Lithic Analysis
Prehistoric archaeological sites are typically identified and evaluated by the presence of prehistoric stone tool production debris and chipped stone artifacts (lithics). Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants, Ltd., is specializes in different levels of technological and morphological analysis. We are the only private firm in Ohio to employ the Replicative Systems Analysis approach developed by Dr. J. Jeffrey Flenniken (1981). We also employ the Lithic Assemblage Formation approach advanced by Dr. Albert M. Pecora. Combined, these approaches provide the foundation for reasonable site assessment and interpretation. Few other firms in Ohio employ developed or professionally accepted analytical approaches for prehistoric stone artifact assemblages. This frequently results in poorly founded or unreasonable site recommendations, the documentation of non-archaeological stone as archaeological, and excessive recommendations for Phase II archaeological studies. Our expertise in prehistoric lithic artifacts is unsurpassed in Ohio. 
The benefit to our approach to lithic analysis is that it provides for a consistent foundation for archaeological site assessment. While most CRM firms in Ohio use debris quantity and raw material color to make site assessments, we use only technological variables. This limits the number of "junk" site Phase II and III recommendations that frequently result from artifact quantity and stone color analyses.

Historic Materials Analysis 
Our historic artifact analysts employ professionally published analytical methods. Stephen Biehl, B.A., is responsible for historic artifact analysis at OVAC, Ltd. 
The Historic Artifact Analysis can incorporate one or more of the following studies to your site in order to determine the National Register of Historic Places eligibility status under Criteria D: 

1.) Distributional mapping using data generated from the field excavations and then incorporated into the Surfer™ program (owned and registered by OVAC, Ltd.).2.) Functional groupings of artifacts to determine site type/function (i.e. residential, industrial, commercial, etc.) following the Functional Group classification system set forth by South (1977) and Ball (1984).
3.) More detailed analyses of particular artifacts or groups of artifacts (i.e. bottles-date determination from manufacture technique [Jones and Sullivan 1989; McKearin and McKearin 1989; Newman 1970]; ceramics-date determination from types identified at site; etc.).
4.) Socioeconomic classification based on the presence of ceramics following Manson and Snyder (1997) and Miller (1980).
5.) Window pane glass thickness study to determine age of site. 

References

 Ball, D. B.

1984  Historic Artifact Patterning in the Ohio Valley.  In Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology, Vol. 2: 24-36. 

Jones, O. and C. Sullivan

1989  The Parks Canada Glass Glossary.  Revised Edition with contributions by G. L. Miller, E. A. Smith, J. E. Harris and K. Lunn.  National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service Environment, Canada.

Manson, J. L. and D. M. Snyder

1997  Evaluating Sites with Late Nineteenth or Early Twentieth Century Components for Eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places: Using Turn-of-the-Century Whitewares as Economic Indicators in AssessingCollections and Developing Contexts.  Report Submitted to the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches. 

McKearin, G. S. and H. McKearin

1989  American Glass: The Fine Art of Glassmaking in America.  Crown Publishers, Inc.  New York. 

Miller, G. L.

1980  Classification and Economic Scaling of the 19th Century Ceramics.  Historical Archaeology.  14: 1-40.

Newman, S. T.

1970  A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles.  In Historical Archaeology, pp. 70-75. 

South, S.

1977  Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.  Academic Press, Inc., New York.