Brian N. Andrews

Were Bifaces used as Mobile Cores by Clovis Foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes Region? An Archaeological Test of Experimentally Derived Quantitative Predictions

Abstract The notion that Paleoindians used bifaces as “mobile cores” is widespread in Late Pleistocene lithic research, although it can be difficult to test empirically. Here, we use experimental replication to establish two quantitative predictions that would be indicative of biface-core transport. If bifaces are being used as mobile cores, then we should see among a group of sites of varying toolstone procurement distances (a) a negative relationship between toolstone procurement distance and the mean unifacial tool maximum-thickness value from each site; and (b) a negative relationship between toolstone procurement distance and the variability (standard deviation) of maximum flake thickness values from each site. We then test these predictions against data from six Clovis sites of varying toolstone procurement distance in the Lower Great Lakes region. The results show that both sets of data possess a strong, positive relationship with increasing toolstone procurement distance, which is inconsistent with the notion that biface-cores were transported. Since the Clovis presence in the Lower Great Lakes is widely acknowledged to be a colonization pulse, we conclude that the lack of biface-core transport there is an economizing and risk-mitigating behavior consistent with the models of Kuhn (1994) and Meltzer (2002, 2003, 2004).

Folsom Stone Tool Distribution at the Mountaineer Block C Dwelling: Indoor and Outdoor Spaces as Activity Areas

Spatial analysis of the Mountaineer Block C Folsom tool assemblage is presented to investigate how a dwelling structure may have influenced where prehistoric people decided to work. Although no statistically significant difference in the toolkits from inside and outside contexts was found, patterns of significance were detected among individual tool types, particularly scrapers and projectile points. These tool types were apparently utilized more often in certain locations. We offer comparisons from the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records of modern hunter–gatherer behavior at campsites, and suggest significant differences in tool distribution occurred when activities were dictated by amount of space required and when processing byproducts would have contaminated indoor spaces. An overall lack of difference in indoor/outdoor tool assemblages supports the idea that dwellings did not necessarily determine use of space by prehistoric peoples, and activities and sets of activities were carried out in both indoor and outdoor spaces.

Thermoluminescence (TL) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating of Two Burned Clovis Wyandotte Chert Lithic Specimens from Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT Paleo Crossing (33ME274), a Clovis site in Medina County, Northeast Ohio, USA, has played an important role in debates on the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas given its published, and assumed accurate, age of 10,980 ± 75 BP (12,717–13,020 calibrated BP, median age 12,854 cal BP). However, there are still questions surrounding the radiocarbon ages from the site. We aimed to bypass using the association of charcoal with features or artifacts, and instead date the Clovis artifacts directly via luminescence dating. The chronometric results of 9.14 ± 2.18 kya and 8.92 ± 3.03 kya suggest one of two possibilities: (1) there was a fire at Paleo Crossing sometime during the Early Archaic period or, more likely, (2) the inner parts of the lithics were partially bleached, reducing the signal, while they were exposed on the surface.

AN ASSESSMENT OF STONE WEAPON TIP STANDARDIZATION DURING THE CLOVIS–FOLSOM TRANSITION IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

It has long been assumed that Folsom points are more standardized than Clovis points, although an adequate test of this proposition has yet to be undertaken. Here, we address that deficiency by using data from a sample of Folsom and Clovis points recovered from sites across the western United States. We used geometric morphometric techniques to capture point shape and then conducted statistical analyses of variability associated with Clovis and Folsom point bases and blades. Our results demonstrate that Folsom bases and blades are less variable than those on earlier Clovis points, indicating an increase in point standardization during the Early Paleoindian period. In addition, despite published claims to the contrary, Clovis and Folsom point bases are no more variable than blades. Based on these results, we conducted additional analyses to examine the modularity and size of Clovis and Folsom points. The results suggest Clovis points have more integrated base and blade segments than Folsom points. We suggest that several classes of Clovis points—intended for different functions—might have been in use during the Clovis period and that the later Folsom points might have served only as weapon tips, the shape of which were constrained by the fluting process. Durante mucho tiempo, se ha supuesto que las puntas de proyectil Folsom son más estandarizadas que las puntas Clovis; sin embargo, hasta la fecha no se había llevado a cabo una prueba adecuada de esta propuesta. Aquí se aborda este asunto usando datos de una muestra de puntas Folsom y Clovis recuperadas en sitios del oeste de Estados Unidos. Se utilizaron técnicas de morfometría geométrica para analizar la forma de las puntas y se llevaron a cabo análisis estadísticos de la variabilidad asociada con las bases y los bordes de las puntas Clovis y Folsom. Nuestros resultados demuestran que las bases y los bordes de las puntas de proyectil Folsom son menos variables que los de las puntas Clovis. También demostramos que tanto para las puntas Clovis como para las puntas Folsom, las bases no son más variables que los bordes. Los primeros resultados indican un aumento en la estandarización de las puntas de proyectil durante el período Paleoindio temprano. Los resultados sugieren que la hipótesis de que el retoque aumenta la variación de forma asociada con los bordes en relación con las bases carece de fundamento. Con base en estos resultados llevamos a cabo análisis adicionales para examinar la modularidad y el tamaño de las puntas de proyectil Clovis y Folsom. Los resultados sugieren que las puntas Clovis, que son más variables en forma y longitud que las puntas Folsom, poseen segmentos de base y de borde más integrados que las puntas Folsom. Sugerimos que varias clases de puntas Clovis —destinadas para diferentes funciones— pudieron haber estado en uso durante el período Clovis y que las puntas Folsom pudieron haber servido solo como puntas de armas. Parece que la estandarización y el uso especializado de las puntas Folsom evolucionaron conjuntamente en un circuito de retroalimentación resultante tanto de las limitaciones del acanalamiento Folsom como de los beneficios para la función de la punta que pueden haber resultado del mismo acanalamiento.

Introduction: Exploring Variability in the Folsom Archaeological Record

Since its discovery in association with the bones of extinct Ice Age bison, the distinctive Folsom projectile point has played an important role in the study of stone tool technological organization in particular, and North American archaeology in general. Countless studies — certainly too many to cite here — have focused on understanding the manufacturing process, function, and meaning behind the iconic fluted Folsom point. Because of the frequently reported association of Folsom points with bison and the relative abundance of bison kill sites in the Folsom archaeological record (at least in the reported Folsom archaeological record) much of the research conducted over the second half of the last century framed Folsom as an almost exclusive bison hunting adaptation that solved the problems of subsistence specialization through high residential mobility and highly efficient stone tool technology. Over the past two decades, however, Folsom researchers have begun to put together a picture of Folsom behavior which suggests that, overall, adaptations by these late Pleistocene hunter–gatherers were much more variable. Much of this evolving understanding of Folsom systems was driven by the discovery and excavation of Folsom sites located in physiographic regions other than the Great Plains — most notably in the Rocky Mountains and surrounding foothills and Basin and Range regions. Recent work involving large-scale landscape usage studies, reanalysis of existing sites, and excavation of high resolution individual sites — especially sites other than bison kills — strongly suggests that it is time for “Folsom” to be seen as not just a single adaptation, but rather as a multifaceted and flexible system that varies both geographically and temporally. This volume is a step in that direction. The studies included here represent current and ongoing research that recognizes the variable nature of Folsom adaptations. Growing out of a 2015 symposium held at the Society for American Archaeology meetings in San Francisco entitled “New Perspectives in Folsom Archaeology,” these studies have a wide geographic and topical range, focusing on three major themes: chronology, mobility and land use, and technology and task organization. The first two papers in this issue explore Folsom chronology, and how this affects our interpretation of Folsom adaptations. Using new dates from the Hanson and Hell Gap sites and existing high resolution bone collagen dates from other Folsom occupations, Surovell et al. provide a revised estimate for the duration of the Folsom period that is considerably shorter than previous estimates. By employing radiocarbon data from Folsom and Goshen bison kill sites, Carlson et al. offer a refinement of the temporal context of kill sites on the southernPlains,while newassays shuffle previously reported ages at northern Plains kill sites. They conclude that Folsom large-scale bison hunting first occurred on the southern Plains, in a similar setting that Clovis people exploited to hunt bison. The next set of papers examines mobility and land use in a variety of physiographic settings, including the Southwest, southern Plains, central Plains, and eastern Prairie. Amick and Reitze both investigate Folsom occupation of the Basin and Range in New Mexico. Amick’s research of the Lone Butte site in the Tularosa Basin demonstrates its similarity to Rio Rancho, and indicates Folsom hunters may have been gearing up in preparation for hunts in the immediate area of the site. Reitze’s analysis of Folsom settlement within the Estancia Basin suggests these groups occupied locations with plentiful surface water — such as playas, seeps, and draws — that would have expanded in area during the Younger Dryas. Correspondence to: Brian N. Andrews. Email: bandrews@rsu.edu

Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology

As Todd VanPool and Robert Leonard note at the outset of their overall excellent treatment of the role of statistics in archaeology, very few of us enter the field because of a love of mathematics. Statistical analysis is nonetheless the most important and powerful tool available for archaeologists interested in constructing scientific explanations about past human behavior — an importance reflected in the undergraduate and graduate level statistics course requirements for students common at most universities. This book provides a detailed, highly accessible, and often witty presentation of both basic and more advanced statistical concepts and techniques. It would be an ideal text for an introductory archaeological statistics class — the “practice exercises” found at the end of each chapter certainly help the book fill that role. It also, however, can serve as a useful reference for practicing archaeologists. Arguably, the two most important words in any statistics book are “for example.” Fortunately, VanPool and Leonard have assembled interesting and highly relevant examples that help to make the sometimes complicated mathematics and the potentially intimidating formulas found throughout the book more accessible. They use hypothetical and actual archaeological data from a variety of geographic and temporal settings to illustrate how statistical methods can be used to help evaluate and explain common archaeological problems. Readers familiar with common types of archaeological data (e.g., ceramic and lithic morphometric data, site structure data, zooarchaeological data) should find the examples quite informative and useful. The organization of the book is similar to that of many statistics books. Following a brief introductory chapter outlining the purpose and goals of the book, Chapters two through six deal with the underlying basic terms and concepts of statistical analysis. Chapter two provides an easy to understand explanation of the difference in data measurement scales, and, importantly, detailed discussions and examples demonstrating the importance of recording and utilizing the correct measurement scale for a given question. As they do through much of the book, the authors point out common mistakes in how data are used in archaeological problem solving, giving novice students the means to not only design their own questions (and data collection) correctly but to also critically evaluate statistical arguments made by others. Chapters three and four present the most common visual and numerical methods of characterizing raw data, an important and sometimes overlooked first step in any problem oriented archaeological study. The importance of graph and table usage and design, a point that is often not made in introductory statistics texts, should prove to be quite useful to those unfamiliar with data representation. Likewise, the emphasis that the authors place on exploratory data analysis is a welcome approach. Given the wide availability of computer statistical packages (and, as the authors note in Chapter one, the tendency for some anthropological statistics classes to focus almost exclusively on computer program instruction), the temptation to immediately run data through automated complex statistical analysis techniques can be hard to resist. Unfortunately, without a basic understanding of the structure of the data and the evident patterning in the data, these more complex approaches can be misused, misleading, or flat-out wrong. Placing exploratory data analysis and data pattern recognition on par with hypothesis testing in archaeological analysis, as the authors do, is a strong point of the book. The concepts of probability and the normal distribution, the keys to understanding statistical inferences, are the focus of Chapters five and six. The standard simple event probability examples involving coins and dice (and a very relatable example involving the probability of finding an on-campus parking spot during the semester) are presented in a straightforward, easy to understand manner building a strong base for the more difficult issue of probability in complex events.