IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN: A CASE FORMICROARTIFACT ANALYSIS IN CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON, JAMES C. PRITCHARD, AND ERIC C. POPLIN

Brockington and Associates, Inc., Elizabethtown, KY, USAEnvironmental Research Group, Elizabethtown, KY, USABrockington and Associates, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, SC, USA

The past several decades have seen a shift in archaeology from the exclusive analysis of “interesting” artifacts, suchas diagnostic lithics and ceramics, towards a more holistic examination that includes the smaller, less obvious, “for-gotten” artifacts. These micro-sized artifacts are a focus for archaeologists because many studies show their utility indocumenting activity areas and site formation processes. As early as the s, researchers recognized the value ofmicroartifacts and academic archaeologists increasingly included them in their studies over the subsequent decades.In this paper, we argue that microartifact analysis is also of interest to those working in cultural resource manage-ment (CRM), albeit for different reasons. By analyzing both macro- and microartifacts recovered from an Archaic-period lithic scatter in Meade County, KY, we explore the contribution microartifacts, specifically microdebitage,can make to our understanding of lithic scatters within CRM. The results of this exploratory case study suggestthat data derived from microartifacts may alter assessments of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligi-bility of some lithic scatters that otherwise might be deemed insignificant and, therefore, ineligible for the NRHP.

KEYWORDS: Cultural resource management, Lithic scatter, Microartifact analysis, Archaic period

It is important for cultural resource management(CRM) professionals to routinely update theirrepertoire of research strategies and analyticalmethods in order to keep pace with advances inarchaeological practice. At the same time, theymust adhere to federal laws and regulations in atimely and cost-effective manner. In recentdecades, microartifact analysis (MAA) hasemerged as one such advance in the field, yetdespite its growing use in academic archaeology,it is not routinely employed in CRM. Nonetheless,important research themes and questions may betested and refined by including microartifacts (e.g., Peacock and Fant ; Price ; Sherwood; Sherwood and Kocis ). Moreover, aswe discuss in the case study below, they mayprove useful to making sound site interpretationsand eligibility determinations, particularly at siteshaving low artifact densities and/or havingpoorly defined buried occupation surfaces. Forthis reason, Price (:) cautions that “thefact that this is not common procedure or requiredin state fieldwork standards demonstrates a lack ofawareness of the contributions of microartifacts

for making interpretations of the past.” Similarly,Dunnell and Stein (:) state that “microarti-facts…are complimentary, not supplementary,data and should be a routine concern of all archae-ological investigations” (emphasis ours).The primary purpose of most CRMprojects is to

determine the presence or absence of archaeologi-cal sites and, if present, assess whether or not theyare eligible for inclusion to the National Registerof Historic Places (NRHP). For a site to bedeemed eligible, it must possess both integrityand significance. According to federal regulation CFR Part ., archaeological sites and othercultural properties are significant if they meet atleast one of four specific criteria: (A) they areassociated with events that have made a significantcontribution to broad patterns of Americanhistory; (B) they are associated with the lives ofpersons significant in the past; (C) they embodythe work of a master; or (D) they have the poten-tial to yield data important in the prehistory orhistory of a region (Little et al. ; NationalPark Service ). In most cases, archaeologicalsites recommended for NRHP listing fall under

© Southeastern Archaeological Conference DOI: ./X.. Southeastern Archaeology , –

Criterion D. Nominations to the NRHP shoulddemonstrate that data from the site can addressimportant research questions by testing hypoth-eses and reconstructing cultural chronologiesthrough the use of appropriate analytical methods.One of the most ubiquitous site types identified

during Phase surveys is the “lithic scatter”(Cain ). Lithic scatters frequently are deter-mined to be ineligible at the Phase I level becauseof low artifact recovery, a lack of diagnostic arti-facts, and a perceived lack of site integrity(Bergman and Doershuk ; Blakemore et al.; Cain ). Lithic scatters, however, maybe more variable than generally believed, a pointdemonstrated through the study of microartifacts(particularly microdebitage). The term “microde-bitage” was first introduced by Fladmark ()to describe lithic debitage measuring less than mm in size. Since then, a broad range of sizeshave been suggested, ranging from to . mm(Dunnell and Stein ; Hassan ; Hull; Nadel ; Rainville ; Rosen ).For the purposes of this study, debitage measuring< . mm is considered “microdebitage.” Debitagemeasuring ≥. mm is considered “macrodebi-tage.” We selected this standard because ourprimary goal is to evaluate how much informationCRM projects can glean by examining artifactssmaller than the standard .-mm-mesh sifterscreen used by most CRM practitioners in theUnited States at this time.As a case in point, using microartifacts to study

MD allowed us to discern activity areaswithin the lithic scatter and identify an indetermi-nate buried occupation surface. MAA admittedlyadds time and cost to projects and it is notalways feasible to utilize MAA due to budgetaryand time constraints. If we are to pursue MAAas a standardized research tool within CRM con-texts, the following questions must be addressed:() Can MAA contribute to site interpretationsand eligibility determinations? () Which collec-tion and laboratory methods are most appropriateand can they be undertaken in a cost-effectivemanner? () What types of archaeological siteswarrant the use of MAA?Unfortunately, few academic or CRM studies

address these questions adequately (though forexceptions see Blakemore et al. []; Peacockand Fant []; Price []; Sherwood andKocis []). In this case study, we seek to jump-start discussions regarding the role of MAA inCRM and to make recommendations regardingthe questions raised above.

CASE STUDY

MD is located at Fort Knox Military Reser-vation in Meade County, Kentucky (Figure ).Brockington and Associates, in conjunction withICI Services Corporation, investigated the site aspart of a Section review in support of thedevelopment of infantry training facilities(Rigney and Bookin ). The site is an Early-and Late-Archaic lithic scatter containing diagnos-tic projectile points. Measuring approximately, m, it is situated on a narrow terraceabout m above present-day Otter Creek,which bounds the site to the south. Fortunately,the site appears to have been only lightly impactedby military activities (i.e., tank training, timberharvesting, and military construction). The areais open to the public and frequently used for rec-reational activities, including camping, fishing,and hunting. Despite this public access, however,the site exhibited little evidence of disturbanceduring Phases I and II investigations, and the stra-tigraphy appears to be intact.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PHASE I INVESTIGATION

MD was first recorded in April duringa Phase I archaeological survey (Figure ). Surveyand artifact collection methods conformed to thestandardized procedures for Phase I investigationsoutlined in the Kentucky Specifications for Con-ducting Fieldwork and Preparing CulturalResource Assessment Reports (KSHPO ).Twenty-one shovel tests were excavated withinthe site area, and soils were screened through.-mm (¼-in) wire mesh. On average, shoveltests reached a depth of – cmbs, thoughsome tests had cultural material as deep as cmbs. While screening soil during the Phase Isurvey of the site, the field crew observed an abun-dance of “tiny” flakes in the soil. The field directorthen instructed the crew to screen slowly and care-fully and to collect any of these flakes beforepushing the soil through the screens.After artifacts were washed and dried, lithic arti-

facts were sorted by object form (e.g., flake, core,biface, projectile point, etc.) (Sherard ).Lithic artifacts were counted and weighed, andthe length, width, and thickness of complete bifa-cial tools recorded. Incomplete bifacial toolswere described in terms of portion (distal, proxi-mal, etc.). The manufacturing condition and toolproduction stage were also noted for all bifacial

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

tools. Lithic debitage attributes described includethe presence/absence of cortex and flake termin-ation. All recovered debitage was size-gradedusing standard geologic screens with graduatedsizes of . mm ( in), . mm (/ in), .mm (/ in), and . mm (/ in), then analyzedusing the mass analysis technique outlined byAhler (). Once the material was processedthrough the screens, each size grade was sorted

by raw material type. These raw material group-ings were categorized further by debitage type (e.g., flakes, shatter, etc.).MD produced a moderate concentration

of artifacts and diagnostic materials from appar-ently undisturbed stratigraphy with a possibleburied horizon at cmbd. A moderate lithicscatter consisting of lithic artifacts, includingdebitage (n = ) and tools (n = ), was recovered

FIGURE . Location of MD in north-central Kentucky (inset), as shown on the Rock Haven () KY USGS Topo-graphic Quadrangle.

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –

based on positive shovel tests. A single KirkStemmed hafted biface also was recovered, tenta-tively dating the site to the Early Archaic period.Of the size-graded debitage recovered fromMD, approximately percent (n = )consisted of microdebitage measuring < . mm.The deposit was considered to have the potential

to contain significant information pertaining toregional prehistory and research questions per-taining to chronology, lithic technology, and intra-site patterning for the Early Archaic period. As aresult, MD was considered potentially eli-gible for NRHP listing under Criterion D andPhase II archaeological testing was recommended.Given the relatively high percentage of microdebi-tage in comparison to macrodebitage, a plan wasdevised for the systematic collection of microdebi-tage during Phase II investigations in order tomore fully represent the range of materialspresent at the site.

PHASE II INVESTIGATION

Phase II testing occurred in July and con-sisted of the excavation of two -x--m test unitsto depths of cmbs (Figure ). Placement of thetest units was based on the distribution ofmaterials recovered in the Phase I shovel tests.The density of material was highest at the centerof the site, with percent (n = ) of the artifactsexcavated from a single shovel test; Test Unit was placed at the southeast corner of this shoveltest. A second test unit, Test Unit , was posi-tioned between two positive shovel tests alongthe edge of the ridge to provide comparative dataregarding intra-site spatial organization and toassess site integrity at multiple areas of the site.Field crew excavated both test units in cm

levels. Within each cm level, four l soilsamples were collected. Each level was dividedinto eastern and western halves, and two soilsamples were collected from the upper – cm of

FIGURE . Plan map of MD showing location of shovel tests pits excavated during Phase I survey, artifact densities, andtest units excavated during Phase II testing.

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

each half. One sample from each half was screenedusing . mm (/ in) mesh and the other samplewas used as a flotation sample. The . mmmesh was used to determine if this method couldbe employed to collect and sort microartifactsquickly in the field, as some excavators suggest(Price ). Soil samples taken for flotationwere dried and processed in a mechanicalflotation system using a modified . liter drum.Once completely dry, the heavy fraction was

size-graded in the same manner undertaken inthe Phase I investigation but with the addition ofa -mm geologic sieve. We examined materialsbetween and . mm in an attempt to balancedata collection with time efficiency. Although pre-vious studies have utilized size grades as small as. and mm (e.g., Dunnell and Stein ; Sher-wood et al. ), we felt that their analysis wouldtake too long to complete given time restrictions.Materials were shaken through the geologicscreens by hand; mechanical sieving was notused in order to minimize breakage and edgedamage to the lithics. Once sieved, artifacts ineach size grade were sorted by material type. Formost prehistoric sites, common material classesinclude lithics, ceramics, bone, charcoal, anddaub, but our samples consisted solely of lithicmaterials (i.e., microdebitage).Microdebitage was separated from natural

(versus culturally produced) chert debris basedon the assumption that microdebitage generallydisplays angularity, sharp edges, and flat sides(Dunnell and Stein ; Fladmark ; Nichol-son ; Peacock ; Peacock et al. ).Other diagnostic attributes used to separate outmicrodebitage include transparent or translucentappearance under light, regular geometric shape,and retention of some aspect of conchoidal frac-ture or bulb of percussion (Fladmark ;Nadel ; Susino ). Artifacts, includingmicrodebitage, were then categorized by artifacttype (flake, flake fragment, pressure flake,shatter), weighed, and counted. Debitage measur-ing < . mm and that could not be categorizedinto one of these specific artifact types wastermed “microdebitage.” Raw material type wasrecorded for all debitage. Visual identification ofraw material types at the microscopic level canbe difficult and unreliable (Peacock et al. ;Price ; Rigney ; Susino ); therefore,we used a standard binocular stereomicroscope atmagnifications up to × and a comparative col-lection to ensure accurate identification. TheBrockington and Associates comparative

collection contains both local and non-localmaterial, including St. Louis chert, St. Genevievechert, Muldraugh chert, Harrison County/Wyan-dotte chert, and Harrodsburg chert, all of whichoccur in Kentucky.

RESULTS

Perishable archaeological materials, such as cer-amics, daub, plants, and bones are rarely recov-ered from archaeological contexts within FortKnox and surrounding areas in Meade County.MD proved to be no exception: flakedstone materials comprise over percent of theassemblage (Table ). In total, , lithic artifactswere recovered from the two test units during thePhase II investigations. Of these, are flakedstone tools (including utilized flakes; sixbifaces; two preforms; one Matanzas Side-notchedhafted biface; and one scraper). In addition, sixmodified cores (five multidirectional and one uni-directional) and one unmodified cobble was alsocollected. The remaining artifacts (n = ,) arelithic debitage. Surprisingly, microdebitageaccounts for nearly half (. percent) of the debit-age assemblage.One trend of particular interest is the large pro-

portion of utilized flakes recovered from the site.The tool assemblage is dominated by utilizedflakes, accounting for of the tools, or percent of the tool assemblage. This high numbermay relate to site use and function. Alternativelyit may have implications for gendered use of thesite. Gero () draws on ethnohistorical andethnoarchaeological research to demonstrate thatgender-related tasks can be reconstructedthrough a detailed analysis of the types of lithicartifacts found at a site. Specifically, she showsthat lithic sites utilized by women (and/or non-adult males) have a different lithic signature com-pared to lithic sites produced by males. Differencesmay include, but are not limited to, large quan-tities of expedient flakes, a consistent coupling offlakes with local raw material, and variability inthe types of raw materials exploited (Gero:–). By combining the macro- andmicrodebitage assemblages from MD, weobserve several of the fingerprints identified.First, and most notably, the tool assemblage domi-nated by utilized flakes, which Rigney ()showed to be expediently manufactured and used(i.e., “expedient flakes”). Second, nearly percent of the utilized flake assemblage is madeof local raw materials. In addition, by doubling

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –

our assemblage by combining the macro- andmicrodebitage, we were able to identify a widerarray of raw materials than would have been poss-ible from the macrodebitage assemblage alone.Although three-quarters of the utilized flakes aremade from St. Louis chert, over a quarter comesfrom five additional chert types.We want to emphasize that we are not saying

this scatter is a women’s site based on these obser-vations alone. Rather, we want to highlight thatlithic scatters are traditionally, even stereotypi-cally, almost exclusively attributed to the realmof hunting, tool-making, and men’s activities.The role of women’s labor (as well as childrenand elderly members of the community) is oftenoverlooked and not afforded the same attentionas that of adult males when interpreting lithicsites (Rieth :).In addition to quantifying the site assemblage as

a whole, we compared the two test units (Table )in order to investigate horizontal and vertical pat-terning within the site. Test Unit containednearly eight times as many artifacts as Test Unit: , ( percent of the total assemblage)compared to (only percent of the totalPhase II assemblage). Despite this substantialdifference in artifact density between the two test

units, there is a surprising amount of similarityin the proportion of formal tools and microdebi-tage present. For example, microdebitage accountsfor percent of the lithic assemblage in Test Unit and percent of the lithic assemblage in TestUnit . Moreover, the vast majority, approxi-mately percent, of debitage from both unitswas produced from locally available St. Louischert; the remaining percent was manufacturedfrom St. Genevieve, Muldraugh, Harrison Co/Wyandotte, and Harrodsburg cherts, also locallyavailable. A small fraction (less than twopercent) was manufactured from unidentifiedcherts which could not be confidently identifieddue to the small size of the artifacts and the lackof distinguishing visual characteristics.Thus, the activities occurring at the two locations

appear to have been similar, though the area aroundTestUnit appears to have beenmore intensivelyutilized. In both test units, though, microdebitageaccounts for nearly half of the lithic assemblage.Including microartifacts, therefore, nearly doublesthe material available for study. This is relevantfor two reasons: first, the microdebitage suggestsmore intensive activity than the macrodebitagealone would, and second, it suggests that most ofthe activity at the site was late-stage reduction.

TABLE COMPARATIVE MACRO AND MICRODEBITAGE DATA FOR TEST UNITS AND .

Object form subtype Test Unit Test Unit

n % n %

Cores and cobbles Multidirectional Unidirectional tested cob Unmodified cobble

Debitage Flakea Fragment , Pressure flake Shatter Thinning flake Microdebitage ,

Tool Biface Preform Projectile point Scraper Utilized flake

Total ,

aAll complete flakes greater than . mm were recorded as either having cortex (cortical) or not (non-cortical). In Test Unit , percent (n = ) were cortical and in Test Unit , percent (n = ) com-plete flakes were cortical.

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

IDENTIFYING BURIED SURFACES

Fieldwork suggested a possible buried occupationsurface at approximately – cmbd (Figure a).At this depth in Test Unit , the soil transitionedfrom a yellowish brown (YR/) silt loam to adark yellow brown (YR/) silt loam mottledwith very pale brown (YR/) silty clay. Micro-debitage increases by over percent (Figure b),lending support for a buried occupation surface,albeit somewhat tenuous. A similar soil transitionand increase in microdebitage was observed inTest Unit , but it occurred at a greater depth,in Level at – cmbd. This suggests the pres-ence of a buried occupation surface that slopesto the east, which is consistent with the currentlandform. Alternatively, it may reflect transloca-tion of small particles downward, a post-depositional issue discussed at greater length inthe conclusion to this issue (Homsey-Messeret al.; see also Peacock and Fant ).

ASSESSING ACTIVITY AREAS

According to Sherwood (:), “a lithicreduction area is identified by the concentrationof microdebitage.” In an attempt to identify lithicactivity areas within the site, we tallied the micro-debitage as a percent of the total assemblage.Microdebitage comprised nearly half of the totallithic assemblage in both test units. This suggeststhat MD not only is a lithic scatter, but isprobably a lithic reduction area. Moreover, in

Test Unit , the highest densities of macroarti-facts coincide with the highest incidence of micro-debitage. This covariation in size grades suggeststhat the assemblage from Test Unit representsa primary context in which little redistribution ofmicrodebitage occurred (Hull ; Sherwood). We argue that this area represents theprimary locus of activity at MD, a hypoth-esis corroborated by the macrodebitage data.To explore this potential activity area further,

we compared the western and eastern portions ofeach test unit to see if any variation occurredwithin the -x--m area. Microdebitage frequen-cies from Test Unit showed differencesbetween the eastern and western halves in Levels and , the depth believed to represent theburied occupation surface discussed above(Figure ). In Level , nearly two-thirds (.percent) of microdebitage was recovered fromthe western half of the unit. Similarly, thewestern half of Level produced . percent ofthe microdebitage collected from that level. Thisincrease in density in the western portion of TestUnit suggests that the most intense area ofhuman activity, which was mainly lithic reduction,lies to the west, toward at MD’s central core(see Figure ). We argue that this area was anintensively utilized lithic knapping area for thepurpose of manufacturing bifacial tools.In contrast, Test Unit produced a lower fre-

quency of artifacts overall (n = ) than Test Unit (n = ,). When comparing the eastern and

FIGURE . (a) Percent of microdebitage by level for Test Units and and (b) field photograph and schematic drawing ofTest Unit , north profile.

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –

western halves, however, almost three-quarters(. percent) of the microdebitage collectedfrom Level was from the eastern half of theunit (Figure ). This suggests that a second activityarea may lie to the east of Test Unit . This areadoes not appear to have been as intensively uti-lized, however, because the overall artifact den-sities are lower than to the west. In addition, weargue that this possible activity area was focusedon core reduction of chert cobbles collected fromOtter Creek. This interpretation is based on obser-vations made from the macrodebitage assemblage,particularly an examination of cortical versus non-cortical flakes. Kvamme () argues that thisdifference may reveal important informationregarding types of knapping activities carried out

at lithic sites. First, cortical flakes occur withgreater frequency in the east ( percent of flakeassemblage) compared to the west ( percent ofthe flake assemblage). Second, core reductionflakes comprise nearly half ( percent) of the deb-itage recorded for cortex. Thus, while Test Unit appears to have been heavily used forprimary reduction, Test Unit appears tohave been used for both initial core reductionand primary reduction. Located at a lowerelevation and several meters closer to OtterCreek than Test Unit , it may be that TestUnit was a convenient location where chertcobbles could be quickly tested or knapped to asize more easily transported elsewhere.

DISCUSSION

The MD case study represents a nuancedreconstruction of what initially appeared to be ageneric lithic scatter during the Phase I investi-gation. Following the Phase II investigation, itbecame clear that greater variability in the inten-sity of use existed through both time and spaceat the site, as did subtle differences in activityareas. Although greater detail about the site wasobtained through MAA, it did increase the timeand cost of the project. In this section, we returnto the three questions posed in the introductionto determine whether or not the added time andexpense was worthwhile.

CAN MAA CONTRIBUTE TO SITE INTERPRETATIONS AND

ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS?

In order to establish MAA as useful in CRM appli-cations, the research strategies must contribute tosite interpretations and eligibility determinationsin terms of one or more of the four NRHP criteriadescribed earlier in this paper. The Phase II inves-tigation of MD encountered an exception-ally high artifact density (approximately ,artifacts per square meter), intact stratigraphywith at least one likely buried occupationsurface, and a surprising amount of horizontaland vertical diversity in the lithic scatter. Regard-ing the latter discovery, Rieth () argues thatdiversity within a lithic scatter should essentiallybe a red flag that the site has the potential toyield data important to interpreting the prehistoryof a region (Criteria D).Based on our results, we believe that the

MD dataset is capable of addressingresearch questions of both local and regional sig-nificance to the prehistory of Kentucky. More

FIGURE . Phase II microdebitage frequencies in Test Unit by level and half. Level of Test Unit was notincluded in the spatial comparison in this figure. Thesamples taken from the east and west halves of Level wereaccidentally mixed in the field and were omitted. Excavationceased at the base of Level ( cmbd) in Test Unit ,but Test Unit excavations continued an additional cm to the base of Level ( cmbd).

FIGURE . Phase II microdebitage frequencies in Test Unit by level and half.

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

intensive investigation of this site could addressresearch questions pertaining to raw materialsourcing, lithic reduction strategies, and intra-sitespatial patterning during the Early andLate-Archaic periods. Diverse lithic scatters mayadditionally contribute to emerging research con-texts relating to the use of these sites as genderand resource specific task sites (e.g., Carr ;Rieth ). For these reasons, we recommendedthat MD remain eligible for NRHP listing.It is important to question whether our rec-

ommendations would be different had we notincludedMAA in this study. Without the inclusionof the microdebitage, MD would appear toconsist of deeply buried cultural deposits contain-ing little information relevant for addressingimportant research themes and questions. Theinclusion of microdebitage, however, confirmed asuspected buried occupation surface. Moreover,and perhaps most relevant to this paper, includingMAA provides a more nuanced view of whatwould otherwise be “just another lithic scatter.”Our data suggest two distinct activity foci, usedfor different purposes and at different intensitylevels. This contrasts with the stereotypical viewof lithic scatters as homogenous, low-intensitysites lacking horizontal artifact patterning (Carr). A lithic scatter may be more heterogeneousthan expected and should not be written off simplyas “just another lithic scatter.”Without microdebi-tage analysis, we would have recommended thatMD was not eligible for NRHP listing andit would have become yet another unprotectedlithic scatter.We would be remiss to stop here without

emphasizing that the inclusion of MAA does notmean that more lithic scatters, or even moresites, will be recommended eligible for NRHPlisting. In fact, MAA may support an ineligibledetermination just as often as it supports an eli-gible one. As Versaggi and Hohman (:)write, “…we are not proposing that all lithic scat-ters will contain the data potential to warrantdeterminations of eligibility. Our point is that ifwe don’t look for the potential, we certainlywon’t find it.” In the current study, had theinclusion of microartifacts not doubled the assem-blage size, offering evidence for more intense useand activity variation, then we would have not rec-ommended the site be NRHP eligible. This casestudy suggests that microartifacts may be an over-looked dataset that enables cultural resource prac-titioners to assess the potential of a site to yielddata relevant to Criterion D. In this sense, the

role of MAA is not unlike that of flotationseveral decades ago. We no longer question theadded time and cost of flotation to CRM projects;the botanical remains are often among the vari-ables used to determine eligibility. Microartifactsshould be viewed as another such dataset. Wefurther explore the issue of time and cost below.

WHICH COLLECTION AND LABORATORY METHODS ARE

MOST APPROPRIATE AND CAN THEY BE UNDERTAKEN IN A

COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?

As discussed previously, one of the primary con-cerns when undertaking MAA is the time andcost involved in field collection and laboratorymethods given the limited budgets and time con-straints endemic to CRM. In order to save timein the field, we devised a collection strategy con-sisting of four soil samples per level. Twosamples per level were screened in-field througha . mm mesh instead of a . mm mesh. Thein-field screened samples took person hoursto process. This collection method worked for usin part because the matrix consisted mainly ofsilt loams with some silty clay. Relatively speak-ing, silt loam typically screens quickly, thoughsilty clays were more time-consuming. Screeningmore difficult soil types, such as those with highclay contents, may be more costly in terms oftime and effort. Archaeologists may wish to evalu-ate soil texture prior to fieldwork when consider-ing whether or not to include MAA in the study.The remaining two soil samples taken per level,totaling in all, underwent flotation analysis inthe Brockington laboratory. These samples tookone person approximately – minutes persample to process; all samples were completedin one day.All microdebitage was sorted into size grades

using mass analysis, which is the standard method-ology Brockington uses to process lithic debitagerecovered from all projects (Sherard ). Oncesorted by size grade, the debitage was sorted bymaterial type through visual inspection, asdescribed previously, using a binocular stereo-scopic microscope. This was the most tediousportion of the MAA conducted, but it was anessential portion of the study.The additional analyses utilized in this study

increased our original budget by adding to thetime needed for screening, processing artifacts,report writing, and curation. The mass analysisof the microdebitage assemblage, including rawmaterial designations, increased our lab efforts

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –

by approximately five days. Writing the microarti-fact analyses into the report added two additionaldays. In addition, the collection of microdebitageessentially doubled the amount of archaeologicalmaterial recovered. This, in turn, increased thecost involved in curating the materials. In theend, approximately nine additional days wereexpended and two additional curation boxeswere required, increasing the Phase II budget byapproximately five percent.This project originated as an experiment devel-

oped by the first and second authors who wereinterested in testing MAA in a CRM setting toascertain the potential of this method in CRM.Our results suggest that modifying field and labmethods to include microartifacts is not necess-arily a prohibitively expensive choice, but it isone that must be instituted at the research designstage. For example, after Phase I field techniciansnoted an unusual abundance of microdebitage atMD relative to other sites in the area, thePrinciple Investigators decided that incorporatingMAA into the Phase II research design was appro-priate for this unique dataset.It is essential that the use of MAA in CRM pro-

jects be increased in order to demonstrate theadvantages of this non-standard methodology toclients and/or lead agencies during the negotiationprocess.The advantages of MAA as we see them are

twofold. First, MAA benefits archaeologistsbecause it provides valuable information neededfor NRHP listing nominations. Second, MAAbenefits clients by when it provides evidence thata site is ineligible for NRHP listing, thereby negat-ing the need for further work (and therefore cost).Unfortunately, there are cases when MAA simplywill not be used during a CRM project. Theseinclude: () when the lowest cost or lowest techni-cally acceptable proposal is awarded the contract,and () when the agency’s technical staff do notunderstand or value the applicability of MAAdata for NRHP determinations.

WHAT TYPES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WARRANT THE USE

OF MAA?

Federal, and many state, cultural resources guide-lines require that the potential for buried surfacesbe investigated and their NRHP eligibility con-sidered. Unfortunately, buried surfaces can bedifficult to identify in the field, particularly atsites exhibiting poorly developed soils with littlediscernable horizination. Under such

circumstances, artifacts may be the only indicationof human activity. Yet, as Sherwood () andothers (e.g., Sherwood and Kocis ; Stafford) note, macroartifacts often occur at densitiestoo low to confirm the presence of buried surfaces.Microartifacts, on the other hand, tend to occur ingreater densities, making them more reliable evi-dence of buried surfaces. Our study is anotherexample in which this is the case: the buriedsurface at – cmbd was difficult to see in thefield but the correlation between a subtle soil tran-sition and an increase in microdebitage at thisdepth provided the data necessary to designatethis level as a buried surface, which played acrucial role in MD being eligible forNRHP listing.Sites with low artifact density also warrant the

use of MAA. For example, researchers were sur-prised to find virtually no macroartifacts onMound C at Poverty Point. Even microartifactswere scanty, but their recovery and analysisproved crucial to recognizing that mound surfaceswere intentionally swept clean (Ortmann andSchmidt ; Ortmann and Schmidt thisvolume). Sonnenburg et al. () used microdebi-tage in cores to identify site locations and tool-making areas at submerged sites in the GreatLakes. They note that recovery of macroartifactsis rare in low-density sites or submerged shorelinesites that have experienced multiple episodes oferosion, such as when lake levels have risen andfallen throughout the Holocene.To the list of sites that warrant the use of MAA,

we add lithic scatters. Lithic scatters, particularlysmall ones located in upland plow zones, are gen-erally perceived as having little research potentialbecause they lack integrity, diagnostic artifacts,or large artifact assemblages (Blakemore et al.). So prevalent is this perceived lack ofresearch potential that CRM practitioners fre-quently find themselves at odds with one anotherover questions of eligibility (Bergman and Doer-shuk ; Versaggi and Hohman ).Bergman and Doershuk () warn against deva-luing lithic scatters and suggest that the difficultypresented by lithic scatters stems not from aninherent flaw in the sites, but rather from theinadequate investigative techniques used to evalu-ate them. In a similar vein, Blakemore et al.(:) write “we are confident that a morethorough collection and analysis of the datafrom these sites, and the development of new con-texts that address them, are important stepstoward ensuring a more complete understanding

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

of the local and regional prehistoric settlement-subsistence systems” (emphasis ours). TheseCRM practitioners suggest a number of analyticaltechniques, such as refitting and microwearstudies, that are appropriate to lithic scatters andshow potential to make substantive contributionsto our understanding of prehistoric technologyand definition of activity areas in shallowlyburied plow zones. Based on our findings atMD, we argue that MAA is an additionalmethod in the growing repertoire of investigativetechniques suitable to lithic scatters, one, more-over, that does not require specialized training orequipment.In recent years, untold numbers of lithic scatters

have been determined ineligible for NRHP listingand destroyed without being adequately sampledand studied (Blakemore et al. ). Fortunately,with a wide array of analytical investigative tech-niques now at our disposal, we have the abilityto heed the warning issued over a decade ago bythe National Register Bulletin: Guidelines forEvaluating and Registering Archaeological Prop-erties (Little et al. :): “overlooking the sig-nificance of small sites may skew ourunderstanding of past lifeways as those sites notonly receive less research attention, but also aredestroyed without being recorded thoroughlybecause they are ‘written off’ as ineligible forlisting in the National Register. Such losses pointup the need to continuously reexamine historiccontexts and allow new discoveries to challengeour ideas about the past.”

CONCLUSION

This case study demonstrates that MAA is valu-able within CRM contexts and has the potentialto enhance NRHP eligibility arguments at prehis-toric archaeological sites. By adding MAA to thePhase II study of MD, we obtainedadditional information pertinent to our researchquestions regarding site integrity, spatial organiz-ation, lithic reduction strategies, and possibly gen-dered activities. By examining microdebitage fromeach test unit, we confirmed the presence of aburied occupation surface, thereby affirming thatthe site has good integrity. Although othermethods can identify buried surfaces, such asmicromorphological and geochemical analyses,MAA is less expensive, more time-efficient, doesnot require expensive equipment, and does notrequire subcontracting expensive specialists.Thus, MAA enabled us to achieve a better

understanding of MD’s integrity, one ofthe two criteria (the other being significance)sites must meet to be deemed NRHP eligible.MAA also identified two distinct activity areaswith different intensity levels that might indicatedistinct cultural behaviors and established that atleast one of these activity areas was a lithic knap-ping area used mainly for manufacturing bifacialtools. These latter interpretations bear on site sig-nificance, the second criterion used to evaluateNRHP eligibility.In sum, this study concluded that MAA contrib-

uted to a stronger determination of NRHP eligi-bility for MD. We obtained twice as manyartifacts, which doubled the amount of infor-mation gleaned about the site, but did notdouble the budget or the amount of time required.The analysis was completed within a typical PhaseII budget that was only slightly modified to accom-modate the additional analysis. Although we con-sider the microartifact study presented above to beworthwhile and valuable, we do recognize somethe limitations of this study. First, only m

were excavated within the defined boundaries ofthe site. This area represents less than onepercent of the total horizontal area recorded.Troubling as this may be, it is the standard forPhase II investigations. In most circumstances,NRHP eligibility must be determined based onthe assessment of similar minute portions ofarchaeological sites. This is all the more reasonto include MAA as a standardized part of PhaseII investigations; because such a small portion ofeach site is intensively studied, we need to extractas much data as possible. As we stated at theoutset of this paper, it is important for CRM pro-fessionals to routinely update their repertoire ofresearch strategies and analytical methods inorder to keep pace with scientific advancementsin the field. MAA is one such investigative tech-nique, one with the potential to expand the dataset from which we work and aid in NRHP eligi-bility determinations without compromising theability to adhere to federal laws and regulationsin a timely and cost-effective manner.

NOTES ON CURATION

The archaeological materials analyzed in thepresent study are curated at the University ofLouisville. Data are stored in a manner consistentwith federal curation regulations.

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank Lara Homsey-Messer and AnthonyOrtmann for organizing the microartifact symposium at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archaeologyin Honolulu, HI, and for inviting us to participate in both thesymposium and this thematic volume. Niki Mills andMichaelWalsh, both of Brockington and Associates, graciouslycreated many of the graphics and Meagan Brady and JeffSherard of the Brockington laboratory staff facilitated theflotation analysis. Finally, this paper greatly benefitted fromthe editorial guidance of Betsy Reitz and Lara Homsey-Messer and the thoughtful reviews provided by Philip Carrand two anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES CITED

Ahler, Stanley A. Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the ForestRather than the Trees. Archeological Papers of the Ameri-can Anthropological Association :–.

Bergman, Christopher A., and John F. Doershuk Cultural Resource Management and the Business ofArchaeology. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited byLarry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julia J. Hollo-well, pp. –. Rowman Altamira, New York.

Blakemore, Cynthia, Nancy Herter, and Douglas P. Mackey The Evaluation of Lithic Scatters for the NationalRegister of Historic Places: A Consideration of theCurrent Status in New York. In Current Approaches tothe Analysis and Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in theNortheast, edited by Christina Rieth, pp. –.New York State Museum Bulletin Series , New YorkState Education Department, Albany.

Cain, Daniel Revisiting Lithic Scatters: A CRM Perspective. South-eastern Archaeology :–.

Carr, Kurt The Contribution of Prehistoric Archaeological Sitesin Plowzone Context to Our Understanding of Past Cul-tural Behavior and Their Eligibility to the National Registerof Historic Places. In Current Approaches to the Analysisand Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast,edited by Christina Rieth, pp. –. New York StateMuseum Bulletin Series , New York State EducationDepartment, Albany.

Dunnell, Richard C., and Julie K. Stein Theoretical Issues in the Interpretation of Microarti-facts. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal :–.

Fladmark, Knut R. Microdebitage Analysis: Initial Consideration.Journal of Archaeological Science :–.

Gero, Joan M. Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Pro-duction. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehis-tory, edited by JoanM. Gero andMargaretW. Conkey, pp.–. Wiley-Blackwell, New York.

Hassan, F. A. Sediments in Archaeology: Methods and Applicationsfor Paleoenvironmental and Cultural Analysis. Journal ofField Archaeology :–.

Hull, Kathleen L. Identification of Cultural Site Formation Processesthrough Microdebitage Analysis. American Antiquity:–.

Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office (KSHPO) Specifications for Archaeological Fieldwork andAssessment Reports. Kentucky State Historic PreservationOffice, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Kvamme, Kenneth L. Spatial Structure in Mass Debitage Scatters.In Surface Archaeology, edited by Alan P. Sullivan,pp. –. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H.Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl

National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluatingand Registering Archeological Properties. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service, National Register,History and Education, Washington, D.C.

Nadel, Dani Indoor/Outdoor Flintknapping and Minute DebitageRemains: The Evidence from the Ohalo II SubmergedCamp (. KY, Jordan Valley). Lithic Technology:–.

National Park Service (NPS) National Register Bulletin: How to Apply theNational Register Criteria for Evaluation. U. S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service, National Register,History and Education, Washington, D.C.

Nicholson, Beverly A. A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Tech-niques and of the Reliability of Microdebitage as a CulturalIndicator in Regional Surveys. Plains Anthropologist:–.

Ortmann, Anthony, and Caroline Schmidt Investigating the Function of an Archaic Period Earth-work through Microartifact Analysis. Paper presented atthe th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Honolulu, HI.

Peacock, Evan Using Macro- and Microartifacts to Investigate theFunction and Duration of Short-term Prehistoric Sites: AnExample from North Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology:–.

Peacock, Evan, and David W. Fant Biomantle Formation and Artifact Translocationin Upland Sandy Soils: An Example from theHolly Springs National Forest, North-Central Mississippi,U.S.A. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal :–.

Peacock, Evan, Stephen M. Davis, and Timothy M. RyanMicrodebitage Analysis at the Pinnix Site (GR)in Grenada County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology():–.

Price, Sarah E. Omnipresent? We Don’t Recover Half of It! InContemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast:Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations, edited byPhilip J. Carr, Andrew P. Bradbury, and SarahE. Price, pp. –. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

PHYLLIS S. JOHNSON ET AL.

Southeastern Archaeology , –

Rainville, Lynn Investigating Upper Mesopotamian HouseholdsUsingMicro-archaeological Techniques. British Archaeolo-gical Series . ArchaeoPress, Oxford.

Rieth, Christina Future Considerations for the Analysis and Interpret-ation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast. In CurrentApproaches to the Analysis and Interpretation of SmallLithic Sites in the Northeast, edited by Christina Rieth,pp. –. New York State Museum Bulletin Series, New York State Education Department, Albany.

Rigney, Phyllis S. Usewear Analysis of Flake Tools from the TownsendProject (Sites BT, BT, BT, and BT),Blount County, Tennessee. Unpublished Master’s thesis,Department of Anthropology, University ofTennessee-Knoxville. Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site MD,an Early/Late Archaic Lithic Workshop in Hunting Areaa, Fort Knox, Meade County, Kentucky. Report sub-mitted to ICI Services Corporation, Manuscript on file atFort Knox Cultural Resources Office, Fort Knox,Kentucky.

Rigney, Phyllis S., and Jessica S. Bookin Phase I Investigation of Acres in Support ofDevelopment and Revitalization of Infantry TrainingFacilities in Hunting Areas , , , , , a, andCamp Carlson at Fort Knox, Meade County, Kentucky.Report submitted to ICI Services Corporation. Manuscripton file, Fort Knox Cultural Resources Office, Fort Knox,Kentucky.

Rosen, Arlene Microartifacts as a Reflection of Cultural Factors inSite Formation. In Formation Processes in ArchaeologicalContext, edited by Paul Goldberg, David T. Nash, andMichael D. Petraglia, pp. –. Prehistory Press,Madison.

Sherard, Jeff Lithic Methodology.Manuscript on file. Brockingtonand Associates, Inc., Norcross, Georgia.

Sherwood, Sarah C. Microartifacts. In Earth Science and Archaeology,edited by Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday, and C. ReidFerring, pp. –. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publish-ers, New York.

Sherwood, Sarah C., and James J. Kocis Deep Testing Methods in Alluvial Environments:Coring vs. Trenching on the Nolichucky River. TennesseeArchaeology :–.

Sherwood, Sarah C., Jan F. Simek, and Richard H. Polhemus Artifact Size and Spatial Process: Macro- and Micro-artifacts in a Mississippian House. Geoarchaeology: AnInternational Journal :–.

Sonnenburg, Elizabeth P., Joseph I. Boyce, and Eduard G.Reinhardt

Quartz Flakes in Lakes: Microdebitage Evidence forSubmerged Great Lakes Prehistoric (Late Paleoindian–Early Archaic) Tool-making Sites. Geology :–.

Stafford, C. Russell Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapesand Regional Subsurface Archaeology. Journal of Archaeo-logical Method and Theory :–.

Susino, George J. Microdebitage and the Archaeology of Rock Art: AnExperimental Approach. Unpublished Master’s Thesis,Division of Geography, University of Sydney, Australia.

Versaggi, Nina M., and Christopher D. Hohman Small Lithic Sites: Linking Significance with Context.In Current Approaches to the Analysis and Interpretationof Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast, edited by ChristinaRieth, pp. –. New York State Museum BulletinSeries . New York State Education Department,Albany.

NOTE ON CONTRIBUTOR

Correspondence to: Phyllis S. Johnson, Brockington and Associates, Inc., Elizabethtown, KY , USA. E-mail: phyllisjohnson@brockington.org.

Phyllis S. Johnson earned a B.A. in Anthropology from Wright State University and an M.A. in Anthropology from the Uni-versity of Tennessee. She is currently an Archaeologist with Brockington and Associates, Inc. Her research interests include Cul-tural Resource Management, lithic technology, experimental archaeology, and public archaeology.

James C. Pritchard earned a B.A. In Sociology from Millsaps College and a Master’s in Applied Science - Cultural HeritageManagement from Canberra University. He is a Senior Archaeologist at Environmental Research Group (ERG). His researchinterests include the pre-Contact and early settler archaeology of Kentucky.

Dr. Eric Poplin received a Ph.D. from the University of Calgary and has over years of experience in cultural resource man-agement studies in the Southeast. He is well versed in studies of both the prehistoric and historic periods, and has completed alarge number of cultural resource projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, S.C. Department of Transportation, and manyother federal, state, and local agencies. Dr. Poplin has also worked extensively with private development firms required to ident-ify and manage cultural resources during the application of state or federal permits. Dr. Poplin serves as Brockington and Associ-ates’ Laboratory Director and Vice President.

IN MUCH SMALLER THINGS FORGOTTEN

Southeastern Archaeology , –