patchy Y-minimal N N bifacial edge damage is minimal, scarring is bifacial but, more frequent on dorsal surface Other   3 N N bright to moderately bright  Y-minimal N Y-minimal multidirectional edge damage present on every angle/edge of point Other 4128.00 1 N N moderately bright polish on both surfaces, heavier on dorsal surface Y-minimal N N unifacial  edge damage much more frequent on dorsal surface Other   2 N N moderately bright polish on both surfaces, heavier on ventral surface Y-minimal N N bifacial edge damage on both surfaces, however, scarring and rounding are minimal Other 4148.00 1 N N Bright polish on both surface Y-minimal Y-minimal Y-minimal unifacial  edge damage heavier on ventral;  Other 4379.00 1 N N polished all over artifact Y Y Y unifacial   Other 4470.00 1 N N no polish observed Y-minimal N N unifacial    Other  98  Appendix 10: Data—Artifact and Use-Wear Images   Figure 10.1. KdVo6-96: a. AP3-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (220x); b. AP3-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (50x); c. AP1-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projections and rounding/removal of flake scars (50x)   99   Figure 10.2. KdVo6-96: a. AP2-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (55x); b. AP2-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, perpendicular/diagonal striations (220x); c.  AP3-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (225x); d. AP1-extensive edge rounding, removal of flake scars, and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (220x); e. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (50x)      100    Figure 10.3. KdVo6-139: a. AP2-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projection; striations perpendicular the working edge (225x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projections, and removal of flake scars, dull greasy polish on edges and projections/ridges (50x)  101   Figure 10.4. KdVo6-139: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding, striations perpendicular the working (225x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projections, overlapping bright polish (225x)    102   Figure 10.5. KdVo6-146: dorsal surface  103   Figure 10.6. KdVo6-146: a. AP3-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projection; dull greasy polish (50x); b. AP3-extensive edge rounding, striations perpendicular the working edge (215x); c. facial striations perpendicular the working edge, dull greasy polish (50x)       104   Figure 10.7. KdVo6-388: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish on working edge (225x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, striations perpendicular and diagonal the working edge (50x)  105   Figure 10.8. KdVo6-388: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish in flake scars (225x); b. AP1- extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish in flake scars (50x)   106   Figure 10.9. KdVo6-746: a. AP3-moderate edge rounding, rounding of projections and removal of flake scars (205x); b. AP3- moderate edge rounding, rounding of projections and removal of flake scars (50x); c. AP1- moderate edge rounding, rounding of projections, and removal of flake scars (50x)   107   Figure 10.12. KdVo6-746: a. AP1-moderate edge rounding, dull polish with pitted/rough appearance, striations perpendicular the working edge (205x); b. AP3- moderate edge rounding and rounding of projections, discontinuous scarring on contact surface (50x); c. AP3- moderate edge rounding, dull polish with pitted/rough appearance, striations perpendicular and diagonal the working edge       108   Figure 10.13. KdVo6-750: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, moderate removal of flake scars (50x); b. AP2- moderate edge rounding and rounding of projections, minimal removal of flake scars (50x)  109   Figure 10.14. KdVo6-750: a. AP2-moderate edge rounding, moderately dull polish with pitted appearance (240x); b. AP1-moderately dull polish with pitted appearance (225x); c. AP1- extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, discontinuous scarring on contact surface (50x)       110   Figure 10.14. KdVo6-1486: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (50x); b. AP3-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, striations parallel the working edge (50x); c. AP3-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (215x)      111   Figure 10.15. KdVo6-1486: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (50x); b. AP3-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (230x); c. surface-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (215x); d. AP2-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (50x); e. AP3-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (50x)       112    Figure 10.16. KdVo6-2063: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (50x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (50x)      113     Figure 10.17. KdVo6-2063: a. AP1-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish, multidirectional striations (225x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (50x); c. AP1-extensive edge rounding, rounding of projections, dull greasy polish     114   Figure 10.18. KdVo6-2789: a. AP2-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections (50x); b. AP2- extensive edge rounding, dull greasy polish (240x) c. AP3- extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, moderate removal of flake scars, dull greasy polish (50x)  115   Figure 10.19. KdVo6-2789: a. AP3-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (50x); b. AP1-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish (215x) c. AP2-extensive edge rounding and rounding of projections, dull greasy polish, perpendicular striations (225x)    116   Appendix 11: Data—Macroscopic Lithic Analysis  Artifact  Metrics Raw Material Active Parts Edge- Retouch # Class Type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (gm) Material Type Cortex  pXRF Source  #  Morphology Length Angle Retouch Type Pattern 96.00 Flake Tool Uniface with bimarginal retouch 67.10 39.90 13.10 31.40 basaltic  absent Andesite Group A 1 convex 73.9 44 unimarignal retouch on dorsal surface combination; primarily stepped, few feathered continuous            2 straight 48.5 50 unimarignal retouch on dorsal surface combination; primarily stepped, few feathered continuous               3 straight 46.1 44 combination; bimarignal proximal portion; unimarginal medial portion combination; primarily stepped, few feathered continuous 139.00 Flake Tool Uniface with bimarginal retouch 153.60 77.10 15.60 222.00 basaltic  absent Andesite Group A 1 straight 148.7 47 unimarignal retouch on dorsal surface combination; primarily stepped, few feathered continuous               2 convex 258.9 37 bimarginal combination; primarily stepped, few feathered combination; continous feathered, discontinuous stepped 146.00 Pebble/ CobblRetouched Pebble Flake 71.30 40.60 10.70 30.30 unknown present n/a 1 straight 64.1 94 absent feathered continuous            2 staight 61.3 64 bimarginal feathered continuous  117  e Tool               3 convex 51.3 47 bimarginal feathered combination; continuous unimarginal retouch on ventral surface; discontinous bimarginal retouch on medial portion of AP 388.00 Pebble/ Cobble Tool Retouched Pebble Flake 70.00 33.70 16.70 46.50 greenstone present n/a 1 concave 35.8 38 unimarginal on ventral surface feathered continuous 746.00 Flake Tool Retouched Flake (platform remnant)  29.80 28.30 7.00 4.70 obsidian absent wiki peak 1 straight 33.5 67 combination; primarily unimarginal on dorsal, small bimarginal area feathered combination; continuous unimarginal retouch; discontinuous bimarginal retouch            2 straight 33.5 97 unimarginal feathered continuous               3 convex 33.5 43 unimarginal feathered continuous 750.00 Flake Tool Retouched Flake (platform remnant)  34.30 21.20 5.70 3.80 obsidian absent wiki peak 1 straight 34.3 36 bimarginal feathered continuous               2 convex 35.8 36 unimarinal; alternating surfaces feathered continuous 1486.00 Pebble/ Cobble Tool Bimarginally Retouched Cobble 122.20 47.70 18.00 150.80 unknown present n/a 1 straight 78.3 70 bimarginal feathered discontinuous            2 straight 36.9 81 unimarginal combination; feathered and stepped continuous            3 convex 59.2 70 bimarginal combination; feathered and stepped combination; continuous on ventral, discontinuous on dorsal               4 convex 122.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a  118  2063.00 Pebble/ Cobble Tool Modified Split Cobble 49.20 41.80 19.20 56.10 unknown present n/a 1 flat 47.22 76 n/a n/a n/a 2789.00 Flake Tool Retouched Combination Tool (flake fragment) 28.4 46 7.8 10.7 basaltic  absent n/a 1 convex 19.8 32 unimarginal feathered continuous            2 straight 13.9 33 unimarginal feathered continuous               3 convex 11 40 unimarginal feathered continuous  119   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0394157/manifest

Comment

Related Items