Lehman-Sommers

Home

(up-dated 13/Nov./2010)

(This is the script from Larry's paper/slide presentation at the 2002 Midwest Archaeological Conference in Columbus, Ohio)

The Lithic Assemblage from the Lehman-Sommers site and its significance for understanding early Mississippian lithic procurement and use especially the Cahokia Microlithic Industry

      The Lehman-Sommers site 11-s-1415, also known as the New Whiteside School site, is located in the uplands about 15 miles Southeast of Cahokia, and is part of the Richland Complex. The Richland Complex sites are a few miles apart and Lehman Sommers seems to fall into the Lohman Phase like other Richland Complex sites.

     During the initial survey, test units were excavated and a surface collection was made. Materials were bagged and labeled. They were then sorted, catalogued, and inventoried later at the lab.

     Three celts were found along with other artifacts   leading to full-scale excavation of the site. Included in the collection were mostly Burlington chert flakes and cores, Mill Creek chert flakes, pottery frags, and a few features.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

      During excavation, these ground stone discoidals and over 8700 pieces of chert were excavated. About 6500 were Burlington and 300 were polished Mill Creek hoe flakes. 

      In that collection were typical 2-notched Cahokia points

      made from Burlington chert

      A Byagoula point was found. They usually are from the Louisianna area but are found occasionally in and around Cahokia. The tan chert it’s made from is typical of Byagoula points as described by Perino. Another Byagoula point was found by the University of Illinois at the Grossman site. (personal communication with Dr. Tim Pauketat)

      Of particular interest at Lehman-Sommers is the microlith assemblage. During excavation of house features 160, 208, and their associated features, a number of  microliths were found. Soil was set on tarps to keep it separate from other features then put in buckets and brought to the lab for water screening.

     The screening method was to dump about ½ of a 5-gallon bucket of dirt onto a 3X3 foot section of ordinary window screen then fold the corners together and tie them to create a screen bag. The bag was then hung from a tree limb and sprayed with a regular garden hose until all soil was gone. One hundred seventy five 5-gallon buckets were screened taking an average of 40 minutes per bucket.

    The results were that very small microliths were recovered. Some of the micro-drills were capable of drilling 1mm holes.

     At Lehman Sommers, 797 micro-drills and fragments, 298 micro-blades, and 211 cores were excavated.

     About 500 of the micro-drills and fragments were recovered during this water-screening process.

     Micro-drills seem to be driven from cores or flakes that have been unifacially crushed to create a straight edge. Bifacial edges are used also but to a much lesser degree. They are then used, broken, and resharpened until they are exhausted on one end or, sometimes both. These drills are usually associated with the manufacture of shell disc beads with the beads being drilled from both sides.

     Micro-drills may be triangular or rectangular in cross-section. Two-sided drills break easily. Some drills may be triangular on one end and rectangular on the other depending on the core’s previous flake removal.

     Although the drills have not been analyzed for use-wear, polish can clearly be seen on many of them. The polish typically measures 2 to 3 mm from the tip suggesting use on thinner materials like shell beads. There was very little shell found at Lehman-Sommers and it’s absence is probably attributable to the soil acidity at the site.

     Cores were used and discarded when no longer viable.

     Many cores exhibit multiple flake removals

     Some cores were burned but the burning appears to have occurred after the cores were used.

     Other cores had secondary blades removed to revitalize the core.

     These flakes sometimes removed hinge or step fractures, reset platforms, or set up ridges to aid in flake removal.

     The Crescent Quarry Burlington chert used for the manufacture of the Lehman-Sommers microliths comes from a rather small area in Jefferson Co. Mo. that is now a subdivision. The quarries are about 35 miles Southwest of Cahokia.  One of the first residents of that subdivision mentioned that a large quarry pit, about 50 feet in diameter,  had been located on the approximate location of the micro-drill chert. The chert is of the highest quality but usually highly fractured rendering it useless for the production of large bifaces. It is perfect for the production of microliths, however. This was noted by Morse and Sierzchula in the analysis of the microlithic industry at the Zebree site in Northeast Arkansas.

     In replicating microliths, it was found that Mississippian copper awls and punches worked well if the material was used in a vise. Here, a modern vise was used to obtain blades used in an experiment by Laura Kosuch to cut the Columnellas of large shells. The narrow blades aid in the cutting because they are thinner and don’t drag on the shell as much as bifaces do.

    A primitive vise can be constructed by using a celt to cut a small log, then splitting the log with the celt. This vise was made in about 5 minutes with a stone celt.

      The core can be placed between the log halves and the log wrapped with twine and tied.

      More tension can be applied to the core by wedging the other end of the vise. An anvil stone was used here but an antler anvil worked better.

     The antler anvil produced fairly straight blades with little platform preparation. These blades were removed in a matter of only a few minutes. The blades can be made into drills with very little pressure flaking using a copper awl

     Hafting micro-drills in cane as suggested by Sierzchula works well and makes it easy to remove the drill to use the opposite end or for holding the drill during resharpening. The sharp end of Mississippian copper awls works well to shape and resharpen the drills. The cane “knock” also works well as a stop to buttress the drill. The “D” shape above the knock is well suited to accept a three-sided drill but four-sided ones will also hold well. Resharpening the drill while still in the haft seems to be the thing to do. The haft holds the tiny drill which is much harder to hold in the hand

     After the drills are hafted they can be used until they are

 broken or need resharpening.

     Another type of haft is the compression haft used by David Halliday at the 2001 Rabbit Stick rendezvous and written up in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology. Others such as Scott Jones and Steve Watts have used this hafting technique successfully. This very thin shell was drilled in about 2 minutes. The drill is made from Kaolin chert and the resulting hole in the shell is 1 mm in diameter.

     This hafting technique entails slipping a larger sleeve over a split twig or cane, positioning the drill between the split members, and sliding the sleeve over the drill. This compresses the haft around the drill and allows for a very firm haft that can be easily removed for installing another drill, resharpening, or even installing other tools such as flakes or burins. Using burins in such a haft may help in scoring and/or snapping shells. Although a pump drill is shown here, this method can be used with a bow drill or in the hand.

     The micro-blades are a by-product of micro-drill production but may have uses of their own. Dr. Laura Kosuch has found them helpful in cutting columnellas  to length for shell beads. Some exhibit wear on their edges and would probably work even better if hafted with the type of compression haft noted in the previous slide.

      Although these shell mask gorgets found in Montana and South Dakota are later than Mississippian shell work, they may reveal how larger shell work was accomplished.       Along some of the edges it can be seen that small holes were drilled about 1 cm apart and then the dots were connected.

     This seems to suggest that microliths were used also in  the production of larger shell items such as gorgets, masks, and/or cups.

      If this is true, then microlith assemblages may help define the point of origin for shell artifacts.

     The proliferation of microliths at Lehman Sommers is essentially isolated to two structures and their associated features. At the Grossman site it’s isolated to a single structure (Pauketat, personal conversation). At the Christ site, part of the Pfeifer site, it’s also isolated to a single structure. This isolation seems to occur at Cahokia at the Kunnemann and Fingerhut tracts but its appearance in the uplands at Lehman-Sommers, Grossman, and Pfeifer, increases our understanding of craft specialization in even smaller towns and hamlets.