THE MYTH OF CLOVIS, Part II |
Dr. Juliet Morrow Ph. D. |
| The Evolution of Paleoindian Projectile Point Styles |
 |
|
Juliet E. Morrow, Ph. D. I've been frequently asked if projectile points were shaped specifically for killing certain prey. The best example of this idea is in the term 'bird' point that is typically applied to arrowpoints. Perhaps it was commonly held that these small points were more suitable for killing smaller prey. Experiments have shown that most projectile point types, regardless of size, can penetrate the hide of a large mammal such as deer or elk or caribou. A small arrow point can be as effective as a large St. Charles point. In terms of effectiveness, the weapon delivery system itself (e.g., thrusting spear, atlatl thrown spear, bow and arrow) may be more important than point size. This notion of 'different point styles for different prey' is also in the professional archeological literature. I recently read a scientific journal article describing the use of paleoenvironmental (that is, pollen and plant macrofossils) and archeological information (site and artifact distributions) to investigate climate change and its potential impact on hunting in the New England/Canadian Maritime region. The authors suggest that the shift from caribou which inhabit open, park-like landscapes to solitary animals like deer and moose which inhabit closed forests may have altered hunting techniques or butchering practices, and these could have affected projectile point styles (Newby et al. 2005:152). Put plainly, with the termination of the ice age in New England, people may have changed their projectile point types because of changes in the animals they were hunting or the ways in which they were hunted or processed.Fluted points in the New England/ Canadian Maritime region are classified (from earliest to most recent) as Gainey/Bull Brook, Michaud-Neponset, Crowfield, and Nicholas. The New England/Canadian Maritime region point seriation shows 1.) A gradual size decrease within the fluted point series from 13,000 to 12,000 cal BP (that is from Gainey/Bull Brook to Michaud-Neponset), 2.) An increase in flute length within the fluted point series around 12,000 cal B.P. (coincident with Michaud-Neponset, and with Parkhill in the Great Lakes) 3.) A lack of fluting and a further decrease in point size between 12,000 and 11,000 cal BP (from Crowfield to Nicholas), and 4.) An introduction of a large lanceolate (Agate Basin related) point at 11,000 cal BP. Cal BP means calibrated years before present and these dates are very close to actual calendar years. The New England/Canadian Maritimes region sequence roughly mirrors the Great Lakes sequence as outlined by Ellis and Deller (1990:40). I selected some of the most common fluted point types discussed in this article for Figure 1. The Shawnee-Minisink site in New Jersey (McNett 1985) is the farthest north that I am aware of that a true Clovis point has been documented for the Northeast.
Fluting seems to have been 'invented' in North America as an aid for hafting by 13,500 cal BP. Hunters effectively killed large game on the Great Plains for thousands of years after the Clovis era using a wide variety of non-fluted lanceolate, stemmed, corner-notched, and side-notched projectile points. Fluted points were not the only points suitable for hunting large game. Why did Paleoindians stop fluting their projectile points? Fluting is a risky operation. This is demonstrated by thousands of overshot and end shocked Clovis manufacturing rejects from across the United States (Figure 2). I think people eventually stopped fluting projectile points because fluting resulted in a tremendous loss of valuable raw material. As generations of Paleoindians filled the landscape, there was less hunting territory per group and perhaps even decreased access to raw material. By refraining from fluting, knappers reduced the risk of breakage. Yet their unfluted points were able to kill large animals like deer, caribou, and moose. The same unfluted lanceloate points could also serve as cutting tools and be recycled into other tools (drills, burins, end scrapers, etc.) if necessary.
Figure 2. Preforms broken during fluting. A. Adams site, Kentucky, B. Deitz site, Oregon, C. Martens site, Missouri, D. Williamson site, Virginia, E. Ready/Lincoln Hills site, Illinois, F. Michaud site, Maine, G. Mills County, Iowa (A.-E. from Morrow 1996; F. redrawn from Speiss and Wilson 1987; G. from Morrow and Morrow 2002).
To better understand the evolution of fluted point styles, it will be necessary to consider stone raw material distributions and the nature of the materials themselves. The geological occurrence of raw materials, with regard to size, shape, quality and availability, has been shown to influence hunter-gatherer stone technology (Andrefsky 1994). In the northeast, the more recent Paleoindian point styles were initially made small, and are not small due to resharpening or recycling. Perhaps conservation of raw material may be a better explanation for the documented changes in Paleoindian points styles. This may apply not only in the far Northeast, but also in other areas of the country where an overall trend toward decreasing point size and more extensive fluting is documented (e.g., Ellis and Deller 1990, Gardner and Verrey 1979, Judge 1973, and Wormington 1957).
Although their synthesis of paleoenvironmental data sheds new light on the New England/Canadian Maritime region during the Paleoindian period and they make an important correlation between changes in the environment and projectile point form, Newby et al. (2005) do not explain the changes in Paleoindian projectile point styles. Stone raw material availability may have more directly affected the gradual decrease in fluted point size, increase in flute length (they begin to manufacture points like their Paleoindian cousins in the Great Lakes and Midwest) and cessation of fluting altogether after the onset of the Younger Dryas cold episode around 11,550 cal BP.
Evidence that Clovis is Coast to Coast
Evidence that Clovis is Coast to Coast The width and placement of Clovis striking platforms can be inferred from the remnant scar that remains on unfinished performs and fragments (Figure 3). From measurements of the remnant scars, it is clear that Clovis points were typically fluted from isolated, well-prepared platforms that were placed in the midline of the biface as evidenced by the buried, stratified, Clovis preform assemblages from the Topper site (Goodyear and Steffy 2003), as well as by the morphologically equivalent Clovis preforms documented at sites across the midcontinent, including the Ready/Lincoln Hills site in Illinois (Morrow 1995), the Martens site in Missouri (Morrow 1996), Welling/Nelly Heights in Ohio (Lepper 1986), the Adams site in Kentucky (Sanders 1990) and many others. Clovis knappers did not detach flutes (or indeed any flake) from beveled edges. They carefully prepared striking platforms for every flake removal, including the flute. It is possible in his very brief description of Clovis biface reduction that Collins (1999) cited by Newby et al. (2005) is referring to early stage end-thinning rather than actual fluting that takes place during stage 4. Many of the large flakes that were detached from early and middle stage bifaces (Stages 1-3) were likely used as is or were further modified into other tools such as end scrapers, precision cutting tools, gravers, and projectile points. This conservative use of raw material is the reason that virtually all of the large flakes from biface reduction are gone from Clovis campsites like Murray Springs in southeastern Arizona and the Martens site in Chesterfield, Missouri. These large flakes are turned into tools or they are simply reserved for later use 'as is' or later modification into tools for cutting, scraping, and other tasks.
Figure 3. Stage 4 Clovis performs broken during manufacture. Left: Welling site, Ohio, Middle and Right: Western United States. Photo by Pete Bostrom, Lithic Casting Lab.
There are obvious differences among the various point styles that continue to be placed into the 'Clovis' category. In studying Clovis, Gainey (a.k.a. Gainey/Bull Brook) and Folsom bifaces (including broken performs), I learned that Clovis bifaces were generally fluted much earlier in the biface reduction sequence than Gainey and Folsom, that is, when performs were relatively thick (on the order of 8 to 10 mm in maximum thickness). When Gainey and Folsom bifaces were prepared for fluting, the proximal or tip end was ground prior to placing it on an anvil in order to detach the flutes. A broken preform from the Michaud site in Maine bears a striking resemblance to Gainey and Folsom preforms. Folsom points are rarely more than 4 mm between the flutes. In handling Folsom points one gets a sense that bravado or perhaps ritual behavior was involved because Folsom points are thinner between the flutes than they needed to be, although some researchers disagree with this. Gainey points generally measure about 4 to 6 mm between the flutes (Figure 4).
Clovis points generally measure about 5 to 7 mm between the flutes. Inter-flute thickness alone cannot always be used to discriminate between Clovis and Gainey, but it is an important measurement.
With respect to the flute, Gainey points are similar to Folsom in that the generally (but not always) have longer flutes than Clovis points, with flutes sometimes extending beyond the midpoint of the biface. Gainey points exhibit pressure thinning and pressure trimming that is in many cases more refined and regularized than seen on the typical Clovis point. Another major difference between Clovis and Gainey is the depth of the basal concavity that may relate to fluting technique (direct percussion in the case of Clovis vs. indirect percussion in the case of Gainey and Folsom). Clovis points tend not to exhibit the deep basal concavities that are characteristic of Gainey and Bull Brook points. Using measurements and other attributes, it is possible in many cases to discriminate relatively complete Clovis points from Gainey points, especially if points are not greatly resharpened or reworked. It also helps to know from where the point originated because fluted point types have different geographic distributions.
. The distribution of Clovis is coast to coast south of the Great Lakes and Northeast, Gainey is the eastern two-thirds of the US, and Folsom is concentrated in the Great Plains and Prairie Peninsula. The geographic distribution of Folsom and Gainey points overlap, but until there are many secure radiocarbon dates for Gainey, we won't know just how much Gainey, Clovis, and Folsom overlap with each other in time.
I am grateful to the many collectors and avocational archaeologists who have helped me learn about the Early Paleoindian era by sharing their artifacts and their time. If you had not bothered to pick up the broken performs and bifaces related to fluted point manufacture, we would know far less. Broken stone tools and manufacturing debris are as valuable for our understanding of fluted point making cultures as are the complete fluted points. Please remember to document the location where you find artifacts, label them with a pigma pen or other type of permanent ink, and maintain a catalog of your discoveries so that your collection has maximum scientific value.
REFERENCES
Andrefsky, William
1994 The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9(5):375-391.Collins. Michael B.
1999 Clovis Blade
Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.Ellis, Christopher J., and D. Brian Deller
1990 Paleoindians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A. D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, . Occasional Papers of the London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society 5.Gardner, William, and Robert Verrey
1977 Typology and
Chronology of Fluted Points from the Flint Run Area. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 49:13-46.Goodyear, Albert C., and Ken Steffy
2003 Evidence of a Clovis Occupation at the Topper site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23-25.Judge, James
1973 Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Aluquerque.McNett, Charles W. (editor)
1985 Shawnee-Minisink. Academic Press, New York.Morrow, Juliet E.
1996 The Organization of Early Paleoindian in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis.Newby, Paige, James Bradley, Arthur Spiess, Bryan Shuman, and Philip LeDuc
2005 A Paleoindian Response to Younger Dryas climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (1-2):141-154.Speiss, Arthur E., and Deborah B. Wilson
1997 Michaud, a Paleoindian site in the New England-Maritimes Region. Maine Historical Commission and The Maine Archaeological Society, Inc. Augusta.Speiss, Arthur E., Deborah B. Wilson, and James Bradley
1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:201-264.Sanders, Thomas
1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press, Buffalo.Wormington, Hannah M.
1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth Edition. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series 4.
HOME
© 1990 C.S.A.S.I. Last modified:
December 6 2004
