Citation
Clovis points on flakes : a technological adaptation for long distance lithic transport

Material Information

Title:
Clovis points on flakes : a technological adaptation for long distance lithic transport
Creator:
Wernick, Christopher D. ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file )75 pages0. : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of arts)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Anthropology, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Anthropology

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Clovis points -- Anaylsis ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Clovis technology has long intrigued archaeologists. Many studies-both experimental and refitting-have reproduced Clovis replicas, and by doing so, present a current understanding for point production. Even though the production sequence for Clovis points is generalized, not all points display the stereotypical features from that production sequence. These "abnormal" points preserve a prominent detachment flake scar and are relatively rare in the archaeological record. A sample of Clovis points from the central Great Plains is analyzed to determine the frequency and significance of points that maintain this flake scar relative to typical points. The origin of the raw material for the two subsets of points is also investigated, and this reveals that more Clovis projectile points are manufactured on flakes with little additional retouch as the distance from the lithic source increases. This suggests that Clovis points on flakes represent a technological adaptation of central Great Plains Clovis peoples focused on lithic conservation by substituting flakes for bifacial preforms as a way to maximize the utility of raw material from distant sources.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Colorado Denver. Anthropology
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe reader.
General Note:
Department of Anthropology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Christopher D. Wernick.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
900878104 ( OCLC )
ocn900878104

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CLOVIS POINTS ON FLAKES:
A TECHNOLOGICAL ADAPTION FOR LONG DISTANCE LITHIC TRANSPORT
by
CHRISTOPHER D. WERNICK B.S., Indiana State University, 2008
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Anthropology
2014


2014
CHRISTOPHER D. WERNICK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
11


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Christopher D. Wernick has been approved for the Department of Anthropology By
Julien Riel-Salvatore, Chair Christopher Beekman Tammy Stone
May 2, 2014
m


Wemick, Christopher D. (M.A., Anthropology)
Clovis Points on Flakes: A Technological Adaption for Long Distance Lithic Transport Thesis directed by Associate Professor Julien Riel-Salvatore
ABSTRACT
Clovis technology has long intrigued archaeologists. Many studiesboth experimental and refitting have reproduced Clovis replicas, and by doing so, present a current understanding for point production. Even though the production sequence for Clovis points is generalized, not all points display the stereotypical features from that production sequence. These abnormal points preserve a prominent detachment flake scar and are relatively rare in the archaeological record. A sample of Clovis points from the central Great Plains is analyzed to determine the frequency and significance of points that maintain this flake scar relative to typical points. The origin of the raw material for the two subsets of points is also investigated, and this reveals that more Clovis projectile points are manufactured on flakes with little additional retouch as the distance from the lithic source increases. This suggests that Clovis points on flakes represent a technological adaptation of central Great Plains Clovis peoples focused on lithic conservation by substituting flakes for bifacial preforms as a way to maximize the utility of raw material from distant sources.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Julien Riel-Salvatore
IV


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Steve Holen of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science for giving me access to the point data used in this study. Additionally, I would like to thank Julien Riel-Salvatore and Tammy Stone of the University of Colorado Denver, along with Steve Holen of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I gratefully appreciate their comments and suggestions but take full responsibility for the arguments and data presented in this paper.
v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. Introduction..................................................1
II. New World Antiquity and Clovis Culture........................5
The origins of the Clovis techno-complex......8
Clovis Techno-Complex...............................10
Clovis biface technology and projectile point production.12
Clovis blade technology.............................17
Clovis points on flakes.............................21
III. Theoretical Orientation......................................27
IV. Analysis of Points on Flakes.................................32
Methods.............................................32
Results.............................................35
V. Conclusion...................................................43
REFERENCES.....................................................................54
APPENDIX 1.....................................................................65
vi


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1 Accepted dates from sites containing Clovis-diagnostics......................6
2 Results from statistical testing of sample...................................36
vii


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1 Typical Clovis projectile points..............................................13
2 Clovis bifacial core..........................................................15
3 Stylized illustrations of Clovis blade cores..................................18
4 Prototypical Clovis blades from the Gault site................................19
5 Stylized illustrations of a core table flake..................................20
6 Clovis point on flake blank from the Eckles Site (14JW4)
manufactured from clear chalcedony...........................................22
7: Clovis point-on-flake from Wray Colorado manufactured
from Hartville Chert.........................................................23
8 Illustration of point on flake-blank recovered from the
Indian Creek site in Montana.................................................25
9 Illustration of point on flake-blank recovered from the
Topper Site in South Carolina................................................26
10 Box plot demonstrating the distribution of blank types
Relative to distance from lithic source......................................36
11 Distribution of blank types from source.......................................37
12 Relative frequency of blank types within distance categories..................37
13 Dimensional comparison between blank types....................................38
14 Dimensional data between blank types in relation to distance..................39
15 Box plot of dimension data between distance categories........................41
viii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The finely-made hunting points associated with Clovis culture have always fascinated New World archaeologists and served as the center for many research topics. Many studies have demonstrated high residential mobility through lithic analyses (e.g. Huckell et al. 2011, Surovell 2003), but few have demonstrated any, if at all, technological innovation created through the means of this high mobility. The Clovis people who traversed the Great Plains of North America would have faced many lithic obstacles as raw material sources are few and far between (Holen 2001). It is this fact that raises the question of whether these highly mobile foragers innovated or adapted their tool-production strategies as a means to compensate for the vast distances between lithic sources.
A sample of 114 Clovis projectile points that includes 104 points on preform blanks and 13 points on flake blanks are analyzed using the presence of a detachment flake scar and the relationship this feature, or lack-there-of, shares with distance from known lithic source. Furthermore, morphological data (e.g. length, width, thickness) is tested for the presence of any relationship either between blank type and distance from source. These analyses test the question of whether points on flake blanks represent a technological adaptation in Clovis point production strategy reflecting the increasing distance between raw material sources. As the distance from source increases, the amount of usable lithic material would decrease proportionally. This would therefore require innovative knapping procedures to maintain the integrity and usability of their
1


tool-kits. I argue here that points on flake blanks do in fact represent an alternative point production strategy by Clovis tool-makers and not simply stylistic variations through the Clovis point production strategy. These points reflect the flexibility needed to produce viable hunting points as the transported usable raw-material decreases when distance from lithic sources increase.
To demonstrate this relationship, Chapter II briefly summarizes the history of Clovis research and includes a detailed description of the Clovis techno-complex. It also details the current models of Clovis point production and both defines and describes how points on flake blanks differ. Chapter III introduces Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) and how it can be used to understand functional variation in lithic technologies. HBE provides a useful framework to explicate why Clovis knappers would have begun point manufacture with a flake or informal flake tool rather than a larger flake needing extensive modification to produce a viable hunting point. Chapter IV describes the sample used and the statistical methods applied for analysis. The results of these analyses are included in Chapter IV, but are discussed in much further detail in Chapter V.
In sum, the evidence presented here shows a proportional increase in points on flake blanks as the distance from source also increases. When considering the included morphological data, these points themselves do not represent anomalies in the Clovis techno-complex, but simply reflect an alternative point production strategy. This alternative point production strategy begins with the assumption that Clovis culture practiced high residential mobility as described by Surovell (2000). Evidence for this mobility in Clovis culture resulted from the high frequency of exotic materials in Clovis
2


tool-kits (Bradley et al 2010; Collins 1999; Holen 2001; Huckel et al. 2011; Sellet 2006; Waters et al. 2011b). However, the occurrence of exotic raw material may in fact not represent high residential mobility, but rather reflect social exchange between regional sub-groups of technologically defined cultures (Bamforth 2009). Regardless of why, evidence for long-distance lithic transport is apparently a defining feature of Clovis culture.
This fact is likely to have imposed specific constraints on their technological decision making. For instance, as raw material quantity decreases through use, Clovis toolmakers might have altered their point production process to ensure the availability of lithic utility for unforeseen occurrences. Possible evidence suggesting an alternative point production process may stem from a series of Clovis points maintaining their detachment flake scar. The presence of a remnant flakes scar represents a different manufacturing sequence than typical points. This observable feature can be tested empirically to support the hypothesis that Clovis points on flakes reflect an alternative technological strategy to maximize high-quality lithic material utility in the context of long distance transport.
This argument does not contend that distance per se serves as the determinant of alternative technological practices; rather, distance acts as proxy for extended life-histories of lithic technologies. For instance, the difference between stone transported 100km and stone transported 900km is that the latter has covered more distance and was presumably carried for longer periods of time. This increase in distance and time within the context of lithic life-histories can be used to infer higher potential rates of retooling events a group would have gone through. These retooling events could, in some cases,
3


have selected for technological innovation when high-quality raw materials were rare, potentially as a result from risk-reduction behaviors explained by HBE.
Overall, Clovis technology descriptions rely heavily on site-specific analyses such as that from the Sheaman site (Bradley et al. 2010) and the Gault site (Waters et al. 2011b). Clovis technology, as well as that of other Paleoindian cultures, can and should incorporate regional-based assemblage analyses. With a sample that incorporates Clovis points from eastern Colorado to eastern Nebraska and Kansas, this research does use a regional approach. This provides the means needed to understand clearly, how and why, Clovis foragers adapted their tool kits to their local environment and how they successfully occupied the Great Plains.
4


CHAPTER II
NEW WORLD ANTIQUITY AND CLOVIS CULTURE
The association in New World archaeology between early humans and extinct megafauna is relatively recent. It was not until the 1920s when evidence demonstrated humans had co-existed with an extinct species of bison {Bison antiquus). Early excavations by J.D. Figgins outside Folsom, New Mexico yielded five projectile points associated with several dozen Bison antiquus individuals (Figgins 1927). This discovery pushed the antiquity of American archaeology further back than previously assumed. Several years later, in 1932, early human artifacts were found associated with proboscidean remains near Dent, Colorado (Figgins 1933). The Dent site contained several bifacial points similar to the points recovered at Folsom but appeared to be stratigraphically older (Cassells 1983). These points were initially referred as the Llano complex (Sellards 1952), but later re-designated as the Clovis techno-complex (Bradley 1993; Hayes 2002).
Stratigraphically, Clovis was dated to between 13,000 and 11,000 years BP and it was not until radiocarbon dating became possible to absolute date sites like Dent to validated these data. As research continued the investigation of when people first arrived in the Americas, several other accepted Clovis sites yielded datable materials for direct dating of these early human occupations in North America (Table 1). From this data, it becomes apparent Clovis foragers became widespread across North America within a few centuries all while occupying vastly different environments. This rapid expansion of what were presumably the first people in North America is known as the Clovis First hypothesis. However, this rapid expansion was quickly followed by the seemingly rapid
5


disappearance of Clovis cultural diagnostics, more specifically, Clovis projectile points. This sudden appearance followed by the quick disappearance of Clovis cultural diagnostics marks one of the most problematic components of the Clovis First hypothesis (Waters and Stafford 2007).
Table 1: Accepted dates from sites containing Clovis-diagnostics. Taken from Waters and Stafford 2007.
Site Date in RCYBP
Lange-Ferguson, South Dakota 11,080 40
Sloth Hole, Florida 11,050 50
Anzick, Montana 11,040 35
Dent, Colorado 10,990 25
Paleo Crossing, Ohio 10,980 75
Domebo, Oklahoma 10,960 30
Lehner, Arizona 10,950 50
Shawnee-Mini sink, Pennslyvania 10,935 15
Murray Springs, Arizona 10,885 50
Colby, Wyoming 10,870 20
Jake Bluff, Oklahoma 10,765 25
With the rapid expansion, Clovis foragers quickly occupied vastly different biomes. These data also present problems for the Clovis-first theory (Gruhn 2004; Miotti 2204; Waters and Stafford 2007; Waters et al. 2011). Gruhn (2004) demonstrates that all major environmental zones in South America were already occupied by locally adapted cultures with independent subsistence strategies before 11,000 RCYBP. In fact, big-game hunting associated with Plains Clovis subsistence (Wagespack and Surovell 2003) was less common in South American groups. For instance, Dillehay (2009) suggests foragers in South America developed a more broad-based diet that resulted in a reduction in mobility by including more marine and floral resources ca. 13,000 CALYBP. Sites
6


like Quebrada Jaguay, off the southern coast of Peru, also exhibit food storage and grinding stone technologies by ca. 10,800 CALYBP allowing for speculation that more broad-based subsistence behaviors were practiced before Clovis technology appeared in North America. This contrasts with North American early Paleoindian subsistence strategies where large mammal hunting was the predominant specialization (Frison 1993). This idea of big-game specialization applies mostly to foraging groups occupying the grasslands of the Great Plains where faunal diversity is low (Hill 2007). Elsewhere, such as the more diverse foothill and mountainous regions, Clovis exhibited a more diverse faunal and floral resource exploitation.
Before Clovis hunters harvested proboscideans, their early American ancestors also targeted these massive calorie packages. Early pre-Clovis sites such as La Sena, Nebraska and Lovewell, Kansas displayed targeted mammoth hunting by early humans (Holen 2006). Dating to 18,000 190 18,440 145 RCYBP (Le Sena) and 18,250 90 RCYBP (Lovewell), these kill/butcher sites represent some of the oldest evidence for early human occupation in North America. Although critiques suggest natural processes are the cause for the taphonomic destruction of the mammoth bones, Holen (2006) argues that arrangement of bones and their debris reflects a human agency. For instance, trampling experiments suggest the less robust bones of a deceased animal will suffer more extensive damage than heavier bones such as the limb bones with thicker cortical walls (Crader 1983; Haynes 1984). At both La Sena and Lovewell, the smaller bones were intact observing virtually no damage; whereas the limb bones were extensively spirally fractured and several large pieces of cortical bone exhibited both unifacial and bifacial flaking (Holen 2006). Overstreet (2004) summarizes two pre-Clovis mammoth
7


kills in Southeastern Wisconsin dated to ca. 13,500 RCYBP. Early excavations yielded several lithic artifacts including waste debitage, bifacial chert edge, two bifacial knives, and a chopper associated with the mammoth remains (Overstreet 1996; Overstreet et al. 1995; Joyce 2006). Furthermore, use-wear and residue analyses identified micro-wear and flesh residue on both knives (Yerkes and Weinberger n.d).
These data demonstrate the importance of megafauna to early Paleoindian populations. Their importance would have created the technological guidelines shaping the human agency specifically gear towards utilitarian technologies. These technologies would have included hunting weaponry and the behaviors needed to both maintain and produced viable hunting tools within a given context. The example used within this research focuses towards Clovis hunters on the Great Plains where megafauna were prevalent and lithic sources were not.
The Origins of the Clovis Techno-Complex
Lithics recovered from the Debra L. Friedkin (DLF) site in central Texas may possibly shed light onto the origins of the Clovis techno-complex (Waters et al. 2011a). With a total of 15,528 lithic artifacts excavated, this assemblage (Buttermilk Creek Complex) included bifaces (n=12), retouched flake tools (n=23), blades (n=5), bladelets (n=14), one discoidal core, and one polished piece of hematite (Waters et al. 2011a). OSL dating from 18 samples ranged from ca. 14,000 -17,500 CALYBP with the conservative age estimate of 15,500 CALYBP as the overlap between all but three samples. Of the 12 bifaces, ten represent late-stage biface reduction fragments, one is lanceolate shape and may be a point preform, and the last biface possible represents a chopper or adze. All of
8


the blades and bladelets display at least two dorsal ridges and microscopic analysis revealed some had use-wear consistent with both hard and soft organic materials (Waters et al. 2011a). The retouched flake tools included 17 scrapers, fours notches, one graver, and one bifacially retouched artifact. Of the macrodebitage (n=13,204), 834 pieces of chipped stone retained a platform. 51% were classified as biface thinning flakes that included one distal overshot flake fragment, three partial overshot flakes, and 10 endthinning flakes. For a further discussion of potential Pre-Clovis lithic assemblages, see Goebel et al. (2003).
The debate between Pre-Clovis occupation and the Clovis-first hypothesis is a long ways away from resolution. However, most have come to accept the evidence suggesting humans were in North America before the emergence of the Clovis technocomplex. Those who maintain the Clovis-first view suggest the long distance lithic transport seen in Clovis tool-kits is the result of high residential mobility, which would be expected for the rapid expansion of human groups. However, Bamforth (2009) argues that long distance lithic transport could have been the result of exchange between regional groups with smaller domains. Although his argument focuses on post-Clovis cultures where more residential camps have been recovered, these sites show higher frequencies of local stone usage for informal tool types while exotic stone was used solely for point manufacture. This observation is consistent with Clovis assemblages. Because of this, it is problematic to infer range size based only on projectile points and there needs to be better explanations for why long distance lithic transport is seen for point production (Bamforth 2009). Furthermore, the use of flakes for points at further distances may support Bamforths (2009) suggestion that group exchange of raw material
9


occurred through the exchange of finished points and preforms. Lastly, if points on flakes and long distance lithic transport do not reflect high residential mobility, these data challenge Clovis-first models and open the door for further research into the peopling of North America.
The Clovis Techno-Complex
Overall, the Buttermilk Creek Complex represents high residential mobility through the evidence of an overall small lightweight portable tool kit based within bifacial and blade technologies. Furthermore, evidence of both soft and hard organic materials suggests technologies incorporating bone, antler, ivory, and wood. These data, along with the evidence of overshot flaking, provides a possible insight into an ancestral techno-complex that gave rise to Clovis culture, which is discussed below.
The Clovis complex dates to between 12.8-13.1 thousand calibrated years ago (kya) (Bradley et al. 2010; Buchanan and Collard 2007; Erlandson et al. 2011; Goebel 2008; Smallwood 2010; Waters et al. 2011; Waters and Stafford 2007). While a number of Pre-Clovis sites are known (e.g. Waters et al. 2011a), the Clovis culture arguably represents the earliest distinctive and widespread lithic tradition in the North American archaeological record (Bradley 1991; Frison 1991). Finely-made fluted projectile points are the most distinctive feature of the Clovis complex (Smallwood 2012:690) and are distinct from other fluted point types such as Folsom which tend to be smaller, bear a more invasive channel flake, and are different in overall morphology (Collard et al. 2010: 2513). The focus of projectile points in Paleoindian research reflects the problematic fact that for those time periods points are almost the only cultural-historical diagnostic
10


(Bamforth 2009). Furthermore, because they conform to distinctive morphologies with aesthetic investments, resulted from complex production sequences, and great efforts were taken to procure specific raw materials to make them, points potentially offer greater inferences of behavior when compared to more informal tool types seen in early Great Plains Paleoindians such as Clovis.
Clovis lithic procurement strategies indicate long distance lithic transport, as many assemblages contain stone originating several hundred kilometers away (Holen 2011; Huckell et al. 2008; Sellet 2006). For instance, Huckell et al. (2011) describe the Beach Clovis cache located in western North Dakota as containing lithic material from both local (< 20km) and exotic sources (> 500km). Likewise, Collins (1999) and Holen (2001, 2004) describe the transport of lithic material by Clovis foragers over more than 900km. These examples show just how far lithic material traveled within Clovis organization whether by high-residential mobility or trade. Kelly and Todd (1988:238) summarize Clovis, and more generally Paleoindian, lithic technology as designed to be transportable, have long-term utility, and be of use in areas where only limited number of stone sources might have been known. Organic technologies such as bone, antler, and ivory were incorporated into the Clovis techno-complex by forms including socketed fore-shafts, beveled bone rods, awls, needles, billets, atlatl hooks, points, and abstract symbolic ornamentation (Bradley et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011; Wilke et al 1991). However, organic tools credited to Clovis culture are surprisingly lacking. Bradley et al. (2010) suggest the low recovery of organic formal tools results from taphonomic bias and poor preservation. They do, however, suggest these tool-types would have been easily made and readily used by the ease in manufacture and abundance in quantity.
11


In sum, lithic raw material data demonstrate that long distance lithic transport was an intrinsic feature of Clovis adaptations, a fact that is likely to have imposed specific constraints on their technological decision making.
Clovis Biface Technology and Projectile Point Production
Bradley et al. (2010:1) introduce the Clovis techno-complex by stating Clovis as an archaeological culture describes a range of materials and behaviors found throughout sub-glacial North America extending down to northern South America... However, many of these sites are restricted to the plains region of North America (Bradley 1993). This region also may explain why most Clovis sites are associated with mammoth, bison, and pronghorn (Haynes 1993; Frison 1993). Other faunal resources may have included smaller game species, but these data are limited (Waguespack and Surovell 2003). The success of the Great Plains Clovis hunters on such large dangerous prey with heavy hides and muscle is mostly credited to the efficacy of their projectile points. In addition to their sharp point and edges, typical Clovis points (Figure 1) were fluted to ease hafting and the basal sections were generally more narrow allowing maximum penetration.
12


Figure 1: Typical Clovis projectile points. Taken from Bradley et al. (2010)
Clovis projectile points were manufactured following a complex reduction strategy (Bradley 1993). The initial procurement of raw material was followed with early stage reduction to produce a general morphology and prepared the bifacial core for future flake removal and tool production. Bradley (1993) argues that during this stage, these bifaces were used mainly as cores for removing large flakes to be used as expedient tools. This process would continue until the bifacial core was thinned to the point where few, if any, large flakes could be removed and with additional flaking was transformed into a Clovis projectile point. Simply put, Most bifaces in Clovis are either point preforms or flake cores....Flakes are the primary cutting tools in this technology... (Bradley et al. 2010: 13). This reduction strategy is discussed in much detail below in the Point Production section of this thesis.
13


The most iconic aspect of the Clovis techno-complex is the highly distinctive projectile points (Stanford 1991). These points were commonly the end result of an extensive bifacial reduction continuum starting with either large chunky flakes or minimally flaked bifacial cores (Collins 1999). In fact, Collins (1999) argues most bifaces served as point preforms rather than finished formalized tools.
Bradley et al. (2010) describe the Clovis point production sequence in detail. Clovis assemblages exhibit two main reduction stages that can be further subdivided into a number of phases. The first stage represents the collection of lithic raw material and the initial shaping, while the second stage comprises all other phases of modifications (Bradley et al. 2010). Clovis point production starts with a large bifacially flaked core (Figure 2). These cores were either broken to be used as two separate cores, or to be used as is. Large flakes were then struck from such cores to be used as expedient flake tools for cutting or scraping. The third phase refers to these large flakes being reworked into bifaces using an alternating opposed bifacial thinning technique described by Bradley (1982) as large thinning flakes being removed from the same face, but by alternating the margin from which the flake was detached. This flaking strategy often results in intentional over-shot flakes (i.e., outrepasse flakes) that are commonly argued to be a diagnostic feature of Clovis point production (but cf. Eren et al. 2013). Further reduction employed opposed diving biface thinning where the flakes terminated along the mid-line of the long axis (Bradley 1982). Both these techniques were used to thin bifaces, while the fourth stage of creating a projectile point includes final edge modification, fluting, and basal grinding.
14


Figure 2: Clovis Bifacial core. Courtesy of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
Huckell (2007) divides Clovis bifaces into two categories: primary bifaces, which are minimally thinned bifaces that were not necessarily intended to become projectile points but could be modified as so when needed; and 2, secondary bifaces which were basically preforms for points. Waters et al. (2011b) expand this classification by dividing Clovis bifaces into four categories: primary; secondary, preforms; and finished points. From that perspective, primary bifaces are thick, retain cortex, and have highly sinuous edges. Secondary bifaces are relatively thinner than primary bifaces, biconvex in cross-section, less sinuous, and have a lanceolate shape with a convex base and round tip (Waters et al. 2011b: 93). Preforms represent the final stage of point manufacture, and display a well-defined lanceolate form; edges are highly regularized and even less sinuous than in secondary bifaces. Preforms also show evidence of pressure flaking and
15


fluting. Lastly, finished points are identified by retaining many of the traits of preforms, but also exhibiting extensive reworking.
Both descriptions of Clovis bifaces and projectile points indicate that Clovis point manufacture follows a reduction continuum. This continuum begins with a large biface and after achieving the desired thickness for the biface, pressure flaking is used to give it the proper symmetry and morphology required for it to serve as an effective projectile point. Wilke et al. (1991:221) sum it up well when they say it is likely that biface reduction flakes were first used as cutting tools, then modified by resharpening as needed, and finally made into Clovis points.... Wilke and colleagues also cogently argue that Clovis knappers were extremely careful not to compromise point production even when flake cores became exhausted. This suggests that Clovis projectile points were highly valued implements and that when cores became exhausted, tool makers would adapt manufacture procedures to conserve lithic material, ensuring point production was feasible until a cores utility was exhausted. The ability to alter manufacturing procedures reflects the high skill level involved in Clovis tool production.
Sellet (2006: 224) describes the manufacturing process of Clovis technology as a complex process that required proper training and great skill, and he concludes that projectile points were difficult to manufacture, due to the high risk of failure during the various phases of manufacture (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). Bamforth and Finlay (2008) further show that the use of intentional over-shot flaking in Clovis bifaces indicates a high level of skill (but see Eren et al. 2013). Along with the reduction sequence, fluting -- a Clovis diagnostic feature requires specific surface morphology preparation, precise
16


impact placement, and strong anvil support (Patten, 2002), all of which also indicate the great skill needed to avoid mistakes during Clovis point production.
The data above consistently describe Clovis point manufacturing beginning with a biface as seen on typical Clovis points. However the research presented here focuses toward those points that do not appear to be made by beginning with a biface. These points on flakes, which will be described in detail later in this chapter, are evidence of a deliberate adjustment in Clovis point technology.
Clovis Blade Technology
The Clovis techno-complex is not only limited to biface and flake stone technologies, but also includes an important blade and bladelet component that is as diagnostic as the finely made fluted projectile points associated with Clovis (Sain 2010). Initially defined by Francis Bordes as any flake where the length is at least twice that of the width (Bordes 1961; Collins 1999), this definition was used exclusively when examining Lower and Middle Paleolithic lithic assemblages, but when considering the true blades of the Upper Paleolithic a more strict definition of blades was needed (Bordes 1967; Bordes and Crabtree 1969). Crabtree (1982) defines a blade as: a specialized flake with parallel (or sub-parallel) lateral edges; length is more than twice the width; cross-sections that could be plano-convex, triangulate, sub-triangulate, rectangular, or trapezoidal; with a minimum of one crest following the length of the blade. Furthermore, Waters et al. (2011) and Bradley et al. (2010) add one additional definition to blade manufacture that recognizes the importance of a specifically designed prepared core.
17


Clovis blade cores were either conical or wedged shaped (Figure 3) (Bradley et al. 2010; Goebel et al. 2008; Waters et al. 2011). Conical (or round) blade cores were used so that platforms were oriented perpendicular to the long axis and blade removal followed the circumference of the platform. With the Gault site as an exception (Collins 1999; Dickens 2005; Waters et al. 2011), wedge-shaped cores occur less frequently, and were less complex than their conical counterparts; but equally important within the Clovis techno-complex (Bradley et al. 2010). An acute angle between the primary platform and the axis of detachment, along with a limited portion of platforms for blade removal, is what separates a wedge-shaped core from a conical core (Goebel et al. 2008). This allows for both unidirectional and multidirectional blade removals from multiple faces emanating from different platforms (Collins and Louse 2004; Jennings et al. 2010).
Figure 3: Stylized illustration of Clovis blade cores (Note A: Conical core; B: Wedge core. Illustrations by author)
18


Clovis blades (Figure 4) follow the same criterion as the above mentioned true blades but also exhibit additional characteristics differentiating them from other blade technologies (Bradley et al. 2010). These attributes include: smaller platforms; straight to exceptionally curved in longitudinal section; smooth ventral faces; noticeably long (length to width ratios commonly exceeding 4:1) with both narrow and robust cross sections; distal terminations commonly converge at distal end of the core resulting with a cone or pyramid core morphology; and margins that are relatively even and exceptionally sharp (Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1999; Waters et al. 2011b).
Figure 4: Prototypical Clovis blades from the Gault site. Taken from Waters et al. (2011).
19


As blades were continuously removed from the blade cores, rejuvenation practices were needed to maintain blade-core platform reliability (Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1999; Waters et al 2011). Bradley et al (2010) and Waters et al. (2011) describe one specific flaking strategy which included the removal of a core tablet flake (Figure 5). These flakes removed the entire platform surface of a conical core. This would have created a very smooth and slightly concave surface platform from which additional blades would have been removed. Core tablet flakes generally exhibit large stacks centered in the platform with large step and hinged fractures on the perimeter. Bradley et al (2010) suggest these flakes represent a corrective/maintenance measure implemented by Clovis knappers to extend the vitality of their blade cores.
Figure 5: Stylized illustrations of a core tablet flake. Illustrations by author.
20


Clovis blade technology served as a means to reliably and repeatedly produce flakes with sharp edges (Bradley et al. 2010). In many aspects, un-modified blade edges serving as cutting implements outperform the effectiveness and durability of bifacially retouched edges (Hayden et al. 1996). However, the same can be said for retouched edges (Bradley et al. 2010). The differences and efficacy between the two tool-types reflect the object material being altered. As the evidence demonstrates, Clovis peoples utilized a wide range of resources and having both tool types within their techno-complex reflects their overall resourcefulness and adaptive strategies.
Clovis Points on Flakes
Clovis tool-makers did not restrict their point production strategy to only bifacial preforms. A few Clovis points also appear to have been manufactured from early stage core reduction flakes (hereafter referred to as flake blanks) identifiable by the presence of a detachment scar. These points do not display the attributes, or flaking patterns described above. Rather they show a series of pressure flake removals on the dorsal face that are the result of thinning the piece and removing imperfections, as well as light bifacial edge retouch to finalize the morphology of the point which creates the sharp margins. Most diagnostically, they maintain the fairly prominent detachment scar (Figure 6) on their ventral faces which generally also exhibits force ripples that originate from the distal end and radiating along the long axis (Figure 7). This indicates that, in many cases, points on flakes have their tip at the bulb of percussion. This tip orientation minimizes the amount of thinning required since the flake becomes thinner further away from the bulb of percussion. This, in turn, negates the need for fluting on the ventral face, which most of the points on flakes described below in fact lack.
21


Figure 6: Clovis point on flake blank from the Eckles site (14JW4) manufactured from Clear Chalcedony.
Clearly, it is not the case that using flake blanks represent one of only two ways to produce a Clovis projectile point; however, the idea that points on flake blanks consistently differ from points on preforms more than simply by maintaining the observable detachment scar is an idea that is amenable to empirical evaluation. For one thing, the presence of these detachment scars could suggest a less extensive life-history (Andrefsky 2009) when compared to points that do not display them by representing a less intensive reduction of the blank on which the point was made. Stone tool life-histories begin with raw material procurement and end with discard, and include all modification in between, from initial shaping, to retouch, and repair. As such, the morphology of a stone implement can reflect its use life, including specific adaptive modifications that reflect behavioral responses to local conditions. Unsurprisingly, lithic life histories drawing on the concept of curation (often measured by the extent of retouch) have been used extensively to understand land-use dynamics and adaptive strategies of foraging cultures in both European (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004) and American
22


archaeology (Andrefsky 2009). From this perspective, rather than to state that point-on-flakes and point-on-preforms reflect mutually exclusive production strategies, I investigate here whether the presence of a detachment flake scar on some points can be taken to reflect a different kind of life history than for those that do not show this feature.
Since the production of Clovis points on preforms relies on an extensive reduction sequence, while points on flakes require a less extensive reduction strategy, the two strategies can reasonably be expected to be associated with different amounts of lithic debris produced. If this can be tied to distinct lithic economizing strategies, the selection of one or the other strategies in certain contexts may reflect an adaptation to the high mobility of Clovis foragers on the Great Plains, where high quality stone deposits are few and far between (Holen 2001).
Figure 7: Clovis point on flake blank Wray Colorado manufactured from Hartville chert. Private Collections.
23


In the context of the high mobility that appears to characterize a great deal of Clovis assemblages (Kelly and Todd 1988; Sellet 2006; Surovell 2000), lithic conservation would have been important during long-distance travels through areas with few or no known high quality lithic raw material sources. High quality, fine grained stone would have been preferred because it is easier to work, thus increasing reliability in stone tool production (Bleed 1986; Goodyear 1979; Kelly and Todd 1988). Along with a desire to reduce risk of failure during production, maximizing the utility of good raw material nodules suggest that using flakes in projectile point production may be one strategy to decrease the risk among highly mobile foragers. Bradley et al. (2010) also emphasize that Clovis foragers specifically selected higher quality material for tool production, and that it is not uncommon to find in Clovis caches raw materials from many difference sources spread over considerable distances (Huckell et al. 2011). These authors further explain that this raw material procurement strategy reflects a combination of opportunistic and embedded exploitation of various sources encountered during Clovis seasonal rounds (c.f. Brantingham 2003). This supports the notion that mobile groups transported higher quality raw materials over long distances and conserved these materials by maximizing the cores output by minimizing waste. In fact, the selection of projectile points as the main focus of this strategy reflects Newmans (1994: 491) statement about the preferred usage of higher quality raw material for their manufacture.
24


Figure 8: Illustration of point on flake blank recovered from the Indian Creek site in Montana. Illustration by author.
It must also be noted that Collins et al. (2003), Waters et al. (2011b: 130), and Wilke et al. (1999) have previously identified Clovis points on flakes, but that they did not address whether they represented a different point production strategy. Similarly, illustrations have demonstrated points on flakes in Montana (Davis 1993; Figure 8) and South Carolina (Sain 2012; Figure 9). However again, no further insights into these very different points have been presented. Here, it is suggested these points reflect one form of lithic conservation by Clovis foragers. This study thus tackles the question of whether Clovis points on flake blanks can be shown to reflect a technological strategy to maximize the utility of high quality stone in the context of long distance mobility. To do so, both points on flake blanks and on preforms will be compared on the basis of their dimensions and technological features, as well as on distance from raw material source.
25


Figure 9: Illustration of point on flake blank recovered from the Topper site in South Carolina. Illustration by author.
26


CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION: HUMAN BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
The research presented in this thesis is founded in Evolutionary Ecological Theory, which is defined as the study of adaptive design in behavior, life history, and morphology (Bird and OConnell 2006:143). This framework emphasizes behavior as the adaptive means within environmental contexts, which thereby affects overall fitness of the individual or group (Williams 1966). Stemming from ecological research in the 1960s and 70s, behavioral ecology a subfield within evolutionary ecology was initially used to understand social, reproductive, and foraging patterns in non-human organisms and landscape dynamics (e.g. Alexander 1974; Lima and Zollner 1996), but was later adopted by anthropologists and applied to human populations. This application resulted with a new subfield of evolutionary ecology designated Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) which initially applied optimal foraging models (Cronk 1991) to hunter-gatherer populations (e.g., Waguespack and Surovell 2003). Even though early HBE proponents focused on hunter-gather subsistence based in optimal foraging theory, its fundamental principles provide a transparent methodology to understand additional components of human behavior. Because HBE assumes human behavior is subject to natural selection (Surovell 2009), adaptive behaviors should be transmitted culturally and the capacity for optimizing behavior transmitted genetically. Even though the relationships between genes and behavior as a one-to-one association have not been easily demonstrated, it is widely accepted that behavior, in the general sense, is ultimately the product of the interaction of myriads of genes (Surovell 2009:7). From
27


this perspective, behavior therefore represents a problem-solving effort to maximize benefits or minimize costs.
HBE approaches commonly utilize mathematical modeling to provide a reductionist framework within which to derive testable hypotheses which can then be confronted against the record. These hypotheses emphasize simplicity instead of a more complex holistic approach seen in the particularistic tradition of cultural anthropology (Winterhalder and Smith 2000). These simple models indicate what expected behavior should be within a general context or environment. To do so, these models therefore must define the goal and decision variables, and within them, the goal reflects the intent of the behavior in terms of a specific currency (e.g., calories), while the decision variable represents what behavioral aspects will be adjusted to meet this goal (Surovell 2009). Empirical data are then tested to determine if these expected behaviors are actually in practice or whether the actual behavior deviates from its hypothesized fitness-maximizing predicted state (e.g. Bird 1997). Both possibilities are equally important because it allows for re-examination of social or environmental factors for causation when initial hypotheses are falsified.
Archaeological application of HBE is grounded on the proposition that behavioral diversity is socio-ecologically specific, which therefore requires understanding the circumstantial landscape that motivates individual fitness (Bird and OConnell 2006). Specifically, HBE favors the advantageous behaviors that increase adaptive fitness within a given context. The application of HBE to lithic assemblages stems from defining technological organization as the selection and integration of strategies for making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for their manufacture
28


and maintenance (Nelson 1991: 57). With this definition, HBE models are well suited for testing lithic assemblages because decisions were made throughout their use-life which probably reflected optimizing concerns by the individuals involved (Surovell 2009).
From this perspective, it does not matter if the behavior is learned or instinctive, biological or cultural in origin. In fact, Bamforth and Bleed (1997) review archaeological research as focusing on ways artifacts and/or behavioral patterns likely enhance fitness within certain environmental contexts and, more importantly, the effects of these alterations of either technology or behavior within given contexts. They further discuss how this scope of analysis purposefully avoids individual reproductive fitness. The deliberate dodging of individual fitness following Darwinian evolution allows researchers to focus more on group selection processes (e.g. Kaplan and Hill 1985) which may be better suited for understanding cultural change from the archaeological record (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). This debate between individual and group selection acted as one of the drivers of the development of behavioral ecological theory (Cronk 1991: 27.) This debate started when Wynne-Edwards (1962) argued natural selection in human populations occurred at the group level (see also Hamilton 1964; MacArthur and Pianka 1966). This was rebutted by Lack (1966) and Hamilton (1964) who picked apart Wynne-Edwards interpretation and determined, on both empirical and theoretical grounds, his data most parsimoniously reflect individual selection. To date, the dispute between group and individual selection is still ongoing; however, most HBE proponents agree that selection has the potential to act on multiple levels, most likely beginning at the individual level (Cronk 1991). Understanding individual selection through the
29


archaeological record is very difficult, however. Archaeological sites represent palimpsests of past group behavior over extended periods of time, and distinguishing specific variations that might have promoted individual reproductive fitness is quite problematic (Bamforth and Bleed 1997).
Using these simplified models, which generally evaluate cost/benefit considerations resulting from specific behavioral choices, archaeologists have begun to move away from subsistence practices and began focusing on the lithic technologies (see Bamforth and Bleed 1997 for discussion). Studies concerning raw material acquisition and exploitation, tool morphology, degree of retouch, and discard patterns made good use of the HBE hypothetico-deductive reasoning strategy (Winterhalder and Smith 2000) which later produced formal models to understand tool-kit composition in mobile foragers (Bird and OConnell 2006; Kuhn 1994).
Within the HBE framework, understanding tool-kit composition is done by considering technology as the basis for manipulating the physical environment (Bamforth and Bleed 1997) and by seeing any variation within this system representing behavioral adaptation to the local environmental. If we accept Clovis culture comprised highly mobile big-game hunters, it can be expected that hunting weaponry had high economic value. Furthermore, distance between raw material sources would have acted as an environmental stress which would need behavioral modification to maintain baseline amounts of lithic utility while away from sources. These parameters produce the hypothetical reasoning needed to deduce an adaptive behavior in Clovis foragers. The behavior under investigation here is the use of primary flakes or informal flakes tools over the preconceived use of bifacially reduced preforms, to manufacture a projectile
30


point. This represents the decision variable described above, with the goal being lithic conservation and/or maintaining lithic utility when raw material availability is limited.
31


CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF POINTS ON FLAKES
The research question investigated here assumed that Clovis foragers were highly mobile and traveled considerable distances; their point production strategy followed a predictable reduction sequence that started with large bifaces; and that projectile points held high economic value. These assumptions support the hypothesis that distance from lithic source would have acted as an environmental stress. The increase of distance enables a proxy to measure re-tooling events required. As more re-tooling events would have occurred, changes in tool maintenance and production strategies might reasonably have acted as a risk-reduction mechanism to ensure usable stone was available to Clovis foragers. Thus, the idea to be tested in this study is whether points maintaining a detachment flake-scar represent a behavioral strategy to ensure lithic utility and serve as a means to conserve transported tool-stone. This is supported if these points can be shown to occur more frequently further from raw material sources as it would demonstrate an alternative point manufacture procedure beginning with a primary flake or an informal flake-tool rather than a bifacial preformto maximize lithic utility in an environment where high-quality lithic sources are rare. This behavior could therefore reflect a behavioral effort to minimize the cost of typical point production processes described by Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011b).
Methods
A sample (n=244) of Clovis projectile points and preforms from the central Great Plains (Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska) is used in this study. This sample is the same as
32


that used by Holen (2001) to conclude that Clovis lithic procurement and mobility patterns in that region reflect a long distance migration, most likely following faunal resources. This sample includes points from private and museum collections and identification was done by Steven Holen and Jack Hoffman, both of the University of Kansas. The recording of points included travel throughout the central Great Plains to both museums and private collectors and morphological attributes were measured using digital calipers. Source identification was done through macroscopic observation and both microscopic and UV luminescence testing (Holen 2001). For private collections, recovery location could usually only be narrowed down to the county level although this introduces only a marginal degree of imprecision given the large scale of most distance under consideration.
The raw-material sources encountered throughout the sample region include many high-quality sources (e.g. Knife River Flint, Edwards Chert, Smokey Hill Jasper, etc.) with fewer medium to lower quality sources (e.g. silicified wood, quartzite, etc.). Even though high-quality sources were available, quarries were limited to specific regions. Most of these quarry sites are macroscopically diverse allowing for easier sourcing practices within the Great Plains. This beneficial practice allows for precise lithic sourcing and accurate measurements for distance travel by lithic materials. For instance, a common raw-material found in Clovis assemblages includes Edwards Chert, which originates in central Texas but is consistently recovered in sites from northern Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. This distance between Edwards Chert quarries and recovery sites sometimes exceeds 900km. Knife River Flint outcrops occur in North Dakota and points made on this material are recovered in southern Kansas and Colorado. Smokey
33


Hill Jasper and Hartville Chert (also known as Hartville-Uplift Chert) source to northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. These high-quality sources are recovered throughout the central Great Plains and as far east as Missouri. This is also the case with Clear Chalcedony, which occurs in the front range of Colorado and recovered in eastern Kansas some 625km away.
Because raw material (see Hoard et al. 1992 and Holen 2001 for more detailed descriptions) and distance from source are the main variables considered in this study, any artifact missing information about either was excluded from consideration here. The resulting sample (n=117) consists of 104 points on preforms and 13 points on flake blanks (see Appendix 1), both of which are represented by complete and partial points. Although this may unwittingly create a bias towards points on preforms due to point fragments not preserving the detachment scar on their ventral surface, removing all partial points would have further reduced the sample of point on flake blanks to a total of only 10. Thus, blank type was identified on the basis of the presence or absence of a recognizable detachment scar for all artifacts, under the reasoning that mistakenly including fragments of points on flake blanks in the preform sample would lead to the preferable outcome of falsifying the hypothesis that the two point types can be differentiated, a false negative, which is logically preferable to identifying a false positive trend that they are clearly distinguishable.
The significance of differences in dimensions (i.e., length width, thickness, per Holen 2001) between the two point types were tested at the 95% confidence interval (p < .05) using PASW v.22 software. The tests include both parametric and non-parametric due to the comparatively small sample of flake blank points. The parametric tests used in
34


this study include the independent variable t-test and a one-way ANOVA, while the Mann-Whitney U statistic was used for the non-parametric test.
Morphological data were tested to determine if blank type affected overall point dimensions. If points on preforms reflect a more extensive life-history, then morphological dimensions might be expected to reflect this and to differentiate them from points on flakes. It would be expected that smaller points with more extensive retouch would be recovered further from lithic sources. The diminished size results from either extensive retouch through constant re-sharpening or from recycling broken point fragments into usable hunting points. However, length tends to be the most inconsistent dimension in recovered points; whereas width and thickness tend to follow a consistent 4:1 (w/th) ratio in finished points (Bradley et al. 2010). To ensure reliable morphological testing, the sample first excludes partial points, resulting in a measured sub-sample of ten points on flakes and 59 points on preforms, but then includes these points and compares the results between both series of tests.
Results
Table 3 summarizes the results of these statistical analyses on the relationship between blank type and distance from source, length, width, and thickness values. The most significant difference between the two blank types are distance-from-source (p=.007) and thickness (p=.007). As concerns distance-from-source, Figure 10 clearly shows that the majority of points on preforms occur between 75 and 300 km from source, whereas points on flakes mostly are found between 200 and 600 km from source. Additionally, almost 60% of points on preforms are found within 200km of the source and occur in ever decreasing frequencies after this point (Figure 11). This is in marked
35


contrast to points on flakes; more than 66% of which are found more than 200km from source. It thus appears that as distance from source increases, the likelihood of point manufacture beginning with a less-curated blank also increases as shown by the greater proportion of points maintaining a visible detachment flake scar (Figure 12).
Table 2: Results from statistical testing of sample
Distance from source (km)
Detachment Scar N Mean Standard Deviation Significance (p <.05) t-score F-score Degrees of Freedom
Present (0) 13 414.4 302.6 .0077-017** 2.72 7.4 115
Absent (1) 104 236.8 210
Length
Detachment Scar N Mean Standard Deviation Significance (p <.05) t-score F-score Degrees of Freedom
Present (0) 10 5.6 1.3 0.174*/.24** -1.373 1.885 67
Absent (1) 59 6.6 2.3
Width
Present (0) 10 2.7 0.7 0.9137.627** -1.1 0.012 67
Absent (1) 59 2.7 0.6
Thickness
Present (0) 10 0.62 0.14 0.0077.021** -2.765 6.189 67
Absent (1) 59 0.74 0.13
Turning to metric dimensions, thickness appears to be the only attribute that discriminates between the two kinds of points (p= .007), while length and width fail to do so (Table 2). The separation based on thickness almost certainly refers to the fact that
Figure 10: Distribution of blank types in relation to distance from source.
36


35% a. 30%
Sr
g 25%
a 20% 6
g, 15%
re
= 10%
5%
0%
at at at at at at at at at o
at at at at at at at at at o
o T1 CnJ ro LO up r^ op o
o o 6 o o 6 6 6 r7*
o o o o o o o o o
Ti r-j m LO U0 00 o
at
Distance from source (km)
Points on preforms (n=104)
Points on flake-blanks (n=13)
Figure 11: Distribution of blank types from source
100%
$ 80%
IS 60%
-Q
O
bJD
(D
ai
40%
20%
0%
C CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt
ai CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt CTt
u i o tl ru m '3- LTt <*D 00
ai 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
D. o O o o O o O o
ti ru m vf LTt tO r"> 00
o
o
o
tl
i
o
o
CTt
Distance from source (km)
Points on preforms (n=104)
Points on flake-blanks (n=13)
Figure 12: Relative frequency of blank types within distance categories
37


Length (cm) vs. BlankType
Portion
Complete Partial
Flank-blank Preform Flank-blank Preform
BlankType
Width (cm) vs. BlankType
Complete Portion Partial



#
#

m
k-
.
!

.. <
%
:

BlankType
£ 05
Thickness (cm) vs. BlankType
Portion
Complete Partial
Preform Flank-blank
BlankType
Figure 13: Dimensional comparison between blank types
38


Length (cm) vs. Blank type Distance from source (km)
60-150 150-250 250-510 510 -930
/
. .
. * .
1 %
** /
.

Width (cm) vs. Blank type
Distance from source (km)
60-150 150-250 250-510 510-930
B 3.5
I
& jf if jf i? jf ir jf # jf
Thickness (cm) vs. Blank type
Distance from source (km)
35-60 60-150 150-250 250-510 510-930
*
if jf if jf if jf if jf if jf
A)- ST Jk
Figure 14: Dimensional data between blank types in relation to distance. Complete points only.
39


flakes do not need to be thinned on their ventral surface, making points on this blank type inherently thinner overall than those on preforms. Although length and width data do not show statistically significant differences between the two point types, when displayed graphically, it can be seen that points on flakes are as a whole relatively smaller than their preform counterparts (Figure 13); albeit not significantly.
When comparing the dimensional data between blank types in relation to distance from lithic source, an intriguing pattern emerges. Figure 14 shows a slight increase in the size of points on preforms as distance increasesespecially after 150km. Similarly, all dimensions of points on flake blanks decrease as distance increases up to about 250km, after which they begin to increase in size as distance also increases. However, any interpretation of points on flakes and their relationship between distance and dimensions is limited by the sample size. In order to flesh out any possible relationship, a larger sample would be needed. This, however, is possible with the points on preforms sample used above. Figure 15 displays the same pattern described above pertaining to complete preform points only.
ANOVA testing on complete points-on-preforms was used to determine if a there is a significant relationship between distance categories and point dimensions. Testing revealed no statistically significant relationship (p=.2783 for length; p=.1359 for width; p=.1397 for thickness) between point dimensions and distance. This result may be an artifact of the limited sample used, however, and future assemblages with similar
40


1 (0-60km) 2 (61 -150km) 3 (151 -250km) 4 (251-510km) 5 (511 -930km)
Distance
Figure 15: Comparison of dimensions between distance categories. NOTE: All measurements in cm.
41


data records might help establish the significance of these patterns, which will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
The evidence indicating that points maintaining a detachment flake scar are relatively smaller than points on preforms supports the above hypothesis whereby points on flakes may represent a conservation effort by Clovis tool-makers seeking to maximize lithic utility. These conservation efforts would have been favored when transporting raw material over considerable distances through regions lacking high-quality material. These efforts were more likely in response to the point production cost of bifacial reduction techniques observed in typical Clovis points.
Overall, the results presented here indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (p=.007) between blank types in relation to distance from the source. Furthermore, the only morphological variable that is also statistically different is thickness (p=.007). However, a visual inspection of the data (Figure 12) also reveals that points maintaining a detachment scar occur more frequently further from lithic sources, and that these points also tend to be smaller and thinner than those that do not. A likely interpretation of these trends is that they reflect a conscious effort by Clovis foragers to minimize the cost of point production and to maximize the overall output of transported raw material. These risk-mitigating behaviors would have been essential in Great Plains Clovis peoples who occupied a vast geographic area with few distantly situated high-quality raw material quarries.
42


CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
A sample of Clovis projectile points included several points maintaining the ventral surface from flake detachment. These points, while rare, do not reflect the preconceived manufacture sequence described by Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011b). It was hypothesized here that these uncommon points reflect an alternative point production sequence that begins not with a bifacially reduced preform, but rather a primary flake or by converting an informal flake tool into a viable hunting point. This effort would alleviate the problem of tool stone depletion while traversing long distances through the central Great Plains. These conscious behaviors would have been favored in this region where high-quality lithic sources are few and far between (Bamforth 2009; Holen 2001).
Similar observations have been discussed elsewhere, but pertaining towards post-Clovis cultures (e.g. Folsom and Midland). Holfman et al. (1990) describes in detail the Shifting Sands sites Folsom and Midland artifacts recovered from western Texas. Here, they argue the use of bifacial preforms and flake blanks are recovered and common within both Folsom and Midland assemblages and the use of alternative preform types probably reflects available raw material quantities and functional demands, such as reworking a unifacial tool into an expedient projectile point (Hofiman et al. 1990). Furthermore, these authors imply the use of flake blanks is not strictly reflective of increasing distances from source, but rather reflecting the number of kill-butchery and retooling events occurring after the initial procurement event. I simply argue here that Folsom and Midland toolmakers were not the first to make these considerations, and how
43


using distance from source can be used as the proxy to measure an increase in retooling
events.
Reverting back to the Clovis sample, points on the two blank types show clear and statistically significant differences in their distribution relative to raw material sources that are also accompanied by some differences in point dimensions. When these data are combined, it becomes clear that points on flake blanks occur at further distances proportionally and that they fall towards the smaller end of the range seen in recovered Clovis points. Points-on-flakes tend to be smaller than their preform counterparts and with less retouch, meaning that points on flake-blanks require less stone than points-on-preforms. This can therefore be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, points-on-flakes could represent evidence of depleted raw material which was no longer sufficiently available to produce larger blanks. Secondly, these points could reflect a conscious decision to minimize the cost of extensive thinning. The cost of thinning a preform includes the risk of breaking the blank during manufacture. The choice to use a flake (which would require less retouch and thinning) may in fact be the behavioral adaptation for optimizing and extending the utility of transported raw material. Simply put, why risk wasting high-quality materials through a more extensive and involved point production strategy, when using a flake reduces the risk associated with bifacial thinning and extends the utility of available raw material by beginning with a smaller blank?
It would be expected that, as distance increased, recovered points should be smaller and more curated than those recovered closer to the lithic sources. However that is not always the case. As demonstrated in Chapter IV, there is a decrease in point size initially, but an increase in size beyond a certain point. For points on preforms, this
44


decrease was observed to a distance of around 150km. Past 150 km, there is a slight and gradual increase in point size. In contrast, points on flakes blanks decreased in size up to about 240km from source, after which they also begin increasing in size. It must be stressed, however, that these trends do not appear to be statistically significant and if there is no difference between discarded projectile points as distance increases, then most recovered points likely simply reflect the dimensional size at which Clovis peoples would discard projectile points.
According to Bamforth (2009), long distance lithic transport is not necessarily the result of one group traversing such distances, but can rather represents trade networks between two neighboring groups each occupying much smaller regions. He suggests that points and point preforms were exchanged by using the evidence of exotic raw-materialgenerally used for these tool formsbeing recovered at such extreme distances from their locality. In contrast, informal tool types seem to be made overwhelmingly on more local, lower quality raw materials (Bamforth 2009). With this in mind, it could be postulated that a group anticipating an exchange of tool-stone would reserve some material for this event (see also Whallon 2006). Evidence to support this argument may lie with these larger points being recovered at longer distances, though additional research on larger datasets is needed to establish this unambiguously.
Overall, these data indicate that projectile points on flakes may therefore well represent a technological adaptation to conserving lithic raw material in the context of long distance lithic transport (Holen 2004, 2001). If lithic sources were scarce or unknown, Clovis knappers needed to make sure they had stone available even if they
45


could not provision it anew, which means that there would have been a premium on maximizing the utility that could be derived from given volumes of raw material.
According to Bamforth and Becker (2000), Paleoindians favored the use of bifacial cores for transport. These cores could both act as simple chopping tools, or have flakes struck off them to provide expedient tools. If these cores were created close to the lithic source and transported over considerable distances, the further the core is from the source, the greater the reduction in core volume and in turn in the size of useable flakes able to be removed from these cores. This adheres to Newmans (1994) observation that flake size decreases as distance from source increases. While Bamforth and Becker (2000) mostly focus on Folsom, their discussion is relevant to Clovis points on flakes because Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011) suggest that the Clovis point reduction sequence began by removing large flakes from bifacial cores. These flakes were initially used as expedient tools, and were then reworked and thinned before being turned into points. As core utility decreased as they were reduced over the course of their users travels, the appeal of using small flakes as blanks for points increases, as this strategy results in less wasting of prized raw material (Bamforth 2003). Incorporating a flake-based point manufacture sequence that maximizes a cores use-life by increasing the potential output of expedient flakes would help conserve lithic material. Alternatively, large flakes could also be procured directly from quarries with the intent of using them as projectile point blanks. This is a less likely option, however, since flakes have higher transport costs than bifaces (cf. Kuhn 1994; Morrow 1996), in keeping with claims that Clovis tool kits were designed to be easily maintainable, multifunctional, and recyclable, and that bifacial cores embody such technological flexibility (Bleed 1986;
46


Bamforth 2003). The small dimensions of the present sample of projectile points maintaining a detachment flake scar suggest they were made on flakes struck from heavily reduced cores, maybe as one strategy to conserve high quality lithic material.
That said, it is also likely that Clovis tool-makers made points on primary flakes that lost their visible detachment flake scar as a result of extensive retouch. This, in fact, would be in keeping with suggestions that Clovis tool-kits are designed to undergo a systematic rejuvenation between tool types through reduction (Bamforth 2003; Bradley et al. 2010; Jennings et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011). For instance, a flake may be used initially for cutting/butchering, but as the edge becomes dull retouch is needed for rejuvenation. This process continues until the flake is discarded or a more extensive modification is employed to convert the cutting tool into a different tool type altogether. The fact that some points on flakes may not be recognizable as such, however, does not disagree with the results presented in this study, since the dimensions of some points considered here to have been made on preforms overlap with those of the subsample of recognizable points on flakes, which in general fall on the smaller end of the size grade from fully retouched points (Figure 13).
Points on flakes therefore can be seen as supporting Wilke, et al.s (1991) argument about Clovis knappers saving and using flakes as blanks for points instead of trying to reshape exhausted cores into preforms as distance from lithic sources increase. This allowed these cores to continue being used to produce additional expedient tools. This dynamic knapping ability is the source of the apparent contradiction at the heart of this study, namely that seemingly minimally retouched points on flakes occur more frequently as one moves away from the material on which they are made whereas their
47


superficially more curated counterparts on preforms mostly occur closer to lithic sources. In reality, the more expedient appearance of most points on flakes seems to be tightly linked to raw material conservation strategies.
Using flakes to create points would have been a good alternative in those contexts when reducing a bifacial core into a projectile point would have prevented the production of additional tool blanks. With increasing distance from raw material sources, Clovis knappers came to rely on a flexible point-production process to maximize both core output and maintainability. Using primary flakes instead of reduced bifacial cores as point blanks does both.
Even though projectile points represent a very small fraction of the overall lithic assemblages made and used by Clovis foragers, this study shows how they can nonetheless shine important light on their raw material management strategies. Furthermore, that a small subset of Clovis points does not reflect the typical point production reduction reconstructed from cached assemblages clearly shows that these foragers could and did tailor their point production strategies according to numerous variables, including the need to maximize the utility of fine-grained stone over longdistance movements. Overall, points on flakes are statistically similar in dimensions to small points on preforms, differing systematically from them only by being thinner. In contrast, the proportion of points-on-flakes increases with growing distance from source. These joint trends are best explained as the results of a coherent alternative manner of producing Clovis points when the standard point manufacture process could not be used because of depleted raw material reserves.
48


Although there are two distinct Clovis point production strategies, points on flakes are proportionally much more frequent when distance from sources is great, presumably also when cores have been exhausted to the point that larger flakes can no longer be produced. This fits the current understanding of Clovis technology (Bradley et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011b) and can be interpreted as reflecting a technological adaption for long distance lithic transport.
In sum, then, Clovis knappers did not limit their point production processes to the standard thinning sequence described above, but tailored their knapping skills to maximize core usability and to ensure that points could be manufactured even when raw material had become scarce or only available in small packages. The production of Clovis points on flakes thus appears to be a response to economically using exhausted bifacial cores on high quality stone types from distant sources. This is evident when smaller, less extensively retouched projectile points on flakes are recovered further from lithic sources than their larger, more extensively retouched preform counterparts. This is suggestive of a technologically adaptive last ditch effort to maximize lithic utility when resources were scarce. These points thereby reflect an effort to maximize scarce resources and an adaptation to a highly mobile lifeway.
Clovis points on flakes thus reflect the technological innovation needed by Clovis tool-makers to reduce the risk of uncertainty while traveling through the Great Plains in North America. These hunters occupied a region where few high quality raw material sources were available and the distance between quarry locations exceeded hundreds of kilometers. Instead of inflexibly following an elaborate and relatively wasteful point production sequence beginning with larger flakes reworked into bifacial preforms, Clovis
49


knappers also in some contexts utilized smaller flakes for point production. This hypothesis is supported by the significant relationship between blank type and their statistical means between distances from raw material source. Over two-thirds of Clovis points without the detachment flake scar occur within two hundred kilometers of raw material source, whereas over two-thirds of points with a detachment flake scar occur past two hundred kilometers. Furthermore, as the distance from source increases, the relative proportion of projectile points with these scars also increases.
The overall differences in dimensions between blanks remain insignificant. However, when graphically displayed, it can be readily seen that points on flake blanks tend in fact to be smaller insignificantly. The only significant metric difference is seen in thickness between blank types. This can be easily understood when considering flake blanks would require less thinning than bifaces, especially on their ventral face. Many of the flake scars present on the ventral face of points on flakes represent marginal flaking to give the point the typical Clovis morphology and cutting edge.
Points on flakes represent an alternative point production strategy not currently discussed in Clovis research. The original hypothesis tested in this study questioned the context of points maintaining a detachment flake scar and their relationship within Clovis assemblages. It was argued here that these rare and distinctive points reflect an alternative point production process aimed at conserving high quality raw materials. This conservation effort may have stemmed from the common practice of transporting lithic materials over distances in excess of 900km seen in Great Plains Clovis peoples.
As Chapter II describes, Clovis people are generally considered to have practiced high residential mobility (Kelly and Todd 1988; Surovell 2000). It is common for Clovis
50


assemblages to contain lithic material from several exotic sources. These materials were of high quality raw materials, something favored by Clovis knappers. The need of high quality material reflects the highly technical and risky point manufacture process observed through experimental and refitting studies of Clovis projectile points (Bradley et al. 2010). This process begins with large bifacial core that were either used to remove large flakes for informal tools, or they were used until no longer able to produce these large flakes; at which point they were reworked into a hunting point. However, bifacial technology was not the only means to produce usable flakes. Clovis also practiced a highly developed blade technology. Clovis blades were longer than those of most other techno-complexes that used this technology. Both technologies reflect the overall resourcefulness and adaptive behaviors practiced by Clovis foragers.
Chapter II also introduces points maintaining a detachment flake scar. These points do not reflect the current model of point production. Even though they are labeled elsewhere, no current researchto my knowledgehas aimed to explain these points. Because these points are a behavioral response to external factors, along with other lithic technologies, Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) provides a framework within which these points can be understood and ultimately analyzed empirically.
HBE, and its application towards lithic assemblages, is discussed in Chapter III. HBE approaches the archaeological record through the lens of evolutionary theory. With this, behavior can be seen as an adaptive response to environmental stimuli that inherently promotes fitness. For instance, a more effective hunting tool can increase a hunters caloric intake, in turn increasing their overall health and reproductive fitness. The method of manufacture and/or implementation of such a hunting tool would be
51


passed on to later generations or until an alternative hunting/gathering behavior was adopted.
These concepts are applied to the sample of Clovis points in the central Great Plains region of North American described in Chapter IV. This sample was analyzed statistically and strongly demonstrates a relationship regarding points on flakes and their respective distance from source. It was shown that a majority of points maintaining their detachment scar are recovered beyond 200km, whereas the bulk of points on preforms are within 200km from source. Furthermore, these points on flakes are thinner than their preform counterparts. These data, when compiled together, paint a picture suggesting these points on flakes are an alternative point production product designed to mitigate the wasting of material through an extensive bifacial reduction process. This alternative strategy would have been favored in the environmental context to which these Clovis foragers occupied. The central Great Plains has limited high quality raw material, and these quarries are few and far between (Bamforth 2009; Holen 2001). A point production strategy that conserves lithic material in these environmental conditions would have been both adaptive and favored.
This thesis set out to see if these points reflect an alternative point production process, or rather just a meaningless aspect of the Clovis techno-complex. It was established here that these points do in fact represent the technological adaptation of long distance lithic transport practiced by Clovis foragers in some facet of their lithic technology. Future research, that includes larger datasets such that as the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA), could be used to test the above hypotheses against other regional and Paleoindian techno-complexes.
52


Technology in past cultures was not lethargic. It was responsive, adaptive, and dynamic. This applies to the stone tools of Clovis Paleoindians occupying the central Great Plains. In this specific environmental context, tool stone was rare but also highly prized. This would have created the need, or goal, to conserve transported raw material; especially considering the vast distances covered. A potential method for conserving these materials could be to alter the point production sequence that produces higher volumes of waste debitage. This goal-oriented behavioral adaptation reflects the decision variable of whether using a smaller flake that requires less work over a preform that needed more work, was more risky, and more wasteful. This conscious effort to minimize the cost of point production in certain contexts or to maximize the output of transported material reflects the aim set forth by HBE frameworks. As assemblages grow and variations are observed, HBE can provide the framework needed to empirically address these observations; and hopefully reveal past people for who they were and how they lived.
53


REFERENCES
Alexander, R.D.
1974 The Evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 325-383.
Andrefsky, William Jr.
2009 The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 65-103.
Bamforth, Douglas B.
2003 Rethinking the role of bifacial technology in Paleoindian adaptations on the Great Plains. In Multiple Approaches to the study of Bifacial Technologies, M. Soressi and H.L. Dibble (eds), pp. 209-228. University of Pennsylvania Press.
2009 Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 142-157.
Bamforth, Douglas B. and Peter Bleed
1997 Technology, Flaked stone technology, and Risk. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7(1): 109-139.
Bamforth, Douglas G, and Michael S. Becker.
2000 Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologists 45(173):272-290.
Bamforth, Douglas B, and Nyree Finlay
2008 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory 15(1): 1-27.
Bard, E., B. Hamelin, R.G. Fairbanks, and A. Zindler
1990 Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados Corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
Bird, Douglas W.
1997 Behavioral Ecology and the Archaeological consequences of Central Place Foraging among the Meriam. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7(l):291-306.
Bird, Douglas W., and James. F. OConnell
2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological research 14(2): 143-188.
54


Bjork, S., B. Kromer, S. Johnsen, O. Bennike, D. Hammarlund, G. Lemdahl, G. Possnert, T.L. Rasmussen, B. Wohlfarth, C.U. Hammer, and M. Spurk.
1996 Synchronized terrestrial-atmospheric deglacial records around the North Atlantic. Science 274: 1155-1160.
Bleed, Peter.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4): 737-747.
Bordes, Francois
1961 Typologie du Paleolithique: Ancient etMoyen. Delmas, Bordeaux, France.
1967 Considerations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Paleolithique. Quatar 18:25-55.
Bordes, Francois, and Don Crabtree
1969 The Corbiac Blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12(2): 1-21.
Bradley, Bruce A.
1982 Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In The Agate Basin Site: A record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. George C. Frison and Dennis Stafford (eds), pp. 181-208. Academic Press, New York.
1991 Flaked Stone Technology in the Northern High Plains. In Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd ed., George C. Frison (ed), pp. 369-395. Academic Press, San Diego.
1993 Paleo-Indian flaked stone technology in the North American High Plains. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations, O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 251-262, Plenum Press, New York.
Bradley, Bruce A., Michael B. Collins, and Andrew Hemmings
2010 Clovis Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey.
2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American Antiquity 63(3):487-509.
Buchanan, Briggs, and Mark Collard.
2007 Investigating the Peopling of North America through cladistics analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 366-393.
55


Cassells, Steve E.
1983 The Archaeology of Colorado. Johnson Publishing Company, Boulder Colorado.
Collard, Mark, and et al.
2010 Spatiotemporal dynamics of the Clovis-Folsom transition. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2513-2519.
Collins, Michael B.
1999 Clovis Blade Technology. Univeristy of Texas Press, Austin.
Collins, Michael B., and J. Link
2003 Refit groups In Pavo Real (41BX52):A Paleoindian and Archaic camp and workshop on the Balcones Escarpment, South-Central Texas, By Michael B. Collins, D.B. Hudler, and S.L. Black, pp. 157-182. Studies in Archaeology 41, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin and Archaeological Studies Program, Report 50, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas.
Collins, Michael B. and Jon C. Lohse
2004 The Nature of Clovis Blades and Blade Cores. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by David B. Madsen, pp. 159-183. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Collins, Michael B., Dale B. Hudler, and Stephen L. Black (editors)
2003 Pavo Real (41BX52): A Paleoindian and Archaic camp and workshop on the Balcones Escarpment, south-central Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Crabtree, Don
1972 An introduction to flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum 28. Idaho State University, Pocatello.
Crader, D.
1983 Recent single-carcass bone scatters and the problem of butchery sites in the archaeological record. In Animals and Archaeology, Vol 1, Hunters and their prey. J., Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson (eds), pp. 107-141. BAR International series No. 163, Oxford.
Davis, Leslie B
1993 Paleo-Indian archaeology in the high plains and Rocky Mountains of Montana. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations, O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 263-277, Plenum Press, New York.
56


Dickens, William A.
2005 Biface Reduction and Blade manufacture at the Gault Site (41BL323): A Clovis occupation in Bell County, Texas. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Dillehay, Tom D.
2009 Probing deeper into first American Studies. PNAS 106(4): 971-978.
Edwards, R.L., J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, D.J. Donahue, J.M.A. Chappelle, A.L. Bloom, E.R.M. Druffel, and F.W. Taylor
1993 A large drop in atmospheric 14C/12C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230Th ages of corals. Science 260: 962-968.
Eren, Metin I., Robert J. Patten, Michael J. OBrien, and David J. Meltzer.
2013 Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1): 248-256.
Erlandson, Jon M. and et al.
2011 Paleoindian seafaring, maritime technologies, and coastal foraging on Californias channel islands. Science 331: 1181-1184.
Ferring, C.R.
1995 The late Quaternary geology and archaeology of the Aubrey Clovis site, Texas: In Ancient Peoples and Landscapes, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 273-281. Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
2004 Clovis age in calendar years: 13,500-13,000 CALYBP. In New Perspectives on
the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 73-80.Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Figgins, J.D.
1927 The antiquity of Man in America. Natural Plistory 27(3):229-239.
1933 A further contribution to the antiquity of Man in America. Proceedings, Colorado Museum of Natural History 12(2): 4-10.
Friedrich, M., B. Kromer, M. Spurk, J. Hofmann, and K.F. Kaiser
1999 Paleo-environment and radiocarbon calibration as derived from Late Glacial/Early Holocene tree-ring chronologies. Quaternary International 61(1): 27-39.
57


Frison, George C.
1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the Higher Plains. Academic Press.
1993 North American High Plains Paleo-Indian hunting strategies and weaponry assemblages. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations, O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 237-249, Plenum Press, New York.
Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Dennis H. ORourke.
2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modem Humans in the Americas. Science 319: 1497-1501.
Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Margarita Dikova.
2003 The Archaeology of the Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Science 301: 501-505.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Material Among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series Book, 127.
Gruhn, Ruth
2004 Current archaeological evidence of Late-Pleistocene settlement of South America. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 27-34.Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Hamilton, Marcus J., and Briggs Buchanan
2007 Spatial gradients in Clovis-age radiocarbon dates across North America suggest rapid colonization from the North. PNAS 104(40): 15625-15630.
Hawks, K.
1993 The Evolutionary basis of sex variations in the use of natural resources: human examples. Population and Environments 18: 161-173.
Hayden, Brian D., Nora Franco, and Jim Spafford
1996 Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In Theory and Behavior from Stone Tools, G. Odell (Ed), pp. 9-49. Plenum Publishing, New York.
Haynes, C Vance Jr.
1993 Clovis-Folsom Geochronology and Climate change. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations, O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 219-236, Plenum Press, New York.
Haynes, Gary
58


2002 The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts. World Archaeology 33(3): 391-416.
1984 Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures of ungulate limb bones in modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1): 102-114.
Hill, Matthew E. Jr.
2007 A Moveable feast: Variation in Faunal Resource use among Central and Western North American Paleoindian sites. American Antiquity 72(3): 417-438
Hoard, Robert J. and et al.
1992 Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone from the Chadron Formation and a Clovis Site on the Great Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 655-665.
Hofman, Jack L., Daniel S. Amick, and Richard O. Rose.
1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-Midland assemblage from a campsite in western Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35(129): 221-252.
Holen, Steven R.
2010 The Eckles Clovis Site, 14JW4: A Clovis site in Northern Kansas. Plains Anthropologist 55(216):299-310.
2006 Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the central Great Plains of North America: A preliminary report on La Sena and Lovewell. Quaternary International 142-143: 30-43.
2004 Long Distance Movement of a Clovis Obsidian Projectile Point. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:44-45.
2001 Clovis Mobility and Lithic Procurement on the Central Great Plains of North America. Dissertation, University of Kansas.
Holen, Steven R., et al.
2008 A comment on Howards Authentication Analysis of the Angus Nebraska Fluted Point. Plains Anthropologist 53(207): 357-366.
Huckell, Bruce B.
2007 Clovis Lithic Technology: A view from the Upper San Pedro Valley. In Murray Springs: A Clovis site with Multiple Activity areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. C. Vance Haynes Jr. and Bruce B. Huckell (eds), pp. 170-213. Anthropological Papers of the Univeristy of Arizona No. 71. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Huckell, Bruce B. and et al.
59


2008 The Mockingbird Gap Clovis Site: 2007 Investigations. Current Research in the Pleistocene 25: 95-97.
2011 Sentienl Butte: neuton activation analysis of White River Group chert from a
primary source and artifacts from a Clovis Cache in North Dakota, USA. Journals of Archaeological Science 38: 965-976.
Hughen, K.A., J.T. Overpeck, S.J. Lehman, M. Kashgarian, J. Southon, L.C. Perterson,
R. Alley, and D. M. Sigman
1998 Deglacial changes in ocean circulation from an extended radiocarbon calibration. Nature 391: 65-68.Jennings, Thomas A., Charlotte D. Pevny, and William A. Dickens
2010 A bifaces and blade core efficiency experiment: implications for Early
Paleoindian technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2155-2164.
Joyce, Daniel J.
2006 Chronology and new research of the Schaefer Mammoth (?Mammuthus
primigenius) site, Kenosha County, Wisconsin, USA. Quaternary International 142-143: 44-57.
Kelly, Robert L. and Lawrence C. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2): 231-244
Kitigawa, H., and J. van der Plicht
1998 Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279: 1187-1190.
Kuhn, Steven L.
1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: an ecological perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lepper, Bradley T., and Robson Bonnichsen
2004 New Perspectives on the First Americans: Introductory remarks. In New
Perspectives on the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 1-11. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Libby, W.F., E.C. Anderson, and J.R. Arnold
1949 Age determination by radiocarbon content: World-Wide assay of natural radiocarbon. Science 109:
Lima, Steven L. and Patrick A. Zollner
60


1996 Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. TREE 11(3): 131-135. Miotti, Laura L.
2004 Quandary: The Clovis Phenomenon, the first Americans, and the view from Patagonia. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 35-40. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Nelson, B.S.
1991 The study of technological organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, ed., M.B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Newman, Jay R.
1994 The Effects of Distance on Lithic Material Reduction Technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(4):491-501.
Overstreet, David F.
2004 Pre-Clovis occupation in southeastern Wisconsin. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 41-48. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
1996 Still more on cultural contexts of Mammoth and Mastodont in the southwestern Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 13: 36-38.
Overstreet, David F., D.J. Joyce, and D. Wasion
1995 More on cultural contexts of Mammoth and Mastodont in the southwestern Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 40-42.
Pate, Daniel
1986 The effects of drought on Ngatatjura plant use: and evaluation of optimal foraging theory. Human Ecology 14: 95-115.
Patten, Bob.
2002 Solving the Folsom Fluting Problem in Folsom Technology andLifeways. Lithic Technology, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 299-308. University of Tulsa Press, Oklahoma.
Sain, Douglas A.
2010 A technological analysis of Clovis Blades form the Topper Site, 38AL23,
Allendale County, South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27: 136-139.
61


2012 Clovis Blade technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic attribute variation and regional patters of technological organization. Occasional Papers-Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey. Book 2.
Sellards, E. H.
1952 Early Man in America. University of Texas Press.
Sellet, Frederic.
2006 Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Inference of Mobility Patterns from
Stone Tools. Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville: 221-239.
Smallwood, Ashley M.
2010 Clovis Biface technology at the Topper Site, South Carolina: evidence for
variation and technological flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2413-2425.
2012 Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. American Antiquity 77(4): 689-713.
Stanford, Dennis J.
1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An introductory Perspective. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnischen and Karen L. Tummire, pp. 1-13 Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Surovell, Todd A.
2000 Early Paleoindian women, children, mobility, and fertility. American Antiquity 65(3): 493-508.
2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Waguespack, Nicole M, and Todd A. Surovell
2003 CLOVIS HUNTING STRATEGIES, OR HOW TO MAKE OUT ON PLENTIFUL RESOURCES. American Antiquity 68(2): 333-352.
Waters, Michael R, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.
2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315:1122-1125.
62


Waters, Michael R, Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese, Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles T. Hallmark Michael B. Collins, and James E. Wiederhold.
2011a The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331:1599-1603.
Waters, Michael R., Charlotte D. Pevny, and David L. Carlson
2011b Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of a stratified workshop at the Gualt Site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College State.
Whallon, Robert
2006 Social networks and information: Non-utilitarian mobility among hunter-gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 259-270.
Whitley, David S., and Ronald I. Dorn
1993 New perspectives on the Clovis vs. pre-Clovis controversy. American Antiquity 58(4): 626-647.
Wilke, Philip J., J. Jeffrey Flenniken, and Terry L. Ozbun.
1991 Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2): 242-272.
Williams, G.C.
1966 Adaptation and Natural Selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Winterhalder, Bruce
1981 Foraging strategies in the boreal environment. In Hunter-Gatherer foraging
strategies: ethnographic and archaeological analyses, B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smith (eds), pp. 66-98, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Winterhalder, Bruce, and F. Cappelleto, I.R. Daniel Jr., C. Prescott.
1988 The population dynamics of hunter-gatherers and their prey. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 289-328.
Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A. Smith
63


2000 Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary Anthropology Issues, News, and Reviews 9(2): 51-72.
Wohlfarth, B., S. Bjork, G. Possnert, and B. Holmquist
1998 An 800-year long, radiocarbon-dated varve chronology from South-Eastern Sweden. Boreas 27: 243-257.
Wynne-Edwards, V.C.
1962 Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.
Yerks, R.W., and J.W. Weiberger
n.d. Microwear Analyses of lithic artifacts from the Hebior (47KN265) and Schaefer (47KN252) Mammoth sites and two stacked bifaces from the Chesrow site (47KN40), Kenosha county, Wisconsin. Report prepared in partial fulfillment of National Science Foundation Grant #SBR9708616.
64


Appendix 1: Clovis point sample from the Central Great Plains
Lithic material Distance from source (km) Blank type (0=flake; l=preform) Portion Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm)
Permian Chert 125 1 Partial 2.71 2.34 0.61
Permian Chert 125 1 Complete 3.57 1.63 0.5
Reed Springs Chert 450 1 Partial 3.41 3.03 0.64
Smokey Hill Jasper 60 1 Partial 5.2 2.9 0.66
Smokey Hill Jasper 60 1 Complete 6.65 2.94 0.83
Hartville Chert 615 1 Complete 6.8 2.7 0.84
Alibates Flint 560 1 Complete 5.39 2.33 0.68
Knife River Flint 625 1 Complete 5.99 2.19 0.65
Hartville Chert 240 1 Complete 6.04 2.8 0.65
Clear Chalcedony 300 1 Complete 4.85 2.65 0.63
Pennsylvanian Chert 495 1 Complete 6.23 2.61 0.72
Cloverly Quartzite 100 1 Complete 5.13 2.57 0.69
Silicified Wood 40 1 Complete 6.52 2.27 0.66
White River Group Silicates 135 1 Complete 6.34 2.44 0.71
Cloverly Quartzite 250 1 Complete 5.59 2.02 0.72
White River Group Silicates 35 1 Complete 5.74 2.69 0.77
White River Group Silicates 185 1 Complete 4.01 1.93 0.77
Pennsylvanian Chert 510 1 Complete 8.08 3.09 0.78
Phosphoria 320 1 Complete 3.38 3.44 0.56
White River Group Silicates 125 1 Partial 3.24 3.71 0.67
Hartville Chert 310 1 Partial 2.81 3.54 0.79
Hartville Chert 220 1 Complete 3.55 2.06 0.71
Alibates Flint 600 1 Complete 4.85 2.61 0.7
White River Group Silicates 35 1 Complete 10.01 3.04 0.89
Alibates Flint 560 1 Complete 6.79 2.8 0.72
Hartville Chert 230 1 Complete 4.84 2.3 0.67
White River Group Silicates 70 1 Complete 5.88 2.87 0.65
White River Group Silicates 105 1 Complete 7.51 2.31 0.73
Permian Chert 440 1 Complete 8.02 2.73 0.89
White River Group Silicates 40 1 Partial 2.54 3.05 0.64
Hartville Chert 300 1 Complete 6.68 2.74 0.78
Smokey Hill Jasper 115 1 Complete 5.13 2.44 0.73
Permian Chert 50 1 Partial 4.96 2.85 0.93
White River Group Silicates 155 1 Partial 5.85 2.87 0.76
White River Group Silicates 175 1 Complete 6.5 3.3 0.78
Hartville Chert 310 1 Partial 3.46 2.92 0.63
Smokey Hill Jasper 200 1 Complete 9.33 3.36 0.81
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5.89 2.6 0.71
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5.69 2.65 0.64
Burlington Chert 375 1 Complete 7.22 3.07 0.72
Washington Pass 850 1 Partial 2.56 3.75 0.66
White River Group Silicates 560 1 Complete 10.65 3.22 0.91
Hartville Chert 325 1 Partial 3.42 2.73 0.66
White River Group Silicates 465 1 Partial 2.67 3.54 0.68
White River Group Silicates 75 1 Complete 6.19 2.74 0.59
Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 3.46 2.75 0.68
Edwards Chert 930 1 Complete 10.17 5.13 1.42
Hartville Chert 290 1 Partial 4.24 2.93 0.71
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 8.3 2.8 0.8
65


Hartville Chert 240 1 Partial 3.44 1.97 0.48
Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 5.88 5.29 0.97
Smokey Hill Jasper 110 1 Partial 3.23 2.7 0.64
Alibates Flint 500 1 Complete 6.9 2.87 0.77
Pennsylvanian Chert 400 1 Complete 8.4 3.54 0.83
Pennsylvanian Chert 425 1 Complete 5.02 2.06 0.79
White River Group Silicates 175 1 Complete 5.56 2.41 0.66
Smokey Hill Jasper 220 1 Complete 5.67 2.43 0.63
White River Group Silicates 200 1 Partial 3.13 3.73 0.7
Knife River Flint 560 1 Complete 6.75 3 0.88
Knife River Flint 800 1 Complete 9.52 3.44 0.81
Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 6.35 2.96 0.79
Clear Chalcedony 300 1 Complete 8.22 3.04 0.74
Smokey Hill Jasper 140 1 Complete 7.4 3.09 0.84
Hartville Chert 615 1 Complete 5.1 2.32 0.69
Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 3.74 3.07 0.75
Knife River Flint 800 1 Partial 6.17 2.65 0.61
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 2.93 2.75 0.58
Alibates Flint 490 1 Complete 4.99 2.44 0.68
Alibates Flint 490 1 Partial 4.65 2.94 0.68
Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 4.55 2.94 0.72
Edwards Chert 40 1 Partial 2.71 2.62 0.53
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Complete 8.72 2.55 0.86
Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 5.13 3.12 0.77
Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 8.58 2.34 0.84
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 3.4 3.44 0.77
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 3.75 3.19 0.63
Alibates Flint 490 1 Complete 5.2 2.77 0.72
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Complete 6.85 2.36 0.9
Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 2.1 1.65 0.49
Smokey Hill Jasper 130 1 Complete 5.97 2.35 0.67
White River Group Silicates 185 1 Partial 7.21 2.74 0.79
Reed Springs Chert 40 1 Complete 12.12 3.57 0.95
White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 6.6 3.99 0.99
Permian Chert 100 1 Partial 6.33 3.19 1.03
White River Group Silicates 125 1 Partial 3.13 2.5 0.56
Clear Chalcedony 150 1 Complete 4.39 2.14 0.53
White River Group Silicates 40 1 Complete 16.7 4.05 0.67
White River Group Silicates 40 1 Partial 2.23 2.65 0.59
Cloverly Quartzite 250 1 Complete 9.02 3.12 0.66
Hartville Chert 250 1 Partial 2.42 3.55 0.7
White River Group Silicates 60 1 Complete 6.52 2.68 0.79
White River Group Silicates 80 1 Partial 1.41 1.91 0.57
Smokey Hill Jasper 200 1 Partial 1.61 2.87 0.6
Cloverly Quartzite 375 1 Partial 1.98 2.64 0.65
White River Group Silicates 95 1 Complete 3.97 2.16 0.68
Hartville Chert 265 1 Partial 2.08 2.94 0.68
Tongue River Silicified Sediment 40 1 Complete 3.7 1.95 0.69
White River Group Silicates 60 1 Partial 6.26 3.03 0.85
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 4.61 3.9 1.18
66


Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 5.46 4.82 1.26
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 3.93 3.34 0.74
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5 2.5 0.73
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 8 2.75 0.9
Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 6.2 2.5 0.65

Smokey Hill Jasper 40 0 Partial 5.34 3.63 0.73
Hartville Chert 220 0 Complete 7.12 2.66 0.68
Knife River Flint 850 0 Partial 7.56 3.07 0.91
Clear Chalcedony 625 0 Complete 5.44 2.61 0.54
White River Group Silicates 130 0 Complete 7.24 2.91 0.69
Edwards Chert 975 0 Partial 4.22 3.27 0.86
White River Group Silicates 565 0 Complete 4.57 2.19 0.56
Hartville Chert 190 0 Complete 4.13 2.23 0.5
Hartville Chert 240 0 Complete 6.71 4.44 0.72
Permian Chert 150 0 Complete 5.75 2.69 0.58
Hartville Chert 560 0 Complete 5.49 2.43 0.82
Alibates Flint 640 0 Complete 6.45 2.84 0.74
Smokey Hill Jasper 200 0 Complete 3.17 1.97 0.36
67


Full Text

PAGE 1

CLOVIS POINTS ON FLAKES : A T ECHNOLOGICAL A DAP TION FOR LONG DISTANCE LITHIC TRANSPORT by CHRISTOPHER D. WERNICK B.S., Indiana State University, 2008 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Anthropology 2014

PAGE 2

2014 CHRISTOPHER D. WERNICK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Christopher D. Wernick has been approved for the Department of Anthropology By Julien Riel Salvatore, Chair Christopher Beekman Tammy Stone May 2, 2014 iii

PAGE 4

Wernick, Christopher D. (M.A., Anthropology) Clovis Points on Flakes : A T echnological A dap tion for Long Distance Lithic Transport Thesis directed by Associate Professor Julien Riel Salvatore ABSTRACT Clovis technology has long intrigued archaeologists. Many studies --both experimental and refitting -have reproduced Clovis replicas, and by doing so, present a current understanding for point production. Even though the production sequence for Clovis points is generalized, not all point s display the stereotypical features from that production sequence. These abnormal points preserve a prominent detachment flake scar and are relatively rare in the archaeological record. A sample of Clovis points from the central Great Plains is analyzed to determine the frequency and significance of points that maintain this flake scar relative to typical points. The origin of the raw material for the two subsets of points is also investigated, and this reveals that more Clovis projectile points are man ufactured on flakes with little additional retouch as the distance from the lithic source increases. This suggests that Clovis points on flakes represent a technological adaptation of central Great Plains Clovis peoples focused on lithic con serv ation by substituting flakes for bifacial preforms as a way to maximize the utility of raw material from distant sources. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Julien Riel Salvatore iv

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would li ke to thank Steve Holen of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science for giving me access to the point data used in this study. Additionally, I would like to thank Julien Riel Salvatore and Tammy Stone of the University of Colorado Denver, along with Steve Holen of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I gratefully appreciate their comments and suggestions but take full responsibility for the arguments and data presented in this paper. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. I ntroduction......1 II. N ew W orld A ntiquity and C lovis C ulture ...........5 The origins of the Clovis technocomplex .....8 Clovis TechnoComplex..10 Clovis biface t echnology and projectile point production...12 Clovis blade t echnology ...17 Clovis points on f lakes.....21 III. T heoretical O rientation ..27 IV. A nalysis of P oints on F lakes ..32 Methods 32 Results ..35 V. C onclusion.....43 REFERENC ES..54 APPENDIX I.....65 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Accepted dates from sites containing Clovis diagnostic s...6 2 Results from statistical testing of sample ..36 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Typical Clovis projectile points.....13 2 Clovis bifacial core 15 3 Stylized illustrations of Clovis blade cores 18 4 Prototypical Clovis blades from the Gault site ..19 5 Stylized illustrations of a core table flake ..20 6 Clovis point on flake blank from the Eckles Site (14JW4) manufactured from clear chalcedony.22 7: Clovis point onflake from Wray Colorado manufactured from Hartville Chert...23 8 Illustration of point on flake blank recovered from the Indian Creek site in Montana .25 9 Illustration of point on flake blank recovered from the Topper Sit e in South Carolina26 10 Box plot demonstrating the distribution of blank types Relative to distance f rom lithic source...36 11 Distribution of blank types from source 37 12 Relative frequency of blank types within distance categories ...37 13 Dimensional comparison between blank types..38 14 Dimensional data between blank types in relation to distance..39 15 Box plot of dimens ion data between distance categories ..41 viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I I NTRODUCTION The finely made hunting points associated with Clovis culture have always fascinated New World archaeologists and served as the center for many research topics Many studies have demonstrated high residential mobility through lithic analyses (e.g. Huckell et al. 2011, Surovell 2003), but few have demonstrated any, if at all, technological innovation created through the means of this high mobility. The Clovis people who traversed the Great Plains of North America would have faced many lithic obstacles as raw material sources are few and far between (Holen 2001). It is this fact that raises the question of whether these highly mobile foragers innovated or adapte d their tool production strategies as a means to compensate for the vast distances between lithic sources. A sample of 114 Clovis projectile points that includes 104 points on preform blanks and 13 points on flake blanks are analyzed using the presence of a detachment flake scar and the relationship this feature, or lack there of, shares with distance from known lithic source. Furthermore, morphological data (e.g. length, width, thickness) is tested for the presence of any relationship either between blank type and distance from source. These analyses test the question of whether points on flake blanks represent a technological adaptation in Clovis point production strategy reflecting the increasing distance between raw material sources. As the distance from source increases, the amount of usable lithic material would decrease proportionally. This would therefore require innovative knapping procedures to maintain the integrity and usability of their 1

PAGE 10

tool kits. I argue here that points on flake blanks do in fact represent an alternative point production strategy by Clovis tool makers and not simply stylistic variations through the Clovis point production strategy These points reflect the flexibility needed to produce viable hunting points as the transported usable raw material decreases when distance from lithic sources increase. To demonstrate this relationship, Chapter II brief ly summarize s the history of Clovis research and include s a detailed description of the Clovis technocomplex. It also det ail s the current models of Clovis point production and both define s and describes how points on flake blanks differ. Chapter III introduces Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) and how it can be used to understand functional variation in lithic technologies. HB E provides a useful framework to explicate why Clovis knappers would have begun point manufacture with a flake or informal flake tool rather than a larger flake needing extensive modification to produce a viable hunting point. Chapter IV describes the sample used and the statistical methods applied for analysis. The results of these analyses are included in Chapter IV, but are discussed in much further detail in Chapter V. In sum, the evidence presented here shows a proportional increase in points on flake blanks as the distance from source also increases. When co nsidering the included morphological data, these points themselves do not represent anomalies in the Clovis techno complex, but simply reflect an alternative point production strategy. This alte r native point production strategy begins with the assumption that Clovis culture practiced high residential mobility as described by Surovell (2000). Evidence for this mobility in Clovis culture resulted from the high frequency of exotic materials in Clovis 2

PAGE 11

tool kits (Bradley et al 2010; Collins 1999; Holen 2001; H uckel et al. 2011; Sellet 2006; Waters et al. 2011b). However, the occurrence of exotic raw material may in fact not represent high residential mobility, but rather reflect social exchange between regional subgroups of technologically defined cultures (B amforth 2009). Regardless of why, evidence for longdistance lithic transport is apparently a defining feature of Clovis culture. This fact is likely to have imposed specific constraints on their technological decision making. For instance, as raw mate rial quantity decreases through use, Clovis toolmakers might have altered their point production process to ensure the availability of lithic utility for unforeseen occurrence s Possible evidence suggesting an alternative point production process may stem from a series of Clovis points maintaining their detachment flake scar. The presence of a remnant flakes scar represents a different manufacturing sequence than typical points. This observable feature can be tested empirically to support the hypothesis that Clovis points on flakes reflect an alternative technological strategy to maximize high quality lithic material utility in the context of long distance transport. This argument does not contend that distance per se serves as the determinant of altern ative technological practices ; rather, distance acts as proxy for extended lifehistories of lithic technologies. For instance, t he difference between stone transported 100km and stone transported 900km is that the latter has covered more distance and was presumably carried for longer periods of time. This increase in distance and time within the context of lithic life histories can be used to infer higher potential rates of retooling events a group would have gone through. These retooling events c ould, in some cases, 3

PAGE 12

have selected for technological innovation when highquality raw materials were rare, potentially as a result from risk reduction behavior s explained by HBE Overall Clovis technology descriptions rely heavily on site specific analyses such as that from the Sheaman site (Bradley et al. 2010) and the Gault site (Waters et al. 2011b). Clovis technology, as well as that of other Paleoindian cultures, can and should inc orporate regional based assemblage analyses. With a sample that incorporates Clovis points from eastern Colorado to eastern Nebraska and Kansas, this research does use a regional approach. This provides the means needed to understand clearly, how and why Clovis foragers adapted their tool kits to their local environment and how they successfully occupied the Great Plains. 4

PAGE 13

CHAPTER II NEW WORLD ANTIQUITY AND CLOVIS CULTURE The association in New World archaeology between early humans and extinct megaf auna is relatively recent. It was not until the 1920s when evidence demonstrated humans had co existed with an extinct species of bison ( Bison antiquus ). Early excavations by J.D. Figgins outside Folsom, New Mexico yielded five projectile points associat ed with several dozen Bison antiquus individuals (Figgins 1927). This discovery pushed the antiquity of American archaeology further back than previously assumed. Several years later, in 1932, early human artifacts were found associated with proboscidean remains near Dent Colorado (Figgins 1933). The Dent site contained several bifacial points similar to the points recovered at Folsom but appeared to be stratigraphically older (Cassells 1983). These points were initially referred as the Llano complex ( Sellards 1952), but later re designated as the Clovis technocomplex (Bradley 1993; Hayes 2002). Stratigraphically, Clovis was dated to between 13,000 and 11,000 years BP and it was not until radiocarbon dating became possible to absolute date sites like Dent to validated these data. As research continued the investigation of when people first arrived in the Americas, several other accepted Clovis sites yielded datable materials for direct dating of these early human occupations in North America (Table 1) From this data, it becomes apparent Clovis foragers became widespread across North America within a few centuries all while occupying vastly different environments This rapid expansion of what were presumably the first people in North America is known a s the Clovis First hypothesis. However, this rapid expansion was quickly followed by the seemingly rapid 5

PAGE 14

disappearance of Clovis cultural diagnostics more specifically, Clovis projectile points This sudden appearance followed by the quick disappearance of Clovis cultural diagnostics marks one of the most problematic components of the Clovis First hypothesis (Waters and Stafford 2007). Table 1: Accepted dates from sites containing Clovis diagnostics. Taken from Waters and Stafford 2007. Site Date in RCYBP Lange Ferguson, South Dakota 11,080 40 Sloth Hole, Florida 11,050 50 Anzick, Montana 11,040 35 Dent, Colorado 10,990 25 Paleo Crossing, Ohio 10,980 75 Domebo, Oklahoma 10,960 30 Lehner, Arizona 10,950 50 Shawnee Minisink, Pennslyvania 10,935 15 Murray Springs, Arizona 10,885 50 Colby, Wyoming 10,870 20 Jake Bluff, Oklahoma 10,765 25 With the rapid expansion, Clovis foragers quickly occupied vastly different biomes. T hese data also present problems for the Clovis first theory (Gruhn 2004; Miotti 2204; Waters and Stafford 2007; Waters et al. 2011). Gruhn (2004) demonstrates that all major environmental zones in South America were already occupied by locally adapted cultures with independent subsistence strategies before 11,000 RCYBP. In fact, biggame hunting associated with Plains Clovis subsistence (Wagespack and Surovell 2003) was less common in South American groups. For instance, Dillehay (2009) suggests foragers in South America devel oped a more broadbased diet that resulted in a reduction in mobility by including more marine and floral resources ca. 13,000 CALYBP. Sites 6

PAGE 15

like Quebrada Jaguay off the southern coast of Peru, also exhibit food storage and grinding stone technologies by ca. 10,800 CALYBP allowing for speculation that more broadbased subsistence behaviors were practiced before Clovis technology appeared in North America. This contrasts with North American early Paleoindian subsistence strategies where large mammal hunti ng was the predominant specialization (Frison 1993). This idea of biggame specialization applies mostly to foraging groups occupying the grasslands of the Great Plains where faunal diversity is low (Hill 2007). Elsewhere, such as the more diverse foothi ll and mountainous regions, Clovis exhibited a more diverse faunal and floral resource exploitation. Before Clovis hunters harvested proboscideans their early American ancestors also targeted these massive calorie packages. Early preClovis sites such as La Sena, Nebraska and Lovewell, Kansas displayed targeted mammoth hunting by early humans (Holen 2006). Dating to 18,000 190 18,440 145 RCYBP (Le Sena) and 18,250 90 RCYBP (Lovewell), these kill/butcher sites represent some of the oldest evidence for early human occupation in North America. Although critiques suggest natural processes are the cause for the taphonomic destruction of the mammoth bones, Holen (2006) argues that arrangement of bones and their debris reflects a human agency. For instance, trampling experiments suggest the less robust bones of a deceased animal will suffer more extensive damage than heavier bone s such as the limb bones with thicker cortical walls (Crader 1983; Haynes 1984). At both La Sena and Lovewell, the smaller bones were intact observing virtually no damage; whereas the limb bones were extensively spirally fractured and several large pieces of cortical bone exhibited both unifacial and bifacial flaking (Holen 2006). Overstreet (2004) summarizes two pre Clovis m ammoth 7

PAGE 16

kills in Southeastern Wisconsin dated to ca. 13,500 RCYBP. Early excavations yielded several lithic artifacts including waste debitage, bifacial chert edge, two bifacial knives, and a chopper associated with the mammoth remains (Overstreet 1996; Overstreet et al. 1995; Joyce 2006). Furthermore, use wear and residue analyses identified micro wear and flesh residue on both knives (Yerkes and Weinberger n.d). These data demonstrate the importance of megafauna to early Paleoindian populations. Their importance would have created the technological guidelines shaping the human agency specifically gear towards utilitarian technologies. These technologies would have included hunting weaponry and the behaviors needed to both maintain and produced viable hunting tools within a given context. The example used within this research focuses towards Clovis hunters on the Great Plains where megafauna were prevalent and lithic sources were not. The Origins of the Clovis Techno Complex Lithics recovered from the Debra L. Friedkin (DLF) site in central Texas may possibly shed light onto the origins of the Clovis technocomplex (Waters et al. 2011a). With a total of 15,528 lithic artifac ts excavated, this assemblage (Buttermilk Creek C omplex) included bifaces (n=12), retouched flake tools (n=23), blades (n=5), bladelets (n=14), one discoidal core, and one polished piece of hematite (Waters et al. 2011a). OSL dating from 18 samples ranged from ca. 14,000 17,500 CALYBP with the conservative age estimate of 15,500 CALYBP as the overlap between all but three samples. Of the 12 bifaces, ten represent latestage biface reduction fragments, one is lanceolate shape and may be a point preform, and the last biface possible represents a chopper or a dze. All of 8

PAGE 17

the blades and bladelets display at least two dorsal ridges and microscopic analysis revealed some had usewear consistent with both hard and soft organic materials (Waters et al. 2011a). The retouched flake tools included 17 scrapers, fours notches, one graver, and one bifacially retouched artifact. Of the macrodebitage (n=13,204), 834 pieces of chipped stone retained a platform. 51% were classified as biface thinning flakes that included one distal overshot flake fragment, three partial overshot flakes, and 10 endthinning flakes. For a further discussion of potential Pre Clovis lithic assemblages, see Goebel et al. (2003). The debate between Pre Clovis occupation and the Clovis first hypothesis is a long ways away from resolution. However, most have come to accept the evidence suggesting humans were in North America before the emergence of the Clovis technocomplex. Those who maintain the Clovis first view suggest the long distance lithic transport seen in Clovis tool kits is the r esult of high residential mobility which would be expected for the rapid expansion of human groups However, Bamforth (2009) argues that long distance lithic transport could have been the result of exchange between regional groups with smaller domains Although his argument focuses on post Clovis cultures where more residential camps have been recovered, these sites show higher frequencies of local stone usage for informal tool types while exotic stone was used solely for point manufacture This observa tion is consistent with Clovis assemblages Because of this, it is problematic to infer range size based only on projectile points and there needs to be better explanations for why long distance lithic transport is seen for point production (Bamforth 2009) Furthermore, the use of flakes for points at further distances may support Bamforths (2009) suggestion that group exchange of raw material 9

PAGE 18

occurred through the exchange of finished points and preforms. Lastly, if points on flakes and long distance lithic transport do not reflect high residential mobility, these data challenge Clovis first models and open the door for further research into th e peopling of North America. The Clovis Techno C omplex Overall, the Buttermilk Creek Complex represents high residential mobility through the evidence of an overall small lightweight portable tool kit based within bifacial and blade technologies. Furthe rmore, evidence of both soft and hard organic materials suggest s technologies incorporating bone, antler, ivory, and wood. These data, along with the evidence of overshot flaking, provides a possible insight into an ancestral techno complex that gave rise to Clovis culture which is discussed below The Clovis complex dates to between 12.813.1 thousand calibrated years ago (kya) (Bradley et al. 2010; Buchanan and Collard 2007; Erlandson et al. 2011; Goebel 2008; Smallwood 2010; Waters et al. 2011; Water s and Stafford 2007). While a number of Pre Clovis sites are known (e.g. Waters et al. 2011a), the Clovis culture arguably represents the earliest distinctive and widespread lithic tradition in the North American archaeological record (Bradley 1991; Frison 1991). Finely made fluted projectile points are the most distinctive feature of the Clovis complex (Smallwood 2012:690) and are distinct from other fluted point types such as Folsom which tend to be smaller, bear a more invasive channel flake, and are di fferent in overall morphology (Collard et al. 2010: 2513). The focus of projectile points in Paleoindian research reflects the problematic fact that for those time periods points are almost the only cultural historical diagnostic 10

PAGE 19

(Bamforth 2009). Furthermore because they conform to distinctive morphologies with aesthetic investments, resulted from complex production sequences, and great efforts were taken to procure specific raw materials to make them points potentially offer greater inferences o f behavi or when compare d to more informal tool types seen in early Great Plains Paleoindians such as Clovis. Clovis lithic procurement strategies indicate long distance lithic transport, as many assemblages contain stone originating several hundred kilome ters away (Holen 201l; Huckell et al. 2008; Sellet 2006). For instance, Huckell et al. (2011) describe the Beach Clovis cache located in western North Dakota as containing lithic material from both local (< 20km) and exotic sources (> 500km). Likewise Co llins (1999) and Holen ( 2001, 2004) describe the transport of lithic material by Clovis foragers over more than 900km. These examples show just how far lithic material travel ed within Clovis organization whether by highresidential mobility or trade Kelly and Todd (1988:238) summarize Clovis, and more generally Paleoindian, lithic technology as designed to be transportable, have longterm utility, and be of use in areas where only limited number of stone sources might have been known. Organic technologi es such as bone, antler, and ivory were incorporated into the Clovis technocomplex by forms including socketed fore shafts, beveled bone rods, awls, needles, billets, atlatl hooks, points, and abstract symbolic ornamentation (Bradley et al. 2010; Waters e t al. 2011; Wilke et al 1991). However, organic tools credited to Clovis culture are surprisingly lacking. Bradley et al. (2010) suggest the low recovery of organic formal tools results from taphonomic bias and poor preservation. They do, however, sugge st these tool types would have been easily made and readily used by the ease in manufacture and abundance in quantity. 11

PAGE 20

In sum, lithic raw material data demonstrate that long distance lithic transport was an intrinsic feature of Clovis adaptations, a fact t hat is likely to have imposed specific constraints on their technological decision making. Clovis Biface Technology and Projectile Point Production Bradley et al. (2010:1) introduce the Clovis technocomplex by stating Clovis as an archaeological culture describes a range of materials and behaviors found throughout subglacial North America extending down to northern South America However, many of these sites are restricted to the plains region of North America (Bradley 1993). This region also may explain why most Clovis sites are associated with m ammoth, bison, and pronghorn (Haynes 1993; Frison 1993). Other faunal resources may have incl uded smaller game species, but these data are limited (Waguespack and Surovell 2003). The success of the Great Plains Clovis hunters on such large dangerous prey with heavy hides and muscle is mostly credited to the efficacy of their projectile points. I n addition to their sharp point and edges, typical Clovis points (Figure 1) were fluted to ease hafting and the basal sections were generally more narrow allowing maximum penetration. 12

PAGE 21

Figure 1: Typical Clovis projectile points Taken from Bradley et al. (2010) Clovis projectile points were manufactured following a complex reduction strategy (Bradley 1993). The initial procurement of raw material was followed with early stage reduction to produce a general morphology and prepared the bifacial core for future flake removal and tool production. Bradley (1993) argues that during this stage, these bifaces were used mainly as cores for removing large flakes to be used as expedient tools. This process would continue until the bifa cial core was thinned to the point where few, if any, large flakes could be removed and with additional flaking was transformed into a Clovis projectile point. Simply put, Most bifaces in Clovis are either point preforms or flake cores.Flakes are the pri mary cutting tools in this technology (Bradley et al. 2010: 13). This reduction strategy is discussed in much detail below in the Point Production section of this thesis. 13

PAGE 22

The most iconic aspect of the Clovis technocomplex is the highly distinctive projectile points (Stanford 1991). These points were commonly the end result of an extensive bifacial reduction continuum starting with either large chunky flakes or m inimally flaked bifacial cores (Collins 1999). In fact, Collins (1999) argues most bifa ces served as point preforms rather than finished formalized tools. Bradley et al. (2010) describe the Clovis point production sequence in detail. Clovis assemblages exhibit two main reduction stages that can be further subdivided into a number of phases. The first stage represents the collection of lithic raw material and the initial shaping, while the second stage comprises all other phases of modifications (Bradley et al. 2010). Clovis point production starts with a large bifacially flaked core (Figur e 2 ). These cores were either broken to be used as two separate cores, or to be used as is. Large flakes were then struck from such cores to be used as expedient flake tools for cutting or scraping. The third phase refers to these large flakes being reworked into bifaces using an alternating opposed bifacial thinning technique described by Bradley (1982) as large thinning flakes being removed from the same face, but by alternating the margin from which the flake was detached. This flaking strategy often results in intentional over shot flakes ( i.e., outrepass flakes) that are common ly argued to be a diagnostic feature of Clovis point production (but cf. Eren et al. 2013) Further reduction employed opposed diving biface thinning where the flakes terminat ed along the midline of the long axis (Bradley 1982). Both these techniques were used to thin bifaces, while the fourth stage of creating a projectile point includes final edge modification, fluting, and basal grinding. 14

PAGE 23

Figure 2: Clovis Bifacial core. Courtesy of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Huckell (2007) divides Clovis bifaces into two categories: primary bifaces, which are minimally thinned bifaces that were not necessarily intended to become projectile points but could be modified as so when needed; and 2, secondary bifaces which were basically p reforms for points. Waters et al. (2011b) expand this classification by dividing Clovis bifaces into four categories: primary ; secondary preforms ; and finished points From that perspective, primary bifaces are thick, retain cortex, and have highly sinuous edges. Secondary bifaces are relatively thinner than primary bifaces, biconvex in cross section, less sinuous, and have a lanceolate shape with a convex base and round tip (Waters et al. 2011b: 93). Preforms represent the final stage of point manufactu re, and display a welldefined lanceolate form; edges are highly regularized and even less sinuous than in secondary bifaces. Preforms also show evidence of pressure flaking and 15

PAGE 24

fluting. Lastly, finished points are identified by retaining many of the tra its of preforms, but also exhibiting extensive reworking. Both descriptions of Clovis bifaces and projectile points indicate that Clovis point manufacture follows a reduction continuum. This continuum begins with a large biface and after achieving the desi red thickness for the biface, pressure flaking is used to give it the proper symmetry and morphology required for it to serve as an effective projectile point. Wilke et al. (1991:221) sum it up well when they say it is likely that biface reduction flakes were first used as cutting tools, then modified by resharpening as needed, and finally made into Clovis points. Wilke and colleagues also cogently argue that Clovis knappers were extremely careful not to compromise point production even when flake cores became exhausted. This suggests that Clovis projectile points were highly valued implements and that when cores became exhausted, tool makers would adapt manufacture procedures to conserve lithic material, ensuring point production was feasible until a c ores utility was exhausted. The ability to alter manufacturing procedures reflects the high skill level involved in Clovis tool production. Sellet (2006: 224) describes the manufacturing process of Clovis technology as a complex process that required proper training and great skill, and he concludes that projectile points were difficult to manufacture, due to the high risk of failure during the various phases of manufacture (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). Bamforth and Finlay (2008) further show that the use of intentional over shot flaking in Clovis bifaces indicates a high level of skill (but see Eren et al. 2013). Along with the reduction sequence, fluting a Clovis diagnostic feature -requires specific surface morphology preparation, precise 16

PAGE 25

impact pla cement, and strong anvil support (Patten, 2002), all of which also indicate the great skill needed to avoid mistakes during Clovis point production. The data above consistently describe Clovis point manufacturing beginning with a biface as seen on typical Clovis points. However the research presented here focuses toward those points that do not appear to be made by beginning with a biface. These points on flakes, which will be described in detail later in this chapter, are evidence of a deliberate adjustm ent in Clovis point technology. Clovis Blade Technology The Clovis technocomplex is not only limited to biface and flake stone technologies, but also includes an important blade and bladelet component that is as diagnostic as the finely made fluted proje ctile points associated with Clovis ( Sain 2010). Initially defined by Franois Bordes as any flake where the length is at least twice that of the width (Bordes 1961; Collins 1999) t his definition was used exclusively when examining Lower and Middle Paleolithic lithic assemblages, but when considering the true blades of the Upper Paleolithic a more strict definition of blades was needed (Bordes 1967; Bordes and Crabtree 1969). Crabtree (1982) defines a blade as: a specialized flake with parallel (or sub parallel) lateral edges; length is more than twice the width; cross sections that could be planoconvex, triangulate, subtriangulate, rectangular, or trapezoidal; with a minimum of one crest following the length of the blade. Furthermore, Waters et al. (2011) and Bradley et al. (2010) add one additional definition to blade manufacture that recognizes the importance of a specifically designed prepared core. 17

PAGE 26

Clovis blade cores were either conical or wedged shaped ( Figure 3) (Bradley et al. 2010; Goebel et al. 2008; Waters et al. 2011) Conical (or round) blade cores were used so that platforms were oriented perpendicular to the long axis and blade removal followed the circumfe rence of the platform With the Gault site as an exception (Collins 1999; Dickens 2005; Waters et al. 2011), w edgeshaped cores occur less frequently, and were less complex than their conical counterparts; but equally important within the Clovis technocomplex (Bradley et al. 2010). An acute angle between the primary platf orm and the axis of detachment, along with a limited portion of platforms for blade removal, is what separates a wedgeshaped core from a conical core (Goebel et al. 2008). This allows for both unidirectional and multidirectional blade removals from multiple faces emanating from different platforms (Collins and Louse 2004; Jennings et al. 2010). Figure 3: Stylized illustration of Clovis blade cores (Note A: Conical core; B: Wedge core. Illustrations by author) 18

PAGE 27

Clovis blades (Figure 4 ) follow the same criterion as the above mentioned true blades but also exhibit additional characteristics differentiating them from other blade technologies (Bradley et al. 2010). These attributes include: smaller platforms; straight to exceptionally curved in longitudinal section; smooth ventral faces; noticeably long (length to width ratios commonly exceeding 4:1) with both narrow and robust cross sections; distal terminations commonly converge at distal end of the core resulting with a cone or pyramid core morphology; and margins that are relatively even and exceptionally sharp (Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1999; Waters e t al. 2011b). Figure 4: Prototypical Clovis blades from the Gault site. Taken from Waters et al. (2011). 19

PAGE 28

As blades were continuously removed from the blade cores, rejuvenation practices were needed to maintain bladecore platf orm reliability (Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1999; Waters et al 2011). Bradley et al (2010) and Waters et al. (2011) describe one specific flaking strategy which included the removal of a core tablet flake (Figure 5). These flakes removed the entire pl atform surface of a conical core. This would have created a very smooth and slightly concave surface platform from which additional blades would have been removed. Core tablet flakes generally exhibit large stacks centered in the platform with large step and hinged fractures on the perimeter. Bradley et al (2010) suggest these flakes represent a corrective/maintenance measure implemented by Clovis knappers to extend the vitality of their blade cores. Figure 5: Stylized illustrations of a core tablet flake. Illustrations by author. 20

PAGE 29

Clovis blade technology served as a means to reliably and repeatedly produce flakes with sharp edges (Bradley et al. 2010) In many aspects, unmodified blade edges serving as cut ting implements outperform the effectiveness and durability of bifacially retouched edges (Hayden et al. 1996). However, the same can be said for retouched edges (Bradley et al. 2010). The differences and efficacy between the two tool types reflect the o bject material being altered. As the evidence demonstrates, Clovis peoples utilized a wide range of resources and having both tool types within their technocomplex reflects their overall resourcefulness and adaptive strategies. Clovis Points on Flakes Clovis tool makers did not restrict their point production strategy to only bifacial preforms. A f ew Clovis points also appear to have been manufactured from early stage core reduction flakes (hereafter referred to as flake blanks) identifiable by the presence of a detachment scar. These points do not display the attributes, or flaking patterns described above. Rather they show a series of pressure flake removals on the dorsal face that are the result of thinning the piece and removing imperfections, as w ell as light bifacial edge retouch to finalize the morphology of the point which creates the sharp margins. Most diagnostically, they maintain the fairly pro minent detachment scar (Figure 6 ) on their ventral faces which generally also exhibits force rippl es that originate from the distal end and radiati ng along the long axis (Figure 7 ). This indicates that, in many cases, points on flakes have their tip at the bulb of percussion. This tip orientation minimizes the amount of thinning required since the fla ke becomes thinner further away from the bulb of percussion. This, in turn, negates the need for fluting on the ventral face, which most of the points on flakes described below in fact lack. 21

PAGE 30

Figure 6: Clovis point on flake blank from the Eckles site (14JW4) manufactured from Clear Chalcedony. Clearly, it is not the case that using flake blanks represent one of only two ways to produce a Clovis projectile point; however, the idea that points on flake blanks consistently differ from points on preforms more than simply by maintaining the observable detachment scar is an idea that is amenable to empirical evaluation. For one thing, the presence of these detachment scars could suggest a less extensive life history (Andrefsky 2009) when compared to points that do not display them by representing a less intensive reduction of the blank on which the point was made. Stone tool life histories begin with raw material procurement and end with discard, and include all modification in between, from initial shaping, to retouch, and repair. As such, the morphology of a stone implement can reflect its use life, including specific adaptive modifications that reflect behavioral responses to local conditions. Unsurprisingly, lithic life histories drawing on the concept of curation (often measured by the extent of retouch) have been used extensively to understand land use dynamics and adaptive strategies of foraging cultures in both European (Riel Salvatore and Barton 2004) and American 22

PAGE 31

archaeology (Andrefsky 2009). From this perspective, rather than to state that point onflakes and point onpreforms reflect mutually exclusive production strategies, I investigate here whether the presence of a detachment flake scar on some points can be taken to reflect a different kind of life history than for those that do not show this feature. Since the production of Clovis points on preforms relies on an extensive reduction sequence, while points on flakes require a less extensive reduction strategy the two strategies can reasonably be expected to be associated with different amounts of lithic debris produced. If this can be tied to distinct lithic economizing strategies, the selection of one or the other strategies in certain contexts may reflect an adaptation to the high mobility of Clovis foragers on the Great Plains where high quality stone deposits are few and far between (Holen 2001). Figure 7: Clovis point on flake blank Wray Colorado manufactured from Hartville chert. Private Collections. 23

PAGE 32

In the context of the high mobility that appears to characterize a great deal of Clovis assemblages (Kelly and Todd 1988; Sellet 2006; Surovell 2000), lithic conservation would have been important during longdistance travels through areas with few or no known high quality lithic raw material sources. High quality, fine grained stone would have been preferred because it is easier to work, thus increasing rel iability in stone tool production (Bleed 1986; Goodyear 1979; Kelly and Todd 1988). Along with a desire to reduce risk of failure during production, maximizing the utility of good raw material nodules suggest that using flakes in projectile point productio n may be one strategy to decrease the risk among highly mobile foragers. Bradley et al. (2010) also emphasize that Clovis foragers specifically selected higher quality material for tool production, and that it is not uncommon to find in Clovis caches raw m aterials from many difference sources spread over considerable distances (Huckell et al. 2011). These authors further explain that this raw material procurement strategy reflects a combination of opportunistic and embedded exploitation of various sources encountered during Clovis seasonal rounds (c.f. Brantingham 2003). This supports the notion that mobile groups transported higher quality raw materials over long distances and conserved these materials by maximizing the cores output by minimizing waste. In fact, the selection of projectile points as the main focus of this strategy reflects Newmans (1994: 491) statement about the preferred usage of higher quality raw material for their manufacture. 24

PAGE 33

Figure 8: Illustration of poin t on flake blank recovered from the Indian Creek site in Montana. Illustration by author. It must also be noted that Collins et al. (2003), Waters et al. (2011b: 130), and Wilke et al. (1999) have previously identif ied Clovis points on flakes, but that they did not address whether they represented a different point production strategy. Similarly, illustrations have demonstrated points on flakes in Montana (Davis 1993; Figure 8) and South Carolina (Sain 2012; Figure 9) However again, no further insights into these very different points have been presented. Here, it is suggested these points reflect one form of lithic conservation by Clovis foragers. This study thus tackles the question of whether Clovis points on flake blanks can be shown to reflect a technological strategy to maximize the utility of high quality stone in the context of long distance mobility. To do so, both points on flake blanks and on preforms will be compared on the basis of their dimensions and technological features, as well as on dist ance from raw material source. 25

PAGE 34

Figure 9: Illustration of point on flake blank recovered from the Topper site in South Carolina. Illustration by author. 26

PAGE 35

CHAPTER III THEORETICAL ORIENTATION: HUMAN BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY The research presented in this thesis is founded in Evolutionary Ecological Theory which is defined as the study of adaptive design in behavior, life history, and morphology (Bird and OConnell 2006:143). This framework emphasizes behavior as the adapt ive means within environmental contexts which thereby affect s overall fitness of the individual or group (Williams 1966). Stemming from ecological research in the 1960s and 70s, behavioral ecology a sub field within evolutionary ecology was initially used to understand social, reproductive, and foraging patterns in nonhuman organisms and landscape dynamics (e.g. Alexander 1974; Lima and Zollner 1996), but was later adopted by anthropologists and applied to human populations This applicatio n resulted with a new subfield of evolutionary ecology designated Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) which initially applied optimal foraging models (Cronk 1991) to hunter gatherer populati ons (e.g., Waguespack and Surovell 2003). Even though early HBE propone nts focused on hunter gather subsistence based in optimal foraging theory its fundamental principles provide a transparent methodology to understand additional components of human behavior. Because HBE assumes human behavior is subject to natural selectio n (Surovell 2009), adaptive behaviors should be transmitted culturally and the capacity for optimizing behavior transmitted genetically. Even though the relationships between genes and behavior as a one to one association have not been easily demonstrated it is widely accepted that behavior, in the general sense, is ultimately the product of the interaction of myriads of genes (Surovell 2009:7). From 27

PAGE 36

this perspective behavior therefore represents a problem solving effort to maximize benefits or minimize costs. HBE approaches commonly utilize mathematical modeling to provide a reductionist framework within which to derive testable hypotheses which can then be confronted against the record. These hypotheses e mphasize simplicity instead of a more complex holistic approach seen in the particularistic tradition of cultural anthropology (Winterhalder and Smith 2000). These simple models indicate what expected behavior should be within a general context or environment. To do so, these models therefor e must define the goal and decision variable s, and within them, the goal reflects the intent of the behavior in terms of a specific currency (e.g., calories) while the decision variable represents what behavioral aspects will be adjusted to meet this goal (Surovell 2009). Empirical data are then tested to determine if these expected behaviors are actually in practice or whether the actual behavior deviate s from its hypothesized fitness maximizing predicted state (e.g. Bird 1997). Both possibilities are equally important because it allows for re examination of social or environmental factors for causation when initial hypotheses are falsified. Archaeological application of HBE is grounded on the proposition that behavioral diversity is socio ecologi cally specific, which therefore requires understanding the circumstantial landscape that motivates individual fitness (Bird and OConnell 2006). Specifically, HBE favors the advantageous behaviors that increase adaptive fitness within a given context. Th e application of HBE to lithic assemblages stems from defining technological organization as the selection and integration of strategies for making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for their manufacture 28

PAGE 37

and maintenance (Nelson 1991: 57). With this definition, HBE models are well suited for testing lithic assemblages because decisions were made throughout their use life which probably reflected optimizing concerns by the individuals involved (Surovell 2009). From this perspective, it does not matter if the behavior is learned or instinctive, biological or cultural in origin. In fact, Bamforth and Bleed (1997) review archaeological research as focusing on ways artifacts and/or behavioral patterns likely enhance fitness within certain environmental contexts and, more importantly, the effects of these alterations of either technology or behavior within given contexts. They further discuss how this scope of analysis purpose ful ly avoids individual reproductive fitness. The deliberate dodging of individual fitness following Darwinian evolution a llows researchers to focus more on group selection processes ( e.g. Kaplan and Hill 1985) which may be better suited for understanding cultural change from the archaeological record (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). This debate between individual and group selection acted as one of the drivers of the development of behavioral ecological theory (Cronk 1991: 27.) This debate started when Wynne Edwards (1962) argued natural selection in hum an populations occurred at the group level (see also Hamilton 1964; MacArthur and Pianka 1966). This was rebutted by Lack (1966) and Hamilton (1964) who picked apart Wynne Edwards interpretation and determined, on both empirical and theoretical grounds his data most parsimoniously reflect individual selection. To date, the dispute between group and individual selection is still ongoing; however, most HBE proponents agree that selection has the potential to act on multiple levels, most likely beginning a t the individual level (Cronk 1991). Understanding individual selection through the 29

PAGE 38

archaeological record is very difficult, however Archaeological sites represent palimpsests of past group behavior over extended periods of time and distinguishing spe cific variations that might have promoted individual reproductive fitness is quite problema tic (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). Using t hese simplified models which generally evaluate cost/benefit considerations resulting from specific behavioral choices, archaeologists have begun to move away from subsistence practices and began focusing on the lithic technologies (see Bamforth and Bleed 1997 for discussion) Studies concerning raw material acquisition and exploitation, tool morphology, degree of retouch, and discard patterns made good use of the HBE hypothetico deductive reasoning strategy (W interhalder and Smith 2000) which later produced formal models to understand tool kit composition in mobile foragers (Bird and OConnell 2006; Kuhn 1994). With in t he HBE framework, understanding tool kit composition is done by considering technology as the basis for manipulating the physical environment ( Bamforth and Bleed 1997) and by seeing any variation within this system represent ing behavioral adaptation to the local environmental. If we accept Clovis culture comprised highly mobile big game hunters, it can be expected that hunting weaponry had high economic value. Furthermore, distance between raw material sources would have acted as an environmental stress which would need behavioral modification to maintain baseline amounts of lithic utility while away from sources These parameters produce the hypothetical reasoning needed to deduce an adaptive behavior in Clovis foragers. The behavior under investigation here is the use of primary flakes or informal flakes tools over the preconceived use of bifacially reduced preforms, to manufacture a projectile 30

PAGE 39

point. This represents the decision variable described above, with the goal being lithic conservation and/or m aintaining lithic utility when raw material availability is limited. 31

PAGE 40

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF POINTS ON FLAKES The research question investigated here assumed that Clovis foragers were highly mobile and traveled considerable distances; their point production strategy followed a predictable reduction sequence that started with large bifaces; and that projectile points held high economic value. These assumptions support the hypothesis that distance from lithic source would have act ed as an environmental stress The increase of distance enables a proxy to measure retooling events required. As more re tooling events would have occurred, changes in tool maintenanc e and production strategies might reasonably have act ed as a risk reduction mechanism to ensur e usable stone was available to Clovis foragers Thus, the idea to be tested in this study is whether points maintaining a detachment flakescar represent a behavioral strategy to ensure lithic utility and serve as a means to conserve transported tool stone. This is supported if these points can be shown to occur more frequently further from raw material sources as it would demonstrate an alternative point manufa cture procedure beginning with a primary flake or an informal flaketool rather than a bifacial preform to maximize lithic utility in an environment where highquality lithic sources are rare. This behavior could therefore reflect a behavioral effort to minimize the cost of typical point production processes described by Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011b) Methods A sample (n=244) of Clovis projectile points and preforms from the central Great Plains (Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska) is used in this study. This sample is the same as 32

PAGE 41

that used by Holen (2001) to conclude that Clovis lithic procurement and mobility patterns in that region reflect a long distance migration, most likely following faunal resources. This sample includes points from private and museum collections and identification was done by Steven Holen and Jack Hoffman, both of the University of Kansas The recording of points included travel throughout the central Great Plains to bot h museums and private collectors and morphological attributes were measured using digital calipers Source identification was done through macroscopic observation and both microscopic and UV luminescence testing (Holen 2001). For private collections, recovery location could usually only be narrowed down to the county level although this introduces only a marginal degree of imprecision given the large scale of most distance under consideration. The raw material sources encountered throughout the sample region include many highquality sources (e.g. Knife River Flint, Edwards Chert, Smokey Hill Jasper, etc .) with fewer medium to lower quality sources (e.g. silicified wood, quartzite, etc.). Even though highquality sources were available, quarries were limited to specific regions. Most of these quar ry sites are macroscopically diverse allowing for easier sourcing practices within the Great Plains. This beneficial practice allows for precise lithic sourcing and accurate measurements for distance travel by lithic materials. For instance, a common raw material found in Clovis assemblages includes Edwards Chert, which originates in central Texas but is consistently recovered in sites from northern Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. This distance between Edwards Chert quarries and recovery sites sometimes exceeds 900km Knife River Flint outcrops occur in North Dakota and points made on this material are recovered in southern Kansas and Colorado. Smokey 33

PAGE 42

Hill Jasper and Hartville Chert (also known as Hartville Uplift Chert) source to northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. These highquality sources are recovered throughout the central Great Plains and as far east as Missouri. This is also the case with Clear Chalcedony, which occurs in the front range of Colorado and recovered in eastern Kansas some 625km away. Because raw material (see Hoard et al. 1992 and Holen 2001 for more detailed descriptions) and distance from source are the main variables considered in this study, any artifact missing information about either was excluded from consideration here. The resulting sample (n=117) consists of 104 points on preforms and 13 points on flake blanks ( see A ppendix 1), both of which are represented by complete and partial points. Although this may unwittingly create a bias towards points on preforms due to point fragments not preserving the detachment scar on their ventral surface, removing all partial points would have further reduced the sample of point on flake blanks to a total of only 10. Thus, blank type was identified on the basis of the presence o r absence of a recognizable detachment scar for all artifacts, under the reasoning that mistakenly including fragments of points on flake blanks in the preform sample would lead to the preferable outcome of falsifying the hypothesis that the two point ty pes can be differentiated, a false negative, which is logically preferable to identifying a false positive trend that they are clearly distinguishable. The significance of differences in dimensions (i.e., length width, thickness, per Holen 2001) between the two point types were tested at the 95% confidence interval ( p .05) using PASW v.22 software. The tests include both parametric and nonparametric due to the comparatively small sample of flake blank points. The parametric tests used in 34

PAGE 43

this study include the independent variable t test and a one way ANOVA, while the Mann Whitney U statistic was used for the nonparametric test. Morphological data were tested to determine if blank type affected overall point dimensions. If points on preforms reflect a more extensive life history, then morphological dimensions might be expected to reflect this and to differentiate them from points on flakes. It would be expected that smaller points with more extensive retouch would be recovered further from lithic sour ces. The diminished size results from either extensive retouch through constant re sharpening or from recycling broken point fragments into usable hunting points. However, length tends to be the most inconsistent dimension in recovered points; whereas width and thickness tend to follow a consistent 4:1 (w/th) ratio in finished points (Bradley et al. 2010). To ensure reliable morphological testing, the sample first exclude s partial points, resulting in a measured subsample of ten points on flakes and 59 points on preforms but then include s these points and compare s the results between both series of tests Results Table 3 summarizes the results of these statistical analyses on the relationship between blank type and distance from source, length, width, and thickness values. The most significant difference between the two blank types are distancefrom source (p=.007) and thickness (p=.007). As concerns distance from source, Figure 10 clearly shows that the majority of points on preforms occur between 75 and 300 km from source, whereas points on flakes mostly are found between 200 and 600 km from source. Additionally, almo st 60% of points on preforms are found within 200km of the source and occur in ever decreasing frequencies after this point (Figure 11). This is in mark ed 35

PAGE 44

contrast to points on flakes; more than 66% of which are found more than 200km from source. It thus appears that as distance from source increases, the likelihood of point manufacture beginning with a le sscurated blank also increases as shown by the greater proportion of points maintaining a visible detachment flake scar (Figure 1 2). Table 2: Results from statistical testing of sample Turning to metric dimensions, thickness appears to be the only attribute that discriminates between the two kinds of points (p= .007) while length and width fail to do so (Table 2 ) The separation based on thickness almost certainly refers to the fact that Figure 10: Distribution of blank types in relation to distance from source. NMean Significance (p t-scoreF-score 13NMean Significance (p t-scoreF-score Thickness Length Width Detachment Scar Standard Deviation Degrees of Freedom Detachment Scar Standard Deviation Degrees of Freedom 36

PAGE 45

Figure 11: Distribution of blank types from source Figure 12: Relative frequency of blank types within distance categories Percenteage of eof blank type Distance from source (km) Points on preforms Points on flake-blanks 37

PAGE 46

Figure 13: Dimensional comparison between blank types 38

PAGE 47

Figure 14: Dimensional data between blank types in relation to distance C omplete points only. 39

PAGE 48

flakes do not need to be thinned on their ventral surface, making points on this blank type inherently thinner overall than those on preforms. Although length and width data do not s how statistically significant differences between the two point types when displayed graphically it can be seen that points on flakes are as a whole relatively smaller than thei r preform counterparts (Figure 13) ; albeit not significantly When comparing the dimensional data between blank type s in relation to distance from lithic source, an intriguing pattern emerges. Figure 1 4 shows a slight increase in the size of points on preforms as distance increases --especially after 150km. Similarly, a ll dimensions of points on flake blanks decrease as distance increases up to about 250km after which they begin to increase in size as distance also increases. However, any interpretation of points on flakes and their relationship between distance and di mensions is limited by the sample size. In order to flesh out any possible relationship, a larger sample would be needed. This, however, is possible with the points on preforms sample used above. Figure 15 displays the same pattern described above pert aining to complete preform points only. ANOVA testing on complete points onpreforms was used to determine if a there is a significant relationship between distance categories and point dimensions Testing revealed no statistically significan t relatio nship (p=.2783 for length; p=.1359 for width; p= .1397 for thickness) between point dimensions and distance This result may be an artifact of the limited sample used however, and future assemblages with similar 40

PAGE 49

Figure 15: C omparison of dimensions between distance categories. NOTE: All measurements in cm. Length vs Distance Distance Length 1 (0-60km) 2 (61-150km) 3 (151-250km) 4 (251-510km) 5 (511-930km) 2 6 10 14 18 Width vs DistanceDistanceWidth 1 (0-60km)2 (61-150km)3 (151-250km)4 (251-510km)5 (511-930km) 1.52.53.54.55.5 Thickness vs DistanceDistanceThickness 1 (0-60km)2 (61-150km)3 (151-250km)4 (251-510km)5 (511-930km) 0.50.70.91.11.31.5 41

PAGE 50

data records might help establish the significance of these patterns whic h will be discussed further in Chapter 5 Th e evidence indicating that points maintaining a detachment f lake scar are relatively smaller than points on preforms supports the above hypothesis whereby points on flakes may represent a conservation effort by Clovis tool makers seeking to maximize lithic utility. These conservation efforts would have been favored when transport ing raw material over considerable distances through regions lacking highquality material. These efforts were more likely in response to the point production cost of bifacial reduction techniques observed in typical Clovis points. Overall, the results presented here indicate that there is a statistical ly significant difference (p=.007) between blank types in relation to distance from the source. Furthermore, the only morphological variable that is als o statistically different is thickness ( p=.007). However, a visual inspection of the data (Figure 12) also reveals that points maintaining a detachment scar occur more frequently further from lithic sources and that these points also tend to be smaller a nd thinner than those that do not. A likely interpretation of these trends is that they reflect a conscious effort by Clovis foragers to minimize the cost of point production and to maximize the overall output of transported raw material. These risk mitigating behaviors would have been essential in Great Plains Clovis peoples who occupied a vast geographic area with few distantly situated highquality raw material quarries. 42

PAGE 51

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION A sample of Clovis projectile points included several points maintaining the ventral surface from flake detachment. These points, while rare, do not reflect the preconceived manufacture sequence described by Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011b). It was hypothesized here that these uncommon points reflect an alternative point production sequence that begins not with a bifacially reduced preform, but rather a primary flake or by converting an informal flake tool into a viable hunting point This effort would alleviate the problem of tool stone depletion while traversing long distances through the central Great Plains. These conscious behaviors would have been favored in this region where high quality lithic sources are few and far between (Bamforth 2009; Holen 2001). Similar observations have been discussed elsewhere, but pertaining towards post Clovis cultures (e.g. Folsom and Midland). Holfman et al. (1990) describes in detail the Shifting Sands sites Folsom and Midland artifacts recovered from western Texas. Here, they argue the use of bi facial preforms and flake blanks are recovered and common within both Folsom and Midland assemblages and the use of alternative preform types probably reflects available raw material quantities and functional demands, such as reworking a unifacial tool int o an expedient projectile point (Hofman et al. 1990). Furthermore, these authors imply the use of flake blanks is not strictly reflective of increasing distances from source, but rather reflecting the number of kill butchery and retooling events occurring after the initial procurement event. I simply argue here that Folsom and Midland toolmakers were not the first to make these considerations, and how 43

PAGE 52

using distance from source can be used as the proxy to measure an increase in retooling events. Revert ing back to the Clovis sample, points on the two blank types show clear and statistically significant differences in the ir distribution relative to raw material sources that are also accompanied by some differences in point dimensions When these data are combined, it becomes clear that points on flake blanks occur at further distances proportionally and that they fall towards the smaller end of the range seen in recovered Clovis points. P oints on flakes tend to be smaller than their preform counterparts and with less retouch meaning that points on flake blanks require less stone than points onpreforms This can therefore be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, points onflakes could represent evidence of depleted raw material which was no longer sufficie ntly available to produce large r blanks Secondly, these points could reflect a conscious decision to minimize the cost of extensive thinning. The cost of thinning a preform includes the risk of breaking the blank during manufacture. The choice to use a flake (which would require less retouch and thinning) may in fact be the behavioral adaptation for optimizing and extending the utility of transported raw material. Simply put, why risk wast ing highquality materials through a more extensive and involved point production strategy, when using a flake reduces the risk associated with bifacial thinning and extends the utility of available raw material by beginning with a smaller blank? It would be expected that as distance increased, recovered points should be smaller and more curated than those recovered closer to the lithic sources. However that is not always the case. As demonstrated in C hapter IV there is a decrease in point size initially, but an increa se in size beyond a certain point. For points on preforms, this 44

PAGE 53

decrease was observed to a distance of around 150km. Past 150 km, there is a slight and gradual increase in point size In contrast, points on flakes blanks decreased in size up to about 240km from source after which they also begin increas ing in size It must be stressed, however, that these trends do not appear to be statistically significant and if there is no difference between discarded projectile points as distance increases, then mo st recovered points likely simply reflect the dimensional size at which Clovis peoples would discard projectile points. According to Bamforth (2009), long distance lithic transport is not necessarily the result of one group traversing such distances, but c an rather represents trade networks between two neighboring groups each occupying much smaller regions. He suggests that points and point preforms were exchanged by using the evidence of exotic raw material generally used for these tool forms being recove red at such extreme distances from their locality. In contrast, informal tool types seem to be made overwhelmingly on more local, lower quality raw materials (Bamforth 2009). With this in mind, it could be postulated that a group anticipating an exchange of tool stone would reserve some material for this event (see also Whallon 2006) Evidence to support this argument may lie with these larger points being rec overed at longer distances though additional research on larger datasets is needed to establish this unambiguously Overall, these data indicate that projectile points on flakes may therefore well represent a technological adaptation to conserving lithic raw material in the context of long distance lithic transport (Holen 2004, 2001). If lithic sources were scarce or unknown, Clovis knappers needed to make sure they had stone available even if they 45

PAGE 54

could not provision it anew, which means that there would have been a premium on maximizing the utility that could be derived from given volumes of raw material. According to Bamforth and Becker (2000), Paleoindians favored the use of bifacial cores for transport. These cores could both act as simple chopping tools, or have flakes struck off them to provide expedient tools. If these cores were created close to the lithic source and transported over considerable distances, the further the core is from the source the greater the reduction in core volume and in turn in the size of useable flakes able to be removed from these cores. This adheres to Newman s (1994) observation that flake size decreases as distance from source increases. While Bamforth and Becker (2000) mostly focus on Folsom, their discussion is relevant to Clovis points on flakes because Bradley et al. (2010) and Waters et al. (2011) suggest that the Clovis point reduction sequence began by removing large flakes from bifacial cores. These flakes were initially used as expedient tools, and were th en reworked and thinned before being turned into points. As core utility decrease d as they we re reduced over the course of their users travels, the appeal of using small flakes as blanks for points increases, as this strategy results in less wasting of p rized raw material (Bamforth 2003). Incorporating a flakebased point manufacture sequence that maximizes a cores use life by increasing the potential output of expedient flakes would help conserve lithic material. Alternatively, large flakes could also be procured directly from quarries with the intent of using them as projectile point blanks. This is a less likely option, however, since flakes have higher transport costs than bifaces (cf. Kuhn 1994; Morrow 1996), in keeping with claims that Clovis tool kits were designed to be easily maintainable, multifunctional, and recyclable, and that bifacial cores embody such technological flexibility (Bleed 1986; 46

PAGE 55

Bamforth 2003). The small dimensions of the present sample of projectile points maintaining a detach ment flake scar suggest they were made on flakes struck from heavily reduced cores, maybe as one strategy to conserve high quality lithic material. That said, it is also likely that Clovis toolmakers made points on primary flakes that lost their visible d etachment flake scar as a result of extensive retouch. This, in fact, would be in keeping with suggestions that Clovis tool kits are designed to undergo a systematic rejuvenation between tool types through reduction (Bamforth 2003; Bradley et al. 2010; Je nnings et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011). For instance, a flake may be used initially for cutting/butchering, but as the edge becomes dull retouch is needed for rejuvenation. This process continues until the flake is discarded or a more extensive modifica tion is employed to convert the cutting tool into a different tool type altogether. The fact that some points on flakes may not be recognizable as such, however, does not disagree with the results presented in this study, since the dimensions of some point s considered here to have been made on preforms overlap with those of the subsample of recognizable points on flakes, which in general fall on the smaller end of the size grade from fully retouched points (Figure 13) Point s on flakes therefore can be s een as supporting Wilke. et al.s (1991) argument about Clovis knappers saving and using flakes as blanks for points instead of trying to reshape exhausted cores into preforms a s distance from lithic sources increase. This allowed these cores to continue being used to produce additional expedient tools. This dynamic knapping ability is the source of the apparent contradiction at the heart of this study, namely that seemingly minimally retouched points on flakes occur more frequently as one moves away from the material on which they are made whereas their 47

PAGE 56

superficially more curated counterparts on preforms mostly occur closer to lithic sources. In reality, the more expedient appearance of most points on flakes seems to be tightly linked to raw material conservation strategies. Using flakes to create points would have been a good alternative in those contexts when reducing a bifacial core into a projectile point would have prevented the production of additional tool blanks. With increasing distance from raw material sources, Clovis knappers came to rely on a flexible point production process to maximize both core output and maintainability. Using primary flakes instead of reduced bifacial cores as point blanks does both. Even though projectile points represent a very small fraction of the overall lithic assemblages made and used by Clovis foragers, this study shows how they can nonetheless shine important light on their raw material management strategies. Furthermore, that a small subset of Clovis poin ts does not reflect the typical point production reduction reconstructed from cached assemblages clearly shows that these foragers could and did tailor their point production strategies according to numerous variables, including the need to maximize the utility of fine grained stone over longdistance movements. Overall, points on flakes are statistically similar in dimensions to small points on preforms, differing systematically from them only by being thinner. In contrast, the proportion of points onf l akes increases with growing distance from source. These joint trends are best explained as the results of a coherent alternative manner of producing Clovis points when the standard point manufacture process could not be used because of depleted raw mat erial reserves. 48

PAGE 57

Although there are two distinct Clovis point production strategies, points on flakes are proportionally much more frequent when distance from sources is great, presumably also when cores have been exhausted to the point that larger flakes can no longer be produced. This fits the current understanding of Clovis technology (Bradley et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011b) and can be interpreted as reflect ing a technological adaption for long distance lithic transport. In sum, then, Clovis knappers did not limit their point production processes to the standard thinning sequence described above, but tailored their knapping skills to maximize core usability and to ensure that points could be manufactured even when raw material had become scarce or onl y available in small packages. The production of Clovis points on flakes thus appears to be a response to economically using exhausted bifacial cores on high quality stone types from distant sources. This is evident when smaller less extensively retouche d projectile points on flakes are recovered further from lithic sources than their larger more extensively retouched preform counterparts. This is suggestive of a technological ly adaptive last ditch effort to maximize lithic utility when resources were sc arce. These points thereby reflect an effort to maximize scarce resources and an adaptation to a highly mobile lifeway. Clovis points on flakes thus reflect the technological innovation needed by Clovis tool makers to reduce the risk of uncertainty while traveling through the Great Plains in North America. These hunters occupied a region where few high quality raw material sources were available and the distance between quarry locations exceed ed hundreds of kilometers. Instead of inflexibly following an elaborate and relatively wasteful point production sequence beginning with larger flakes reworked into bifacial preforms, Clovis 49

PAGE 58

knappers also in some contexts utilized smaller flakes for point production. This hypothesis is supported by the significant relationship between blank type and their statistical means between distances from raw material source. Over two thirds of Clovis points without the detachment flake scar occur within two hundred kilometers of raw material source, whereas over two thirds of points with a detachment flake scar occur past two hundred kilometers. Furthermore, as the distance from source increases, the relative proportion of projectile points with these scars also increases The overall differences in dimensio ns between blanks remain insignificant. However, when graphically displayed, it can be readily seen that points on flake blanks tend in fact to be smaller insignificantly The only significant m etric difference is seen in thickness between blank types. This can be easily understood when considering flake blanks would require less thinning than bifaces especially on their ventral face. Many of the flake scars present on the ventral face of points on flake s represent marginal flaking to give the point the typical Clovis morphology and cutting edge. Points on flakes represent an alternative point production strategy not currently discussed in Clovis research. The original hypothesis tested in this study questioned the context of points maintaining a deta chment flake scar and their relationship within Clovis assemblages It was argued here that these rare and distinctive points reflect an alternative point production process aimed at conserving high quality raw materials. This conservation effort may have stemmed from the common practice of transporting lithic materials over distances in excess of 900km seen in Great Plains Clovis peoples. As Chapter II describes, Clovis people are generally considered to have practiced high residential mobility (Kelly an d Todd 1988; Surovell 2000). It is common for Clovis 50

PAGE 59

assemblages to contain lithic material from several exotic sources. These materials were of high quality raw materials, something favored by Clovis knappers. The need of high quality material reflects the highly technical and risky point manufacture process observed through experimental and refitting studies of Clovis projectile points (Bradley et al. 2010) This process begins with large bifacial core that were either used to remove large flakes for informal tools, or they were used until no longer able to produce these large flakes; at which point they were reworked into a hunting point. However, bifacial technology was not the only means to produce usable flakes. Clovis also practiced a highly developed blade technology. Clovis blades were longer than those of most other techno complex es that used this technology. Both technologies reflect the overall resourcefulness and adaptive behaviors practiced by Clovis foragers. Chapter II also introduces points maintaining a detachment flake scar. These points do not reflect the current model of point production. Even though they are labeled elsewhere, no current research to my knowledge --has aimed to explain these point s. Because these points are a behavioral response to external factors, along with other lithic technologies, Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) provides a framework within which these points can be understood and ultimately analyzed empirically HBE, and its applica tion towards lithic assemblages, is discussed in C hapter III. HBE approaches the archaeological record through the lens of evolutionary theory. With this, behavior can be seen as an adaptive response to environmental stimuli that inherently promotes fitne ss. For instance, a more effective hunting tool can increase a hunter s caloric intake in turn increasing their overall health and reproductive fitness. The method of manufacture and/or implementation of such a hunting tool would be 51

PAGE 60

passed on to later g enerations or until an alternative hunting/gathering behavior was adopted. These concepts are applied to the sample of Clovis points in the central Great Plains region of North American described in C hapter IV. This sample was analyzed statistically and s trongly demonstrates a relationship regarding points on flakes and their respective distance from source. It was shown that a majority of points maintaining their detachment scar are recovered beyond 200km whereas the bulk of points on preforms are within 200km from source. Furthermore, these points on flakes are thinner than their preform counterparts. These data, when compiled together, paint a picture suggesting these points on flakes are an alternative point production product designed to mitigate t he wasting of material through an extensive bifacial reduction process. This alternative strategy would have been favored in the environmental context to which these Clovis foragers occupied. The central Great Plains has limited high quality raw material, and these quarries are few and far between (Bamforth 2009; Holen 2001). A point production strategy that conserves lithic material in these environmental conditions would have been both adaptive and favored. This thesis set out to see if these points reflect an alternative point production process, or rather just a meaningless aspect of the Clovis techno complex. It was established here that these points do in fact represent the technological adaptation of long distance lithic transport practiced by Clovis foragers in some facet of their lithic technology. Future research that includes larger datasets such that as the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA) c ould be used to test the above hypotheses against other regional and Paleoindian technocomplexes. 52

PAGE 61

Technology in past cultures was not lethargic. It was responsive, adaptive, and dynamic. This applies to the stone tools of Clovis Paleoindians occupying the central Great Plains. In this specific environmental context, tool stone was rare but also highly prized. This would have created the need, or goal, to conserve transported raw material; especially considering the vast distances covered. A potential method for conserving these materials could be to alter the point production sequenc e that produces higher volumes of waste debitage. This goal oriented behavioral adaptation reflects the decision variable of whether using a smaller flake that requires less work over a pr eform that needed more work, was more risky, and more wasteful. Th is conscious effort to minimize the cost of point production in certain contexts or to maximize the output of transported material reflects the aim set forth by HBE frameworks. As assemblages grow and variations are observed, HBE can provide the framework needed to empirically address these observations; and hopefully reveal past people for who they were and how they lived. 53

PAGE 62

REFERENCES Alexander, R.D. 1974 The Evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 325383. Andrefsky, William Jr. 2009 The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 65103. Bamforth, Douglas B. 2003 Rethinking the role of bifacial technology in Paleoindian adaptations on the Great Plains. In Mul tiple Approaches to the study of Bifacial Technologies M. Soressi and H.L. Dibble (eds), pp. 209228. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2009 Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 142157. Bamforth, Douglas B. and Peter Bleed 1997 Technology, Flaked stone technology, and Risk. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7(1):109139. Bamforth, Douglas G, and Michael S. Becker. 2000 Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Ref itting, and Artifact Use lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologists 45(173):272290. Bamforth, Douglas B, and Nyree Finlay 2008 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory 15(1):127. Bard, E., B. Hamelin, R.G. Fairbanks, and A. Zindler 1990 Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U Th ages from Barbados Corals. Nature 345: 405410. Bird, Douglas W. 1997 Behavioral E cology and the Archaeological consequences of Central Place Foraging among the Meriam. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7(1):291306. Bird, Douglas W., and James. F. OConnell 2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological research 14(2): 143188. 54

PAGE 63

Bj rk, S., B. Kromer, S. Johnsen, O. Bennike, D. Hammarlund, G. Lemdahl, G. Possnert, T.L. Rasmussen, B. Wohlfarth, C.U. Hammer, and M. Spurk. 1996 Synchronized terrestrial atmospheric deglacial records around the North Atlantic. Science 274: 11551160. Bleed, Peter. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4): 737747. Bordes, Francois 1961 Typologie du Paleolithique: Ancient et Moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux, France. 1967 Considerations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Paleolithique. Quatar 18:2555. Bordes, Francois, and Don Crabtree 1969 The Corbiac Blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12(2): 121. Bradley, Bruce A. 1982 Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In The Agate Basin Sit e: A record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. George C. Frison and Dennis Stafford (eds), pp. 181208. Academic Press, New York. 1991 Flaked Stone Technology in the Northern High Plains. In Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains 2nd ed., George C. Frison (ed), pp. 369395. Academic Press, San Diego. 1993 Paleo Indian flaked stone technology in the North American High Plains. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic Paleo Indian adaptations O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 251262, Plenum Press, New York. Bradley, Bruce A., Michael B. Collins, and Andrew Hemmings 2010 Clovis Technology International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Brantingham, P. Jeffrey. 2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American Antiquity 63(3):487509. Buchanan, Briggs, and Mark Collard. 2007 Investigating the Peopling of North America through cladistics analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 366393. 55

PAGE 64

Cassells, Steve E. 1983 The Archaeology of Colorado. Johnson Publishing Company, Boulder Colorado. Collard, Mark, and et al. 2010 Spatiotemporal dynamics of the Clovis Folsom transition. Journal of Archaeological Scien ce 37: 25132519. Collins, Michael B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology Univeristy of Texas Press, Austin. Collins, Michael B., and J. Link 2003 Refit groups In Pavo Real (41BX52):A Paleoindian and Archaic camp and workshop on the Balcones Escarpment SouthCentral Texas By Michael B. Collins, D.B. Hudler, and S.L. Black. pp.157182. Studies in Archaeology 41, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin and Archaeological Studies Program, Report 50, Texas Department of Transp ortation, Texas. Collins, Michael B. and Jon C. Lohse 2004 The Nature of Clovis Blades and Blade Cores. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum edited by David B. Madsen, pp. 159183. University of Utah Press, Sa lt Lake City. Collins, Michael B., Dale B. Hudler, and Stephen L. Black (editors) 2003 Pavo Real (41BX52): A Paleoindian and Archaic camp and workshop on the Balcones Escarpment, southcentral Texas University of Texas Press, Austin. Crabtree, Don 1972 An introduction to flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum 28. Idaho State University, Pocatello. Crader, D. 1983 Recent singlecarcass bone scatters and the problem of butchery sites in the archaeological record. In Animal s and Archaeology Vol 1, Hunters and their prey. J., CluttonBrock and C. Grigson (eds), pp. 107141. BAR International series No. 163, Oxford. Davis, Leslie B 1993 Paleo Indian archaeology in the high plains and Rocky Mountains of Montana. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic Paleo Indian adaptations O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 263277, Plenum Press, New York. 56

PAGE 65

Dickens, William A. 2005 Biface Reduction and Blade manufacture at the Gault Site (41BL323): A Clovis occupation in Bell County Texas. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. Dillehay, Tom D. 2009 Probing deeper into first American Studies. PNAS 106(4): 971978. Edwards, R.L., J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, D.J. Donahue, J.M.A. C happelle, A.L. Bloom, E.R.M. Druffel, and F.W. Taylor 1993 A large drop in atmospheric 14C/12C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230Th ages of corals. Science 260: 962968. Eren, Metin I., Robert J. Patten, Michael J. OBrien, and David J. Meltzer. 2013 Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1): 248256. Erlandson, Jon M. and et al. 2011 Paleoindian seafaring, maritime technologies, and coastal foraging on Californias channel islands. Science 331: 11811184. Ferring, C.R. 1995 The late Quaternary geology and archaeology of the Aubrey Clovis site, Texas: I n Ancient Peoples and Landscapes edited by E. Johnson, pp. 273281. Museum of Texas Tech U niversity, Lubbock. Fiedel, Stuart J. 2004 Clovis age in calendar years: 13,50013,000 CALYBP. In New Perspectives on the First Americans B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 73 80.Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Figgins, J.D. 1927 The an tiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27(3):229239. 1933 A further contribution to the antiquity of Man in America. Proceedings, Colorado Museum of Natural History 12(2): 410. Friedrich, M., B. Kromer, M. Spurk, J. Hofmann, and K.F. Kaiser 1999 Paleo environment and radiocarbon calibration as derived from Late Glacial/Early Holocene treering chronologies. Quaternary International 61(1): 2739. 57

PAGE 66

Frison, George C. 1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the Higher Plains Academic Press. 1993 North American High Plains Paleo Indian hunting strategies and weaponry assemblages. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic Paleo Indian adaptations O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 237249, Plenum Press, New York. Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Dennis H ORourke. 2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas. Science 319: 14971501. Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Margarita Dikova. 2003 The Archaeology of the Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas Science 301: 501505. Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Material Among Paleo Indian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series Book 127. Gruhn, Ruth 2004 Current archaeological evidence of Late Pleistoce ne settlement of South America. In New Perspectives on the First Americans B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 2734.Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Hamilton, Marcus J., and Briggs Buchanan 2007 Spatial gradients in Clovis age radiocarbo n dates across North America suggest rapid colonization from the North. PNAS 104(40): 1562515630. Hawks, K. 1993 The Evolutionary basis of sex variations in the use of natural resources: human examples. Population and Environments 18: 161173. Hayden, Bri an D., Nora Franco, and Jim Spafford 1996 Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In Theory and Behavior from Stone Tools, G. Odell (Ed), pp. 949. Plenum Publishing, New York. Haynes, C Vance Jr. 1993 Clovis Folsom Geochronology and Climate change. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic Paleo Indian adaptations O. Soffer and N.D.Praslov (eds), pp. 219236, Plenum Press, New York. Haynes, Gary 58

PAGE 67

2002 The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts. World Archaeology 33(3): 391416. 1984 Frequencies of spiral and green bone fractures of ungulate limb bones in modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1): 102114. Hill, Matthew E. Jr. 2007 A Moveable feast: Variation in Faunal Resource use among Central and Western North American Paleoindian sites. American Antiquity 72(3): 417438 Hoard, Robert J. and et al. 1992 Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone from the Chadron Formation and a Clovis Site on the Great Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 655665. Hofman, Jack L., Daniel S. Amick, and Richard O. Rose. 1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom Midland assemblage from a campsite in western Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35(129): 221252. Hol en, Steven R. 2010 The Eckles Clovis Site, 14JW4: A Clovis site in Northern Kansas. Plains Anthropologist 55(216):299310. 2006 Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the central Great Plains of North America: A preliminary report on La Se na and Lovewell. Quaternary International 142143: 3043. 2004 Long Distance Movement of a Clovis Obsidian Projectile Point. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:4445. 2001 Clovis Mobility and Lithic Procurement on the Central Great Plains of North Amer ica Dissertation, University of Kansas. Holen, Steven R., et al. 2008 A comment on Howards Authentication Analysis of the Angus Nebraska Fluted Point. Plains Anthropologist 53(207): 357366. Huckell, Bruce B. 2007 Clovis Lithic Technology: A view from the Upper San Pedro Valley. In Murray Springs: A Clovis site with Multiple Activity areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. C. Vance Haynes Jr. and Bruce B. Huckell (eds), pp. 170213. Anthropological Papers of the Uni veristy of Arizona No. 71. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Huckell, Bruce B. and et al. 59

PAGE 68

2008 The Mockingbird Gap Clovis Site: 2007 Investigations Current Research in the Pleistocene 25: 9597. 2011 Sentienl Butte: neuton activation analysis of White River Group chert from a primary source and artifacts from a Clovis Cache in North Dakota, USA. Journals of Archaeological Science 38: 965976. Hughen, K.A., J.T. Overpeck, S .J. Lehman, M. Kashgarian, J. Southon, L.C. Perterson, R. Alley, and D. M. Sigman 1998 Deglacial changes in ocean circulation from an extended radiocarbon calibration. Nature 391: 6568.Jennings, Thomas A., Charlotte D. Pevny, and William A. Dickens 2010 A bifaces and blade core efficiency experiment: implications for Early Paleoindian technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 21552164. Joyce, Daniel J. 2006 Chronology and new research of the Schaefer Mammoth (?Mammuthus primigenius) site, Kenosha County, Wisconsin, USA. Quaternary International 142143: 4457. Kelly, Robert L. and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2): 231244 Kitigawa, H., and J. van der Plicht 1998 Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279: 11871190. Kuhn, Steven L. 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: an ecological perspective Princeton University Press, Princeton. Lepper, Bradley T., and Robson Bonnichsen 2004 New Perspectives on the First Americans: Introductory remarks. In New Perspectives on the First Americans B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 111. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Libby, W.F., E.C. Anderson, and J.R. Arnold 1949 Age determination by radiocarbon content: WorldWide assay of natural radiocarbon. Science 109: Lima, Steven L. and Patrick A. Zollner 60

PAGE 69

1996 Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. TREE 11(3): 131135. Miotti, Laura L. 2004 Quandary: The Clovis Phenomenon, the first Americans, and the view from Patagonia. In New Perspectives on the First Americans B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 35 40. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Nelson, B.S. 1991 The study of technological organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory ed., M.B. Schiffer, pp. 57 100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Newman, Jay R. 1994 The Effects of Distance on Lithic Material Reduction Technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(4):491501. Overstreet, David F. 2004 Pre Clovis occupation in southeastern Wisconsin. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen (eds), pp. 4148. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 1996 Still more on cultural contexts of Mammoth and Mastodont i n the southwestern Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 13: 3638. Overstreet, David F., D.J. Joyce, and D. Wasion 1995 More on cultural contexts of Mammoth and Mastodont in the southwestern Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 4042. Pate, Daniel 1986 The effects of drought on Ngatatjura plant use: and evaluation of optimal foraging theory. Human Ecology 14: 95115. Patten, Bob. 2002 Solving the Folsom Fluting Problem in Folsom Technology and Lifeways Lithic Technology, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 299308. University of Tulsa Press, Oklahoma. Sain, Douglas A. 2010 A technological analysis of Clovis Blades form the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina. Current Research in t he Pleistocene 27: 136139. 61

PAGE 70

2012 Clovis Blade technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic attribute variation and regional patters of technological organization. Occasional Papers Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey Book 2. Sellards, E. H. 1952 Early Man in America. University of Texas Press. Sellet, Frederic. 2006 Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Inference of Mobility Patterns from Stone Tools. Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility University Press of Florida, Gainesvill e : 221239. Smallwood, Ashley M. 2010 Clovis Biface technology at the Topper Site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 24132425. 2012 Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. American Antiquity 77(4): 689713. Stanford, Dennis J. 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An introductory Perspective. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnischen and Karen L. Turnmire, pp.113. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Surovell, Todd A. 2000 Early Paleoindian women, children, mobility, and fertility. American Antiquity 65(3): 493508. 2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian archaeology The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Waguespack, Nicole M, and Todd A. Surovell 2003 CLOVIS HUNTING STRATEGIES, OR HOW TO MAKE OUT ON PLE NTIFUL RESOURCES. American Antiquity 68(2): 333352. Waters, Michael R, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315:11221125. 62

PAGE 71

Waters, Michael R, Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese, Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles T. Hallmark Michael B. Collins, and James E. Wiederhold. 2011a The Butt ermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331:15991603. Waters, Michael R., Charlotte D. Pevny, and David L. Carlson 2011b Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of a stratified workshop at the Gualt Site, Texas Texas A&M University Press, College State. Whallon, Robert 2006 Social networks and information: Non- utilitarian mobility among hunter gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 259270. Whitley, David S., and Ronald I. Dorn 1993 New perspectives on the Clovis vs. pre Clovis controversy. American Antiquity 58(4): 626647. Wilke, Philip J., J. Jeffrey Flenniken, and Terry L. Ozbun. 1991 Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2): 242272. Williams, G.C. 1966 Adaptation and Natural Selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Winterhalder, Bruce 1981 Foraging strategies in the boreal environment. In Hunter Gatherer foraging strategies: ethnographic and archaeological analyses B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smith (eds), pp. 6698, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Winterhalder, Bruce, and F. Cappelleto, I.R. Daniel Jr., C. Prescott. 1988 The populat ion dynamics of hunter gatherers and their prey. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 289328. Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A. Smith 63

PAGE 72

2000 Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at twenty five. Evolutionary Anthropology Issues, News and Reviews 9(2): 5172. Wohlfarth, B., S. Bj rk, G. Possnert, and B. Holmquist 1998 An 800year long, radiocarbondated varve chronology from SouthEastern Sweden. Boreas 27: 243257. Wynne Edwards, V.C. 1962 Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior Hafner Publishing Company, New York. Yerks, R.W., and J.W. Weiberger n.d. Microwear Analyses of lithic artifacts from the Hebior (47KN265) and Schaefer (47KN252) Mammoth sites and two stacked bifaces from the Chesrow site (47KN40), Kenosha county, Wisconsin. Report prepared in partial fulfillment of National Science Foundation Grant #SBR9708616. 64

PAGE 73

Appendix 1 : Clovis point sample from the C entral Great Plains Lithic material Distance from source (km) Blank type (0=flake;1=preform) Portion Length (cm) Width (cm) Thicknes s (cm) Permian Chert 125 1 Partial 2.71 2.34 0.61 Permian Chert 125 1 Complete 3.57 1.63 0.5 Reed Springs Chert 450 1 Partial 3.41 3.03 0.64 Smokey Hill Jasper 60 1 Partial 5.2 2.9 0.66 Smokey Hill Jasper 60 1 Complete 6.65 2.94 0.83 Hartville Chert 615 1 Complete 6.8 2.7 0.84 Alibates Flint 560 1 Complete 5.39 2.33 0.68 Knife River Flint 625 1 Complete 5.99 2.19 0.65 Hartville Chert 240 1 Complete 6.04 2.8 0.65 Clear Chalcedony 300 1 Complete 4.85 2.65 0.63 Pennsylvanian Chert 495 1 Complete 6.23 2.61 0.72 Cloverly Quartzite 100 1 Complete 5.13 2.57 0.69 Silicified Wood 40 1 Complete 6.52 2.27 0.66 White River Group Silicates 135 1 Complete 6.34 2.44 0.71 Cloverly Quartzite 250 1 Complete 5.59 2.02 0.72 White River Group Silicates 35 1 Complete 5.74 2.69 0.77 White River Group Silicates 185 1 Complete 4.01 1.93 0.77 Pennsylvanian Chert 510 1 Complete 8.08 3.09 0.78 Phosphoria 320 1 Complete 3.38 3.44 0.56 White River Group Silicates 125 1 Partial 3.24 3.71 0.67 Hartville Chert 310 1 Partial 2.81 3.54 0.79 Hartville Chert 220 1 Complete 3.55 2.06 0.71 Alibates Flint 600 1 Complete 4.85 2.61 0.7 White River Group Silicates 35 1 Complete 10.01 3.04 0.89 Alibates Flint 560 1 Complete 6.79 2.8 0.72 Hartville Chert 230 1 Complete 4.84 2.3 0.67 White River Group Silicates 70 1 Complete 5.88 2.87 0.65 White River Group Silicates 105 1 Complete 7.51 2.31 0.73 Permian Chert 440 1 Complete 8.02 2.73 0.89 White River Group Silicates 40 1 Partial 2.54 3.05 0.64 Hartville Chert 300 1 Complete 6.68 2.74 0.78 Smokey Hill Jasper 115 1 Complete 5.13 2.44 0.73 Permian Chert 50 1 Partial 4.96 2.85 0.93 White River Group Silicates 155 1 Partial 5.85 2.87 0.76 White River Group Silicates 175 1 Complete 6.5 3.3 0.78 Hartville Chert 310 1 Partial 3.46 2.92 0.63 Smokey Hill Jasper 200 1 Complete 9.33 3.36 0.81 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5.89 2.6 0.71 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5.69 2.65 0.64 Burlington Chert 375 1 Complete 7.22 3.07 0.72 Washington Pass 850 1 Partial 2.56 3.75 0.66 White River Group Silicates 560 1 Complete 10.65 3.22 0.91 Hartville Chert 325 1 Partial 3.42 2.73 0.66 White River Group Silicates 465 1 Partial 2.67 3.54 0.68 White River Group Silicates 75 1 Complete 6.19 2.74 0.59 Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 3.46 2.75 0.68 Edwards Chert 930 1 Complete 10.17 5.13 1.42 Hartville Chert 290 1 Partial 4.24 2.93 0.71 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 8.3 2.8 0.8 65

PAGE 74

Hartville Chert 240 1 Partial 3.44 1.97 0.48 Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 5.88 5.29 0.97 Smokey Hill Jasper 110 1 Partial 3.23 2.7 0.64 Alibates Flint 500 1 Complete 6.9 2.87 0.77 Pennsylvanian Chert 400 1 Complete 8.4 3.54 0.83 Pennsylvanian Chert 425 1 Complete 5.02 2.06 0.79 White River Group Silicates 175 1 Complete 5.56 2.41 0.66 Smokey Hill Jasper 220 1 Complete 5.67 2.43 0.63 White River Group Silicates 200 1 Partial 3.13 3.73 0.7 Knife River Flint 560 1 Complete 6.75 3 0.88 Knife River Flint 800 1 Complete 9.52 3.44 0.81 Smokey Hill Jasper 40 1 Partial 6.35 2.96 0.79 Clear Chalcedony 300 1 Complete 8.22 3.04 0.74 Smokey Hill Jasper 140 1 Complete 7.4 3.09 0.84 Hartville Chert 615 1 Complete 5.1 2.32 0.69 Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 3.74 3.07 0.75 Knife River Flint 800 1 Partial 6.17 2.65 0.61 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 2.93 2.75 0.58 Alibates Flint 490 1 Complete 4.99 2.44 0.68 Alibates Flint 490 1 Partial 4.65 2.94 0.68 Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 4.55 2.94 0.72 Edwards Chert 40 1 Partial 2.71 2.62 0.53 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Complete 8.72 2.55 0.86 Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 5.13 3.12 0.77 Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 8.58 2.34 0.84 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 3.4 3.44 0.77 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 3.75 3.19 0.63 Alibates Flint 490 1 Complete 5.2 2.77 0.72 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Complete 6.85 2.36 0.9 Smokey Hill Jasper 150 1 Partial 2.1 1.65 0.49 Smokey Hill Jasper 130 1 Complete 5.97 2.35 0.67 White River Group Silicates 185 1 Partial 7.21 2.74 0.79 Reed Springs Chert 40 1 Complete 12.12 3.57 0.95 White River Group Silicates 130 1 Partial 6.6 3.99 0.99 Permian Chert 100 1 Partial 6.33 3.19 1.03 White River Group Silicates 125 1 Partial 3.13 2.5 0.56 Clear Chalcedony 150 1 Complete 4.39 2.14 0.53 White River Group Silicates 40 1 Complete 16.7 4.05 0.67 White River Group Silicates 40 1 Partial 2.23 2.65 0.59 Cloverly Quartzite 250 1 Complete 9.02 3.12 0.66 Hartville Chert 250 1 Partial 2.42 3.55 0.7 White River Group Silicates 60 1 Complete 6.52 2.68 0.79 White River Group Silicates 80 1 Partial 1.41 1.91 0.57 Smokey Hill Jasper 200 1 Partial 1.61 2.87 0.6 Cloverly Quartzite 375 1 Partial 1.98 2.64 0.65 White River Group Silicates 95 1 Complete 3.97 2.16 0.68 Hartville Chert 265 1 Partial 2.08 2.94 0.68 Tongue River Silicified Sediment 40 1 Complete 3.7 1.95 0.69 White River Group Silicates 60 1 Partial 6.26 3.03 0.85 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 4.61 3.9 1.18 66

PAGE 75

Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 5.46 4.82 1.26 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 3.93 3.34 0.74 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 5 2.5 0.73 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Partial 8 2.75 0.9 Pennsylvanian Chert 40 1 Complete 6.2 2.5 0.65 Smokey Hill Jasper 40 0 Partial 5.34 3.63 0.73 Hartville Chert 220 0 Complete 7.12 2.66 0.68 Knife River Flint 850 0 Partial 7.56 3.07 0.91 Clear Chalcedony 625 0 Complete 5.44 2.61 0.54 White River Group Silicates 130 0 Complete 7.24 2.91 0.69 Edwards Chert 975 0 Partial 4.22 3.27 0.86 White River Group Silicates 565 0 Complete 4.57 2.19 0.56 Hartville Chert 190 0 Complete 4.13 2.23 0.5 Hartville Chert 240 0 Complete 6.71 4.44 0.72 Permian Chert 150 0 Complete 5.75 2.69 0.58 Hartville Chert 560 0 Complete 5.49 2.43 0.82 Alibates Flint 640 0 Complete 6.45 2.84 0.74 Smokey Hill Jasper 200 0 Complete 3.17 1.97 0.36 67