|
Michael B. Collins University of Texas at Austin
Humankind evolved somewhere in eastern Africa, conservatively, some two million
years ago. With tools and an enlarged brain, humans began to expand into
new territories and new environments, eventually filling most of the African
continent and much of Eurasia (Schick and Toth 1993). By 40,000 years ago,
modern forms of humans occupied most of the habitable parts of Europe, Asia,
and Australia (Lourandos 1997). This remarkable history of human “adaptive
radiation,” as the process is known, lacked only a final chapter - the
peopling of the Western Hemisphere. When, whence, by whom, along what route(s),
under what conditions, and with what cultural baggage were North and South
America first colonized? This is one of the most engaging questions facing
archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, human biologists, geologists,
paleontologists, paleogeographers, and paleoclimatologists, and their efforts
of late have created a lively and exciting research atmosphere. At the crux
of their inquiry is an intriguing prehistoric culture in North America known
as “Clovis” (Stanford 1991). Long believed to have been the first
culture in the Americas, Clovis is the benchmark against which all empirical
and theoretical accounts regarding the arrival of people in the New World
are measured. While many of us are engaged in the search for evidence of
earlier, “preClovis,” archaeological manifestations, I am suggesting
that careful scrutiny of the benchmark itself is overdue.
Recent research
has revealed that Early Paleoindian cultural history in the south central
US was more complex than previously thought and there are indications that
the prevailing paradigm on the origin of New World cultures is in need of
revision. No single site is responsible for these developments, but the Gault
Site (fig.1) in Central Texas certainly weighs in with multiple contradictions
to current theory.
Gault is a large site, more than 800 m long and 200 m across (~16 ha) with
abundant archaeological evidence for human occupations spanning the entire
local prehistoric record of 11,000 RCYA. It occupies the constricted head
of the valley of a small stream where reliable springs flow and abundant
chert of extraordinary quality crops out. Today the locality is well watered
and supports a diverse array of trees and other vegetation on deep soils
in stark contrast to sparse xeric vegetation on thin, rocky soils on the
immediately surrounding uplands. At a larger scale, this setting is in the
Balcones Ecotone (a transition zone between two distinct habitats) where
resources of limestone uplands mingle with contrasting landscapes occurring
on adjacent coastal plains (fig.1). The Edward’s Plateau differs in
its geology, soils,  flora, and fauna from the Black Prairie region of the
Gulf Coastal Plains. Gault today is a special place and evidently has been
for a very long time.
Fig.1: Physiographic map of Texas showing proximity of Gault to the
rich environmental overlap zone (the Balcones Ecotone) between prairie and
savanna habitats of the Coastal Plain and the Edward’s Plateau (Gault
Archeological Project). .
In Central Texas, the archaeological record of the Paleoindian period consists
primarily of chipped stone artifacts which are associated with preserved
faunal remains at some localities. Paleoindian sites rarely have organized
features, and burned rocks are extremely scarce. Beginning around 9,000 RCYA
an abrupt shift occurred and sites post-dating this shift are characterized
by enormous quantities of fire-cracked rocks and a variety of chipped and
ground stone implements (Collins 1995). This marks the beginning of a long
Archaic record that resulted from using heated stones for cooking in earth
ovens. A variety of plant and animal remains are found preserved in some
of these sites. Extensive early deposits containing Paleoindian artifacts
and lacking burned rock remain almost undisturbed at Gault beneath mostly
disturbed deposits with Archaic artifacts and copious amounts of fire-cracked
rocks.
Major Archaeological Components at the Gault Site: The dates accompanying
the following periods refer to the chronology known for Central Texas.
Late Prehistoric Period (1,200-400 RCYA): Regionally, a shift to bow
and arrow technology followed by adoption of ceramics marks the beginning
of the Late Prehistoric period, in Texas roughly 1,200 RCYA. This period
is minimally represented at Gault by a few arrow points and by a couple of
pottery sherds. No intact deposits containing isolable Late Prehistoric
archaeological materials have been found. As Europeans moved into the region
some 400 years ago, Native American lifeways underwent catastrophic changes
and ultimately disappeared in less than two and a half centuries. Petroglyphs
on the valley wall at the Gault Site may date from the tumultuous time when
Europeans and Native Americans vied for control of the region. These meager
remains do not present compelling evidence, but do suggest that hunting and
gathering remained the primary subsistence strategy of Late Prehistoric and
Historic period occupants of Gault, perhaps until the eighteenth or nineteenth
century AD.
Archaic Period (9,000-1,200 RCYA): Our investigations have found that
most of the Archaic-age deposits at the Gault Site have been completely
disrupted. The soil is disturbed and we commonly find cans, bottles, and
other modern trash throughout the midden. Early photographs and present day
remnants indicate that these deposits were once at least 12 or 15 hectares
in extent and from 0.1 to 2.5 meters in thickness. Artifacts diagnostic of
the several style intervals of the Archaic - mostly fragmentary dart points
- found in the disturbed deposits indicate use of the locality throughout
the 8,000 or so years of the Archaic. Artifacts overlooked by looters include
bones of various animals as well as tools indicating such activities as hunting,
woodworking, plant-food processing, and production/maintenance of various
kinds of perishable material culture. This was not a site devoted to a narrow
set of specialized activities. In some excavated areas, we find a thin but
intact layer of very early Archaic artifacts (dating to between 8,000 and
9,000 RCYA overlying earlier deposits of Paleoindian age. This intact layer
is an excellent indication that no recent disturbance has befallen the deposits
below. We know from investigations at other Archaic sites in the region that
well-adapted hunter-gatherers created the middens at sites like Gault. Thus,
even in their disturbed state, these Archaic deposits are prima facie evidence
that the ecotonal setting of Gault was ideal for hunter-gatherers throughout
its history of use (i.e. one can extrapolate back from the Archaic to the
Paleoindian Period). Hunter-gatherers select such settings as part of a strategy
of positioning themselves on the landscape where the greatest diversity of
floral, faunal, and mineral resources occurs in the greatest proximity.
Paleoindian
Period (>12,000-9,000 RCYA): Below the Archaic midden in most, but
not all, areas of the site are deposits and soils containing modest numbers
of stone artifacts, including distinctive styles of projectile points, diagnostic
of several intervals in the Late Paleoindian period. Age estimates for these
materials are extrapolated from elsewhere and span the interval between about
10,000 and 9,000 RCYA. Although these deposit s are relatively undisturbed,
their yield of information has not been great thus far. There are numerous
items from Gault that appear to fit within the
Late Paleoindian, but
are not previously named or recognized forms. At present, we know little
more than the existence of Late Paleoindian remains at Gault, but future
investigations can be expected to increase our knowledge significantly.
Fig.2: Folsom age (10,900-10,200 RCYA) artifacts from Gault include
projectile point types Midland (a,c-e) and Folsom (h), Midland point
manufacturing failures (b), Folsom point manufacturing failures (f-g), and
ultra thin bifacial knives (i) (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
Two style intervals are well established for the Early Paleoindian subperiod
of the region, later Folsom and earlier Clovis, and evidence of both is found
at Gault. Folsom is
technologically distinctive and represents a specialized, nomadic bison hunting
lifeway of ca. 10,900 to 10,200 RCYA (around 12,900-11,000 calendar years
ago). Folsom sites are found in areas that were in, or immediately adjacent
to, grasslands at the time and faunal remains, if preserved, always include
bison bones. The Folsom tool kit of stone is light in weight but afforded
lethal weapons, efficient butchering/meat processing tools, and effective
scrapers for hideworking. Its purposes and its portability bespeak a nomadic
hunting way of life. Gault is not an ideal locality for bison-hunters, but
it is close to the prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain and afforded such resources
as high quality tool stone so important to specialized hunters. Not surprisingly,
Folsom remains at Gault are relatively sparse and are dominated by debris
from the manufacture of stone tools (fig.2) and exhausted or broken points
discarded at the end of their usefulness.
In contrast,
Clovis is abundantly
represented at the site. Several hundred thousand pieces of stone, bone,
ivory, and teeth from Gault can be attributed to the Clovis  interval
(11,200-10,900 RCYA; 12,900-12,550 cal BP). Most are debris from stone tool
manufacture, but a diverse array of tools (figs.3,4) occurs as well, along
with bones of several kinds of animals. Clovis is pivotal in New World prehistory
and this component at Gault is the focus of our investigations.
Fig.3: Clovis points at Gault manifest a wide array of conditions
and forms. Some were never finished (j), others were used and broken (a-d,h,k),
and still others were extensively resharpened (e-g,l); lanceolate (a-c,g-h),
recurvate (d-f,i-j), and triangular (k-l) outlines were in use (photo:
Gault Archeological Project).
In a few areas of the site, excavations have revealed small numbers of artifacts
in strata beneath well-defined layers of Clovis artifacts (fig.5). It is
not clear at this time whether the underlying materials are early and sparse
Clovis manifestations or if they represent a human presence at the site prior
to Clovis. Seeking to answer this question is of paramount interest in our
investigations.
The Gault
Site and the “Clovis-First” Paradigm: Dates for Clovis occupations
across North America fall primarily in a three to four hundred year interval,
near the end of the last glaciation (Haynes 1992, 1993). Clovis is found
all across North and Central America from the Pacific to the Atlantic and
from the southern fringe of Canada to Costa Rica. At numerous sites (notably
areas o f Blackwater Draw, Colby, Dent, Domebo, Lehner, Lange/Ferguson, Miami,
Murray Springs, Naco, and Sheaman), Clovis assemblages are dominated by
projectile points found in association with skeletal remains of mammoths.
Finds such as these gave rise to a theory that people who used Clovis points
were specialized mammoth hunters who continuously moved across the landscape
in search of herds. According to the theory, their weaponry and skill were
so effective that they were at least partly responsible for the extinction
of mammoths at the end of the Pleistocene. Excavators of these and other
Clovis sites have found virtually nothing archaeological underlying any Clovis
deposit.
Fig.4: Clovis chipped stone tools at Gault include choppers (a),
adzes (b), bifacial knives (c), end scrapers on blades (d), gravers on blades
(e), and serrated blades (f) (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
Because there seemed to be no older cultural remains in the Western Hemisphere,
Clovis came to be considered the archaeological signature of the founding
population in the Americas. And, because the early dates for Clovis coincided
with two remarkable glacial phenomena, a plausible explanation for the origin
of this founding population emerged and soon became entrenched. So much of
the Earth’s hydrosphere was locked up in glaciers and ice sheets that
oceans worldwide were lowered by 100 meters or more. A broad isthmus emerged
from the floor of the Bering Sea and connected what are now Siberia and Alaska
with a land bridge known as Beringia. Around 12,000 to 11,000 RCYA (13,600-12,550
calendar years ago), Beringia was almost ice-free. It was also thought there
was a narrow “ice-free corridor” along the Mackenzie River valley
between the Cordilleran glaciers of western Canada and the vast Laurentian
ice sheet that covered most of the rest of Canada. (This theory, however,
has been challenged by recent finds in both geology and cave fauna; see
Dixon, this issue). Some
11,500 years ago, Asians are theorized to have walked out of Siberia, across
Beringia, down the purported ice-free corridor, and out onto the north central
Great Plains to become the Clovis mammoth hunters and the progenitors of
the American Indians. In a few generations, these colonists quickly spread
out to fill much of the Western Hemisphere all the way to the southern tip
of South America.
Gault is one of several Clovis sites along the Balcones Ecotone in Central
Texas (Meltzer and Bever 1995). Each of these sites is near good springs
at outcrops of abundant, high-quality chert, and is strategically situated
in relation to diverse floral and faunal resources. The sophisticated
articulation between humans and their landscape seen in this local pattern
is repeated at hundreds of local analogs across the continent. This pattern
closely matches  those of the Early and Middle Archaic pattern that followed
(cf. Johnson 1991, 1995; McKinney 1981), and strongly suggests a generalized
hunting and gathering adaptation.
Fig.5: Chipped stone artifacts from layers below well defined Clovis
deposits at Gault; it is not yet known whether these are earlier Clovis or
preClovis cultural remains (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
A second critical flaw in the Clovis-first paradigm is emerging from careful
study of Clovis subsistence. Many early discoveries of Clovis sites (1930s
through 1950s) occurred because someone noticed large bones and investigated.
As often as not, these turned out to be kill sites. Other less eye-catching
Clovis sites have been found and investigated, especially in recent decades.
These have shown that the Clovis lifeway was much more generalized with evidence
for exploitation of diverse animals, large and small. Much less diet breadth
is seen for the later, more specialized bison hunters (such as Folsom).
Frogs, birds, and small mammals were on the Clovis menu at Gault, along with
horse, bison, and mammoth. These hints of diet breadth at Gault are all the
more significant given the very adverse conditions for bone preservation
at the site and the nascent stage of our faunal analyses. Besides the
exploitation of diverse fauna, Clovis inhabitants at the Gault Site engaged
in a variety of activities using their stone tools, including digging,
working wood (fig.4b), and cutting grass as indicated by microscopic
wear patterns.
In the succession of Clovis components at Gault, there is an interesting
change in the remains of large fauna. Lower deposits contain bones of mammoth,
horse, and bison whereas higher ones have only bones of bison, suggesting
that the Clovis interval at Gault spanned the extinction of horse and mammoth
in the local region. If this is true and if the theoretical proposition is
correct that Clovis weaponry is specialized for the taking of mammoth, then
there should be a change in technology at the point in time when mammoths
disappear from the regional fauna. No such change has been perceived in our
studies.
A third flaw seems to be the emphasis current theory places on the mobility
of Clovis hunters. Specialized hunters of big game must move as needed in
response to herd movement or depletion in order to reliably obtain their
prey. Because of the mammoth’s large size and slow rate of reproduction,
any hunters who were largely dependent upon them would likely deplete
local herds in a short period of time unless they had developed a highly
effective way of preserving meat over long periods of time. Otherwise,
as the theory acknowledges, they would have to move often.
Evidence for high mobility permeates the existing Clovis archaeological record.
Sites are often small and artifact numbers are low in most Clovis components.
Clovis peoples were moving tool stone great distances and virtually every
Clovis site yields multiple examples of exotic stone. However, it is not
clear how this movement occurred (Meltzer 1989). Competing hypotheses
call for highly mobile hunters frequently making tools at one place and
disposing of them in an exhausted state at another place, exchange
between groups, or long-term retention of favored exotic stone among
less mobile groups. Interest in this problem is acute because of the remarkable
distances stone traveled. For example, a Clovis point made of obsidian
originating in the state of Querétaro in Central Mexico was
found at Kincaid Shelter in west Central Texas, a distance of 1,000 km (Hester
et al. 1985). Distances of 200 to 500 km are commonly indicated (Meltzer
1989).
At Gault is found one of the largest of the known Clovis occupation areas,
covering at least 3 ha (and probably more) within the larger site. Debris
is abundant at places in the Clovis component, sometimes reaching 200 pieces
per 5 cm level in a 1m by 1m excavation area. With less than one percent
of the area excavated, we have recovered some 300,000 Clovis pieces.
Clovis people were at Gault repeatedly over a significant period of time
as indicated by the average 30 to 40 cm thickness of Clovis-age deposits.
Direct dating has not been possible for the Clovis component at Gault,
but the deposits and their contents indicate that considerable time is
represented. Much of the natural deposition that encased the Clovis
materials is of clay that resulted from low-energy, over bank flooding
of the nearby stream. Typically in Central Texas this mode of deposition
builds up deposits at an average of less than a millimeter per year,
which provides a very crude indication that 400 or more years could be
represented by the host deposits at Gault.
As mentioned, remains of mammoth and horse disappear in the upper levels
at Gault, tentatively indicating that these two animal forms became locally
extinct during the Clovis tenancy. At the very top of the Clovis section
are also found artifacts diagnostic of the Folsom archaeological interval
that succeeds Clovis in the Plains and Southwest. These facts suggest that
the entire temporal span of Clovis could be represented at Gault. This is
a finding inconsistent with a model of near constant mobility.
A fourth flaw
is the existence of sites in North and South America that indicate a human
presence prior to Clovis. These include Monte Verde in southern Chile with
a radiocarbon age of ca. 12,500 years ago, Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania
with stone artifacts dating at least as old as 14,000 RCYA, Cactus Hill in
Virginia with ca. 15,000 year old non Clovis artifacts underlying a
Clovis component, and burned and cut bones at Cueva Quebrada in Texas with
wood charcoal dated between 14,000 and 12,800 RCYA. There are some possible
shared traits of lithic technology between Clovis and the assemblages
at two of these early sites.
Small, lanceolate, bifacially-flaked, unfluted projectile points and small
prismatic blades are characteristic of the preClovis components at Meadowcroft
(PA) and Cactus Hill (VA). The points are not Clovis points and the small
blades are not Clovis blades, but at a general level of comparison, it can
be said that bifacial, lanceolate projectile points along with prismatic
blades are at the center of the Clovis lithic technology as well as that
of at least two preClovis sites. The significance of this general
comparison is yet to be ascertained.
Fig.6: Clovis prismatic blade cores (a-d) and blades (e-k) are abundant
at Gault (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
There is also an intriguing history of mammoth-bone flaking in Clovis as
well as preClovis sites in North America. Flaking bone requires a technique
similar to that used in flaking stone where the right amount of force has
to be applied at the correct angle to the correct place. Very hard objects
(stones, presumably) were used to deliver considerable force to a small,
precisely chosen spot on each of the flaked bones, creating a fracture similar
to that of such stones as chert. Bone, also like stone, could be flaked by
high-energy forces in nature. A critical factor in all of the sites
discussed below is an absence of any evidence for natural forces capable
of flaking mammoth bone, leaving humans as the most likely agent.
Excavations at Owl Cave (Idaho) and Lange/Ferguson (South Dakota) recovered
Clovis chipped stone artifacts associated with percussion flaked mammoth
long bones; a mammoth sacrum bone was also flaked at Lange/Ferguson.
A disarticulated mammoth skeleton at the Lindsay site (Montana) was buried
in a deposit of loess (wind blown silt). The gentle settling of wind
blown dust on this skeleton left delicate bones such as ribs intact. Bones
were stacked in an unnatural way and several were fractured while green;
nine pieces of hard sandstone were also present, but no artifacts diagnostic
of Clovis were found. The Lindsay mammoth died ca. 11,200 RCYA, well within
the Clovis time interval.
Two sites in Nebraska (Jensen and La Sena) and one in Kansas (Lovewell) are
similar in that disarticulated mammoth skeletons were found in deep loess
or fine alluvial deposits. At each site, some bones were in unusual
positions, delicate bones such as scapulas and ribs were intact, and
long bones were fractured from powerful blows with a hard object. No
stones of any kind were found. Radiocarbon ages for these three sites are
ca. 14,000, 18,000, and 18,000 RCYA, respectively. Duewall-Newberry
(Texas) is an undated site with similar evidence in a low-energy flood
deposit of the Brazos River and Cooperton (Oklahoma), dated to ca. 17,000
RCYA, is also similar except that it rests in a higher-energy gravel
(though evidently not one capable of flaking dense mammoth bones).
A long North American tradition of flaking mammoth bone seems to be represented
by this evidence. And, clearly that practice continued into Clovis times.
Another recent development in Clovis investigations is discovery of Clovis
components that predate earlier estimates for the Clovis time interval of
between 11,200 and 10,900 RCYA.
As originally conceived, the Clovis-first theory presumed that the first
inhabitants of the Americas were similar to modern northern Asians since
they came out of Asia and were ancestral to later Native Americans. This
is not supported by the physical characteristics of the earliest human
skeletons in North and South America who bear features of southern
Asians (and, occasionally, even Europeans;see
Brace, this issue).
Finally, a premise upon which the Clovis- first model rests is that there
had to be a land bridge from the Old to the New World in order for
the first humans to make the journey (“A land bridge is regarded as
being the first necessity” [Coles and Higgs 1969:419]). This presumption
excludes water travel from consideration when investigators evaluate alternative
models for the peopling of the Americas.
In sum, at
Gault and at many other Clovis sites and a handful of preClovis sites is
found evidence that is inconsistent with the prevailing, Clovis-first paradigm
for the peopling of the Americas. So what replaces this theory?
Clovis Origins: One of the perplexing questions regarding Clovis is,
“what are its origin s?” Nowhere along the theoretical route out
of northeastern Asia, across Beringia, and down the ice-free corridor is
there known to be a clear antecedent culture to Clovis. Nor has one
been found within the Clovis realm. Either a yet to be discovered (or recognized)
culture ancestral to Clovis existed somewhere in Eurasia, or Clovis developed
out of roots in the New World. Or, perhaps most likely of all, Clovis
was a vigorous hybrid of cultures and technologies.
Fig.7: Fragments of engraved stones recovered from Clovis deposits
at Gault in 2000 and 2001 (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
There are many traits in Clovis that are shared with Upper Paleolithic cultures
of Western Europe (Collins n.d.), most notably Solutrean (21,000 to 16,000
RCYA) and Magdalenian (16,000 to 11,000 RCYA) (Boldurian and Cotter 1999:95-97;
Bordes 1968:213-219; Haynes 1982, 1987; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978:99-100,
180). Except for the youngest phases of the Magdalenian these cultures
significantly predate Clovis and they are geographically far removed.
Furthermore, the shared traits do not form a coherent entity but appear rather
widely spread in Paleolithic time and space. Nonetheless, some of the
similarities are great enough to stimulate speculation over possible historical
connections. (1) Clovis and Solutrean bifaces are flaked in remarkably similar
fashion and there are lanceolate, bifacial points in both [fluted in Clovis,
not fluted in Solutrean]; (2) Clovis blades and blade tools are similar to
those of both the Solutrean and the Magdalenian; (3) Clovis bone and ivory
rods, some pointed and some not, resemble bone and ivory pieces in both the
Magdalenian and the Solutrean; (4) a single example of a perforated baton
or shaft wrench in Clovis has counterparts in both Solutrean and Magdalenian;
(5) another single artifact in Clovis with Magdalenian equivalents is a barbed
harpoon tip; (6) portable art objects in the form of small engraved stones
is a trait shared between Clovis and the Magdalenian (figs.7 ,8); (7) and,
finally, in the Magdalenian and probably in Clovis, ochre was used as an
ingredient in the adhesives that held bone or stone objects in their wooden
hafts. These shared traits do not constitute a case for direct historical
connection between Clovis and the western European Upper Paleolithic, but
they do suggest that at least some elements of Clovis technology have remote
roots in the western European Paleolithic tradition as do some of the cultures
of the Russian Steppe.
There are small
blades and unfluted, lanceolate bifacial points at Meadowcroft, PA and Cactus
Hill, VA, two North American sites predating Clovis. Dates for these materials
at Meadowcroft are near 14,000 RCYA; at Cactus Hill, dates are closer
to 15,000 RCYA (16,300 and 16,950 cal BP, respectively). A succession of
relatively minor technological transformations from the Meadowcroft
and Cactus Hill points and blades could result in the larger blades
and fluted lanceolate points of Clovis. The findings at these and other preClovis
sites are not yet robust enough to be universally accepted, so it is
too early to say that they represent a New World origin for Clovis,
but this is a hypothesis that will undergo much scrutiny as time goes on.
The Search for preClovis: Some prehistorians argue that, given the
amount of archaeological activity in the Americas (especially North America),
any preClovis archaeological manifestation woul d have been found by now
if it existed (Jelinek 1992). A number of factors severely limit the confidence
we can place in this position, as examples from the South Central part
of the United States clearly illustrate.
Fig.8: Engraved limestone pebbles (a-d) found at Gault in 1990 by
D. Olmstead (photo: Gault Archeological Project).
Probably the most significant factor limiting what we know and are likely
to know of preClovis is the nature of that record. Simply put, we do not
know what we are looking for. In all likelihood, any peoples in the New World
prior to Clovis were generalized hunters and gatherers who left meager evidence
of their existence. The search for preClovis sites, then, is a search for
an archaeological signal of low-visibility in secure, datable geologic
contexts. Given this objective, how do the practices and procedures of
archaeologists measure up?
Many archaeologists working on and near the Southern Great Plains, the region
I know best, like a majority of their colleagues in North America, lack training
in the earth sciences and are only superficially conversant with
Quaternary stratigraphic and pedogenic (soil formation) evidence for
the age, integrity, and depositional context of deposits and landforms
relevant to archaeological inquiry.
Much archaeological investigation here as elsewhere is done as a result of
mandated “cultural resource management” where areas to be affected
by public-sector land modifications are surveyed for sites, sites are
evaluated for significance, and steps are taken to mitigate impacts
to the more significant sites. Relatively junior and inexperienced
crews conduct a majority of the surveys. Members of these crews often have
little knowledge of Quaternary geology. Criteria for site significance
are bureaucratic contrivances that tend to favor large, highly visible sites.
Finally, besides being of low visibility, preClovis sites must have been
few in number and not all of them have survived the unrelenting forces of
nature. Of all of the sites that existed 12,000 years ago, a significant
number have been lost to erosion by wind and water.
Yes, we may have done a lot of archaeology in North America, but no, we have
not eliminated the chance that a preClovis record exists. Low site density,
low site visibility, no known distinctive artifacts, and a common lack of
appropriate qualifications on the part of a majority of archaeologists
combine to produce a very low chance that preClovis sites are being
discovered. Even when one is discovered, the odds are against its significance
being recognized or any further work being done.
Remedies: Our quest is for the best possible archaeological account
of the earliest peoples in the Americas. If Clovis is, in fact, the
earliest cultural evidence, we need to have confidence in that finding. If
there were people here before Clovis times, unequivocal evidence of
that fact is needed. Regardless the outcome of our quest, our search procedures
must be improved. This should begin with improved awareness of the issues
and data requirements in a broader sector of practicing archaeologists.
We need to vacate the assumptions and expectations derived from the Clovis-first
model. Cultural resource management criteria for site significance need to
be expanded to include ephemeral sites in geologic contexts indicating
Late Glacial ages. There are increasing numbers of professional archaeologists
in the Americas with backgrounds in the earth sciences, but many more are
needed. As more qualified investigators emerge, there should be more targeted
searches conducted where the emphasis is careful scrutiny of intact deposits
of Late Glacial age. With these changes in place for a number of years, we
should be able to say with meaningful confidence what the early archaeological
record of the Americas is really like.
Conclusions: Evidence at the Gault site significantly increases a
growing body of data that are discordant with theClovis-first model. The
size, density, and thickness of Clovis deposits are in conflict with the
notion of high mobility. Specialized hunters of mammoths would have little
reason to frequent a locality like Gault, whereas it is ideally suited to
the needs of generalized hunter-gatherers. The array of activities indicated
by the diverse tools and their use wear contradicts specialization.
In my view the archaeological manifestation that we call “Clovis”
is more complex than our usual accounts would suggest. Clovis occurs in diverse
habitats and some of the more significant sites, such as Gault,
Thunderbird, and Aubrey, have the distinctive signature of a generalized
adaptation rather than a specialized mammoth hunting lifeway. Clovis is too
common, too widespread, and too well adapted in too many environments to
satisfy the theoretical expectation of the first colonizers in the New World.
There are also numerous archaeological indicators of an earlier human
presence. Comprehensive and objective review of the empirical and logical
bases for the Clovis-first theory is in order, and I predict that it will
be replaced with a significantly different account of the peopling of the
Americas.
Clovis looks to me like a technocomplex - a constellation of technologies
shared by multiple ethnically distinct peoples over a wide area. Such a
configuration could have come about if one or more technological innovations
were introduced into a North America sparsely populated by groups of successful
hunters and gatherers, each intimately familiar with their own environment.
What to archaeologists 12 millennia later looks like a widespread expression
of a single culture may, in fact, have been a relatively superficial set
of shared material traits employed by groups who spoke different languages
and lived by different cultural codes. The speed with which this thing we
call Clovis spread across the continent is easier to envision if it were
spreading among many peoples who already knew the lore of their many homelands.
These ideas may be proven wrong. I only ask that this be thoroughly demonstrated,
not assumed or asserted.
References:
Adovasio, J.M. 1993. “The ones that will not go away.” In O. Soffer
and N. Praslov (eds.) From Kostienki to Clovis. pp.199-218. Plenum, NY.
Amick, D.S. 1999. Folsom Lithic Technology. Ann Arbor, International Monographs
in Prehistory.
Anderson, A.D. (ed.). 1975. “The Cooperton Mammoth: An Early Man Bone
Quarry.” Great Plains Journal 14(2):130-173.
Banks, L.D. 1990. From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of
Lithic Sources in the Trans-Mississippi South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent
Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Memoir 4.
Bement, L.C. 1986. Excavation of the Late Pleistocene Deposits of Bonfire
Shelter, Val Verde County, Texas. Texas Archeological Survey, Archeology
Series 1. Univ. Texas at Austin.
Bird, J.B. 1938. “Antiquity and Migrations of the Early Inhabitants
of Patagonia.” Geographical Review 28:250-275.
Bird, J.B. 1969. “A Comparison of South Chilean and Ecuadorean
‘Fishtail’ Projectile Points.” The Kroeber Anthropological
Society Papers 40:52-71.
Black, S.L., W.L. Ellis, D.G. Creel, and G.T. Goode. 1999. Hot Rock Cooking
on the Greater Edwards Plateau: Four Burned Rock Midden Sites in West Central
Texas. Studies in Archeology 22, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,
University of Texas at Austin and Archeology Studies Program, Report 2,
Environmental Affairs Department, Texas Dept. of Transportation.
Boldurian, A.T. and J.L. Cotter. 1999. Clovis Revisited. Philadelphia, University
of Pennsylvania Museum.
Bordes, F. 1968. The Old Stone Age. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Broster, J.B. and M.R. Norton. 1993. “The Carson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190):
An Extensive Clovis Habitation in Benton County, Tennessee.” Current
Research in the Pleistocene 10:3-4.
Brown, K.M. 1976. “Fused Volcanic Glass from the Manning Formation.”
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 47:189-207.
Coles, J.M. and E.S. Higgs. 1969. The Archaeology of Early Man. New York,
Frederick A. Praeger.
Collins, M.B. 1976. “Terminal Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations in Southern
Texas.” Prétirage, Colloque XVIII, Habitats Humains Antérieurs
a L’Holocène en Amérique. IXe Congrès, Union
Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques. Nice,
France.
Collins, M.B. 1990. “The Archeological Sequence at Kincaid Rockshelter,
Uvalde County, Texas.” Transactions of the 25th Regional Archeological
Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas. pp.25-33. Midland,
Texas, Midland Archeological Society.
Collins, M.B. 1994. “Cueva Quebrada Shelter, Texas.” Current Research
in the Pleistocene 11:26-28.
Collins, M.B. 1995. “Forty Years of Archeology in Central Texas.”
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 66:361-400.
Collins, M.B. 1998a. “Interpreting the Clovis Artifacts from the Gault
Site.” TARL Research Notes 6(1):4-12.
Collins, M.B. (ed.). 1998b. Wilson-Leonard, An 11,000-year Archeological
Record of Hunter-Gatherers in Central Texas. Studies in Archeology 31, Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin and Archeology
Studies Program, Report 10, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department
of Transportation.
Collins, M.B. 1999. Clovis Blade Technology. Austin, University of Texas
Press.
Collins, M.B. n.d. “Comparing Clovis and the Western European Upper
Paleolithic; What are the Rules of Evidence?” Beyond Clovis. Corvallis,
Center for the Study of the First Americans.
Collins, M.B. and K.M. Brown. 2000. “The Gault Gisement.” Current
Archeology in Texas 2(1): 8-11.
Collins, M.B., T.R. Hester, and P.J. Headrick. 1992. “Engraved Cobbles
from the Gault Site, Central Texas.” Current Research in the Pleistocene
9:3-4.
Collins, M.B., T.R. Hester, D. Olmstead and P.J. Headrick. 1991. “Engraved
Cobbles from Early Archeological Contexts in Central Texas.” Current
Research in the Pleistocene 8:13-15.
Ferring, C.R. 2001. The Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis
Site (41DN479), Denton County, Texas. Denton, Center for Environmental
Archaeology, Department of Geography, University of North Texas.
Figgins, J.D. 1933. “A further contribution to the antiquity of man
in America.” Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural History
12(2):4-10.
Frison, G.C. 1982. “The Sheaman Site: A Clovis Component.” In G.C.
Frison and D. Stanford (eds.) The Agate Basin Site. pp.143-157. New York,
Academic Press.
Frison, G.C. and B. Bradley. 1980. Folsom Tools and Technology of the Hanson
Site, Wyoming. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
Frison, G.C. and B. Bradley. 1999. The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools.
Santa Fe, One Horse Land & Cattle Co.
Frison, G.C. and D. Stanford. 1982. The Agate Basin Site. New York, Academic
Press.
Frison, G.C. and Todd, L.C. 1986. The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy and
Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. Albuquerque, Univeristy
of New Mexico Press.
Gardner, W.M. 1974. The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and process during the
Paleoindian to Early Archaic. Occasional Publication No. 1:5-47. Washington
D.C., Archaeology Laboratory, Catholic University of America.
Hall, D.A. 1995. “Bones of Nebraska Mammoths Imply Early Human
Presence.” Mammoth Trumpet 10(1):1, 4-7.
Hall, D.A. 1997. “Flaked Bone Suggests Americans Used Mammoths as Tool
Materials.” Mammoth Trumpet 12(3):7-8.
Hannus, L.A. 1989. “Flaked Mammoth Bone from the Lange/Ferguson Site,
White River Badlands Area, South Dakota.” In R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg
(eds.) Bone Modification. Orono, Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Institute for Quaternary Studies, Univ. of Maine.
Haury, E.W. 1953. “Artifacts with Mammoth Remains, Naco, Arizona I:
Discovery of the Naco Mammoth and the Associated Projectile Points.”
American Antiquity 19:1-14.
Haury, E.W., E.B. Sayles, and W.W. Wasley. 1959. “The Lehner Mammoth
Site, Southeastern Arizona.” American Antiquity 19:1-14.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. 1982. “Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia?”
In D.M. Hopkins, J.V. Matthews, Jr., C.W. Schweger, and S.B. Young (eds.)
Paleoecology of Beringia. pp.383-398. New York, Academic Press.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. 1987. “Clovis Origins Update.” The Kiva 52(2):83-93.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. 1992. “Contributions of Radiocarbon Dating to the
Geochronology of the Peopling of the New World.” In Taylor, Long, and
Kra (eds.) Radiocarbon after Four Decades. pp.355-374. New York, Springer-Verlag.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. 1993. “Clovis-Folsom Geochronology and Climatic
Change.” In O. Soffer and N. D. Praslov (eds.) From Kostenki to Clovis.
pp.219-236. New York, Plenum Press.
Hemmings, T.E. 1970. Early Man in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. Tucson, Univ. Arizona.
Hester, J.J. 1972. Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified Early Man Site
in Eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Publication 8. Rancho
de Taos, New Mexico.
Hester, T.R., G.L. Evans, F. Asaro, F. Stross, T.N. Campbell and H. Michel.
1985. “Trace Element Analysis of an Obsidian Paleo-Indian Projectile
Point from Kincaid Rockshelter, Texas.” Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 56:143-153.
Holen, S.R. 1996. “The Lovewell Mammoth: A Late Wisconsinan Site in
North Central Kansas.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 13:69-70.
Holliday, V.T. 1997. Paleoindian Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains.
Austin, Univ. Texas Press.
Holliday, V.T., C.V. Haynes Jr., J.L. Hofman, and D.J. Meltzer 1994.
“Geoarchaeology and Geochronology of the Miami (Clovis) Site, Southern
High Plains of Texas.” Quaternary Research 41:200-213.
Jelinek, A.J. 1966. “An Artifact of Possible Wisconsin Age.” American
Antiquity 31:434-435.
Jelinek, A.J. 1992. “Perspectives from the Old World on the Habitation
of the New.” American Antiquity 57:345-347.
Jennings, J.D. (ed.). 1978. Ancient Native Americans. San Francisco, Freeman
& Co.
Johnson, E. 1987. Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High
Plains. College Station, Texas A&M Univ. Press.
Johnson, E. 1989. “Human-Modified Bones from Early Southern Plains
Sites.” In R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg (eds.) Bone Modification. Orono,
Maine, Center for the Study of the first Americans, Inst. of Quaternary Studies,
Univ. Maine.
Johnson, L. 1991. Early Archaic Life at the Sleeper Archaeological Site,
41BC65, of the Texas Hill Country, Blanco County, Texas. Texas State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation, Pulications in Archaeology, Report
39, Austin.
Johnson, L. 1995. Past Cultures and Climates at Jonas Terrace, 41ME29, Medina
County, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist Report 40, Texas Department
of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
Leonhardy, F.C. 1966. Domebo: A Paleo-Indian Mammoth Kill in the Prairie-Plains.
Contributions of the Museum of the Great Plains 1. Lawton, Oklahoma.
Lourandos, H. 1997. Continent of Hunter-Gatherers. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Lundelius, E.L., Jr. 1984. “A Late Pleistocene Mammalian Fauna from
Cueva Quebrada, Val Verde County, Texas.” Carnegie Museum of Natural
History, Special Pub. 8:456-481.
McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy. 1997. Archaeological Investigations of Site
44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virgina. Research Report Series 8, Virginia
Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.
McKinney, W.W. 1981. “Early Holocene Adapations in Central and Southwestern
Texas: The problem of the Paleoindian-Archaic Transition.” Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological Society 52: 91-120.
Meltzer, D.M. 1989. “Was Stone Exchanged among Eastern North American
Paleo-Indians?” In C. Ellis and J. Lothrop (eds.) Eastern Paleo-Indian
Lithic Resource Use. pp.11-39. Boulder, Westview Press.
Meltzer, D.M. and M.R. Bever 1995. “Paleoindians of Texas: An Update
on the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey.” Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 66:47-81.
Miller, S.J. 1989. “Characteristics of Mammoth Bone Reduction at Owl
Cave, The Wadsen Site, Idaho.” In R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg (eds.)
Bone Modification. Orono, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute
for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.
Redder, A.J. 1985. “Horn Shelter Number 2: The South End, A Preliminary
Report.” Central Texas Archaeologist 10: 37-65.
Sanders, T.N. 1990. Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a
Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Buffalo, Persimmon Press.
Schick, K.D. and N. Toth. 1993. Making Silent Stone Speak. New York, Simon
and Schuster.
Sellards, E.H. 1938. “Artifacts Associated with Fossil Elephant.”
Bull. of the Geological Society of America 49:999-1010.
Sellards, E.H. 1952. Early Man in America. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Stanford, D. 1982. “A Critical Review of Archaeological Evidence Relating
to the Antiquity of Human Occupation of the New World.” In Ubelaker
and Viola (eds.) Plains Indian Studies: A Collection of Essays in Honor of
John C. Ewers and Waldo R. Wedel. pp.202-218. Smithsonian Contributions to
Anth. 30. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Press.
Stanford, D. 1983. “Pre-Clovis Occupation South of the Ice Sheets.”
In R. Shutler, Jr. (ed.) Early Man in the New World. pp.65-72. Beverly Hills,
Sage Pub.
Stanford, D. 1991. “Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory
Perspective.” In R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turnmire (eds.) Clovis: Origins
and Adaptations. pp.1-13. Corvallis, Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University.
Steele, D.G. and D.L. Carlson. 1989. “Excavation and Taphonomy of Mammoth
Remains from the Duewall-Newberry Site, Brazos County, Texas.” In R.
Bonnichsen and M. Sorg (eds.) Bone Modification. pp.413-430. Orono, Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Inst. for Quaternary Studies, Univ.
Maine.
Steele, D.G. and J.F. Powell. 1994. “Paleobiological Evidence of the
Peopling of the Americas.” In R. Bonnichsen and D.G. Steele (eds.) Method
and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. pp.141-164. Corvallis,
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Department of Anthropology,
Oregon State University.
Watt, F.H. 1978. “Radiocarbon Chronology of Sites in the Central Brazos
Valley.” Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 49:111-138.
Wilmsen, E.N. and F.H.H. Roberts. 1978. Lindenmeier, 1934-1974, Concluding
Report on Investigations. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.
Wormington, H.M. 1957. Ancient Man in North America. 4th edition. Denver,
Denver Museum of Natural History.
This is an abridged version of the article appearing in Vol.3, No.2 of Athena
Review.
.
|
|