4.7 Article

Quartz flakes in lakes: Microdebitage evidence for submerged Great Lakes prehistoric (Late Paleoindian-Early Archaic) tool-making sites

期刊

GEOLOGY
卷 39, 期 7, 页码 631-634

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G31964.1

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exploration for submerged prehistoric archaeological sites in the Great Lakes (North America) is a major challenge due to difficulties in locating scant cultural artifacts in lake-bottom sediments. Stone tool microfragments (microdebitage, <1 mm) can be abundant (> 10(6) per tool) and more dispersed around tool-making sites, but have not been identified previously in an underwater context. To evaluate their use as a submerged site indicator, microdebitage analysis was conducted on five lake sediment cores from a shallow lagoon adjacent to a long-occupied prehistoric site (McIntyre site, Rice Lake, Ontario). We identified 155 microdebitage fragments within a distinctive muddy peat horizon (2-2.5 m depth) using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy methods. The microdebitage consisted of angular to very angular quartz fragments (400-1000 mu m) with characteristic conchoidal fractures and flake scars produced by mechanical percussion. The microdebitage horizon had a distinctive bimodal particle size peak and contained a low-diversity soil thecamoebian assemblage (Phryaginella, Bullinularia sp.) indicative of a wetland environment that formed during an early Holocene shoreline transgression. Accelerator mass spectrometry C-14 dating of wood fragments yielded ages of 9470-8760 +/- 50 yr B. P. (11,070-9560 cal [calibrated] yr B. P.), indicating a Late Paleoindian-Early Archaic age for the deposit. Results demonstrate that coring and microdebitage analysis are effective tools in the search for underwater prehistoric sites and can be employed more broadly in exploration of submerged landscapes in the Great Lakes basins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据