The Baller biface cache: A possible Clovis site in Hitchcock ...

University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of

5-2016

The Baller biface cache: A possible Clovis site in Hitchcock The Baller biface cache: A possible Clovis site in Hitchcock

County, Nebraska County, Nebraska

Alan J. Osborn

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub

Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology

Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

1

The Baller biface cache: A possible Clovis site in Hitchcock County, Nebraska

Alan J. Osborn

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, USA University of Nebraska State Museum, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

Correspondence — Alan J. Osborn, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA; University of Nebraska State Museum, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

Lincoln, NE, USA. Email: [email protected].

Abstract Twenty-six Clovis implement caches are known from western North America. In cases where time-sensitive artifacts (e.g., Clovis projectile points or mammoth ivory rods) or adequate information about their provenience and geological context are absent, assigning temporal and cultural affiliation has been challenging. Such is the case with a cache of eight large bifaces, four of which were donated by Albert E. Baller in the early 1900s to the University of Nebraska State Museum. The cache was discovered along with debitage within a small tributary of the Republican River in south-central Nebraska. The four donated Baller bifaces have been curated since the early 1900s. This study compared the physical properties, metrical attributes, and lithic reduction strategies exhibited by the bifaces with 119 similar large bifaces recovered from 10 Clovis caches. These comparisons suggest that the Baller bifaces may represent yet unreported Clovis cache from western North America.

Keywords: Paleoindians, bifaces, Clovis caches, Smoky Hill silicified chalk, archaeology

digitalcommons.unl.edu

Published in Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 61, No. 238 (May, 2016), pp. 159–176. DOI 10.1080/00320447.2015.1112678 Copyright © Plains Anthropological Society; published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Used by permission. Published 16 June 2016.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 2

Paleoindian caches, particularly those assigned to Clovis hunter–gatherers in the West, have received intensive scrutiny following early studies by Butler (1963), Butler and Fitzwater (1965), Green (1963), Woods and Titmus (1985), and later by Frison (1991). As Fri-son (1991:324) pointed out, unlike residential sites and kill locations, Clovis caches provide archaeologists with examples of projectile points and other artifacts prior to more intensive use. In addition, Wilke et al. (1991:262) described the insights provided by the Anzick Cache regarding the various production stages of Clovis lithic technology. In the early 1990s, archaeologists were aware of five Clovis caches throughout the west and it was becoming clearer that such sites would prove to be a significant component of the Clovis cultural complex (Frison 1991).

Since that time, archaeologists identified an additional 21 Clovis caches (Huckell and Kilby 2014; Kilby and Huckell 2013). Caches are thought to reflect the future needs of early hunter–gatherers. Such caches include a range of implements (e.g., projectile points, early and late stage bifaces, flakes, gravers, and mammoth ivory rods) as well as lithic raw materials (Huckell and Kilby 2014:1). Kilby (2008:203) suggested that Clovis caches could be placed into five categories: (1) signatures of colonization; (2) insurance gear; (3) load exchanges; (4) seasonal/passive gear; or (5) afterlife caches. For the most part these categories are based upon previous studies of caches and caching be-havior (e.g., Binford 1979, 1980; Frison 1991; Meltzer 2002; Thomas 1985; Wilke et al. 1991).

Clovis caches as signatures of colonization are viewed as resupply depots from which early human populations in North America replen-ished their lithic raw materials if they failed to locate new sources during movement(s) across the landscape. Insurance caches consist of cores, flakes, and bifacial implements placed on a landscape de-void of adequate toolstone. Load exchange caches are items that are left behind to facilitate the transport of more critical materials such as recently acquired foodstuffs. Seasonal or passive gear caches con-tain items temporarily removed from active use on a seasonal or in-termittent basis. And, afterlife caches consist of grave goods or items placed with deceased individuals (e.g., Ellis 2009). The Anzick Cache is assumed to be an afterlife or ritual cache based on association with the remains of an infant and artifacts coated with red ochre. Kilby

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 3

(2008:217) posits that the East Wenatchee, Fenn, and Simon caches may also have been afterlife caches since they too contained red ochre.

Additionally, Kornfeld et al. (1990) posited that implement caches may serve to control the distribution of resources within hunter–gatherer societies either by creating social inequalities or conversely by insuring egalitarianism. Lassen (2005) suggested that the East Wenatchee (Richey Cache) was an “offering” to ward off threats to the food supply caused by the volcanic eruptions of Glacier Peak in Washington. Gillespie (2007) proposed that Clovis caches were estab-lished to create familiar places across the landscape during the Clo-vis colonization. Most recently, Surovell (2009:139) speaks of a rainy day model for accounting for lithic caches as “a means of preventing periodic shortfalls of lithic raw material that would demand supple-mentary direct procurement forays.”

The purpose of this paper is to present a descriptive account of four large bifaces, presumed to be a cache, found in southwestern Nebraska. This cache has not been described previously. Other inves-tigators (e.g., Huckell and Kilby 2014; Kilby 2008; Kilby and Huck-ell 2013) point out that details regarding the discovery, content, and geomorphological context for many of the Clovis caches throughout North America are limited. Similarly, very little detailed information regarding the recovery of the Nebraska bifaces is available. They are, however, similar to large bifaces found in Clovis caches throughout western North America. Measurements of the four bifaces are com-pared to data from other large Clovis Period biface caches. In addition, several attributes of these bifaces are discussed in relation to Clovis lithic technology. Finally, Clovis caching behavior will be considered within a broader framework including paleoclimate, exploitation of megamammal “windfalls,” and shifts in mobility strategies during the Clovis and Folsom periods.

The Baller Cache

During the early 1900s, Albert E. Baller’s two young sons discovered a cache of eight large chipped stone bifaces along a small tributary of the Republican River in Hitchcock County, Nebraska. Baller donated three of these extraordinary artifacts to the Nebraska State Museum in

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 4

1917 and a fourth biface was purchased from Baller’s daughter in 1924. In 1925, Albert Baller’s daughter stated that her brothers found the large bifaces standing up in the sand with chips scattered all around. The bifaces remained in the archaeology collections until they were rediscovered in 2009. Both the exact location of this cache as well as the whereabouts of the remaining four bifaces are unknown.

The bifaces in the Baller Cache are made from silicified chalk ob-tained from the Smoky Hill Chalk Member of the Niobrara Formation (Upper Cretaceous; Figure 1), also referred to as Graham, Niobrara, Republican River, or Smoky Hill jasper. The geologically correct des-ignation for this lithic material is Smoky Hill silicified chalk (SHSC) (Bamforth 2007; Hofman 1990; Holen 1991, 2001a; Prescott 1955; Stein 2005). Wedel (1986:28) states that Republican River jasper oc-curs along “many of the small creeks tributary to the Republican from Webster County, Nebraska, west as far as McCook, north along the

Figure 1. Four large SHSC bifaces from the Baller Cache, South-central Nebraska (top left, A13006; top right, A13003; bottom left, A13005; bottom right, A13004 scale = 5 cm).

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 5

Medicine Creek and its branches, and south into Kansas on the Bea-ver, Sappa, and Prairie Dog creeks.” Stein (2005) points out that SHSC occurs in thin bands within outcrops and that these plates of raw ma-terial are well suited for biface production. The smallest biface from the Baller Cache is made from a different variety of SHSC that exhib-its alternating bands of light and dark caramel brown, highly siliceous material. It is very similar to samples collected on Ladder Creek in Logan County, Kansas.

Several caches have been documented within, and adjacent to, the Smoky Hill Member of the Niobrara Formation in northern Kansas (Hofman 1995, 1997; Stein 2005:30–34; Patten 2012). These caches include the Walsh, Iva’s, Busse, Liggett, and Connie’s caches (Table 1). These caches contain a range of preforms as well as finished imple-ments. The Busse Cache is the only one of these Kansas caches that has been assigned to the Clovis Period. The Harmon Cache contain-ing 67 lithic artifacts assigned to the late Paleoindian Cody Complex was found relatively close by on Beaver Creek in south-central Ne-braska (Bamforth 2013). More than 73 percent of the Harmon arti-facts were made from SHSC and only three large bifaces were repre-sented in this cache.

Table 1. Lithic Artifact Caches (SHSC) from Kansas

Site Location Contents Reference(s)

Walsh Cache Gove County, KS Fifteen large bifaces (SHSC) Stein (2005)

Iva’s Cache Sheridan County, KS Ten very large bifaces; one Stein (2005) (14SD1302) measures 335 mm length, 205 mm wide, and weighs 2.7 kg (SHSC)

Busse Cache Cheyenne County, KS Thirteen large bifaces, 33 blade Stein (2005) andblade-likeflaketools, Patten(2012) 30flakeslargefragmentraw materialand75blades,flakes, andflaketoolsincluding gravers (SHSC)

Ligget Cache Kiowa County Twenty-three bifaces Stein (2005) (14KW316)

Connie’s Cache Six large bifaces; the largest Stein (2005) (14DP431) measures410mminlength, 170 mm wide, and weighs 2 kg (SHSC)

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 6

Description of the bifaces

Huckell (2014) and Muñiz (2014) discuss multiple lines of evidence used to assign a date to Paleoindian caches. Such evidence includes morphology, production strategies, metrical attributes, geomorpho-logical contexts, nature of raw materials, stages of weathering (in-cluding the presence of calcium carbonate encrustations), and “pat-terns of long-term landscape utilization” (Muñiz 2014:107). To these criteria I would add direct dating (e.g., radiometric determinations), associations with culturally diagnostic artifacts (projectile point and ivory rods) as well as association with extinct animal remains (includ-ing protein residue and DNA; Yohe and Bamforth 2013).

Biface morphology

The four Baller biface shapes include narrow lenticular, broad lenticu-lar, and broad ovate forms (Figure 1). The bifaces range in length from 208.3 to 294.6 mm (mean length, 244.5 mm) and in width from 92.2 to 152.4 mm (mean width, 137.3 mm) (Table 2). Biface thickness falls within a relatively narrow range between 20.0 and 22.5 mm (mean thickness, 21.25 mm). Thickness may have been determined by the overall thickness of the layers of silicified chalk acquired for biface production. The Baller biface weights range from 506.6 to 1,075.7 g (n = 4; mean weight, 757.45 g) and exceed the weights of the deGraffen-reid Cache (n = 4; range, 208.2 to 320.4 g; mean 287.47 g) that ex-hibits the second heaviest weights of Clovis biface caches (Figure 2).

Maximum length-to-maximum width (Figure 3) and maximum width-to-maximum thickness (Figure 4) of the Baller bifaces is com-pared with 119 Clovis bifaces from the Anzick, Carlisle, Crook, CW, Fenn, MaHaffy, McKinnis, Simon, and Watts caches (Table 3), as well as three Clovis bifaces described by Holen (2001b, 2002). The bivar-iate plot comparisons include 10 large bifaces from an Archaic (?) cache within site 42BO796 in northwestern Utah (Macpherson 1994) and 40 bifaces from the D. Heasty Cache assigned to the Middle Wood-land Period from Summer County, Kansas (Blakeslee 2006). These two cases are included to highlight dimensional variation between Early Paleoindian and later caches. Three of the Baller bifaces fall at the upper end of the distributions for relationships between maximum

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 7

Figure 2. Bivariate plot of maximum length and maximum width for Clovis Cache bifaces (diamonds, n = 119), the Baller Cache bifaces (triangles, circled, n = 4), and twonon-Paleoindiancaches(squares,n=50).

Table 2. Length, Width, Thickness, and Weight for Four Bifaces from the Baller Cache

Catalog Max. Max. Max. Weight Shape Color range no. length width thickness (g) (mm) (mm) (mm)

A13003a 294.60 152.4 22.5 1075.7 Lenticular, broad 2.5YR5/6 to 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR2.5/4 to 2.5YR3/4

A13004 227.00 92.2 20.5 506.5 Lenticular, elongate 10YR3/4 to 10YR4/4 10YR3/3 to 10YR4/3

A13005 208.30 152.4 22.0 707.3 Ovate, broad 2.5YR4/6 to 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR3/6 to 2.5YR4/6

A13006 248.06 152.0 20.0 740.8 Lenticular, broad 2.5YR5/6 to 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR2.5/4 to 2.5YR3/4

Mean 244.50 137.2 21.25 57.45

a. Two conjoined fragments.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 8

Figure 4. Comparison of mean length, width, and thickness for nine Clovis caches andtwonon-Paleoindiancaches.

Figure 3. Bivariate plot of maximum width and maximum thickness for Clovis Cache bifaces(diamonds,n=119),BallerCachebifaces(squares,n=4),andtwonon-Pa-leoindian caches (triangles, n = 50).

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 9

length–maximum width and maximum width–maximum thickness. The 50 Archaic and Middle Woodland bifaces cluster tightly at the lower end of the size distribution (Figures 3 and 4). Bivariate plots of 119 Clovis bifaces, four Baller bifaces, and 50 non-Clovis bifaces are quite similar to plots presented by Muñiz (2014:126–127, Figures 7.10 and 7.11, respectively).

The Baller bifaces share a number of morphological similarities with bifaces from Clovis-age caches west of the Mississippi River. The largest biface (A13003) in the Baller Cache is similar in size (length and width) to the largest biface (greater than 300 mm in length) from the Watts Cache from the Cache La Poudre River valley near Ft. Col-lins, CO (Kilby and Huckell 2013:264–265). In turn this Watts Cache biface is the largest biface recorded to date from a Clovis cache. Bi-faces from the Baller Cache are similar to those in the Crook County Cache (Clovis; Kilby 2008:80, Figure 14; Tankersley 1998) and the deGraffenreid Cache from near the Gault Site (Clovis; Collins et al. 2007). The five largest bifaces in the Crook County Cache range in length from 185 to 221 mm, whereas those from the deGraffenried

Table 3. Mean Metric Measurements for Large Bifaces (N = 115) from Ten Clovis Caches in Western North Americaa

Site Number Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Reference length maximum maximum width/mean weight (mm) width thickness thickness (g) (mm) (mm)

Baller Cache, NE 4 248.6 137.25 21.5 6.38 757.45

Anzick, MT 6 227.17 112.17 15 7.48 Jones (1996)

Carlisle Cache, IA 22 130.62 64.77 14.75 4.39 137.04 Hill et al. (2014)

Crook Cache, WY 6 203.17 113.33 18.17 6.24 Tankersley (1998)

CW Cache, CO 11 118.89 67.53 12.77 5.29 Muñiz (2014)

deGraffenriedCache,TX 4 183.37 103.57 11.45 9.04 287.45 Lohseetal.(2014)

Fenn Cache, WY/UT? 32 175.95 71.5 15.22 4.70 234.35 Lohse et al. (2014)

MaHaffyCache,CO 11 159.02 101.37 24.96 4.06 Bamforth(2014)

McKinnis Cache, MO 5 123.8 61.4 16.2 3.80 Bostrom (2004)

Simon Cache, ID 14 162.86 79.36 13.21 6.01 Butler (1963)

Watts 5 225.4 102.74 20.96 4.90 Patten(2012)

a. Based upon data provided in Huckell and Kilby (2014), Jones (1996), and Wilke et al. (1991).

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 10

Cache range in length from 170 to 211.2 mm. Three of the largest bi-faces (specimens A13003, A13005, and A13006) from the Baller Cache are similar in overall morphology to the bifaces in the MaHaffy Clovis cache in Boulder, CO (Bamforth 2014:Figures 4.3, 4.7, and 4.12–4.14). Only three of the MaHaffy bifaces exhibit maximum lengths that ex-ceed 200 mm (Bamforth 2014:46).

A number of large SHSC bifaces found in Kansas are associated with Late Prehistoric occupations. Padilla and Ritterbush (2005) describe a number of SHSC bifaces recovered from White Rock Oneota (A.D. 1250 to 1300) sites in north-central Kansas. The largest biface of SHSC measures 365 mm (length), 90 mm (width), and 28.5 mm (thickness; Padilla and Ritterbush 2005:271, Figure 2). Eight additional bifaces range in length from 217 to 240 mm, in width from 94 to 97 mm, and thickness from 21 to 23 mm (Padilla and Ritterbush 2005:271). These large bifaces exhibit marked areas of cortex and a series of short, nar-row flake scars that fail to thin the medial portion of the implement. They stand in marked contrast to the Baller and other Clovis bifaces.

Biface production

Huckell (2007) describes the primary and secondary reduction stages of Clovis bifaces. The primary stage involves the removal of large, thin, and expanding flakes with maximum lengths and widths of 60 and 50 mm, respectively (Huckell 2007:193). Huckell (2007:193) suggests that the primary production stage serves to remove cortex and imper-fections, as well as to thin the biface without reducing its overall size.

The three largest Baller bifaces exhibit large, flat and shallow flakes that range in length from 57.8 to 122.6 mm. A majority of these flakes extend at least half way across the surface of the biface. Several of these long thinning flakes connect near the midline of the biface and leave relatively smooth transitions from one flake scar into another. Their flaking patterns are similar to the four large bifaces in the de-Graffenreid Cache (Collins et al. 2007:106–109, Figures 3–6). The edges of all four Baller bifaces exhibit short, intermittent areas de-fined by small secondary and tertiary flake scars. These segments represent remnants of a previous cutting edge eliminated by the re-moval of large, thin, expanding flakes meant to reduce the thickness of the biface. Variations in the configuration of these biface edges

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 11

may support :194) argument that large Clovis bifaces were not simply blanks or preforms, but “functional implements in their own right….”

Chipped stone implements that exhibit outrepassé or overshot flak-ing are associated with early Paleoindian occupation of North America (Huckell 2014; Yahnig 2004). Used initially by Bordes (1961), Tixier (1974), Crabtree (1972), and Callahan (1979; see Huckell 2014), out-repassé or overshot flaking was initially experimentally shown to be the result of mistakes or failed knapping outcomes (Callahan 1979). Bradley (1982), however, proposed that outrepassé had been used de-liberately to thin bifaces.

Huckell (2014) proposed that outrepassé flakes can be described as overshot-terminated flakes and possible overshot-terminated flakes (POTF). Overshot-terminated flakes extend across the entire face of the implement, whereas, the distal portion of POTF is obscured by later flake removals (Huckell 2014:141; Waters et al. 2011). The small-est of the four Baller bifaces (A13004) appears to be similar in shape and size to an early stage chert biface in the Fenn Cache illustrated by Frison (1991:328, Figure 19.8). The specimen exhibits several long, narrow flake scars that cross the midline of the biface (Figure 4). Two of these flake scars are on one face of the implement. The opposite side of the biface exhibits one complete outrepassé flake scar, two POTF scars, and the termination of a large outrepassé flake that trav-eled across the entire face of the implement.

Wilke et al. (1991:262–268, 2002) described the sequence of bifa-cial core breakage and subsequent transformation of core fragments into Clovis projectile points. A large bifacial core in the Anzick Cache consists of two fragments with square edge remnants (Wilke et al. 1991:263). The two fragments resulted from a perverse fracture dur-ing the removal of a large flake. Portions of such square edges occur along the lateral margins of Clovis projectile points or smaller late stage bifaces (Wilke et al. 1991:265, Figure 21).

The largest biface (A13003) from the Baller Cache was broken into two asymmetrical fragments constituting one-third and two-thirds of the original implement, respectively. When the two fragments are conjoined, the smaller fragment forms a short but pronounced verti-cal edge along a portion of the fracture. Consequently, the medial sur-faces of the two biface fragments do not match. This misalignment between the face of the two fragments indicates that a large, shallow

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 12

flake had been removed from the largest fragment after the break had occurred and prior to its final deposition. No evidence exists along ei-ther edge of the largest biface for impacts that might have been re-sponsible for the perverse fracture.

Heat treatment

Three of the largest four Baller bifaces may have been heat treated. These three bifaces exhibit marked color shifts from light reddish-tan to dark red probably highlighting variation in the composition of SHSC. Such color shifts occur naturally within silicified chalk from the Smoky Hill Member of the Niobrara Formation. Stein (2005:4) states that silicified chalk and non-silicified chalk both exhibit alter-nating bands or laminae defined by “sharp, well-defined boundar-ies” and abrupt color shifts “white, gray, brown, yellow, green, black, and red.” Color change is not the only defining characteristic of heat-treated stone. Heat treatment can also produce changes in surface lus-ter and the stone may appear greasy. All four bifaces exhibit a glossy or greasy lustrous surface. Stein (2005:42) states that “informal heat-treating experiments with poorer quality Smoky Hill silicified chalk improved its flakeability” and produced a greasy luster, but did not produce pronounced color changes.

Previous investigations indicate that a variety of siliceous cryptocrys-talline stone was heated by prehistoric tool makers to produce more flakeable raw material. Wilke et al. (1991:254) suggest that “… micro-crystalline quartzes (flint, chert, jasper, chalcedony) are rendered far more easily flakeable by slowly heating to a temperature of about 165 to 300 degrees C., maintaining that temperature for several hours, and gradually returning it to normal.” Heat treatment alters the physical characteristics of siliceous stone and the most readily apparent changes include color, luster, pronounced compression rings within flake scars, and flakeability (Wilke 2002:256–257). Cherts typically shift color from white and gray toward pink and red and surface finish may take on a smoother texture and a greasy appearance (e.g., Collins and Fenwick 1974; Crabtree and Butler 1964; Purdy and Brooks 1971).

Archaeologists have observed the use of heat treatment in a num-ber of Paleoindian assemblages including those of Clovis and Folsom periods. Clovis assemblages with heat-treated artifacts (cores and

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 13

implements) include the Anzick Cache in Montana (Wilke et al. 1991), Swan River sites in southern Alberta (Gryba 2002), and the Ready/Lincoln Hills site in Illinois (Morrow 1995). A number of Folsom lithic artifacts may also have been heat treated (Nami 1999; Gryba 2002; Root 2002; Wilke 2002).

Calcium carbonate encrustations and surface polish

Calcium carbonate encrustations on lithic artifacts may reflect age and early PaleoIndian affiliation(s) (e.g., Holen 2014; Huckell 2014; Lohse et al. 2014; Muñiz 2014). Paleopedological studies of Peoria Loess (25,000 to 13,000 cal B.P.) and the overlying Brady Soil (12,457 to 10,208 cal B.P.) in Nebraska identified secondary calcium carbonates as well as evidence for carbonate leaching (Jacobs and Mason 2004; Muhs et al. 2008). Since the geological context for the Baller bifaces is unknown at this point, we do not know whether calcium carbon-ate precipitates could have formed on their surfaces. Additionally, the four Baller bifaces do not exhibit any extensive encrustation of calcium carbonate on either face. However, a number of very small patches of calcium carbonate occur within small flake scars around the margins of two bifaces (Specimen nos. A13004 and 13005). Some of the en-crustations occur at the abrupt termination of flake scars. We do not expect that these bifaces were cleaned in an acid bath prior to, or af-ter, their donation to the museum.

The surfaces of the four bifaces exhibit a low degree of overall pol-ish. Flake scar surfaces as well as arrises exhibit a similar degree of light polish or surface abrasion. Little evidence exists for pronounced surface wear along the ridgelines between flake scars that would re-flect transport wear such as discussed by Huckell et al. (2002). Given that they are all made from local SHSC this is understandable. They do, however, exhibit slight surface polish that may have resulted from wind driven sand and sediments.

Discussion and conclusions

Based on available information, I assume that the four Baller bifaces were originally discovered within a small cluster of chipped stone

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 14

artifacts including four additional bifaces and a number of flakes. This cluster was located within the confines of a small tributary of the Re-publican River in Hitchcock County near the Nebraska-Kansas border. Additional information regarding the complete content of this cache as well as its geomorphological context and situation upon the land-scape is not available. A comparison of the physical characteristics of these four implements suggests that they are similar to Clovis bifaces. Clovis affiliation is also supported by production strategies includ-ing the presence of at least one outrepassé flake scar on the smallest biface (see Figure 5). In addition, a number of possible overshot-ter-minating flake scars are visible on all of the bifaces. None of the bi-faces exhibit cortex which would have consisted primarily of chalk.

Stein (2005:Figure 3) provides locational information for outcrops of SHSC in north-central Kansas. These outcrops are located 75 to 100 km south and east of the small drainage where the Baller Cache was found. Wedel (1986:28) referred to outcrops of Smoky Hill or Repub-lican River jasper along Beaver Creek which is approximately 40 km south of this same small drainage. Several other caches of silicified chalk were found associated with the Smoky Hill Member of the Ni-obrara Formation. The Busse Cache from nearby Sherman County in

Figure 5. Flake scars present on smallest biface from Baller Cache exhibiting over-shotflakescar(arrowsindicatedirectionofflakecreation).

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 15

Kansas is considered to be Clovis and contains large SHSC bifaces sim-ilar to those of the Baller Cache (Hofman 1995, 1997; Kilby 2008; Pat-ten 2012). The Baller Cache, as well as the Busse Cache, were located relatively close to sources of SHSC and, therefore, do not lend support to the resupply function of Paleoindian lithic caches.

Based on the presence of ochre, a number of Clovis caches are thought to reflect elements of ritual carried out by Paleoindians. Ar-chaeologists suggest that ochre-stained artifacts in Clovis caches rep-resent afterlife rituals associated with human interments (e.g., Frison 1991; Kilby 2008). Ochre-stained implements may also result from transport and storage in leather bags or pouches processed using red ochre. Red ochre-stained human remains may indicate that the de-ceased was buried in skin clothing or covered with animal hides pro-cessed using powdered iron oxide. Interestingly, the historic Beothuk of Newfoundland covered their bodies, skin clothing, and tools with a mixture of grease and red ochre (Cartier 1924). Ochre can be used as a desiccant for hide processing (Rifkin 2011). Hematite also pos-sesses antibacterial properties that retard decay and has been used by ethnographically documented hunter–gatherers and pastoralists for a number of additional purposes (e.g., Auduoin and Plisson 1982; Rifkin 2011). For example, recent studies propose ochre as an ingre-dient of adhesives that were used to haft stone implements (Collins 1999; Lombard 2007; Wadley 2005). Unlike other Clovis caches (e.g., Anzick, Busse, Fenn, and Simon), no traces of ochre were observed on the Baller bifaces. This may indicate that the Baller bifaces were not transported or buried in animal hide treated with red ochre.

Twenty-six Clovis period caches have been documented throughout portions of central and western North America. These known caches are distributed along a southeast to northwest axis that stretches from the Hogeye and deGraffenreid caches in south-central Texas (Lohse et al. 2014) to the Beach Cache in western North Dakota (Huckell 2014), the Anzick Cache in south-central Montana (Jones 1996), and the East Wenatchee Cache in eastern Washington (Gramly 1993). The eastern boundary of known Clovis caches with large bifaces includes the McK-innis Cache (Bostrom 2004) in St. Louis County, Missouri and the Car-lisle Cache (Hill et al. 2014) in south-central Iowa. Clovis caches repre-sent a small piece of the Paleoindian puzzle. We can no longer assume that hunter–gatherers during the Clovis period (13,150 to 12,850 cal

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 16

B.P., Goebel 2015) were the earliest colonizers, the only human inhab-itants, or the only adaptive solution to the ecological and climatolog-ical challenges of North America (Madsen 2015). For the most part, archaeologists speak little about the environmental context for Clo-vis period caches. The majority of the caches were found within pres-ent-day grasslands including the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe and the Great Plains Steppe ecoregions (Bailey 1995). The more western ecoregions share similar physiographic characteristics including flat to rolling plains punctuated by tablelands, buttes, canyons, and de-veloped stream drainages (Bailey 1995:71–75). These ecoregions most probably were covered by variously composed grasslands during the late Pleistocene-Holocene transition (Yansa 2007).

The East Wenatchee Cache was located west of an island of the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe ecoregion in Washington State along the Columbia River. The McKinnis and Carlisle Clovis caches from eastern Missouri and southcentral Iowa were recovered from present-day Prairie Parkland (Bailey 1995). Additional research about Clovis, as well as Paleoindian caches in general, will benefit as more attention is given to the environmental (biophysical and climatological) and or-ganizational conditions that require caching. For example, Kilby and Huckell (2014:219) have begun to delineate regional patterns in both the distribution and content variability of Clovis caches in the west. They also commented upon the apparent absence of Clovis caches in eastern North America. A number of archaeologists utilize the for-ager-collector model in their studies of Clovis caches (e.g., Binford 1980; Kilby 2008; Lohse et al. 2014). Based on Binford’s argument, we should expect to find caches of insurance gear and passive gear among hunter–gatherer groups characterized by lower residential mobility, greater intersite diversity, greater dependence upon food storage, and curated technologies (Binford 1979, 1980, 2001).

Paleoindian food-getting strategies in seasonal environments char-acterized by very cold winters and shorter growing seasons should focus primarily upon hunting terrestrial animals — particularly un-gulates (Binford 2001). Increased dependence on animal products, in turn, requires larger home ranges (e.g., Binford 1983; Kelly 1995; Pi-anka 1983:80–84). Unusual circumstances may require modifications of Binford’s forager-collector model. Hunter–gatherers living in the grasslands of western North America possibly encountered unusual

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 17

ecological conditions, namely the presence of megafauna. Houston (1979) described the abundance of scavenging opportunities that was provided by the elephant-rich environments of East Africa. Archae-ologists might expect similar circumstances in the North American steppe. During the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, Clovis groups may have scavenged mammoths and bison and reduced their residential mobility particularly during the winter months.

Such windfalls might obviate the need to intentionally store food. Byers and Ugan (2005:1625–26) estimate that the average mammoth would yield 3,150 kg of edible products or 3.15 to 5.26 million kcals of food energy. A fresh mammoth carcass could provide sufficient energy to support 25 persons (3,000 kcals/day) for 41 to 70 days. Scavenged carcasses would supply less person-days of calories and protein. Res-idential mobility could be reduced and logistical forays utilized to lo-cate and monitor other essential resources. In such cases, the distinc-tion between natural death locations, kill sites, and residential sites would fade. Shortfalls in essential animal products including fat and skin for clothing could be offset by hunting of smaller prey.

Given the presence of megafauna (e.g., proboscideans and bison), Clovis groups in the west may have remained at the kill or death site for extended periods of time. The exploitation of megafauna windfalls would limit the need to butcher, process, and transport large quanti-ties of animal products including flesh, marrow, and bone. Such han-dling costs are frequently described as a bottleneck associated with the consumption of megafauna. Proboscidean kill and scavenging loca-tions could have provided an opportunity to remain in one place dur-ing all, or at least a major part, of the winter season. Given the for-ager-collector model for hunter–gatherer organizational strategies, Clovis caches could be viewed within a much broader framework of land use prior to the onset of the Younger Dryas Cold Event (12,900 to 11,600 cal B.P.) and appearance of Folsom land use strategies and technological systems.

Pronounced differences exist between Clovis and Folsom land use, food-getting, and implement-based technologies. Folsom period im-plement caches do not exist (Collins 1999; Collard et al. 2010). Al-though it is beyond the scope of this paper, continued comparisons of Clovis and Folsom period adaptations in the west may show distinc-tive and underlying causal factors that explain both the presence of

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 18

implement and raw material caches. As demonstrated here, more de-tailed descriptions of artifacts recovered from Clovis caches will only carry archaeologists so far toward a more complete understanding of Clovis caching. As Binford (1983:12) suggested, “… we could not use [solely] the archaeological record to test the accuracy of meanings as-signed to archaeological facts.”

Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the assistance, corrections, sug-gestions, and support of Beth R. Ritter, Matt G. Hill, Marcel Kornfeld, Jack Hoffman, and two anonymous reviewers. I would like also to thank Priscilla Grew, Director of the University of Nebraska State Museum, as well as other staff Members who have facilitated my research.

References cited

Auduoin, F. and H. Plisson. (1982) Les Ochres et leurs témoins au Paléolithique en France: Enquéte et Expériences Sur Leur Validité Archéolithique. Cashiers du Centre Recherches Préhistoriques 8:33–80.

Bailey, Robert G. (1995) Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publications No. 1301. Washington, DC.

Bamforth, Douglas B. (editor) (2007) The Allen Site: A Paleoindian Camp in Southwestern Nebraska. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bamforth, Douglas B. (2013) Paleoindian Perambulations and the Harman Cache. Plains Anthropologist 58:65–82.

Bamforth, Douglas B. (2014) Clovis Caches and Clovis Knowledge of the North American Landscape: The MaHaffy Cache, Colorado. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 39–59. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Binford, Lewis R. (1979) Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255–273.

Binford, Lewis R. (1980) Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter–Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):1–20.

Binford, Lewis R. (1983) Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Binford, Lewis R. (2001) Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method

for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Blakeslee, Donald J. (2006) The D. Heasty Cache Revisited. Current Archaeology in Kansas 6:1–5.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 19

Bordes, Francois (1961) Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, Publications de l’Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire n 1, Bordeaux.

Bostrom, Peter (2004) The McKinnis Cache. http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2005mckinniscloviscachepage1.htm ; accessed June 2014.

Bradley, Bruce (1982) Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains, edited by George C. Frison and Dennis Stanford, pp. 181–208. Academic Press, New York.

Byers, David A., and Andrew Ugan (2005) Should We Expect Large Game Specialization in the Late Pleistocene? An Optimal Foraging Perspective on Early Paleoindian Prey Choice. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 32:1624–1640.

Butler, B. Robert (1963) An Early Man Site at Big Camas Prairie, South-Central Idaho. Tebiwa 6:22–33.

Butler, B. Robert, and R. J. Fitzwater (1965) A Further Note on the Clovis Site at Big Camas Prairie, South-Central Idaho. Tebiwa 8:38–39.

Callahan, Erret (1979) The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Analyses. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1–180.

Cartier, Jacques (1924) The Voyage of Jacques Cartier [1843], edited by Henry P. Biggar. Publications of the Public Affairs Archives of Canada 11, Ottawa.

Collard, Mark, Briggs Buchanan, Marcus J. Hamilton, and Michael J. O’Brien (2010) Spatiotemporal Dynamics of the Clovis-Folsom Transition. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2513–2519.

Collins, Michael B. (1999) Clovis and Folsom Lithic Technology on and Near the Southern Plains: Similar Ends, Different Means. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amick, pp. 12–38. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor, MI.

Collins, Michael B., and Jason M. Fenwick (1974) Heat Treatment of Chert: Methods an Implications of Their Application. Plains Anthropologist 19(64):134–143.

Collins, Michael B., Jon C. Lohse, and Marilyn B. Shoberg (2007) The deGraffenreid Collection: A Clovis Biface Cache from the Gault Site, Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 78:101–123.

Crabtree, Don E. (1972) An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum, No. 28. Idaho State Museum, Pocatello.

Crabtree, Don E. and B. Robert Butler (1964) Notes on Experiments in Flintknapping: 1: Heat Treatment of Silica Materials. Tebiwa 7(1):1–6.

Ellis, Christopher J. (2009) The Crowfield and Caradoc Sites, Ontario: Glimpses of Palaeo-Indian Sacred Ritual and World View. In Painting the Past with a Broad Brush. Papers in Honour of James Valliere Wright, edited by David L. Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 319–352. Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 170. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 20

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 Anta Monet-White and Steven Holen, pp. 321–334. Publications in Anthropology No. 19. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Gillespie, Jason D. (2007) Enculturing an Unknown World: Caches and Clovis Landscape Ideology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31:171–189.

Goebel, Ted (2015) Clovis Culture Update. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by Ashley M. Smallwood and Thomas A. Jennings, pp. 335–352. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Gramly, Richard M. (1993) The Richey Clovis Cache: Earliest Americans along the Columbia River. Monographs in Archaeology, Persimmon Press, Kenmore, NY.

Green, F. E. (1963) The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29:145–165.

Gryba, Eugene M. (2002) The Case for the Use of Heated Treated Lithics in the Production of Fluted Points by Folsom Knappers. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, Special Publications No. 4, Lithic Technology, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 309–314. University of Tulsa, Tulsa.

Hill, Matt G., Thomas J. Loebel, and David W. May (2014) The Carlisle Clovis Cache from Central Iowa. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 79–106. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hofman, Jack L. (1990) Paleoindian Mobility and Utilization of Niobrara or Smoky Hill Jasper on the Southern Plains. The Kansas Anthropologist 11(2):1–13.

Hofman, Jack L. (1995) The Busse Cache: A Clovis-Age Find in Northwestern Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:17–19.

Hofman, Jack L. (1997) The Busse Cache: A Clovis-Age Find in Northwestern Kansas. In Les Paleoindiens des Grandes Plaines, Musée Départemental de Prehistoire de Solutré, Solutré, France, pp. 32–35.

Holen, Steve R. (1991) Bison Hunting Territories and Lithic Acquisition among the Pawnee: An Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Study. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. R. Holen, pp. 399–411. Publications in Anthropology No. 19. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Holen, Steve R. (2001a) Clovis Mobility and Lithic Procurement on the Central Great Plains of North America. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Holen, Steve R. (2001b) The Fuller Biface: A Probable Clovis Bifacial Flake Core from the Central Great Plains. Current Research in the Pleistocene 18:26–27.

Holen, Steve R. (2002) Edwards Chert Clovis Bifaces from Nebraska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 19:37–38.

Holen, Steve R. (2014) Clovis Lithic Procurement, Caching, and Mobility in the Central Great Plains of North America. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 177–200. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 21

Houston, D. C. (1979) The Adaptation of Scavengers. In Serengeti: Dynamics of an Ecosystem, edited by A. R. E. Sinclair and M. Norton-Griffiths, pp. 263–286. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Huckell, Bruce B. (2007) Clovis Lithic Technology: A View from the Upper San Pedro Valley. In Murray Springs: A Clovis Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona, edited by C. Vance Haynes, Jr. and Bruce B. Huckell, pp. 170–213. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, Number 71, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B. (2014) How Do We Know If It Is Clovis? An Examination of Clovis Overshot Flaking of Bifaces and a North Dakota Cache. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 133–152. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Huckell, Bruce B. and J. David Kilby (editors) (2014) Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Huckell, Bruce, David Kilby, Briggs Buchannan, and Lisa Huckell (2002) Bifaces to Go: An Experimental Study of the Genesis of Transport Wear. Handout and Poster presented at the 67th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology.

Jacobs, Peter M. and Joseph A. Mason (2004) Paleopedology of Soils in Thick Holocene Loess, Nebraska, USA. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 21(1):54–70.

Jones, J. Scott (1996) The Anzick Site: Analysis of a Clovis Burial Assemblage. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Kelly, Robert L. (1995) The Foraging Spectrum. Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Life. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Kilby, J. David (2008) An Investigation of Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological Organization. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Kilby, J. David, and Bruce B. Huckell (2013) Clovis Caches: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. In PaleoIndian Odyssey, edited by Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael Waters, pp. 257–272. Texas A & M University, College Station.

Kilby, J. David, and Bruce B. Huckell (2014) Opportunities and Challenges in Working with Clovis Caches: Some Concluding Thoughts. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 217–223. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kornfeld, Marcel, Kaoru Akoshima, and George C. Frison (1990) Stone Tool Caching on the North American Plains: Implications of the McKean Site Tool Kit. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:301–309.

Lassen, Robert D. (2005) A Comparison of Clovis Caches. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas.

Lohse, Jon C., Andrew Hemings, Michael B. Collins, and David M. Yelacic (2014) Putting the Specialization Back in Clovis: What Stone Caches Tell Us about Skill and the Organization of Production in the Terminal Pleistocene. In Clovis

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 22

Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 153–176. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Lombard, Marlize (2007) The Gripping Nature of Ochre: The Association of Ochre with Howiesons Poort Adhesives and Later Stone Age Mastics from South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 53:406–419.

Macpherson, Roy (1994) A Biface Cache from 42BO796 in Northwestern Utah. Utah Archaeology 7(1):89–98.

Madsen, David B. (2015) A Framework for the Initial Occupation of the Americas. Paleoamerica 1(3):217–250.

Meltzer, David J. (2002) Modeling the Initial Colonization of the Americas: Issues of Scale, Demography, and Landscape Learning. In The Settlement of the American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, edited by C. Barton, Geoffrey A. Clark, David R. Yesner, and G. A. Pearson, pp. 123–137. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

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):167–191.

Muhs, Daniel R., E. Arthur Bettis III, John N. Aleinikoff, John P. McGeehin, Jossh Beann, Gary Skipp, Brian D. Marshall, Helen M. Roberts, William C. Johnson, and Rachel Benton (2008) Origin and Paleoclimatic Significance of Late Quaternary Loess in Nebraska: Evidence from Stratigraphy, Chronology, Sedimentology, and Geochemistry. Geological Society of America Bulletin 120(11/12):1378–1407.

Muñiz, Mark P. (2014) Determining a Cultural Affiliation for the CW Cache from Northeastern Colorado. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries & New Research, edited by Bruce B. Huckell and J. David Kilby, pp. 107– 132. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Nami, Hugo G. (1999) The Folsom Biface Reduction Sequence: Evidence from the Lindenmeier Collection. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by D. S. Amick, pp. 82–97. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Padilla, Matthew J., and Lauren W. Ritterbush (2005) White Rock Oneota Chipped Stone Tools. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30(2): 259–297.

Patten, Bob (2012) Clovis Caches report by Bob Patten. http://www.stonedagger.com/SDPcaches.html ; accessed September 2014.

Pianka, Eric R. (1983) Evolutionary Ecology. 3rd ed. Harper and Row Publishers, New York.

Prescott, Glenn C. Jr. (1955) Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Graham County, Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 110. F. Voiland, Jr, Lawrence, KA.

Purdy, Barbara, and H. K. Brooks (1971) Thermal Alteration of Silica Materials: An Archaeological Approach. Science 173:322–325.

Rifkin, Riann (2011) Assessing the Efficacy of Red Ochre as a Prehistoric Hide Tanning Ingredient. Journal of African Archaeology 9(2):131–158.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 23

Root, Matthew J. (2002) Heat Treatment and Knife River Flint Folsom Point Manufacture. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, Special Publications No. 4, Lithic Technology, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 315–331. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.

Stein, Martin (2005) Sources of Smoky Hill Silicified Chalk in Northwest Kansas. Anthropological Series No. 17, Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka.

Surovell, Todd A. (2009) Towards a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tankersley, Ken B. (1998) The Crook County Clovis Cache. Current Research in the Pleistocene 15:86–88.

Thomas, David Hurst (1985) The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers 61, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Tixier, Jacques (1974) Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools with Special Reference to the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb. English edition, translated by M. Newcomer. Newsletter of Lithic Technology: Special Publication Number 1.

Wadley, Lyn (2005) Putting Ochre to the Test: Replication Studies of Adhesives that May Have Been Used for Hafting Tools in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 49:587–601.

Waters, Michael R., Charlotte D. Pevny, and David L. Carlson. (2011) Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigations of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Wedel, Waldo R. (1986) Central Plains Prehistory: Holocene Environments and Culture Change in the Republican River Basin. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Wilke, Phillip J. (2002) Bifacial Flake-Core Reduction Strategies and Related Aspects of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, Special Publications No. 4, Lithic Technology, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 345–370. University of Tulsa, Tulsa.

Wilke, Phillip J., Jeffrey Flenniken, and Terry L. Ozbun (1991) Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2):242–272.

Woods, John C., and Gene L. Titmus (1985) A Review of the Simon Clovis Collection. Idaho Archaeologist 8:3–8.

Yahnig, Carl (2004) Lithic Technology of the Little River Clovis Complex, Christian County, Kentucky. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 111–118. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Yansa, Catherine H. (2007) Lake Records of Northern Paleoindian and Early Archaic Environments: The “Park Oasis” Hypothesis. Plains Anthropologist 52(201):109–144.

Yohe, Robert M., and Douglas B. Bamforth (2013) Late Pleistocene Protein Residues from the MaHaffy Cache, Colorado. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:2337–2343.

Alan J. Osborn in Pla ins Anthrop olo gist 6 1 (2016) 24

Notes on the contributor Alan J. Osborn received a B.A. in anthropology in 1970 at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri and a Master of Arts degree (1974) and a PhD. (1977) in an-thropology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.