Early Paleoindian Colonization and Lithic Artifact Transport

1

Ketron, Caroline V. Early Paleoindian Colonization and Lithic Artifact Transport ,

M.A., Department of Anthropology, December 2010.

Many have suggested that Early Paleoindians colonized the Americas quickly from the

Northwest. The Solutrean colonization model, on the other hand, suggests that people colonized

North America from Europe. Recently, archaeologists have suggested that the distribution of

Early Paleoindian fluted projectile points from their geologic sources indicates directional

patterns of movement resulting from the colonization of the Americas. From a continent-wide

sample of sourced fluted points, I calculate the frequency of fluted points distributed in various

directions from their geologic sources. Results show more fluted points distributed south and

west of their geologic sources. Though heavily influenced by eastern fluted point distributions,

the pattern supports the Solutrean model.

Supplemental files include: Appendix A (Fluted Points and Raw Material Sources)

EARLY PALEOINDIAN COLONIZATION AND LITHIC ARTIFACT

TRANSPORT

by

Caroline V. Ketron

A thesis submitted to the University of Wyoming

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

ANTHROPOLOGY

Laramie, Wyoming

December 2010

ii

Acknowledgements

In addition to support from the Wyoming Department of Anthropology, the Wyoming

Archaeological Society’s George C. Frison Masters Scholarship and the Harry T. Walts award

through the Loveland Archaeological Society each provided support for this thesis in 2009.

Conversations with other students and faculty, in particular Joe Gingerich, Nathaniel

Kitchel, Pat Mullen, Paul Santarone, Geoff Smith, and Andy Tremayne, have greatly enhanced

my graduate learning experience here at Wyoming in general, and improved this thesis. Many of

these friends also allowed me access to their personal libraries for thesis research. Meg Morris

provided generous help with GIS in the beginning stages of the project, and Nathaniel Kitchel

and Pat Mullen provided GIS and Microsoft Excel help on demand. Marcel Kornfeld has been

supportive throughout my time at UW and also allowed me access to his library.

The Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA) staff, in particular Shane Miller,

Derek Anderson, and Steve Yerka were consistently helpful. Thanks to Mary Prasciunas for

allowing me access to her sources and dissertation data, and also to Steve Sutter for pointing me

towards data collected by Mary and data in the Wyoming SHPO archives. Thanks to Bill

Scoggins for providing data. All those interested professionals, amateurs and collectors who have

contributed to the PIDBA deserve recognition as well—one individual could not hope to collect

the needed information alone.

Thanks to my committee: Bob Kelly, Todd Surovell, and Bryan Shuman. Bryan provided

valuable insights from paleoenvironmental studies. Todd Surovell was always ready with

challenging questions and clear explanations. Todd also wrote and set up the Microsoft Excel

program I used to create the rose diagrams in this thesis.

iii

Finally, I am grateful to Bob Kelly for his clear and kind advice and assistance

throughout my time at Wyoming: I could not have asked for a better advisor. In particular, 24-

hour access to his personal library, one-on-one help with chi-square tests, and lightning-fast

response to drafts and other inquiries were extremely helpful. Thanks to my family for patience,

love, support, and multiple plane tickets. All of these people have contributed to the completion

of this thesis but are not responsible for its shortcomings.

iv

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….1

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................ii

Table of Contents................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………........……..v

List of Figures………………………………………………………………........…….....vi

INTRODUCTION………………………...………………………………………………1

Colonization Models……………………………………………………………................2

Colonization Models and Fluted Point Distributions...........................................................5

Lithic Transport and Human Mobility Patterns...................................................................7

Research Goals….………………………………............………………………................8

MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………….……………………………..11

Sources of Data............................................................…………………………..............11

Organization of Data..........................................................................................................13

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..18

Data……………………………………………………………………………................18

Analysis……………………………………………………………………….............….19

DISCUSSION……….......………………………………………………………...……..23

CONCLUSION………………...……………………………………………………..….25

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..71

APPENDIX A: Fluted Point and Lithic Raw Material References...................................88

v

List of Tables

Table 1. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Entire Sample)......................35

Table 2. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Eastern sample)....................37

Table 3. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Western A and B fluted

points)....................................................................................................................39

Table 4. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Northeast).............................41

Table 5. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Southeast).............................43

Table 6. Bearings of Fluted Points ≥100 km from Geologic Source ................................46

Table 7. Bearings of Fluted Points Removed ≥200 km from Geologic Source................49

Table 8. Bearings of Fluted Points removed ≥300 km from Geologic Source .................51

Table 9. Bearings of Fluted Points removed ≥400 km from Geologic Source..................54

Table 10. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (‘A’sample)..........................55

Table 11. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Western ‘A’ sample)..........57

Table 12. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Eastern ‘A’ sample)............59

Table 13. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Northeast ‘A’ Sample).......61

Table 14. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Southeast ‘A’)....................63

Table 15. Bearing Frequencies of Fluted Points from Geologic Source; Entire ‘A’

sample; ≥100 km from source................................................................................65

Table 16. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source, securely dated sample (from

Waters and Stafford 2007).....................................................................................67

Table 17. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source, all dated sites with sourced

lithics from Waters and Stafford 2007..................................................................69

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Traditional hypothesized route of colonizers through the ice-free corridor.......30

Figure 2. Movement of lithic raw materials (modified from Tankersley 1991)................31

Figure 3. Fluted point distribution from the Paleoindian Database of the Americas

(Anderson, Miller, Yerka and Faught 2005)..........................................................32

Figure 4. Distribution of sourced fluted points (A and B sample for both points and lithic

source)....................................................................................................................33

Figure 5. Movement of lithic raw materials (modified from Tankersley 1991)................84

Figure 6. Distance and direction from geologic source for early Paleoindian fluted points

(A and B fluted points, A and B geologic sources; scale in km)...........................34

Figure 7. Bearings of fluted points from geologic source (entire sample)........................36

Figure 8. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (eastern A and B

fluted points)........................................................................................................38

Figure 9. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (western A and B

fluted points)........................................................................................................40

Figure 10. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (Northeast A and B

fluted points)........................................................................................................42

Figure 11. Bearing frequencies of fluted points form geologic source (Southeast A and B

fluted points)........................................................................................................44

Figure 12. Frequency of fluted points within distance ranges of 40km(A and B fluted

points)....................................................................................................................45

Figure 13. Bearing frequencies for fluted points removed ≥100 km from geologic

source(A and B fluted points)..............................................................................47

Figure 14. Bearing frequencies for western fluted points ≥100 from geologic source(A

and B fluted points)..............................................................................................48

Figure 15. Bearings of fluted points removed ≥200 km from geologic source(A and B

fluted points)........................................................................................................50

Figure 16. Frequency of bearings of fluted points ≥300 km from geologic source (A and

B fluted points)....... …………...............……...…................……....................…52

vii

Figure 17. Bearing frequencies of fluted points ≥400 km from geologic source (A and B

fluted points)..........................................................................................................53

Figure 18. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic sources; 'A' fluted

points......................................................................................................................56

Figure 19. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Western 'A' fluted

points……………........................................…........………..................................58

Figure 20. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Eastern 'A' fluted

points......................................................................................................................60

Figure 21. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Northeast 'A' fluted

points ……………………………………………...........................……............62

Figure 22. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Southeast 'A' fluted

points…..................................................................................................................64

Figure 23. Bearing frequencies for fluted points ≥ 100 km from geologic source (all 'A'

fluted points)..........................................................................................................66

Figure 24. Bearing frequencies of Clovis lithics from geologic source from directly dated

contexts (as determined by Waters and Stafford 2007).........................................68

Figure 25. Bearings of fluted points from geologic source; all dated contexts with sourced

lithics from Waters and Stafford 2007..................................................................70

1

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have suggested that directional patterns in Early Paleoindian fluted

points relative to their geologic sources represent human movement during the initial

colonization of the Americas (e.g. Tankersley 1991). Where and when people initially

entered the Americas and the direction and speed of their colonization remain topics of

debate in archaeology, especially in view of growing evidence for a pre-Clovis

occupation (e.g. Adovasio and Pedler 2004; Gilbert et al. 2008; Dillehay 1997; Waters

and Stafford 2007). Many have suggested that Early Paleoindians colonized the

Americas quickly from the Northwest (e.g. C.V. Haynes 2005; Hoffecker et al. 1993;

Kelly and Todd 1988). The Solutrean colonization model (Bradley and Stanford 2004),

on the other hand, proposes that people colonized North America from the east by

travelling along the North Atlantic ice sheets from Western Europe. I evaluate these

claims by looking at the directionality of fluted points from their geologic sources.

Controversy surrounds nearly all areas of Early Paleoindian research, though

archaeologists commonly describe Early Paleoindian Clovis culture as the earliest

unambiguous archaeological tradition in North America (e.g. C.V. Haynes 2005; G.

Haynes 2002). Early Paleoindian lithic tools typically exhibit fine craftsmanship (e.g.

Bradley and Frison 1991; Hayden 1982), demonstrated in fluted lanceolate projectile

points preferentially made from high-quality lithic raw materials (e.g. Goodyear 1979;

Haynes 1982:387; Stanford 1991:2). Clovis lithic assemblages are dominated by biface

technology (e.g. Amick 1999:2; Bement 1999:149, Boldurian 1991; Collins 1999:23;

Custer 1984:51; Hofman 1992:199; Kelly and Todd 1988:237; Wilke et al. 1991)

2

although early Paleoindian blade tools are becoming more clearly defined (e.g. Buchanan

and Collard 2010; Collins 1999).

Many describe early Paleoindians as highly mobile (e.g. Kelly and Todd 1988;

Surovell 2000) hunters of Pleistocene megafauna (Frison 1998; Kelly and Todd 1988;

Waguespack and Surovell 2003) while others question the importance of hunting to

Paleoindian subsistence and social organization (e.g. Cannon and Meltzer 2004; Meltzer

1993). Regardless of whether or not fluted points were used to hunt large game, they

were lost, discarded, and cached on the landscape by Paleoindians. The current record

suggests early Paleoindian fluted points date within a time span of less than 1,000 years,

11,500-10,800 BP uncalibrated (e.g. G. Haynes 2002), and represent a continent-wide

cultural pattern (e.g. Collins 1999:39; Frison 1991:321;Stanford 1991:10; Waters and

Stafford 2007; but see for example Meltzer 1989,1993). Fluted projectile points recorded

in locations far removed from their geologic sources suggest Paleoindians transported

high-quality toolstone long distances, and had generally large range mobility (sensu

Binford 1980; e.g. Collins 1999:35,40; Goodyear 1989; Hayden 1982; Haynes 2002:114,

1982; Kelly and Todd 1988; Macdonald 1968; Meltzer 1989; Wilmsen 1974; Wittoft

1952).

Colonization Models

Until recently, the standard model of colonization from the northwest via the

Bering Strait was generally accepted: the Bering Strait was exposed as a land bridge

towards the end of the last glacial maximum (Figure 1), and people could have crossed

3

from northeastern Asia into North America. As hunters following game, people would

have progressed southward through an ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and

Cordilleran ice sheets, then rapidly populated the continent (e.g. C.V. Haynes 2005).

Recent research suggests that the ice-free corridor may not have been open early enough

to accommodate the earliest archaeological dates in North America (Dyke et al. 2002;

Wilson and Burns 1999) and even if open was likely uninhabitable (Mandryk et al. 2001;

but see Fiedel 2000; Fladmark 1983:29 and J. Driver 1996). As researchers reinterpret

paleoenvironmental data and debate the habitability of the passage, the concept of the ice-

free corridor as a conduit for colonization appears less probable, and other scenarios are

gaining support. Colonization along the northwest coast may be a more viable alternative

to the ice free corridor (Dixon 1999; Mandryk 2001; but see Surovell 2003).

Once people arrived in North America, they encountered an environment with no

modern analog, undergoing rapid environmental change and reorganization (Graham and

Lundelius 1984, Guthrie 1984; Lundelius 1989). As support for the traditional model of

colonization, Kelly and Todd (1988) suggest hunting-based subsistence for colonizing

populations because it would have been easily maintained through a variety of

environments. Analysis of Clovis biface technology and other evidence of technological

adaptations to high mobility also support this colonization scenario (Kelly 1988; Kelly

and Todd 1988). Anderson and Gillam (2000) propose least-cost corridors calculated

from geographic and paleoenvironmental data as travel routes for Paleoindians migrating

inland, including the ice-free corridor, the mouth of the Columbia River, the Isthmus of

Panama, or the Great Plains, in which physiographic barriers such as mountains, canyons,

4

or bodies of water would not have hindered dispersal. Fluted point distributions

documented in the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (Anderson 1990a) appear to

support the suggested least-cost pathways and aggregation areas (Anderson and Gillam

2000; Anderson 1990b:187). However, Prasciunas (2009:44) suggests fluted point

densities are largely a product of visibility.

The Solutrean hypothesis proposes hunters implementing a maritime subsistence

strategy traveled from Europe to North America‘s eastern shore by following the North

Atlantic ice sheet edge in pursuit of marine mammals (Bradley and Stanford 2004). The

Solutrean model cites the lack of incontrovertible evidence for Clovis origins in Siberia

and Alaska, and notes similarities between Clovis and Solutrean technology (e.g.

Bolderian and Cotter 1999). In response, critics argue that there are many technological

differences between Clovis and Solutrean technologies as well as similarities, and suggest

that technological parallels merely indicate people throughout the globe during the

Pleistocene had some analogous traditions and technological needs (G. Haynes 2002:169;

Jelinik 1971; Straus 2000a; Straus et al. 2005).

The temporal span of Clovis remains unclear because many early Paleoindian

sites lack radiocarbon dates. Nevertheless, researchers have incorporated radiocarbon

data into several different colonization models. For example, based on the 11 dates in

their analysis, Waters and Stafford (2007:1125) propose that Clovis technology could

have covered the continent in as little as 300 years, and suggest based on this short

temporal window that Clovis lithic technological attributes spread through pre-existing

populations (Waters and Stafford 2007; but see Haynes et al. 2007; see also Surovell

5

2000; Prasciunas 2009:69-86). Since the oldest radiocarbon dates for Clovis are from the

southeast (Barker and Broster 1996), and the youngest dates from the west (Stafford et al.

1991), Bradley and Stanford (2004) propose that ―there is a clear overlapping of

declining radiocarbon ages from Solutrean, Cactus Hill, Meadowcroft, Page-Ladson, and

the earliest Clovis in the East and western Clovis‖ (Bradley and Stanford 2004:472).

However, another interpretation of available radiocarbon dates from early Paleoindian

contexts proposes spatial gradients in early dates support rapid colonization from the

northwest (Hamilton and Buchanan 2007). The Paisley Cave locality has recently added

intriguing complications to the timing issue (Gilbert et al. 2008), while more refined

dating techniques have inspired re-testing of archaeological samples to obtain more

accurate and precise dates towards clarifying the temporal span of Clovis (e.g. Waters

and Stafford 2007). Still, Prasciunas (2009:81) notes that our current sample of dates is

simply too small to accurately estimate the duration of Clovis, and that there are no

reliable dates on Clovis west of the Rocky Mountains.

Colonization Models and Fluted Point Distributions

Archaeologists have long used fluted point spatial distributions to postulate

Paleoindian mobility strategies (e.g. Brennan 1982, Di Peso 1953, Dorwin 1966, Dragoo

1976; Kehoe 1966; McCary 1947; Mason 1958, 1962; Prufer and Baby 1963; Rolingson

1964; Seeman and Prufer 1982; Williams and Stoltman 1965). Researchers also

commonly use fluted point distribution data to identify and evaluate regional and

continental trends (e.g. Anderson et al. 2005; Anderson and Faught 1998; Blackmar

6

2001; Holen 2001), and to test colonization models (e.g. Anderson 1990b, Anderson and

Faught 1998; 2000; Anderson and Gillam 2000; Morrow and Morrow 1999; Steele et al

1998). For example, Anderson (1990b:187) uses fluted point densities to support

proposed ‗staging areas‘ from which colonization of the east proceeded. Anderson and

Faught (1998) identify densities of fluted points in resource-rich areas as evidence of

hubs of early Paleoindian group ranges (Anderson and Faught 1998; Anderson and

Gillam 2000:56-60).

Tankersley (1991) mapped the distribution of nine Early Paleoindian fluted points

and one additional flake in the Midwest and Northeast. The distribution, though a small

sample, supports a rapid colonization from the northwest, and suggests movement to the

south and east (Tankersley 1991). Tankersley posits that the maximum distributions of

Knife River Flint (2,050 km) and Hixton Silicified Sandstone (900 km) reflect

colonization movement as people emerged from the ice-free corridor (Tankersley

1991:290; Figures 1 and 2 [maps modified from Tankersley 1991). Steele and others

(1998) compare simulated human dispersals derived from demographic models with

fluted point densities, and find that fluted point distributions vary with environmental

carrying capacity rather than routes of human dispersal. Prasciunas (2009:35) also

observes that high point densities in the East do not necessarily contradict a model of

colonization from the Northwest, given the lack of reliable radiocarbon dates in the east

(see also Prasciunas, in press).

In contrast, several researchers suggest that greater numbers of fluted points in the

east indicate Clovis technology originated there rather than the west or northwest

7

(Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000; see also Mason 1962:234-35; Figure 1.3 [map

showing PIDBA distribution of fluted points]. Some archaeologists argue that more

morphological variability among fluted points in eastern North America, as well as

greater numbers of points, supports an eastern origin for Clovis technology (e.g. Stanford

1991: 9-10) and hence the Solutrean model of colonization (Bradley and Stanford 2004;

but see Prasciunas 2009).

Lithic Transport and Human Mobility Patterns

Researchers of Early Paleoindians have no adequate ethnographic analogy (Kelly

1992:56; Kelly and Todd 1988;) and lithic artifacts are often the only archaeological

evidence of Paleoindians preserved in the archaeological record. As a result,

archaeologists must use lithic analyses to address questions about mobility, settlement

patterns and technological change (e.g. Amick 1996; Andrefsky 1994a, 1998; Binford

1979; Brantingham 2003; Dibble 1991; Kelly 1988, 1992, 2001; Kuhn 1995; Jones and

Beck 1999; Shott 1986; Nelson 1991; Odell 1989b, 2004; Shott1989b; Torrence 1983).

Mobility and availability of raw material influence how people organize the

procurement, manufacture, use and discard of lithics (e.g. Andrefskey 1994a, 1994b;

Bamforth 1986; Kuhn 1995; Odell 1996; Parry and Kelly 1987). For example, lithic

analysts agree that bifaces are efficiently transported and thus frequently used by highly

mobile people (Kelly 1988; Kelly and Todd 1988; Kuhn 1995:22; Shott 1989a, 1989b;

but see Prasciunas 2007).

8

Binford (1979:261) suggested that recording direct procurement of lithic raw

material by people (archaeologically measured by documenting the distance of the

artifact from its geologic source) is a way to evaluate the scale of their mobility.

However, the distance people transport raw material does not reveal the frequency or

timing of their movements (Shott 1986:21), and shows range rather than mobility (Kelly

1992:55). Further, the positioning of a settlement system relative to a lithic source could

result in an archaeological pattern that appears one-way and directional, if people were

moving back and forth between a raw material location and the furthest reaches of their

settlement range (Hofman 2003:234).

Exchange is another way that lithic raw material can be transported across the

landscape, and may explain some of the long-distance transport of artifacts evident in the

early Paleoindian record (Hayden 1982, Meltzer 1989:37). However, considering the low

population density, lack of surplus, and the need for quality lithic material for tools,

economic trade among early human populations in the Americas is unlikely (Kelly and

Todd 1988:239-240; Bamforth 2002, Jones and Beck 1999, Jones et al. 2003, Meltzer

1989).

Research Goals

Archaeologists have yet to agree on what archaeological signature would be left

by a colonizing population. Some propose that directional movement of early

Paleoindian fluted points from their geologic sources shows directional patterns of

human movement resulting from initial colonization of the Americas (e.g. Tankersley

9

1991). However, interpreting patterns of fluted points as evidence of colonization

movement requires that colonization progressed in a consistent direction, was rapid, and

that the overall pattern of the earliest fluted points at a continental scale will be apparent

despite back-and-forth directional movements or patterns accumulated over time.

To evaluate fluted point distributions touted as evidence for colonization models,

I analyze spatial relationships between early Paleoindian fluted point locations and their

respective lithic raw material sources to see if a significant directional pattern is present

throughout North America:

1) If Early Paleoindian fluted points are the material remnants of a colonizing

population, and

1a) If that population colonized the continent as rapidly as some estimate (e.g.

Kelly and Todd 1988; Surovell 2000), and

2) If movement of lithic material in this case also represents people moving,

Then:

A) Colonization from the northwest should result in Early Paleoindian fluted points

transported primarily south and east of their geologic sources, or, alternatively,

B) Colonization from Europe should result in movement of fluted points to the west and

south of lithic raw materials.

The analysis could produce several outcomes:

1) First, there could be a continental pattern of fluted points distributed east and south of

their geologic sources, supporting rapid colonization from the northwest.

10

2) Alternatively, the results could show fluted points distributed west and south of their

geologic sources, supporting the Solutrean colonization model (Stanford 1990:1; Bradley

and Stanford 2004).

3) A continent-wide pattern of lithic raw material transport in other directions, for

instance, north, does not accommodate any present colonization scenario, but may

suggest some new ones.

4) If there is no pattern, then either

a) Clovis people were not a colonizing population, or

b) Colonization occurred more slowly that anticipated by Kelly and Todd (1988),

since initial directional movement may have been subsequently masked by

―rearward‖ movement.

5) Ambiguous or conflicting patterns suggest that locating fluted points relative to their

geologic sources is not a viable way to identify colonization movement, either because of

a ) lack of temporal control of fluted point types,

b) incomplete understanding of early Paleoindian lithic technological organization

and change, or

c) insufficient or inconsistent sampling.

The relationship between movement of lithics and human mobility is complex

and varied through time and space; for example, projectile points have different use-lives,

are used for different tasks, and may have a social significance different from that of

other artifacts. Such factors affect their distribution on the landscape. This analysis tests

the value of fluted point distributions as supporting evidence for direction of colonization

11

of the Americas: if regional analyses using current fluted point data have indeed

documented trends resulting from colonization, then the general directionality of

movement should also be preserved at a continental scale. Assuming that colonization of

the Americas by early Paleoindians was consistently directional and rapid, toolstone

should move away from its geologic source in ways that signal which colonization model

is correct.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sources of Data

The early Paleoindian fluted point locations and lithic raw material types in this

dataset come from sources listed in the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (Anderson

et al. 2005; Anderson 1990a), and from published literature not yet included in the

PIDBA. The PIDBA is administered by the Department of Anthropology of the

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and consists of ―individual country/state/province

pages‖ that list individual fluted points and their attributes by region, and the ―locational

database.‖ The PIDBA locational database contains fluted point totals by county or

province, but is not yet connected to information about the attributes of individual points

(such as raw material) recorded in the ―individual country/state/province pages,‖

hereafter the ―attribute database.‖ Therefore, the map of sourced fluted points in my

dataset (Figure 4) is newly generated, drawn in part from primary sources referenced in

the PIDBA, and in part from my own literature search.

12

Researchers studying fluted point distribution data have long acknowledged that

survey bias, modern population concentrations, and geomorphological processes affect

distributions of fluted points (e.g. Dorwin 1966:148; Lepper 1983:276; Mason 1962:235;

Prasciunas 2009; Seeman and Prufer 1982:158-159; Shafer 2006; Shott 2002). Many

have also noted that numbers of fluted points do not necessarily equate with numbers of

people on the landscape in the past (e.g. Buchanan 2003; Shafer 2006; Shott 2002; but

see Steele et al.1998). A recent evaluation of the PIDBA fluted point distribution,

combined with additional western data (Prasciunas 2009) demonstrates that modern

population distributions, agricultural activity, environmental productivity, and areas of

archaeological research do significantly correlate with PIDBA fluted point distributions.

While acknowledging these concerns, many researchers also suggest that the

distribution of fluted points still contributes to understanding Clovis use of the landscape

(e.g. Meltzer and Bever (1995:52-53). Blackmar (2001:75-76) suggests that it is possible

that fluted point distributions do represent early population densities and movements,

emphasizing that the archaeological record is inherently an incomplete sample of the

past. Prasciunas‘s work (2009) suggests that this is true, if sample biases are taken into

account. Similarly, Buchanan demonstrates that high point densities remain in some areas

even after filtering for biases (2003:333) and supports Anderson and Gillam (2000) and

Anderson and Faught (1998). Seen at a continental scale, the distribution of fluted points

should provide some information about Clovis land use, including population density

(accounting for sample bias) and possible direction of movement.

13

Of the 11,960 early Paleoindian fluted points in the PIDBA (http://pidba.utk.edu;

accessed April 24, 2008), I found published data on lithic raw material source for

approximately 2,100 points. This is 18% of the sample; the remaining fluted points are

made from either unnamed local raw material, unidentified raw material, or only a

general lithic type (e.g. gray chert). Although they certainly represent a large part of

early Paleoindian lithic technological organization and mobility pattern, unsourced fluted

points could not be included in my sample because I could not measure their direction

from geologic source.

Organization of Data

Temporal and Typological Designations

Archaeologists have long been challenged by the complex task of placing lithic

artifacts in temporal and cultural context. Early Paleoindian fluted projectile points in

particular defy researchers to agree on subtleties of either typological or temporal

classification. Some argue that fluted points cannot be lumped together because of

variation in technology, such as reduction trajectory, size, and shape. For example, some

archaeologists separate Gainey points in the Great Lakes area from Clovis points (Barrish

1995; Ellis and Deller 1997; Morrow 1996, Shott 1986; also see Anderson and Faught

1998b), while others consider them a variant of Clovis (e.g. G. Haynes 2002). Although

many researchers agree that eastern points have different morphology, they still represent

the earliest population in some areas, and therefore are appropriately included in

colonization research (Haynes et al. 1984).

http://pidba.utk.edu/

14

Still, noticing that the manufacturing trajectory for Clovis points is comparable

throughout North America (e.g. Morrow 1997, 1995, 1996), several researchers agree

that the archaeological record ―…was never so similar across the continent as during

Clovis‖ times (Haynes 2002:91). Others cite the widespread similarity of early

Paleoindian fluted points throughout the continent (Brennan 1982, Byers 1954, Dincauze

1993, Dunbar 1991, Frison 1991, Haynes 1966, 1982, Kelly and Todd 1988; Lepper and

Meltzer 1991, Mason 1962, Morse and Morse 1983, Stanford 1991, Willey 1966, Willig

1991, Wormington 1957, but see Meltzer 1993; for more examples, see Haynes 2002 and

Collins 1999 and references therein). Lack of temporal control for Early Paleoindian

points is problematic for both the lumpers and splitters of lithic typology. Rather than

propose an explanation for variability in fluted points, this study considers early

Paleoindian fluted points, including Clovis, Gainey, Debert, and others, as one temporal

and typological group, and defines ―Early Paleoindian‖ as the earliest recognized material

culture in a given region.

My sample includes all early Paleoindian fluted points found through PIDBA

references and other literature. Points that are definitively typed by the researcher as

Clovis, Early Paleoindian fluted, or regionally-named variants of early Paleoindian fluted

projectile points are coded ‗A‘ in my data set. A code of ‗B‘ represents points that are

potentially early Paleoindian but ambiguous, either because the researcher could not

definitively type the point or because the ―point‖ is a fluted preform in context with an

amalgamation of early to late Paleoindian occupations. I occasionally recorded non-

projectile point lithic artifacts from secure Clovis contexts in my sample as code ‗C,‘ but

15

they are not included in these analyses, except for Figures 24-25, and Tables 16-17.

‗Entire sample‘ refers to A and B coded artifacts.

Although unavoidable for this study, considering only fluted points biases the

sample several ways. First, people use fluted projectile points differently than other

artifacts, impacting all parts of lithic technological organization, from procurement of

particular lithic raw material (e.g. Goodyear 1989) to location of discard. Hunting, for

example, can result in points used and discarded farther from residence areas or on

different parts of the landscape than other artifacts. Compared to other artifact types,

fluted points may have been curated longer, or manufactured, used and discarded with

different expectations regarding efficiency (sensu Binford 1973, 1977, 1979; see also

Shott 1996; Bamforth 1986; Shott1989a, Torrence 1983). Currently, however, Clovis

fluted points and early Paleoindian fluted point variants as defined by different

researchers are the only lithic artifacts unequivocally diagnostic of early Paleoindians.

Lithic Raw Materials

Lithic raw material sources are often difficult for archaeologists to reliably

identify. Geologic definitions can be too broad; for example, many of the chert types in

Tennessee are geological derivatives of Fort Payne chert, yet archaeologists and

flintknappers differentiate variations, such as Buffalo River or Horse Creek, both in their

spatial distribution and in macroscopic physical attributes. Other times, unknown lithic

types may be falsely identified as common well-known lithic raw materials. To organize

the sourced lithics in my data set, I created codes to describe the reliability of the

geologic source information I collected (e.g. Kilby 2008:144-145). A code of ‗A‘

16

represents an artifact identified to a particular source by the researcher. This includes

materials described in a published source and/or which have some distinctive attribute,

such as color, inclusions, texture, or fluorescence. ‗B‘ indicates the lithic raw material

type is the researcher‘s best guess in the absence of certainty. ‗B‘ also describes raw

materials which are named and well-recognized, but available over a somewhat broad

area; for example, those distributed beyond a circle 100 km in diameter (Figure 5). A

code of ‗C‘ covers artifacts made of a material that has many look-alikes, is availably

over an extremely broad area and/or in secondary deposits (e.g. Coastal Plains chert), or

is otherwise problematic. ‗C‘ also describes lithic raw materials recorded only by general

lithic material and/or color (e.g. grayish-brown chert). I did not include ‗C‘ coded raw

materials in the study. I evaluated lithic raw material sources on a case-by case basis, and

used only sources that have a discrete location or an approximate center-point from

which to measure directionality. In the case of materials that outcrop over a somewhat

broad area (―B‘s‖), I used the center point of the outcrop; for linear distributions, such as

cherts outcropping along a ridgeline I used the approximate point where lines would meet

if the outcrop was bisected north-south and east-west. There are many, many lithic raw

material sources throughout the U.S.; for this study, I included only those raw material

sources connected to a fluted point in the analysis. Analyses referring to ‗entire sample‘

include both ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ coded lithic raw materials.

Spatial Resolution

To prevent large, well-documented sites such as Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1

from exerting disproportionate directional pull on the dataset, I collapsed fluted points

17

attributed to particular sites to one data point. As many researchers note, the number of

moves represented by transported raw materials is unclear (e.g. Hofman 2003; Shott

1986). While it may be that some large early Paleoindian sites are aggregates of many

directional moves by people, evaluating each of them is beyond the scope of this study.

On the other hand, some of the isolates in the dataset may be associated with centers of

activity not yet defined as sites, or related to documented sites (e.g. fluted point isolates

in Benton county Tennessee could be related to activities at Carson-Conn-Short). The

continental scale of my sample mitigates these concerns.

In my data set, a code of ‗A‘ represents the location of fluted points documented

either at a specific site or an area more specific than a county designation. Alternatively,

I used a precise but approximate center point for each county. Many of the point

locations in the original PIDBA locational database were also obtained using county-

level data, so the scale of my sample is comparable to the scale used in the PIDBA

(Shane Miller and Steve Yerka, personal communication, November 2008). A code of

‗B‘ represents county-level resolution or resolution to an area smaller than 622 mi2

(1,611 km²), the median land area of United States counties (US Census 2000), since

eastern counties are significantly smaller in land area than counties in the western United

States. Code ‗C‘ describes the location of fluted points with even more general location

information, such as data from poorly provenienced collections or pinpointed only to

counties larger than 622 mi2 (1,611 km², most western counties). I did not include ‗C‘

level locational data in my analyses here.

18

RESULTS

Data

This analysis uses 1,298 Early Paleoindian fluted points, made from 100 different lithic

raw material sources. A scatter plot of the directions and distances of early Paleoindian

fluted points (A and B) relative to their lithic sources (A and B) suggests no particular

directional trend (Figure 6).

However, a rose histogram showing frequencies of bearings of fluted points from

their relative geologic sources corresponding to the cardinal directions suggests a

directional trend to the south (Figure 7, Table 1). In order to test for significant

directionality, I compared the frequency of bearings going north, south, east and west to a

homogeneous distribution using a χ2 test. For this analysis, north is from 315° to 44°, east

from 45° to 134°, south from 135° to 224°, and west from 225° to 314°. The sample

(n=1298) is significantly different from a homogeneous distribution (χ2=93.05; df=3;

p=<<0.01). Adjusted standardized residuals (ASR) show that there are significantly fewer

fluted points transported north and east than expected and more moving south and west.

Towards identifying regional patterns, I divided the fluted point sample into an

‗eastern sample‘ and ‗western sample‘ approximately at the Mississippi River. The

eastern sample shows a similar directional trend to the whole (χ2=97.76; df=3;

p=<<0.001) (Figure 8; Table 2). The ASRs show that there are more points moving to the

south and west than expected, and fewer than expected moving north and east. Since the

eastern sample (n=1241) constitutes 95.6% of the fluted point dataset in this study, the

19

similar trend is not surprising (see Figure 8 and Table 2 for comparison). The eastern

region is driving the overall trend for the entire sample.

Fluted points in the western sample (n=57; Figure 9, Table 3) show no significant

directional trend; a chi-square test shows the pattern is not significantly different than a

homogenous distribution (χ2=2.018 df= 3 p=0.569). To clarify, fluted points in the

western sample have not moved significantly more frequently in one direction over

another, relative to geologic source. The eastern sample is large enough to subdivide into

‗northeast‘ (Figure 10, Table 4) and ‗southeast‘ samples (Figure 11, Table 5), separated at

a latitude approximating the Mason-Dixon line. In the northeast, significantly more fluted

points are south of their geologic sources than expected, and fewer points have moved

north and west than expected (χ2=24.41 df=3 p:<<0.001).

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from source for the southeast (Figure 11,

Table 5) also show significant directionality (χ2

= 119.45; df=3; p=<<0.001). Adjusted

standardized residuals (Table 5) show significantly more fluted points than expected

south of their geologic sources, as compared to a homogenous distribution of bearings.

More fluted points than expected have also moved west, with less than expected moving

north and east.

Analysis

In summary, the Eastern sample of early Paleoindian fluted points relative to

lithic sources shows significant directionality to the south and west. The Northeast

sample shows a significant directional trend to the south, and the Southeast sample

20

(paralleling the Eastern sample as a whole) contains significantly more fluted points

located south and west of their geologic sources, and significantly fewer north and east.

The western sample of early Paleoindian fluted point bearings from geologic source

shows no significant directional trend.

Some of the directional trends identified in the sample distributions of bearings

from source could be influenced by geography. For example, the Atlantic Ocean limits

eastward movement for the eastern sample, while in the northeast, glacial coverage in the

late Pleistocene would have limited northward travel. Sample size is also an issue: the

western sample constitutes less than 5% of the entire sample of sourced early Paleoindian

fluted points included in this analysis, with 57 sourced fluted points in the west versus

1241 sourced fluted points from the east. Comparing the two regions is tenuous due to the

huge difference in sample size.

While site-level spatial analysis can certainly reveal information about human

behavior and mobility, it is not directly relevant to the continental-scale questions asked

of these data. Use of the entire dataset equates short-distance movements, such as fluted

points distributed within 10 or 20 meters around a quarry, with deliberate moves by

people. To avoid giving such short-distance ―noise‖ the same weight as long-distance

moves associated with people actually leaving a location, I filtered out fluted points

found less than 100 km from their geologic source. People transporting fluted points

long distances in a particular direction could signal a continental directional trend in

range mobility. After filtering out those points found less than 100 km from their

geologic sources, however, the outcome remains similar to the results of analysis of the

21

entire sample (Figure 13; Table 6). The distribution of fluted point bearings from

geologic source is significantly different from a homogenous distribution of bearings

from source (χ2

=107.014 df=3 p=<<0.0001; n=852) more fluted points are located south

and west of their geologic sources than expected, based on the adjusted standardized

residuals (Table 6). The western distribution of bearings of fluted points removed 100 km

or more from their geologic sources shows no significant directional pattern (Figure 14;

n=852), as it did using the complete western sample (Figure 9)(χ2=6.122; df=3

p=0.106); however the western sample is small.

After filtering the entire sample of fluted points to include only bearings of points

transported more than 200 km, 300 km, and 400 km from their geologic sources, analyses

revealed some slightly different trends. Directionality exists statistically for bearings of

points >200 km from their geologic sources, with more points than expected located west

of source. Bearing frequencies for fluted points located 200 km or more from their

geologic sources show more points located to the west than expected when compared to a

homogenous distribution (χ2 =49.301 df=3 p=<<0.0001; Figure 15; Table 7). Bearing

frequencies for fluted points located 300 km or more from geologic source (Figure 16;

Table 8) continue to show significant directionality (χ2

=104.451 df=3 p=<<0.01). More

fluted points than expected are located west of their geologic sources when they are at

least 300 km distant, while fewer than expected are located to the north, east, and south

(see ASR in Table 8). Including only fluted points transported 400 km or more from their

geologic sources, the distribution of bearings is not significantly different from a

22

homogenous distribution (Figure 17; Table 9; χ2=1.7 df=3; p=0.6369) these results may

be related to sample size (n=67).

Including only lithics more than 100 km from source changed the results of my

initial analysis only slightly, and not in a way that lends support to any particular

colonization model (Figures 13-17; Table 6 and Table 15; Figure 23). Also, distance and

direction are not correlated using this dataset (r2=0.01383).

The level of confidence in the fluted point attribute data and lithic raw material

identification could also influence results. After filtering the sample to include only those

fluted points with secure attribute data (the ‗A‘ sample; based on criteria described in

Chapter 2: Materials and Methods), the directional trends evident from the entire sample

remain, suggesting that the original sample is robust (Figures 18-22; Tables 10-14).

Using only the ‗A‘ sample, the frequency of bearings in any particular direction

also does not vary significantly when distances of less than 100 km are excluded from the

sample (Table 15; Figure 23).

Several researchers have evaluated radiocarbon dates from early Paleoindian sites

to support their ideas about the timing and direction of colonization (e.g. Waters and

Stafford 2007, Steele et al. Bradley and Stanford 2004:472; Hamilton and Buchanan

2007). Of 22 dated Clovis sites identified in their study, Waters and Stafford (2007) use

11 sites to assess the duration of Clovis, a prohibitively small sample size for my

purposes (e.g. Prasciunas 2009:84). To include more data points, I analyzed the direction

of lithic raw material movement from geologic source including all early Paleoindian

sites considered directly dated by Waters and Stafford (2007), using 22 sites and 23

23

sourced artifacts. Because these sites are directly dated as Clovis, I allowed two non-

projectile point lithic artifacts into the sample that are not necessarily diagnostic (code

‗C‘). The pattern in direction of raw material movement is not significantly different from

that of a homogenous distribution of bearings from source; i.e. equal numbers of fluted

points moving in each direction (Table 16, Figure 24; χ2=3.3 df= 3 p=0.05; n=23). When

I included sourced lithics associated with dates considered problematic by Waters and

Stafford (2007), a slightly larger sample size of 33 sourced artifacts, there was also no

significant directional trend ( χ2=1.1 df= 3 p=0.05; Table 17; Figure 25).

DISCUSSION

Researchers who suggest colonization as an explanation for directional patterns in

fluted point distributions emphasize that their results should be evaluated with more

robust sample sizes and at a larger scale (e.g. Tankersley 1991; Anderson 1990). The

sample in this analysis, though not exhaustive, is sufficient to assess whether regional

directional patterns remain evident continent-wide. Results do show a directional trend:

significantly more points than expected are located west and south of their geologic

sources, and fewer are located to the east and north (Table 1, Figure 7). These results

nullify claims that regional-scale southeasterly trends in fluted point movement are

incontrovertible evidence of rapid continent-scale colonization, and superficially support

the Solutrean colonization model (Bradley and Stanford 2004). However, the results also

challenge uncritical acceptance of directional patterns in fluted point distribution as

evidence for colonization.

24

Many variables past and present influence the distribution of fluted points over

North America. For example, the continent wide trend evident in the results (Table 1,

Figure 7) is driven by fluted point distributions in the Southeast, where researchers have

recorded significantly more points. Archaeologists have long noted that the sample of

fluted points for eastern North America is greater than for the west (e.g. Mason 1962),

and provide varying explanations (see Prasciunas 2009). In the east, the Atlantic would

have constrained people‘s eastward movement, though it is unclear whether this would

significantly influence the direction of lithic transport for all of the area east of the

Mississippi River, or if the restricting influence of the ocean was confined to the coastal

plain; if so then the additional land exposed to the east during the late Pleistocene and

patterns therein are currently inundated. In the Late Pleistocene Northeast, the Laurentide

glacier would have blocked lithic transport to the north, while the Atlantic Ocean

provided a barrier to the east (see Figure 10). Although it is difficult to quantify how

much influence these geographic barriers would have had on lithic transport, they must

be considered in view of the south and west movement from geologic source for fluted

points in the east. In other words, movement of lithics to the south and west could be

telling us only that there was no place to transport points, not that colonization movement

was to the south and west.

Archaeologists have developed theoretical models of what the material correlates

of a colonizing population should be regarding the distribution of lithics, but they provide

avenues for research rather than the answers themselves. With few examples of

ethnographically-known lithic technology (see Gould 1980, 1985; Gould and Saggers

25

1985; O‘Connell 1977; Weedman 2006) evaluating expectations and interpretations of

prehistoric lithic patterns has been difficult. For example, similarity in artifact form

(Abbot‘s reputed Paleoliths found in the Trenton gravels in the 1870‘s) was equated with

similarity in age because of imperfect understanding of lithic technology (see Meltzer

1983 for review]. In this case, faulty expectations and misunderstanding of lithic

technology led to incorrect conclusions about prehistoric people.

Archaeologists attribute patterns in fluted point distribution to colonization based

on hypotheses about what archaeological signature a colonizing population should have.

As noted by Kelly and Todd (1988) early Paleoindians have no ethnographic analog.

Consequently, researchers‘ expectations for colonization behavior may be unsound. Kelly

(1992) investigates the theoretical approaches that archaeologists use to infer patterns of

mobility among past populations, suggesting that not all mobility practices of past

populations may fit ethnographically observed behavior. Expectations for the duration of

colonization laid out in this analysis, while theoretically sound and based on current

anthropological knowledge, remain unverified. Even if researchers could view the earliest

sites left by initial colonizers unmodified by time, it is unclear whether or not the

expectations for a directional pattern in this analysis would prove to be correct.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that using directional patterns in movement of fluted points to

support colonization scenarios can be problematic for two primary reasons: first, there are

recovery biases in the sample, and second, lack of temporal control for fluted points in

26

most of the Americas disallows distinguishing an initial pattern for the first fluted points

discarded on the landscape from subsequent early Paleoindian lithic transport. Simply

because there is a pattern does not mean it is relevant to prehistoric behavior, and

selecting only the data points that fit a particular model is not useful. Directional patterns

in fluted point distributions could indeed be remnants of colonization, but deciphering

those patterns remains challenging.

Despite interpretive challenges, fluted point densities and regional directional

movements derived from distributions of lithic artifacts remain relevant to understanding

Paleoindian landscape use and lithic technological organization, and this study suggests

several avenues for further research. First, adding more data to the western sample is

essential to understanding fluted point distributions. If an expanded western sample

records a biased distribution to the south and west, then it is less likely that the ice sheets

and Atlantic Ocean are the cause of such a biased pattern in the eastern sample. A

comparison between Paleoindian and later (e.g. Archaic) point type distributions may

help to determine whether patterns are the result of Early Paleoindian mobility or are the

result of other factors, such as geographic barriers constraining movement. Additionally,

patterns must be identified in clear temporal windows, and compared to other time

periods to define trends; for example, comparing the early Paleoindian patterns of lithic

movement to patterns in middle and late Paleoindian times could shed light on

Paleoindian landscape use, as could analyzing directional patterns in fluted point

movement in conjunction with lithic raw material availability.

27

As discussed at the opening of this paper, a continental pattern of directional

movement of fluted points from their geologic sources could signal colonization

movement,

1) If Early Paleoindian fluted points are the material remnants of a colonizing

population, and

1a) If that population colonized the continent as rapidly as some estimate (e.g.

Kelly and Todd 1988; Surovell 2000), and

2) If movement of lithic material in this case also represents people moving.

Implementing the criteria above,

A) Colonization from the northwest should result in Early Paleoindian fluted points

transported primarily south and east of their geologic sources, or, alternatively,

B) Colonization from Europe should result in movement of fluted points to the west and

south of lithic raw materials.

Among the possible outcomes of the analysis outlined in the introduction, only

two appear to be supported by the results, varying based on the sub-sample analyzed:

1) for the entire sample, fluted points lie to the south and west of their geologic sources,

and

2) some sub-samples show no patterning (not significantly different from a homogenous

distribution of bearing from source).

No significant patterns in fluted point direction from geologic source are apparent

in other directions; for example, there is no overall pattern of movement to the east and

south of geologic sources, therefore colonization movement (as described above) from

28

the northwest is not supported by this particular analysis. For the entire continental

sample analyzed, fluted points are primarily distributed to the west and south of their

geologic sources, which at first glance supports the Solutrean colonization model

(Stanford 1990:1, Bradley and Stanford 2004).

However, breaking the dataset down by region shows that the density of sourced

fluted points in this dataset is quite uneven across the continent: far more points from the

East are included than from the west. Directional trends in fluted point movement from

sources in the East trend for the entire continental sample (see Figures 18 and 20).

Considering the sample discrepancies, the colonization hypotheses explaining no pattern

or inconclusive patterning of directionality in fluted points cannot be ruled out: if fluted

point distributions relative to their geologic sources show no statistically significant

pattern (or ambiguous or conflicting patterns), and our assumptions for colonizing

behavior are correct, then lack of temporal control of fluted point types, incomplete

understanding of early Paleoindian lithic technological organization and change, or

insufficient or inconsistent sampling could be influencing directional trends.

While temporal and typological differentiation of Paleoindian fluted points

remain loaded discussion topics among archaeologists, the sampling issues are more

straightforward to address (although clearly not without complexity, e.g. Prasciunas

2009). The pattern of fluted points distributed south and west must be evaluated again

with a more robust western sample. If the south-west trend yet remains for the entire

continent, then the directional pattern may be evidence of lithic transport associated with

a colonizing population from the Northeast. For now, the exact association among lithic

29

raw material sources, Early Paleoindian fluted point distributions, and colonization

movement remains uncertain.

30

Figure 1. Traditional hypothesized route of colonizers through the ice-free corridor.

31

Figure 2. Movement of lithic raw materials (modified from Tankersley 1991).

32

Figure 3. Fluted point distribution from the Paleoindian Database of the Americas

(Anderson, Miller, Yerka and Faught 2005)

33

Figure 4. Distribution of sourced fluted points (A and B sample for fluted points and lithic

sources).

34

Figure 6. Distance and direction from geologic source for early Paleoindian fluted points (A

and B fluted points, A and B geologic sources; scale in km).

35

Table 1. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (entire sample)

Direction # of Bearings % ASRs

N 215 17% -10

E 273 21% -5

S 441 34% 11

W 369 28% 4

Total 1298 100%

36

Figure 7. Bearings of fluted points from geologic source (entire sample).

37

Table 2. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Eastern A and B

flutted points)

Direction # of Bearings %

ASR

s

N 198 16% -10

E 262 21% -4

S 426 34% 11

W 355 29% 4

Total 1241 100%

38

Figure 8. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (Eastern A and

B fluted points).

39

Table 3. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Western A and B

Fluted Points)


ASR

s

N 17 30% 1

E 10 18% -2

S 16 28% 1

W 14 25% 0

Total 57 100%

40

Figure 9. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (western A and

B fluted points).

41

Table 4. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Northeast A and B

fluted points)


ASR

s

N 121 21% -3

E 144 25% 0

S 192 33% 7

W 118 21% -3

Total 575 100%

42

Figure 10. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (Northeast A

and B fluted points).

43

Table 5. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Southeast A and B

fluted points).


ASR

s

N 77 12% -11

E 118 18% -6

S 234 35% 9

W 237 36% 9

Total 666 100%

44

Figure 11. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source (Southeast A

and B fluted points).

45

Figure 12. Frequency of fluted points within distance ranges of 40 km, entire sample.

46

Table 6. Bearings of Fluted Points ≥100 km from Geologic Source, Entire

Sample


ASR

s

N 115 13% -11

E 178 21% -4

S 319 37% 12

W 240 28% 3

Total 852 100%

47

Figure 13. Bearing frequencies for fluted points removed ≥100 km from geologic

source (entire sample).

48

Figure 14. Bearing frequencies for western fluted points ≥100 from geologic source,

entire sample..

49

Table 7. Bearings of Fluted Points Removed ≥200 km from Geologic Source,

Entire Sample.


ASR

s

N 63 14% -7

E 93 21% -3

S 127 29% 2

W 162 36% 8

Total 445 100%

50

Figure 15. Bearings of fluted points removed ≥200 km from geologic source

(entire sample).

51

Table 8. Bearings of Fluted Points removed ≥300 km from Geologic Source,

Entire Sample.


ASR

s

N 30 13% -6

E 41 17% -4

S 39 16% -4

W 127 54% 16

Total 237 100%

52

Figure 16. Frequency of bearings of fluted points ≥300 km from geologic

source(entire sample).

53

Figure 17. Bearing frequencies of fluted points ≥400 km from geologic source

(entire sample).

54

Table 9. Bearings of Fluted Points removed ≥400 km from Geologic Source (entire sample).

Direction # of Bearings % ASR

N 14 21% -1

E 21 31% 2

S 17 25% 0

W 15 22% -1

Total 67 100%

55

Table 10. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (‗A‘ fluted points)


N 176 18% -8

E 216 22% -4

S 288 29% 4

W 322 32% 8

Total 1002 100%

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic sources Entire ‗A‘ sample of point

types:

χ2=52.9; df=3; p=<<0.001.

56

Figure 18. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic sources; 'A' fluted

points.

57

Table 11. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Western ‗A‘ fluted

point)


ASR

s

N 13 31% 1

E 10 24% 0

S 9 21% -1

W 10 24% 0

Total 42 100%

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source, Western ‗A‘ fluted points:

χ2 =0.857 df= 3 p=0.8538

58

Figure 19. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Western 'A'

fluted points.

59

Table 12. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Eastern ‗A‘ fluted

points)


ASR

s

N 163 15% -10

E 208 20% -6

S 379 36% 12

W 312 29% 5

Total 1062 100%

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source Eastern ‗A‘ fluted points:

χ2=85.566 df=3 p=<<0.001

60

Figure 20. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Eastern 'A'

fluted points.

61

Table 13. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Northeast ‗A‘ fluted

points)


ASR

s

N 97 20% -4

E 108 22% -2

S 171 35% 8

W 108 22% -2

Total 484 100%

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Northeast ‗A‘ fluted points:

χ2=28.215 df: 3 p= <<0.01.

62

Figure 21. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Northeast 'A'

fluted points.

63

Table 14. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source (Southeast ‗A‘ fluted

points)


ASR

s

N 66 11% -10

E 100 17% -6

S 208 36% 9

W 204 35% 8

Total 578 100%

Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Southeast ‗A‘ fluted points:

χ2 =115.51 df=3 p=<<0.01.

64

Figure 22. Bearing frequencies of fluted points from geologic source; Southeast 'A'

fluted points.

65

Table 15. Bearing Frequencies of Fluted Points from Geologic Source; all ‗A‘ fluted

points; ≥100 km from source.


N 89 12% -11

E 138 19% -5

S 285 39% 13

w 211 29% 4

Total 723 100%

66

Figure 23. Bearing frequencies for fluted points ≥ 100 km from geologic source (all

'A' fluted points).

67

Table 16. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source, directly dated sample (from

Waters and Stafford 2007).

Direction # of Bearings % of sample ASRs

North 6 26% 0

East 5 22% -1

South 9 39% 2

West 3 13% -2

Total 23 100%

68

Figure 24. Bearing frequencies of Clovis lithics from geologic source from directly

dated contexts (as determined by Waters and Stafford 2007).

69

Table 17. Bearings of Fluted Points from Geologic Source, all dated sites with sourced lithics

from Waters and Stafford 2007.

Direction # of Bearings % of sample ASRs

North 10 30% 1

East 8 24% 0

South 9 27% 0

West 6 18% -1

Total 33 100%

70

Figure 25. Bearings of fluted points from geologic source; all dated contexts with

sourced lithics from Waters and Stafford 2007.

71

REFERENCES CITED:

Abbot, C.C.

1876 Indications of the Antiquity of the Indians of North America, Derived

from a Study of their Relics. American Naturalist 10:65-72.

Adovasio JM, and D.R. Pedler. 2004.

2004 Pre-Clovis Sites and their Implications for Human Occupation before the

Last Glacial Maximum. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and

Beringia Before the Last Glacial Maximum, pp. 139-158. Edited by D. B.

Madsen. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Amick, Daniel S.

1996 Regional Patterns of Folsom Mobility and Land Use in the American

Southwest. World Archaeology 27:411-426.

1999 Using Lithic Artifacts to Explain Past Behavior. In Models for the

Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by C. Beck, pp.

161-170. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Anderson, David G.

1990a A North American Paleoindian Projectile Point Database. Current

Research in the Pleistocene 7:67–69.

Anderson, David G. and Michael K. Faught

1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998.

Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:163-178.

Anderson, David G. and J. Christopher Gillam

2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an

Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution.

American Antiquity 65(1):43-66.

Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, and Michael K. Faught

2005 Paleoindian Database of the Americas: 2005 Status Report. Current

Research in the Pleistocene Vol. 22:91-92.

Andrefsky, William, Jr.

1994a Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology.

American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.

Balter, Michael

72

2008 DNA From Fossil Feces Breaks Clovis Barrier. Science 320:37.

Bamforth, Douglas B.

1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity

50(1):38-50.

1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use. American

Antiquity 56:216-235.

2002 High-tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the

Great Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16:55-98.

Barker, Gary and John B. Broster

1996 The Johnson Site (40Dv400): A Dated Paleoindian and Early Archaic

Occupation in Tennessee‘s Central Basin. Journal of Alabama

Archaeology 40(2):97-153.

Barrish, Barbara L.

1995 The Paleo Crossing Site: Fluted Point Typology and Chronology.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Kent State University, Ohio.

Bement, Leland C.

1999 Bison Hunting at Cooper Site, Where Lightning Bolts Drew Thundering

Herds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Binford, Lewis R.

1973 Interassemblage variability- the Mousterian and the

'Functional' Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in

Prehistory. Edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227-254. Duckworth, London.

1977 For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic

Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling. Academic Press,

New York.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies.

Journal of Anthropological Research 35:4-20.

Blackmar, Jeanette M.

2001 Regional Variability in Clovis, Folsom, and Cody Land Use. Plains

Anthropologist 46:65-94.

Bleed, Peter

73

1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability.

American Antiquity 51:737-747.

Boldurian, A.T.

1991 Folsom Mobility and Lithic Technology: A View from Blackwater Draw,

NM. Plains Anthropologist 36:281-295.

Boldurian, A. T. and J. L. Cotter

1999 Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from

Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. University Monographs No. 103,

University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Bradley, Bruce A, and Dennis Stanford

2004 The North Atlantic Ice-edge Corridor: A Possible Paleolithic Route to the

New World. World Archaeology 36(4):459-478.

Brantingham, P. Jeffrey

2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American

Antiquity 68(3):487-509.

Brennan, L.A.

1982 A Compilation of Fluted Points of Eastern North America by Count and

Distribution: An AENA Project. Archaeology of Eastern North America

10:27-46.

Buchannan, Briggs

2003 The Effects of Sample Bias on Paleoindian Fluted Point Recovery in the

United States. North American Archaeologist 24:311-338.

Buchanan, Briggs, and Mark Collard

2008 Testing Models of Early Paleoindian Colonization and Adaptation Using

Cladistics. In Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case

Studies, pp. 59-76 M.J. O‘Brien (ed.). Washington, DC: Society for

American Archaeology.

Byers, D.

1954 Bull Brook—A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachutsetts. American

Antiquity 19: 343-351.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.

2007 Radiocarbon dating at Murray Springs and Curry Draw. In Murray

Springs: A Clovis Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the San Pedro

Valley, Arizona, edited by C. Vance Haynes, Jr., and Bruce B. Huckell,

pp. 229-239. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

74

Cannon, M.D., and David J. Meltzer

2004 Early Paleoindian Foraging: Examiniing the Faunal Evidence for Large

Mammal Specialization and Regional Variability in Prey Choice.

Quaternary Science Reviews 23(18-19):1955-1987.

Collins, Michael B.

1999a Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas, Austin.

Custer, J.F.

1984b An Analysis of Fluted Points and Paleo-Indian Site Locations from the

Delmarva Peninsula. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware

16: 1-28.

Daniel, I. Randolph

2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the

Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(2):237-265.

Di Peso, Charles C.

1953 Clovis Fluted Points from Southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity

19:82-85.

Dibble, H. L.

1991 Local Raw Material Exploitation and its Effects on Lower and Middle

Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. In Raw Material Economies among

Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen,

pp. 33-47. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19.

Dillehay, T.,

1997 Monte Verde, A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol. 2, The

Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dincauze, Dena F.

1993 Fluted Points in the Eastern Forests. In From Kostenki to Clovis, edited by

Olga Soffer and N.D. Praslov, pp. 279-292. Plenum Press, New York.

Dixon, E. James

1999 Bones, Boats, & Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of

Western North America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,

1999.

Dorwin, J.T.

75

1966 Fluted Points and Late Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Indiana

Historical Society, Prehistory Research Series 4:145-188.

Dragoo, Donald W.

1973 Wells Creek – An Early Man Site in Stewart County, Tennessee.

Archaeology of Eastern North America 1(1):1–56.

Dunbar, James S.

1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in

Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnichsen

and Karen L. Turnmire, pp. 185–214. Center for the Study of the First

Americans, Corvallis.

Dyke, Arthur S., J.T. Andrews, P.U. Clark, J.H. England, G.H. Miller, J. Shaw, and

Veillette, J.J.

2002 The Laurentide and Innuitian Ice Sheets During the Last Glacial

Maximum. Quaternary Science Reviews 21, 1-3, 2002; pages 9-31(GSC

Cont.# 2001080).

Ellis, C.J. and D. B. Deller

1997 Variability in the Archaeological Record of Northeastern Early Paleo-

Indians: A View from Southern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North

America 25:1-30.

Frison, George C.

1991 The Clovis Cultural Complex : New Data from Caches of Flaked Stone

and Worked Bone Artifacts. In Raw Material Economies Among

Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen,

pp. 321-333. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19,

Lawrence.

1998 Paleoindian Large Mammal Hunters on the Plains of North America.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America. 95(24):14576-14583.

Goodyear, Albert C.

1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among

Paleoindian Groups of North America, Research Manuscript Series, South

Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South

Carolina.

1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among

Paleoindian Groups of North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic

76

Resource Use. Christopher Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, ed. Westview Press,

Boulder.

Graham, R. W., and E.L. Lundelius, Jr.

1984 Coevolutionary Disequilibrium and Pleistocene Extinctions. In

Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S.

Martin and R.G. Klein, pp. 211-222. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Guthrie, R.D

1984 Mosaics, Allelochemics, and Nutrients: An Ecological Theory of Late

Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A

Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and R.G. Klein, pp. 259-

298. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Hamilton MJ, and B. Buchanan.

2007. Spatial Gradients in Clovis-age Radiocarbon Dates Across North America

Suggest Rapid Colonization from the North. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science 104:15625-15630.

Hayden, Brian

1982 Interaction Parameters and the Demise of Paleoindian Craftsmanship.

Plains Anthropologist 27:109-123.

Haynes, C.Vance, Jr.

1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104-112

1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia? In Paleoecology of Beringia, edited

by Hopkins D.M., J.V., Matthews, C.E. Schweger, S.B. Young, pp. 383-

398, Academic Press, New York.

Haynes, Gary

2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge

University Press, New York.

Haynes, Gary, and Dennis Stanford

1984 On the possible utilization of Camelops by early man in

North America. Quaternary Research 22: 216–230.

Haynes, Gary, D.G. Anderson, C. Reid Ferring, S. J. Fiedel, D.K. Grayson, C.V. Haynes,

Jr., V.T. Holliday, B.B. Huckell, M. Kornfeld, D.J. Meltzer, J. Morrow, T. Surovell,

N.M. Waguespack, P. Wigand, and R.M. Yohe II

2007 Comment on ―Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling

of the Americas.‖ Science 317(5836):320.

77

Hoffecker, John F.; W. Roger Powers; Ted Goebel

1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science

259:46-53.

Hofman, Jack L.

1992 Putting the Pieces Together: An Introduction to Refitting. In Piecing

Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology . J. L.

Hofman and J. G. Enloe, eds. pp. 1–20. BAR International Series 578,

Oxford.

2003 Tethered to Stone or Freedom to Move: Folsom Biface Technology in

Regional Perspective. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial

Technologies, edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 229-249.

University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,

Philadelphia.

Holen, Steven R.

2001 Clovis Mobility and Lithic Procurement on the Central Great Plains of

North America. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of Kansas.

Jelinek, Arthur J., Bruce Bradley, and Bruce Huckell

1971 The Production of Secondary Multiple Flakes. American Antiquity,

36(2):198-200.

Jones, G.T., and C. Beck

1999 Paleoarchaic Archaeology in the Great Basin. In Models for the

Millennium, edited by C. Beck, pp. 83-95. University of Utah Press, Salt

Lake City.

Jones, G.T., C. Beck, E.E. Jones, and R.E. Hughes

2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaeic Foraging Territories in the Great

Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

Kehoe, Thomas F.

1966 The Distribution and Implications of Fluted Points in Saskatchewan.


Kelly, Robert L.

1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717-734.

1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects.

Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/stable/278673?&Search=yes&term=jelinek&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Ffilter%3Djid%253A10.2307%252Fj100054%26Query%3Djelinek%26wc%3Don%26acc%3Don&item=5&ttl=140&returnArticleService=showFullText

78

1998 Foraging and Sedentism, in Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological

Perspectives from Old and New World Sites, edited by T.R. Rocek and O.

Bar-Yosef, pp.9-23. Peabody Museum Bulletin 6, Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

2001 Prehistory of the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains, Nevada:

Environment, Mobility and Subsistence. University of Utah

Anthropological Papers 123.Salt Lake City.

2003 Maybe We Do Know When People Came to North America. Quaternary

International 109-110:133-145.

Kelly, R.L. and L. Todd

1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility.


Kilby, J. David

2008 An Investigation of Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological

Organization. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology,

University of New Mexico.

Kuhn, Steven L.

1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

Lepper, Bradley T.

1983 Fluted Point Distributional Patterns in the Eastern United States: A

Contemporary Phenomenon. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology

8:269-285.

Lepper, B. T., and David J. Meltzer

1991 Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of the Eastern United States. In

Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L.

Turnmire, pp. 176-184. Center for the Study of the First Americans,

Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Lundelius, E.L., Jr.

1989 The Implications of Disharmonious Assemblages for Pleistocene

Extinctions. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:407-417.

MacDonald, G.F.

1968 Debert: A Paleoindian Site in Central Nova Scotia. National Museum of

Man. Anthropology Papers, no. 16.

79

Mandryk C.A.S., H. Josenhans, D.W. Fedje, and R. W. Mathewes

2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America:

Implications for Inland versus Coastal Migration Routes. Quaternary Science

Reviews 20:301-314.

Mason, Ronald J.

1958 Late Pleistocene Geochronology and the Paleo-Indian Penetration of the

Lower Michigan Peninsula. Anthropological Paper No. 11. Museum of

Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1962 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America. Current

Anthropology 3:227-283.

McCary, Ben C.

1947 A Survey and Study of Folsom-like Points Found in Virginia. Quarterly

Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 2.

Meltzer David J.

1983 The Antiquity of Man and the Development of American Archaeology.

In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Schiffer MB, editor.

New York: Academic Press. pp 2-51.

1989 Was Stone Exchanged Among Eastern North American Paleoindians? In

Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and L.C.

Lothrop, pp. 11-40. Westview Press, Boulder.

1993 Is There A Clovis Adaptation? In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper

Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations, edited by Olga Soffer and N.D.

Praslov, pp. 293-310. Plenum Press, New York.

Meltzer, David J. and Michael R. Bever

1995 Paleoindians of Texas: An Update on the Texas Clovis Fluted Point

Survey. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 66:47-81.

Morrow, Juliet E.

1995 Clovis Projectile Point Manufacture: A Perspective from the

Ready/Lincoln Hills Site, 11JY46, Jersey County, Illinois. Midcontinental

Journal of Archaeology 20(2):167-91.

Morrow, Juliet E.

80

1996 The Organization of Clovis Lithic Technology in the Confluence Region

of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished PhD.

Dissertation. Washington University at St. Louis.

Morrow, Juliet E.

1997 Clovis Lithic Technology at the Struttman Eikel Site. Current Research in

the Pleistocene 14-65-67.

Morrow, Juliet E. and Toby A. Morrow

1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric

Perspective. American Antiquity 64:215-231.

Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse

1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New

York.

Nelson, Margaret C.

1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Advances in Archaeological

Method and Theory, Volume 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100.

University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Odell, George H.

1989 Experiments in Lithic Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology,

edited by Daniel S. Amick and Raymond P. Mauldin, pp. 163–197. British

Archaeological Reports International Series, 528 Oxford.

1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of ―Curation.‖ In Theoretical

Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G.H. Odell, pp. 51-80. Plenum

Press, New York.

2004 Lithic Analysis. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Prasciunas, Mary M.

2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of

Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72:334-348.

2009 Clovis First? An Analysis of Space, Time, and Technology. Unpublished

PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming,

Laramie.

Prufer, O. H. and R. S. Baby

81

1963 Palaeo-Indians of Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Rolingson, N. A.

1964 Paleo-Indian Culture in Kentucky: a Study Based on Projectile Points.

Studies in Anthropology, No. 2, University of Kentucky Press. Seeman and

Prufer 1982:158-159.

Schaefer, Christopher A.

2006 A Question of Bias in the North American Fluted-Point Sample.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Florida State

University.

Shott, Michael J.

1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic

Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51.

1989a On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological

Assemblages. American Antiquity 54(1):9-30.

1989b Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic

Examination. Journal of Archaeological Research 42:15-51.

1996 An Exegesis of the Concept of Curation. Journal of Anthropological

Research 52:259-278.

2002 Sample Bias in the Distribution and Abundance of Midwestern Fluted

Bifaces. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:89-123.

Smith, Geoffrey

2006 Pre-Archaic Technological Organization, Mobility, and Settlement

Systems: A View from the Parman Localities, Humboldt County, Nevada.

Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Nevada, Reno.

Stafford, T.W., Jr., Hare, P.E., Currie, L.A., Jull, A.J.T. and Donahue, D.

1991 Accelerator radiocarbon dating at the molecular level. Journal of

Archaeological Sciences 18: 35-72

Stanford, Dennis

1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis:

Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. turnmire, pp. 1-

14. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University,

Corvallis.

Steele, James, Jonathan Adams, and Tim Sluckin

82

1998 Modeling Paleoindian Dispersals. World Archaeology 30:286-305.

Straus L. G.

2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality. American

Antiquity 65:219-226.

Surovell, Todd A.

2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American

Antiquity 65(3):493-508.

2003 Simulating coastal migration in New World colonization. Current

Anthropology 484:580-591.

Tankersley, Kenneth B.

1991 A Geoarchaeological Investigation of Distribution and Exchange in the

Raw Material Economies of Clovis Groups in Eastern North America. In

Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by

A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 285-303. University of Kansas

Publications in Anthropology 19.

Torrence, Robin

1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Technology. In Hunter-gatherer

Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective. Ed. by G. Bailey, pp.

11–22. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Waguespack, Nicole M.

2007 Why We‘re Still Arguing About the Pleistocene Occupation of the

Americas. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:63-74.

Waguspack, Nicole M., and Todd A. Surovell

2003 Clovis Hunting Strategies, or How to Make Out on Plentiful Resources.


Waters, Michael R., and T. W. Stafford

2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the

Americas. Science 315:1122-1126.

Wilke, P.J., J. Flenniken, and T.L. Ozbun

1991 Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and

Great Basin Anthropology 13:242-272.

Willey, Gordon R.

1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Vol. 1: North and Middle

America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

83

Williams S. and J. B. Stoltman

1965 An Outline of Southeastern United States Prehistory with Particular

Emphasis on the Paleo-Indian Era. In Quaternary of the United States,

edited by H. E. Wright and David G. Frey, pp.669-684. Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

Willig, Judith A.

1991 Clovis Technology and Adaptation in Far Western North America:

Regional Pattern and Environmental Context. In Clovis: Origins and

Adaptations, pp. 91-118. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire.

Center for the Study of the First Americans. Corvallis, Oregon.

Wilmsen, Edwin N.

1974 Lindenmeier: A Pleistocene Hunting Society. Harper‘s Case Studies in

Archaeology. Harper & Row, New York.

Wilson, Michael Clayton, and James A. Burns.

1999 Searching for the Earliest Canadians: Wide Corridors, Narrow Doorways,

Small Windows. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments,

Origins, and Adaptations. Edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Karen L.

Turnmire, 213–248. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Witthoft, John

1952 A Paleo-Indian Site In Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture.

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(4).

Wormington, H. Marie

1957 Ancient Man in North America, 4th

ed. Denver Museum of Natural

History, Denver.

84

Figure 5. Distribution of geologic sources of lithic raw materials in fluted point sample.

85

Map Numbers for Figure 5

Map # Lithic Material Map # Lithic Material Map # Lithic Material

1 Munsungan chert 20 Helderburg chert 37 Tallahata Qzt

2 Mt. Jasper chert 21 Flint Run Jasper 38 Ocala chert

3 Colchester Jasper 22 Aquia Formation Quartzite 39 Jackson City Agate

4 Cheshire Quartzite 23 Bayport chert 40 Florida Limestone/cherts

5 Fort Ann chert 24 Upper Mercer 41 Koskiusko

6 Edgecliff chert 25 St. Louis Green 42 Tuscaloosa Formation

7 Flint Mine Hill 25 Paoli/Carter Cave 42 Horse Creek chert

8 West Athens Hill 26 Breathitt chert 43 "Bucksnort" chert

9 Normanskill 27 Monteagle chert 43 Waverly chert

10 Onondaga chert 28 Harpers Ferry Qzt. 43 Fort Payne chert

11 Pennsylvania Jasper 29 Cattail Creek chert 43 Tuscumbia chert

12 Pennsylvania quartzite 29 Williamson chert 45 Dover chert

13 Belleville Chalcedony 29 Bolster's Store 46 St. Louis chert

14 Huronian chert 29 Mitchell chert 47 St. Genevieve chert

15 Collingwood chert 30 Carolina Slate Belt 47 Hopkinsville chert

16 Kettle Point 31 Knox chert 47 Fredonia chert

17 Plum Run chert 32 Ridley chert 48 Munfordville chert

18 Loyalhanna chert 33 Chickamauga chert 48 Buffalo River/Camden

18 Uniontown chert 34 Bangor chert 49 Kaolin chert

18 Tenmile chert 35 daltonite 50 Dongola chert

18 Monongahela chert 36 Allendale chert 51 Holland chert

19 Coshocton chert 36 Briar Creek chert 52 Wyandotte chert

86

Map Numbers for Figure 5, continued

Map # Lithic Material Map # Lithic Material Map # Lithic Material

53 Muldraugh chert 72 Arkansas Novaculite 90 Phosphoria

54 Haney chert 73

Missourian and Virginian

series 91 Alibates

55 Bryantsville chert 74 Verdi cherts 92 Tecovas qzt, jasper

56 Indian Creek chert 75 Winterset chert 93 Edwards chert

57 Upper St. Louis 76 Ervine Creek chert 94 New Braunfels chert

58 Attica chert 77

Missourian and Virginian

series 95 SE Idaho obsidian

60 Keokuk /Reeds Spring 78 Hixton Silicified Sandstone 96 Browns Bench obsidian

61 Burlington cherts 79 Knife Lake Siltstone 97 Green River Formation

62 Burlington/Crescent Quarries 80 Gunflint Silica/Taconite 98 Utah Agate

63 Jefferson City 81 Knife River Flint 99 Holbrook petrified wood

64

Orduvician Age dolomite/Salem

plateau 82 porcellanite 100 Cow Canyon obsidian

65 Crowley's Ridge 83 White River Group Silicates 101 Mogollon Rim cherts

66 Batesville Black 84 West Horse Creek chert 102 St. David chalcedony

67 Red River Jasper 85 Hartville Uplift 103 Carr Canyon qtz crystal

68 Ozark cherts 86 Table Mtn 104 Borax Lake obsidian

69 Boone chert 87 Flattop chalcedony 105 Buck Mtn obsidian

70 Pitkin chert 88 Niobrara Jasper 106 Ephrata chert

71 Osagean chert 89 Madison Formation chert

Early Paleoindian Colonization and Lithic Artifact Transport

Documents